When my spouse and I had young children we used to go out to eat with them about once a
year, in order to remind ourselves why one shouldn't do so with 4 small boys. I go to the
ASA meeting about once every 5-6 years for essentially the same reason. I also go to
medical meetings which are as large or larger and are well run; I keep waiting for the ASA
to grow up but remain disappointed. I'll use my experiences at the American Assoc for the
Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) meeting as a comparison, which grew in size at a much more
precipitous rate than the ASA.
1. I go to meetings primarily to learn and secondarily to present my ideas to
colleagues. In a large meeting the only way to run a successful learning enterprise is
with posters as first class citizens. At AALSD I can very quickly browse through a large
collection, and then return to the interesting ones during the presenter time. Posters
are up for significant blocks of time, and presenters are at each poster for a 1 or 2 hour
window in the middle/end of that time. No talks are scheduled during that presentation
window.
The last two talks that I have given at ASA were not successful at disseminating ideas,
simply because the schedule is too frantic. One of them was a speed talk. My last
poster was crippled by being chosen for an "electronic poster" form. (Still unsuitable
for browsing -- but the technology is improving.)
2. I would love to see a meeting that centered on the above principle of "how to best
convey information". We are currently burdened by 4 things
-- An entitlement attitude that "everyone deserves a chance to talk". Is this
gathering nothing more than an ego massage?
-- Balkanization: the meeting is a patchwork of fiefdoms.
-- An view that change is impossible. "People can't come if they don't give an oral
session" is the one I hear most often. If that were true there would be no attendees at
the AASLD.
-- Horrible talks. If the speaker can not be bothered to practice their talk before
colleages at home, or even to make sure it fits in the time window, then why is the talk
worth my time to listen? I remember once running into a hallway conversation at the
AASLD: a Mayo presenter had given a less than stellar talk and senior members of his
department were chastising themselves for letting it slip through without a prior
presentation at home. They felt that they had let everyone down. We have made talk cheap
and treat it as such.
Terry Therneau
Professor of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic
ASA Fellow
------Original Message------
Phil, this is an interesting idea; thank you for raising it.
My initial concern was whether a speed presentation for all regular contributed sessions would best serve the interests of the newer attendees, i.e. doctoral students or inexperienced faculty who want the experience of presenting for the first time, and hope to meet some connections along the way. I worry further collapsing their available time might be detrimental to the group we most need to serve with this meeting. Maybe it's fine but it would be good to ask people within that group.
I do also have the concern that making talks shorter will make it even harder to spend time listening to topics that are actually of interest (which is a task I find nearly impossible at JSM now). So if I'm there to listen to talks on causal inference, is there any chance I show up to catch 4 minutes nested within 19 other talks? As you mentioned, the technical challenges also seem formidable.
Having said all of that, you're right in that, something's got to give. But I hope, if the meeting goes in that direction, such changes could be combined with other changes that facilitate a more easily organized agenda. I realize that just trying to keep the meeting up and going has got to be a logistical nightmare so I appreciate the efforts of those who made it happen this year.
------------------------------
Douglas Landsittel
Professor of Medicine, Biostatistics and Clinical and Translational Science
University of Pittsburgh-School of Medicine
------------------------------