Scientific Meetings and Advocacy: same place, different events?

Name: Bruno da Rocha-Azevedo*

Conventional wisdom says that scientific conferences are the place where Science and its discoveries are discussed, collaboration and fellowships established, and where sometimes job hiring occurs. It is definitely true: amazing things happen during scientific conferences! Groundbreaking data are presented; inspiring talks and posters are presented. Young and old generations of scientists leave convention centers all over the world full of great ideas for their science. However, scientific societies are usually much more than just meeting and conference organizers. Most of the big societies are year-round societies, which usually have strong involvement in science outreach, policy and advocacy, looking for members to participate and collaborate in their endeavors. How can you be an agent for change inside your own scientific society?

Scientific societies are usually identified by their flagship Annual Meetings and their sponsored publications. However, most scientific societies have in their mission statements much more than just providing their members with meetings and publications. An example comes from The American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB):

"ASCB is an inclusive, international community of biologists studying the cell, the fundamental unit of life. We are dedicated to advancing scientific discovery, advocating sound research policies, improving education, promoting professional development, and increasing diversity in the scientific workforce."

It is clear from the ASCB example (and many other societies) that they value the importance of advocacy, education, career development and diversity in science. Most of these activities are organized and executed by their members throughout the year, not only during your scientific annual meeting. Thus, the question is: How can you be an agent of change inside your scientific community?

1) Look for committees, subcommittees, and/or task forces already established.

The first step should be to identify what type of contribution you want to give to your scientific society: contribute to career development, be an advocate on public policy, an agent to favor underrepresented minorities in science, or any of so many other causes. Looking at the rosters of most scientific societies, they are clearly divided by committees, which have specific roles and duties. If you are a student or a postdoc, the presence of a committee for postdocs and students is a great place to start looking. Leadership experience is usually very welcome, but it is not a pre-requisite.

2) How do you get inside committees/groups/task forces?

That is a little tricky. Admittance as committee members can be just for "full society members", which unfortunately sometimes excludes students and postdocs. It is common for committees to use intermediate positions (called associates) to embrace more members in a specific committee without passing through the bureaucracy of approving new full members. Some societies will have public announcements to join a specific committee. A letter of interest and a CV would suffice as an application most of the times. Sometimes such applications are not out or there are no official announcements...and here comes the importance of attending Meetings/Conferences: find the members of your committee of interest during the meeting, TALK to them, offer your help. Ask how you can join a committee. Networking means a big deal in all aspects of science, including inside scientific organization.

3) You are in. Now what?

As a committee member you are inside the organization of a scientific society, which is governed by bylaws, which represents the rules of that organization. The first question you should have is whether your advocacy cause fits in the bylaws of the society. Change should come from the bottom up. Discussing the ideas inside your committee/group before talking to the higher level leadership can be a big deal. Three points are capital to the success of implementing a new idea/project inside a scientific society: (1) member's reach, (2) feasibility, and (3) scientific society commitment. It is important for a leader/advocate to know these variables well enough to guarantee smooth actions toward your advocacy cause.

(1) Members' reach - The magic question here is about how many members will be affected/helped by your advocacy cause? A good way to determine this is by asking the members, using polls, questionnaires or petitions. Petitions are a very helpful tool to show the interest of members in a specific cause. They usually contain a certain degree of specificity about the details of the advocacy cause. For instance, the newly created task force on LGBT workforce at the ASCB started as a petition signed during the 2014 Annual Meeting. In this specific example, signatures were collected from a diversity of members (students, postdocs, professionals, and faculty) during a LGBT-oriented session in which the goals of the task force were explained. Quick polls/surveys can gauge society members' interest in a more direct, less specific way as well.

(2) Feasibility - How viable is your project? What can be achievable in short, medium and long terms? As with a regular scientific grant, the scientific society leadership wants to know how your project will work, and exactly what can be achieved. Vague requests usually don't move inside scientific organizations - and a critical point: if you are proposing the idea, be ready to spearhead the project.

(3) Society's Commitment - What does your scientific society need to do for the success of your project/cause? Do they need to provide things like personnel support, money, space to write in official newsletters/blogs, slots/rooms during the next meeting, invited speakers? All these topics should be clearly stated to your scientific society leadership. Money is obviously the most critical factor, so be careful. I would suggest establishing your idea/project with as few financial requirements as possible initially. Later with success comes the reward: an established program would be able to receive monetary help much easier than a pilot program.

4) Report your success.

* Bruno da Rocha-Azevedo is a postdoc at the Department of Cell Biology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and a Science Without Frontiers Young Talent Fellow from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Bruno is a member of the committee of postdocs and students (COMPASS) from the ASCB, and he was responsible for the creation of ASCB's LGBT task force in December 2014.