I am not the first to point out how refreshing it feels to travel and to meet in person after the COVID hiatus--far from it! The Moscone Center is facing an invasion: not just by a fleet of biophysicists, but by our shared excitement around being together again. Though every BPS Annual Meeting surely carries this energy in some way, I would predict that 2022's has been fueled by the contrast of attending platform sessions from our homes one year ago.

As I have gone about the first two days of BPS, especially in attending platform presentations and symposia, certain things have stood out to me. These are all practices that have always been a part of scientific talks of all scales. They are done by tradition without a second thought, but science would look very different without them. I’d say I have a new appreciation for what it looks like to be together in science and I'd love to share it with you.

 

Presenters citing others' work by name

This is not just common practice but ethically expected in many cases. As such, I think the expectation has blurred the value of citing others' work by name. In addition to being helpful for later inquiry, this practice highlights the collaborative facet of research as a whole. Research is not done in a bubble! Especially when those being cited are present at the session, even giving their own talk in some cases, this practice celebrates those who have laid the groundwork for our own pursuits. At the risk of sounding dramatic, it warms my heart a little when presenters refer to other presenters.

 

Concluding with acknowledgments

Again, I think the expectation of this has made it harder to appreciate it. As a graduate student still relatively early in training, it is easy for me to listen to a talk and be caught up in how much work went into all the projects involved. It is like watching a time-lapse of a lab, but with all of the botched trials spliced out! And when only one person is presenting the work, it's also easy to forget just how many people made it all happen. Acknowledgments at the end of a talk always bring the work back into perspective for me. Lists of graduate students, postdocs, and collaborators are actually much more important than we often recognize. If you aren't sure, try a quick knock-out experiment with me: what would science be like without the acknowledgments slide? On a personal level, I would probably still have a poor concept of how much a single researcher is expected to accomplish in a year.

 

Suggestions posing as questions

Yes, the facilitators open the floor for "questions" but really they are disguised comments. They may even be so well disguised that those asking the questions don't even realize it. But I'm sure you noticed most questions include phrases like these: "Have you tried _____?" "I wonder if ____." Most of the time, the presenter does not have the true answer to our wonderings and curiosities (and we don't expect them to) but in our asking, we are actually broadening the presenter's considerations for future steps. Even if unaware, we are offering our miniature contributions from our own unique backgrounds and perspectives when we ask questions. We are combining minds, thinking together at a large scale.

 

 

Building new knowledge is a team effort; it is why we gather from all over the world to speak and listen and question and wonder. As I go about the remainder of BPS 2022, I know I will be carrying around my appreciation for our traditions of togetherness and I invite you to join me in doing the same!