I have recently listened to a number of talks given by excellent senior scientists. Their being excellent can be concluded from the prizes they - recently - got and from their - recent -  membership of exclusive societies.

A number of them fall in the trap of feeling the necessity of proving that they are smart and of proving that their field is much more important than the research subjects pursued by their audience.

Let me first put a two simple facts that are often overlooked:

1. Every scientist can always give a much longer presentation than the allotted time
2. Every scientist can give a mathematically sound presentation that nobody in the audience will understand.

So why do these superb scientists keep on saying things like “I could give a whole talk on just this part, but here I will have to limit myself to … “, or when they start, their first sentence is “I could give a much longer talk than the prescribed x minutes? The implication of what they state is: “I am much more important than the other speakers, and I do not understand why I am not invited to talk for hours, you dummies.”

A week ago I went to an international conference where I had to give a presentation. I was confronted with an unpleasant surprise when I wanted to deliver my presentation.

Glass surface
The conference was held in an expensive hotel in Majorca (Spain). The rooms had a fast Internet connection. Only when I checked out I discovered I had to pay for the connection. There was a luxurious desk in the room, unfortunately covered by a nicely looking glass plate. As could be expected my optical mouse did not work on the glass plate. I always bring a cordless optical mouse for a number of reasons: I prefer a mouse over a touch pad and I use the mouse during my presentation. My improvised solution was a that I slid a sheet of paper under the glass plate.

Conference room
The presenters were supposed to put their laptop on a reading desk present in the conference room. Against my principle I did not check this out before my talk. When it was my turn I discovered that the nicely styled reading desk had two bad properties: (i) the laptop had to be put in there in an almost vertical position and (ii) it was fully made out of transparent perspex.

Successful scientists are driven by curiosity and by ego. Lay people find it disappointing when told that egos of individual scientists play a  crucial role in the progress of science. But the same people complain that their country has produced too few Nobel prize winners.

First discovery claims and disputes have always been part of science, from Newton to Montaigner (Nobel prize medicine 2008). Big ego’s and accompanying priority claims will always be part of science.

Example 1
Today I read an amusing story by Herman de Lang in the Dutch magazine Tijdschrift voor Natuurkunde (September 2009) about Millikan, the physicist who was the first to determine the charge of the electron. Robert Millikan had such a big ego that people at Caltech, where Millikan was president,  had defined the unit of vanity as the “Kan”. But to classify people on the vanity scale it was easier to use the milliKan.

I’m at a conference and I have noticed something that I have seen before: the top scientists are surprisingly nice. Now I wasn’t quite completely sure if this was true but at least some of my friends thought the same thing. Here’s is what happened. I’m at a conference that is a bit outside of my normal field, so I do not know most people but I certainly saw a lot of famous names of people who have published major papers in the field. I would muster my courage and just walk up to these famous people and say something pleasant to break the ice. Their reply typically is very courteous and you can see their eyes flitter to your conference badge immediately followed by a question like “where is Strathclyde?” Typically, you end up talking very pleasantly about science. In different situations I have found that top scientist tend to reply to your emails quickly, are happy to send you reprints (quickly), are happy to tell you about what they are doing.

Last week, my wife accused me of being rude. Not so much to her – although it’s quite possible that I am, she’s probably got used to it by now – but to others. This sort of happened because our son, Guus, is going to nursery school soon and we were interviewed by the head of the nursery school. She extolled the virtues of their bulletproof entrance door, which (according to her) had become a necessity since Dunblane. In case you don’t remember, “Dunblane” refers to a town in Scotland where in 1996 a mad man entered a school and shot dead several kids. Terrible obviously. However, I couldn’t help myself and started arguing that this was silly and that surely because this happened once in Britain, this was extremely unlikely to happen again, let alone at the particular nursery school that my child was about to attend. Her answer: “Belgium”. Clearly referring to another more recent occasion where a child was hurt. At this point, I decided to give up, judging that further discussion of probabilities or, say, Bayes theorem or shot noise wouldn’t really go over very well.

As a student in a traditional condensed matter physics group, I was taught for many years that for every conference you visit, you write an article for the proceedings. In my experience it was mainly seen as a gesture to the organizers and to the community. Several times I have responded to the request of organizations like SPIE to contribute a 10-page article to a conference. In later years I was surprised to find out that this attitude toward proceedings is not shared among all researchers. So what is the role of conference proceedings in the present scientific system, should we write them, are they a waste of time, or are they perhaps worse than that?

Why proceedings may be useful
Conference proceedings have fulfilled several useful functions in the past. A conference volume provided a sense of community; by contributing one is acknowledged as an active member of the field. Conference volumes were distributed among the community in hardcopy, in which case they provided reference material for workers in the field. Thus it was an effective way of addressing the relevant people. Proceedings were a way of getting one’s work known in the community before major results were published in a peer reviewed paper. Finally, proceedings can be used to provide background information or to present data which would otherwise not be published elsewhere.

ResearchGATE works to the benefit of science

Every discovery or invention is based upon previous discoveries or inventions. This is what makes communication so essential for science. ResearchGATE empowers science by connecting the scientific community. Our platform enables researchers to communicate faster, better and easier. This will accelerate the distribution of knowledge – and create new ideas.

ResearchGATE works to the benefit of every scientist

Being connected with co-researchers is a great advantage for every scientist. You can present your profile and your work, manage and extend your professional contacts, join or found groups, ask or answer questions, share or search papers and much more. This collaboration makes everybody’s work much more effective. And it’s free, safe and without spam.

ResearchGATE is designed for the upcoming age of Science 2.0

The tools offered by ResearchGATE are custom-made for researchers. No other platform provides such a wide range of web 2.0 applications exactly matching the needs of the scientific community. New features are constantly added, always state-of-the-art and no-frills. This makes ResearchGATE the best social network choice for scientists.

A scientist should behave as a good citizen in the scientific community. You cannot  expect that other colleagues perform all the unpleasant jobs and that you can spent all your time on science.  I am referring to low-reward activities like reviewing papers, reviewing grant proposals, sitting on review panels, being an editor of a scientific journal, sitting on program committees and - which is the subject of my present post - really organizing a conference.

Conference organizers receive many complaints
Am I a good citizen as far organizing conferences is concerned? I have only organized a dozen one-day meetings, most of them only national. So indeed I am not a very good citizen in this respect. I have been to close to people who did organize large international conference. I can assure you that organization of a 4 or 5-day international conference which a couple of hundred participants is murder. Leave alone conferences for more than thousand people. Those mammoth-sized conferences should be left to professionals.