I need to go back and see where we have got to on this – I know there has been some discussion in the “mainstream” scientific press (if there is such a thing) – for instance, see this article from Geoff Brumfiel at Nature in June: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1038/4591050a (sadly, only available via subscription – but that’s another issue). But there hasn’t been so much chatter on the blogs or Twitter to my knowledge recently.

I agree that we need to work out the “rules of engagement” – or framework – here. And a lot of this does come down to good digital media etiquette. There are already reasonably robust if somewhat informal ideas on social media/digital media etiquette floating around. Perhaps the biggest challenge though is to a) ensure new users are aware of them and b) encourage them to follow them and contribute to their development – not easy in an anarchic and dynamic virtual domain!

For an example of how Twitter transcends the “What are you doing” idea and enriches communication, see http://2020science.org/2009/06/09/science-ministers-question-time/

I didn’t mention this above, but I have similar practical problems posting from meetings: if the talk is particularly interesting/challenging, I find it near-impossible to listed listen and tweet, and at times it seems just plain rude to have your head buried in a laptop or cell phone – especially if you are in the speaker’s line of sight

For what it’s worth, I do enjoy reading blogs and tweets from meetings that I cannot attend.

There should not be rules governing the dissemination of information in the social media landscape, no matter if it’s a twitterfeed, facebook post or a lecture piece on youtube; doing that would defeat the entire purpose of social media – users should be able to use it as they see fit. In the end, the citizen is the one that decides whether to believe what they hear or read, isn’t it?

I’m with you all the way on the control issue btw – this seems to be as much about who controls and benefits from the message, as the ethics of publicly commenting on presentations.

Cheers

Eva

http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2009/06/on_the_challenges_of_conferenc.php

We shouldn’t put the media on pedestals – not all reporters are good or even scientifically aware of the topic in question; I have helped many unfamiliar with cancer at such conferences write their articles and point them to interesting presentations, for example, otherwise they would have been clueless.

Personally, I love reading tweets and blog posts from MDs and good science writers who truly understand their topic compared to the anodyne stuff a reporter cribbed from press releases distributed in the press room without ever having seen the data, presentation or even understanding it.

Control and censorship is fine line sometimes.

With respect to,
“Expert presentation & discussion of non-peer reviewed data. If the aim of the meeting is to seriously assess and discuss someone’s unpublished research, I would hesitate to live tweet. I might blog – but only if it seemed appropriate given the state and significance of the research.”
Why would you wait to share your views? You might blog but not tweet? How is an hour or a day going to change your opinion of the material? And you could re-tweet your new impression the next day or in your blog.

Overall, if it is public, it is tweetable. So much of the concern seems to come from those with less desire to be involved in social media.

Also, the more an organization tries to control a message, the greater the desire to Tweet increases. And no one is complaining when good news is being Tweeted! Then they all count on a bonus factor from a viral tweet spreading the word.

I agree that you need to be really careful before discussing unpublished data on the web. But you do have to ask why someone is presenting it – are they looking for honest and intimate peer review, are they hoping to raise their professional profile, or are they on an ego trip? I do think that the first should be respected. But it is a little naive to think that, if you present information at an open meeting, you still retain absolute control over that information.

I had not realised that a complaint from GenomeWeb sparked this debate. It does come across as “sour grapes”.

Essentially, as you say, the problem has already been faced by the blogging community, too, and things remain pretty confusing. Whether it is good or bad, even professional bloggers for example do not get the same status as journalists.

Where tweeting from conferences is concerned, I think the more broader rules are irrespective of whether you are a journalist or a private blogger, the intention of the conference organiser has to be clear. Closed, private meetings where frank discussions are encouraged are obviously off limits, and everyone attending knows that in adance. Big meetings with lots of journalists on the other hand are pretty open, and tweeting should be no problem.

But regarding the question, whether people tweeting are journalists – I agree, they are not. But effectively what you can and can not tweet follows similar rules of common sense I would say. At least on a basic level these rules of engagement look similar to me.

But does that really matter that much? These days I don’t know many scientists that actually present highly relevant data at such big gatherings without having it published somewhere, and exercised control over initial reporting through e.g. press releases. All you get in public talks at large gathering is old news – no problem to disseminate that in tweets. In that sense, some backreaction to this media frenzy has perhaps already happened, and all we get is the show, not the news…

One thing, though:

Invitation-only meetings: Definitely no live tweeting, and no blogging unless express permission is given.

I think it might be more complicated than this. Take SciFoo as an example. It’s invitation only, and there’s a verbal nondisclosure agreement. As such I wouldn’t dream of tweeting or blogging about any substantive content from the conference without getting permission in advance from the person I’m planning on quoting/paraphrasing. But I don’t think it would be out of order to tweet, say, “The Googleplex kitchen just served up some yummy chocolate brownies” or even “Got to sit next to Martin Rees at opening session! W00t!” In other words, how strict I am with myself depends largely on the (subjective) sensitivity of the content of each blog post/tweet.

Independent bloggers and Tweeps who are not asking to be accommodated in any way shouldn’t have to declare their intentions to live blog or live Tweet public meetings. Public means ‘no expectation of privacy’ and it also means ‘on the record.’

I will have to see if I can dig up the Genomeweb protest, but here’s the thing: most organizations are more than willing to set aside time for media and will jump through hoops to accommodate. I have, on several occasions, set up advance briefings for journalists prior to open public consultations, had the media refuse to attend the briefings, and then expected my spokespeople to pay attention to them and grant them interviews when their role for the evening was to make themselves widely available to members of the general public who wanted to ask questions they, as specialists, were best qualified to answer. This just isn’t on. So I think, to some extent, when a mainstream media outlet complains about live blogging or live Tweeting, it’s sour grapes and a refusal to acknowledge that, as you say, the way we communicate is indeed changing dramatically and our expectations regarding how we are communicated with are changing as well.

Good set of guidelines. Like the capricious announcement that they may change AT ANY TIME. A defiant hair toss might be in order there.