Twitter at Scientific Sessions

Bryan Vartabedian, MD over at 33 Charts has an interesting post on his blog today: Should Twitter be Restricted at Scientific Meetings? I encourage all to read it.

Increasingly, scientific sessions (many of which have heavy corporate sponsorship) have evolved from scientific endeavors to those of marketing and media endeavors. While there are benefits to pharamceutical and medical device representatives gaining "access" to "key opinion leaders" to explore ways to further innovate in medicine, there is also a chance that these interactions will influence and bias.

Doctors know this. So do device and pharmaceutical reps. As do the media.

But at most of the recent Scientific Sessions that I have attended, there is usually a sign at the door of the meeting telling us photographs are prohibited. And yet, without exception, I have seen people snapping pictures of slides and posters and friends, among other things.

Who are we kidding? The ubiquious nature of cell phones capable of snapping a picture and sending it around the world in seconds exists on nearly every attendee at these meetings. Yet somehow I haven't seen anyone wrestled to the ground to surrender their cell phone to authorities to date.

And most of these scientific meeting sponsors have welcomed social media as part of their marketing efforts, publishing updates on sessions underway, not to mention encouraging companies to market their wares at the meeting as well. Should doctors, then be restricted? We're not talking censorship of the scientists are we?

So should we restrict the use of Twitter at scientific sessions?

My thoughts on this: if you've invited the media to cover the event, then by default, you've invited Twitter.

-Wes

What Doctors Do at National Meetings

Here's a cool time-lapse movie of the comings and goings at the ACC in New Orleans in 2007:



Kind of reminds me of Brownian motion in the physics lab.

-Wes

Heart Rhythm Society Meeting 2008: A Conversation Overheard

“I always enjoy meeting old friends at this meeting.”

“Me, too.”

“Learned anything?”

“A few things, but there doesn’t seem to be much new.”

“I know what you mean.”

“It just seems to be the same old researchers and companies. But there's just so much more over-the-top marketing going on. God, if I see one more 256-color mapping system with little dots all over the left atrium, all claiming to be better than the next system, I'm gonna puke! There must be huge budgets to promote this stuff – most of which does help a rat’s ass at fixin’ the frickin’ afib – it looks more like a radiology meeting than an EP meeting. And did you see? Boston Scientific miraculously got their new devices approved by the FDA three to four months earlier than expected they said and yet, boy, somehow they had all the displays up already – like they “knew” all along! What a crock...."

* * * Laughing * * *

“Hey, do you know what that (Medtronic) ‘Vision 3D’ on that go-cart over there means?”

“No. Do you?”

“No clue. But man, did you see it’s plastered on the sides of the buildings and the stairs and frickin’ everywhere?. I heard someone say they got pissed that they were out-marketed by the other guys at last year’s conference, so they decided to go all out this year. I do kind of like those little go-cart thingies... maybe they should use those as shuttles to the hotels..."

“The commercialism just seems over-the-top. The *&#$*# poster sessions were like an afterthought – HRS gave more convention floor space to the companies than the poster display areas. There were so many people, I couldn’t even walk between the rows of posters! All that work – overshadowed by corporate displays.”

“Yeah, I know what you mean. The abstract sessions today – you know, the good, stuff – I heard there were 23 different sessions running concurrently. How could we even see a small portion of that?”

“You know what I think?”

“What?”

“I think that if they keep this up, that lots of folks will stop coming and just wait to see the presentations online.”

-Wes