After a science career spanning a decade without having attended an international conference, I have been fortunate enough this year to speak at not one but two! What follows is a not-so-brief rundown of my second international conference, what I learnt along the way and where I am hoping to take these lessons.
The benefits of a niche, narrow-focused conference
From the very first keynote speaker (shout out to Judith Frydman – what a powerhouse for proteostasis research), it was clear to me that this was going to be different to almost any other conference I have attended in the past. This conference (and in fact, the same is true for most FASEB themes) was very targeted around a single area of biology (protein aggregation), meaning that the talks were all very focused and relevant for all attendees. Indeed, the tight-knit and collaborative nature of this community was exemplified by the fact that each speakers acknowledgement slides listed at least one – normally many – other attendees.
It was so refreshing and heartening to see a dedicated community of brilliant researchers converge around this problem with a singular view to solving the puzzle of disease-associated aggregation. As well as this, there was a broad range of techniques on display and I felt that I left with a fantastic cross-section of the breadth of work being done in the field, both for pathogenic and functional amyloid aggregation, ranging from single-molecule through structural, cellular and whole-organism studies right up to clinical trials. Importantly, plenty of researchers presented unpublished data (presumably due to the diminished need for an extensive background in this audience, who are likely to have seen the speakers published works) that I would otherwise not have seen for many more months/years if the paper is held up during publication.
For me personally, this conference represented the intersection of my PhD work (centred on aggregation of a specific protein) and my current postdoctoral work (focusing more broadly on proteostasis and its role in disease-associated protein aggregation). So much has happened in the field since my PhD and it was pure bliss getting to nerd-out surrounded by like-minded people. I was surprised more than once at the new connections my brain was able to find in this setting. I found that by listening to many perspectives/methods targetting similar biology, it was easier to start to integrate those complex ideas rather than reading the papers in isolation. Aside from this, for the junior attendees like myself this conference made for a fantastic job market, with many lab heads in our field advertising positions.
Lessons learnt
- A good and engaging speaker is one who is in tune with the audience, including their level of engagement, and who respects the time of the audience by sticking to their allocated slot.
- Aim to engage. In a small group such as this, you will inevitably run into many of the high-profile speakers – maybe even at the breakfast table! – so it is essential to have attended and engaged with their talk. Bonus points for devising an intelligent question to follow up on their presented material!
- The “comment and a question” audience member will always elicit a collective groan – don’t be this person!
- Conference organisation is no small feat – but inevitably the strength of the organisation team will impact on the general experience. In this case, a lack of confirmed program less than a week out from the conference was not a good sign. Missteps in the organisation led to the chaotic herding of humans to food and coffee breaks and program potluck ensued when the speaking slots were revised on day one of the conference.
- Location, location, location: Snowmass was an incredible conference location. A small ski village easing into the break between winter ski and summer hiking seasons, there was plenty of sunshine and a brisk breeze all set in front of a stunning snow-capped mountainous backdrop. A huge highlight of the conference was the relative isolation which, while difficult to travel to and from, heightened the sense of community and connectivity between attendees. Spending time immersed in the location will strengthen your connection to that conference. Snowmass made this particularly easy, with plenty of Springtime hikes, walks and sunshine on display.
- The who, what, when and where of woeful wifi – an outstandingly woeful conference internet connection elicited plenty of complaints throughout the week. However, I did feel was more engaged with talks that I might not have otherwise prioritised, as it was much more difficult to multitask with attention-sucking admin jobs like email. While sticking almost 100 researchers in a room for large swaths of the day that does not have reliable internet is probably a recipe for disaster, it certainly supports the age-old adage of ‘unplugging’ during seminars/conferences to be emersed in the research at hand.
- Chairing is caring – an experienced chair who takes control of a session, including speaker introductions and managing question time, can have a profound impact on the speakers and attendees. It is not a job that should be taken lightly. It is worthwhile paying attention next time you have the chance to observe an adept chairperson, taking note of the often unseen acts that contribute to a flawless, inclusive and positive conference session.
- The diversity debate among question askers – it struck me how often the same group of 5 – 10 people in a room of ten times that many were always the ones to ask questions. I have never taken to the microphone at a conference to ask a question of the speaker. Not due to lack of ideas – I will often have a list of question ready and waiting to be addressed – but I always lack courage in a room filled with ‘experts’ and my imposter syndrome keeps my butt glued to the seat. Is this maintained as some kind of PI-ready test you have to pass? Throughout this conference, I ruminated on the idea of how to engage people other than those that are brave enough to take to the microphone – there are plenty of free crowdsourcing options out there (PigeonHole and Slido to name a few), and yet I have not seen a single conference where this is adopted. I am keeping a keen eye open for an opportunity to put this inclusivity initiative into action.
- By far the biggest take home from this conference was that everything which seems so significant before leaving for the conference (poster prep, student meetings, experiments, slides, …) will no longer be so important once you arrive, and will be overcome by things like remembering faces of people you meet, feeling comfortable in a room of strangers, testing the confines of your comfort zone and nailing your two-minute “who I am” pitch. I am still working on perfecting these aspects of conference attendance!
Personal perspectives
- “Growing a pair” is a lifelong process: it is important to make the most of opportunities at a conference (which can often be once-in-a-lifetime combinations of people, place and perspectives) while understanding and appreciating your limits.
- Finding your people and your place: while engaging with diverse people is a key goal of attending any conference, recognising that you need smaller groups and its OK to need more relaxed time (e.g. spending time with small group of colleagues for drinks at a local bar instead of the crowded networking events.
- The psychology of ideas: you know that feeling when your idea is discussed during a meeting, and the academic goes on to believe it was theirs? For the first time ever, a senior academic articulated to me their inability to discern where an idea comes from, and it was enlightening. In contrast to my previous reactions, this wisened academic encouraged me (and the other early career researchers present) to hold firm when this happens and to realise that it is most often without malice but simply a product of the multitude of ideas and meetings senior researchers attend every day.
- The importance of a mentor in science: it’s no secret. In fact, any time I have spoken to an academic about their career path and trajectory they speak constantly about the different mentors that smoothed their journey. But this conference, I spent a bit of time reflecting on the importance of proactively approaching search for good mentor-mentee relationships. Having mentors that enter your career organically is important, but you should also identify and target strategic additions to your ‘team’ of mentors.
- Who am I? Every successful and prominent researcher to take the stage at this conference began with “My lab works on…”. It is important to define this early on, and I am very aware of this hole in my current career focus.
- The value of contemplation: Conferences have been one of the few times this year that I have taken the chance to sit and think – really think – about science (and life and decisions). While I would like to bring more of this deep contemplation to my every-day science, I am learning to accept and expect these events to be heightened moments of reflection and embrace the soul-searching mood!
- Trading hats: with a few days set aside before and after the conference for travel, it was incredible to put on my long-lost tourist hat and enjoy the sights, sounds, smells and sensations of being in a new country. This experience reminded me of how lucky I am to have the opportunity to do this as an academic, and that I should more often take time to reflect on that privilege.
Overall, this conference was a tour-de-force of world-leading experts and cutting-edge research, and included several abstract-selected talks from ECRs (including myself!) that together comprised a diverse and wellbalanced program in a stunning location. Were you in Snowmass this June? Get in touch via twitter and let me know what you thought of the FASEB Protein Aggregation Conference!
Banner image credits: FASEB logo
