Why lightning talks work

Last week was the second annual meeting of the Evolutionary Demography Society. It was fabulous. Close to 100 people, over three days, at Stanford. Man there is a lot of good food around there. A friend and I were sitting outside, eating burritos when this dude from a farmers' market booth came over and started giving us samples of gluten-free baked goods. Delicious. Great weather, friendly people. Oh, yes, something else. What was it now? Ah! We talked about a lot of great science. Roughly 70 presentations. Post-reproductive lifespan, evolution of aging, all the topics I like best and every talk on a topic of at least some interest. Fabulous.

Many conferences (but not this one) have what are called concurrent sessions. In one room there might be a series of perhaps 15 minute long talks about matrix models, while in another they are talking about theoretical modelling, and in a third it could be all about field data on hunter gatherers. The benefits of this are allowing more people to give talks in a short period of time, and letting audience members pick and choose which topics they spend their time hearing about. At EvoDemoS, we address these same problems in a very different way. Most presenters give a lightning talk plus poster. The lightning talk is five minutes (plus five for questions), and then after each session there is a break for coffee and posters. But the posters are mostly from the same people who gave the lightning talks, on the same subject. So you get up, give a rapid intro to the work, answer a few questions, and then because there are no concurrent sessions, everyone at the conference knows who you are and what you are working on. If they are interested in it, they come talk to you at your poster. If you didn't bother to print your poster, they already know what you are working on and come talk to you anyway. If they aren't  interested, they don't have to sit through 15 minutes of you talking about it. The frequent and lengthy breaks (made possible by the shortness of the presentations) make it easier to stay alert through the talks, and let us achieve a much higher conversation-to-passive-listening ratio, and it is really the conversations that are the point of the conference for me.

Now the obvious downside is that many speakers are used to having more than five minutes. Some won't come because they can't have more time, use their connections and seniority to push for more time, or simply prepare the same talk they would for a much longer slot and largely ignore the warnings that their time is almost up. One speaker, to remain nameless, was on slide 4 of 26 when the one minute warning came and sped up only slightly. So the moderators need to be a bit firm in some cases. The more senior the speaker, the more likely an overage, in my experience. This is partly a matter of habit, but also that the more senior people often have more work to present. There were a few talks where the theoretical framing got almost completely cut to make time for more methods and results, and that was sometimes problematic. A is consistently greater than B, but what does that tell us? That said, the great majority of the five minute speakers were able to state the question clearly, say a word or two about methods, give a main result (or maybe two) and draw a conclusion or three before inviting us to see the poster. And almost everyone I talked to at the conference, both as speakers and audience, thought it worked well in this context.

For a conference with thousands of people, I'm not sure lightning talks would work. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has tried it. But for anyone organizing a small conference like ours, I absolutely recommend it.

Conference Spam

I get several emails a week like this:

The organizing committee is pleased to announce that the 2nd Annual World Congress of Nano-S&T (Nano S&T-2012), which will be held from October 26 to 28, 2012 in Qingdao, China. The congress will consist of 12 streamlines covering topics including: Nanosciences and Technologies, Nanomaterials, Analytical tools for Nanotech, Nano-electronics, Nano IT, Nanocoating, etc. This conference will bring together over 1000 experts and specialists from all over the world.

Based upon your contribution to the field of Nanotechnology, we invite you to give an oral presentation at Section 4-4: Etching Process about your recent work. Certainly, you can look through the program and select a session at your priority. We will be honored if you can deliver a speech during this event. Your involvement in this congress will be invaluable for the development of the program.

The full program with speakers’ profile and presentation’s titles will be released at the conference website in a few weeks so that you can know what specific subjects will be covered by the other speakers. You may log on: http://www.bitconferences.com/nano2012/program.asp.

I am pleased to send you a conference brochure about Nano-S&T2011 in the attachment.

We would be honored if you could attend the Nano S&T-2012 Conference.

I will appreciate it if you could forward this invitation letter to the experts who may be interested in us.

Sincerely yours,

Ms. Selina

Most of the "congresses" are in China or India and they are all on topics that have are totally unrelated to my work. I think most but not all of these conferences are intended as actual events, but the point of all of them is to collect registration fees.

Thoughts during a trip to a conference

The Rostock main train station (Hauptbahnhof, Hbf) is an easy walk from our building, even when bedangled with a laptop bag, poster tube and backpack. I was amused to see that three other passengers getting on my same train also had the black plastic tubes which announce that one is going to or from a conference. None of them looked like ecologists, so I figured it wasn't the same conference. I tried to eavesdrop to figure out what topic two of them were discussing, but it was rapid and in French, and so instead I fell asleep as the train pulled out.

It took 34 minutes from the time we arrived at Hamburg Hbf until I was sitting in my gate at the Hamburg airport waiting for my flight to Manchester. This without any running, pushing or hurrying, and the airport is not particularly near the Hbf. A single S-Bahn trip stops directly under the security check, so up two escalators I got on one of the many very short lines, and didn't have to remove my shoes or belt, nor get molested. I like to complain about the fact that you can't get a flight from Rostock's small airport to anywhere, but if door to gate takes only two and half hours, this is still better than many trips to JFK I've made. It is frankly slightly disorienting for an American for a transit system to work this smoothly.

As I sat in the gate, two English gentlemen sitting just behind me recognized each other and began to make small talk. The one is the occasional patient of the other, and has an appointment to see him in late December. They kept up a lively conversation about not much of anything, without a single pause, for about 45 minutes. I have heard the English talent for small talk described before, but I must say this was really impressive. They moved purposefully from one genial topic to the next, always with a smooth transition. Football, Christmas Markets, vacation destinations, and so forth. I felt like congratulating them.

As the bus took us from our gate to the plane, we passed a taxiing airplane from Air Tunis. It wonder if flights to Tunis are cheep these days? I've heard they have trouble filling their hotels since the revolution.

As we pass up then down through layers of clouds, I notice how closely defined their surfaces are. The top of my window can be mostly in the cloud, and the bottom mostly out. I wonder vaguely what sort of fluid dynamics allow for such a sharp transition to be stable.

I hope I have the right ticket for this train.

An hour and a half into wandering around Sheffield looking for my accommodation, I'm standing on a corner with three young guys with tattoos on their massive biceps as one of them looks up Edgecliffe Crescent on his iPhone. The guy resting in front of the closed Pakistani restaurant next door says go to the roundabout, take a right, and straight to the top.

Breakfast in the cafeteria is much what you would expect from breakfast in an English University's dormitory cafeteria. The orange juice and eggs are from concentrate, but the sausage is fresh squeezed. I sit across from a young woman who has never been to a conference before. I briefly consider teasing her about the fact that she is nervous despite not having to do anything but listen to other people's presentations. She gives me good directions to the conference hall.

"You can't really understand anything in ecology without thinking about soil biodiversity," says the plenary speaker. I guess what I do isn't ecology.

A couple of people come up to question me further after my talk. One of them is a guy I once emailed for advice on keeping rotifers. I can't remember what the question was, but thank him for how quickly he responded.

There is no way I am going to stay awake through the whole poster session. I get slightly lost on my way back to my room and end up in an OxFam thrift store. I get lost again carrying some used books. I spot an expidition of ecologists and follow them home.

Waking up cold I pass by the Greek place and have peas panner with garlic nann. I happily chew the hard chunks of spices in the sauce. "I'm a womanizer!" announces the old, obese, bald and drunk puddle of English gentleman at the corner table with the off duty waiters. "Yes, Sir, you are!" one of them reassures him.

I consider rehearsing my poster spiel for tomorrow, but instead prepare by sleeping more.

We are joined at breakfast by a conference of dentists (there may be a better term of venery for dentists, but I don't know it). They are easily distinguished by their unecologist-like formalwear.

Lost of people ask questions about my poster, and most of them tell me that while interesting, it has nothing to do with anything they will ever work on. This interesting but not directly relevant feeling is largely mutual.

The demographics of evolutionary demographers

A group of us considering organizing a new scientific society have been compiling a list of those we would like to invite to the initial meeting of the society, to be held here in Rostock, probably next year. We are up to 125 people (excluding people who work here, as everyone who works here will be invited). The group making this list is about half male, half female. The list is 100 males and 25 females.

Why this skew? We each listed people whose names came to mind, and in some of the subfields we are drawing from (e.g., mathematical ecology) almost all of the well known people are male. Higher level academics in general still skew strongly male, and the higher the level the stronger the skew, in most cases. This is both a cohort effect (older cohorts of scientists are both more well known and more male) and a selection effect (males find it easier to advance up the ladder). Being demographers, we are very much aware of this, and are very much interested in having a diverse society, but it is not clear what we can do about it. There is also a preponderance of Europeans, North Americans and East Asians; again this is unintentional and difficult to reasonably address.

Despite these skews, it is a wonderful list of researchers, and I hope we can get most of them to attend.

Evolutionary models of evolution

I've been asked to attend an upcoming workshop on modeling the evolution of aging. Modeling in this sense means building a computer model that provides insight into a process. Most of the people who will be there have some experience in modeling, which I don't. So I decided my roll, as the participant most focused on evolutionary theory, should be to make sure that they are doing evolution right. We were asked to each produce a seed, or opening idea, to get the conversation going. Following is a draft of mine. Note that while you can figure out what most of this means, it was written for other scientists and so includes a smattering of jargon and techniquese.



As an evolutionary biologist, I would like to encourage those modeling the evolution of aging to include in their models actual evolution. Optimization models and even Markov Chain models, while very useful, are not evolutionary. By this I mean that they do not include populations changing through descent with modification. To meet a biologist's definition of evolution, a process must include individuals who are reproducing and the offspring must be modified copies of the parents. This requires a population of individuals with heritable traits and mutation rates which modify the parents' traits in the offspring. In order for adaptive evolution to occur, these heritable traits must also influence how many copies of its genome each individual passes on to the next generation.
Markov-chain models, while somewhat closer to evolutionary, still lack the aspect of a population, which is essential for evolution. In many cases the outcome of evolution will depend on having competing or interacting sets of genes within the same population. This cannot be meaningfully understood if the whole population is assumed to have only one set of genes at any one time.
A truly evolutionary model of aging must therefore be fairly complex. It must simulate individuals, who have age-specific mortality and fertility probabilities. These age-specific schedules must be determined by a set of genes. These genes in turn must be determined by a process of inheritance and a process of mutation.
Using such a method, we can address questions that are difficult to get at through optimization. For example, suppose we would like to know why closely related populations have similar patterns of aging, even when they live in different habitats, or occupy different niches. This pattern has been observed in comparative data and comes under the heading of phylogenetic inertia. With an evolutionary simulation, we can impose environments which mediate the relationship between the genes and the demography. We can then ask what characteristics of the environment or what characteristics of the relationship between environment and demography would allow the starting point (that is the initial genes and demography of the population), to influence the ending point (that is the genes and demography the population ends up with).
To take another example, optimization models generally lack any information on the structure of the genome or the process by which that genome changes. However, genomic structure and mutation process are not irrelevant to what demography the population evolves. An evolutionary simulation will allow for modification of the genomic structure or the mutations process. Compare for example, two populations, each of which has a genetically controlled pattern of investment in various tasks such as reproduction, repair, growth or immune function. In population A, as many genes control this at the beginning of life as at the end. In population B, many genes control the pattern of investment early in life, while relatively few are still influencing late life investment. In both populations the genes affecting these investments are subject to mutational pressure and to selection. In each a mutation-selection balance will emerge, but these mutation selection balances will differ between the two populations. The two populations living in the same environment will arrive at different demographies, each nonoptimal.
These are but two of the many complicating factors which can be explored using an evolutionary simulation and are difficult to get at in a model that does not include explicit evolution. Of course models should be simple enough that one can figure out what factor is influencing what outcome. A model cannot include every complicating factor biologists might like to throw in. As such, I propose a modular evolutionary simulation. By this I mean we start with as simple a model as we can which still has real evolution going on and we write it in such a way that one can add more complicated processes. For example, the basic model could have an extremely simple process of mutation, but could be written such that that this process is easy to remove and replace with a more complicated mutational process. Reproduction could be clonal, but again that process of inheritance could be coded such that it could be pulled out and replaced with sexual reproduction by someone who is interested in what effect the mode of reproduction would have on the evolved demography. The environment could be extremely simple and replaceable with a more complicated environment. I am a slow and inexpert programmer but I imagine that it would not be impossible to write such a simulation in a way that genome, inheritance, mutation, environments, and demography are interacting pieces which can be replaced as one replaces the batteries, bulb, wire, switch and casing of a flashlight. One need not modify the casing to replace acid batteries with rechargeables, or replace rechargeables batteries with lithium rechargeables. One can swap a white bulb for a yellow one without modifying the wires or switch. A properly designed base simulation would allow each of us to experiment and still be able to compare our results without any one model becoming unnecessarily complex.

ixNay on the ifeLay istoryHay volutionEay

I have been doing a lot of reading of the life-history evolution literature. It turns out there is a lot of it. About 1200 papers are published each year in journals followed by Web of Science using the phrase "life history evolution." These are in a hugely wide range of journals. What I am coming to realize is that the phrase has been overused and broadened to the point that it is nearly meaningless. A study of egg size relative to adult size can be labeled life-history evolution. A study comparing daily activity patterns between males and females can be labeled life history evolution. A study of age at first reproduction can be labeled life-history evolution. Perhaps more troubling for the field, life-history evolution has come to be viewed very much as natural history is. Natural history, the basic facts about what a species does, what the individuals and groups are like, what their habitat is and so on is tremendously important to know when studying a species, but it doesn't get grants, citations or jobs because it is often only relevant to those studying that particular species, and the methods and conclusions are rarely ground breaking. Life history evolution has come to be seen in the same way, likely explaining why there is no journal society or regular meeting for Life History Evolution.

This stigma may help explain why so few biologists wade into the deep rich pools of unasked questions lining the boundaries between evolutionary biology and demography. Such work is quickly labeled as life-history evolution, and despite being novel, important and of general interest, suspected of having the same failings as the rest of the field. The name demographers prefer for this intersection, evolutionary biodemography, does not on the face of it sound like a task for biologists. As I learned from Crayola, green-blue is a type of blue, not a type of green. Evolutionary biodemography is by extension part of demography, not part of biology. This thinking applies despite the fact that many of the publications in evobiodemo are from biologists rather than demographers.

I briefly mentioned some of this to my boss, who is a demographer by training, but one of the leading advocates of the idea that demography and biology need to learn from each other more. He suggested I organize a small conference at the institute, inviting both biologists and demographers. The institute has had these types of meetings before, mostly inviting established people who already blend the two fields, and interesting papers and collaborations have come out of it, but little lasting progress. The people who were already aware of both fields remained aware of both fields, and those who weren't continued not to care. So my thought, now that I've been invited to organize a small conference, is to invite biologists and demographers early in their careers, who work on similar topics, but within their own fields. A few biologists who work on juvenile dispersal patterns, and a few demographers who work on juvenile dispersal patterns, each of which may have little awareness of the fact that other people in the other field wonder about remarkably similar questions. Other sets who work on infant mortality, population responses to natural disasters, cohabitation, etc. Let them present their work, let them make the explicit case of what the other field can learn from them, and then let them present on what they would like to know or get from the other field. A workshop on demography and evolution for early career scientists. I'll add it to my to do list.

Poster-time

In a couple of weeks I'll be attending the conference of the Population Association of America. It will be a bunch of demographers. Most of the conference is talks divided into topic-specific sessions. They don't have a session for biodemography, or really anything related to my research, but the poster-session is open to whatever topic, so I'm presenting a poster.

My title is, "Post-Reproductive Lifespan in Humans: Cultural Artifact, Widespread Primate Trait or Unique Adaptation?"

I've had fun making my poster, mostly because it is an excuse to play with Photoshop and Powerpoint instead of writing my thesis. For my poster I needed to find a compact easy way to display how the fertility and survival of a population changes with age, and simultaneously explain my methods. And I needed to be able to do that for several populations side by side in a small space. Now this is all tailored to make sense to the demographer, so it may not be that intuitive to anyone else, but I like what I've got. To clarify, in demographerese, lx means what portion of the individuals that survive to each age and mx means how fertile are individuals at that age.

By plotting mx and lx on the same graph I make it visually clear (to a demographer) that the population nears an endpoint to fertility (age M) long before it nears an endpoint of survival (age Z). I then go on to use some math and demographic methods to define good ways to measure post-fertile survival in ways that allow for straightforward comparisons between species. I call the two measurements G and S. But the fun part comes in when I use the graphical format established in Figure 1 to compare populations in Figure 2:


My hope is that having labeled and explained the parts of the graph in Fig. 1, the meaning of these graphs in Fig. 2 will be quickly obvious to the demography crowd. I'll leave you to interpret what these graphs say about post-fertile survival in humans and chimps in different environments. I can't give away everything.

Experts in a Lesser Known Phylum

Ask most people to name some phyla of animals and they will just look at you funny. Those who do know what you are talking about are likely to name Chordata, Arthropoda, Annelida, or maybe Mollusca. Most people will run out of Phyla long before getting to Rotifera. We humans tend not to pay a lot of attention to a Phylum whose members are mostly microscopic and don't cause any known disease. This is true not only among lay-folk, but among scientists as well. Web of Science, a catalogs of the scholaraly articles from about 8700 publications, lists fewer than 100 papers focusing on rotifers in the last year. Arthropoda, by comparison, gets more than 38,000 hits in the same period. So rotifers are not the best studied group in the world.
But those almost a hundred publications had to derive from somewhere. That somewhere is a scattering of experts across the globe. And it gets lonely being the only one in your city, state, country or continent with a strong interest in rotifers. (For example, I think I my lab is the only one in California which focuses on rotifers.) So what's a lonesome rotiferologist to do? Organize a conference, of course. Every two or three years there is a Rotifera conference somewhere in the world, and I have just found out that Rotifera XII is in Berlin, Germany next August. I very much plan on going, and hope to give a short talk on my work. They have about 60 slots open for presentations, which I think means almost everyone who studies rotifers will be there presenting. It should be interesting.

So many data, so little time.

I first met Jerram Brown in 1999, when I was a senior at Bennington College. My adviser, Betsy Sherman, had been his student many years earlier. I was about to graduate from college and he was about to retire from a very long and extremely successful career in exactly the part of biology I was interested in. For the previous 30 some years he had been studying the behavior, ecology, demography and so forth of the Mexican Jay. I asked him about the possibility of working for him, but I was too late, his retirement plans were gathering momentum. He officially retired in 2002.
When I graduated, I went to work for Glen Woolfenden, who had an almost as long-term study of a very closely related bird, the Florida Scrub-Jay. Glen and Jerram, for reasons I don't know, had some sort of tension between them, and I had no further contact with Dr. Brown's group.

Looking through the program of the Animal Behavior Society Meeting I just attended, I was very excited to see that Jerram Brown would be momentarily be coming out of retirement to accept a distinguished researcher award and deliver a plenary address on his work. That talk was the last morning of the conference, and it turned out far more interesting than even I had suspected.

His data set on the Mexican Jays is shockingly extensive. In addition to the multi-decade highly detailed demographic data, he has an enormous number of ancillary data sets, many of which he had never gotten around to publishing, because he had not found any theoretically important question they could be used to answer. But as he heaped data upon data, I came to realize something. These data he had gathered because he could, rather than because he had a particular question in mind, were potentially exactly the data one of my advisors, Ron Lee, needed to test some of his hypotheses on the importance of intergenerational transfers of resources (in this case food) to the evolution of longevity and sociality. Dr. Brown had records of >26,000 individual food transfers, including who was transferring, to whom, how old each one of them was and how they were related to each other. My heart started thumping. I had to get Jerram's data and Ron's theoretical framework and analytical prowess together. But most scientists jealously guard the data sets they spent their lives gathering. And Ron is already terribly busy with far too many projects, would he even be interested?

Then Dr. Brown said, as part of his planned talk, something I have never heard any scientist say before, even though we probably should all say it sooner or later, "I will gladly turn over my entire dataset to anyone who can make good use of the data." There was a loud gasp. It was me, but not only me, several people gasped. He may as well have said, "I will turn over all this gold ore I have spent my life mining to anyone who can smelt it."

Immediately after his talk, I went up to speak to him. I shook his hand, told him that I was a former student of his former student (in case it helped) and began to tell him about Ron and his work. Another fellow, a Dr. Ha, came up and said that he would like to apply for NSF funds to hire a post-doc to work with Dr. Brown to make sure the data set is preserved and made available. He said that if Ron were involved, this would increase the chances of getting the funding, as NSF would want to know the data would be put to good use.

With some trepidation, I emailed Ron and told him all this. He wrote back almost instantly saying it sounded like a great opportunity, and he would love to join this collaboration, but would want, "some more junior researcher with more years of research ahead of him/her" to be involved, and suggested that I was the "leading candidate."

So this all raises the very real possibility that I may be spending a couple of years immediately after my doctorate applying Jerram Brown's data to Ron's hypotheses (and perhaps a few hypotheses of my own). I haven't yet figured out if this is something I actually want to do, and would be able to accomplish, but the prospect is very exciting all the same.

Dueling Conferences

Most scientific societies have a conference every year or two. A chance to meet other scientists with similar research interests, hype your work, hear them hype their work, network and generally schmooze. This year the two big meetings most likely to draw American behavorists, the International Society for BehaviorAL Ecology, and the Animal Behavior Society, are almost overlapping. ISBE is, as the name implies, international, and have their meetings only every other year. Now they are having their meeting in Ithaca, at Cornell too good a chance for most American behaviorists to pass up. ABS is having their meeting a few days later at an overpriced resort in the mountains above Salt Lake City. A beautiful spot, to be sure, but not enough to convince many people who have just sat through a week of behavior talks to fly west and sit for another week. ISBE will have about three times as many attendants as ABS.

I am going to ABS, rather than ISBE, because it is easier to get to from here, because ISBE had their deadline for submission of abstracts before I got my act together, and because ABS is supposed to be more student friendly. I'm staying at a very affordable campsite some thousands of feet above the resort, and giving what I suspect will be the only philosophical talk of the meeting. I am not sure whether the ABS meeting will be more fun or less for being so much smaller than ISBE, but I shall try to liveblog the whole thing.