Travel Trade-Offs and Virtual Meetings

[Jan Forbrich]

Hi all,

there was an interesting letter to the editor in a Science issue of
December 2010 (sorry, I meant to post this earlier... is it true that
May is almost over? :-) ), and as I now see, it has triggered an equally
interesting response in a second letter in February 2011. While the
initial letter related to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of a
large ecology meeting, the response was by a group of people from the
NASA Astrobiology Institute (which is a "virtual" institute). Both of
them are very interesting, particularly in the light of parts of the
discussion during the sustainability session of the Boston AAS meeting.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1476.1.full
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/674.1.full

So far, I have only listened to some talks via webcast (sometimes with
the possibility to call in and ask questions/comment). The most
interactive thing was a Herschel workshop in Pasadena which I attended
from Cambridge via Webex (that worked great). Any comments or
experiences? I would be interested in more details about NAI's Workshops
Without Walls and a comparison to what large multinational companies use.//

A little more detail about Workshops Without Walls is here:
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/nasa-astrobiology-institute-hosts-science-workshop-without-walls-/

Cheers,
Jan

PS: I also use this to find out whether I can directly email to this
group ...

[Phil Marshall]

Hi!

Thanks for the links, Jan! My impression is that technology is indeed
still a bit of a barrier here: Sarah Bridle at UCL is an early
adopter, but got discouraged by failing to get 10 people connected
together for a virtual journal club via EVO. Webex is paid-for I
think, as is skype premium - but the latter has the advantage of only
one person needing it for multi-video calls to work, and work well (I
tried it with 5 others recently). Probably best to focus on this sort
of small meeting for now, and gradually build up to larger groups as
we go - certainly a technology failure can do more harm than a
technology success can do good...

As for large meetings: I think a great first step would be helping
people recod and webcast, since a lot of th evalue is in watching and
listening anyway. This has to include the Q&A though! And this is the
hardest part - microphone discipline is required! :-)

Cheers

Phil

Dr. Phil Marshall

Department of Physics (Astrophysics)
University of Oxford,
Denys Wilkinson Building,                     Room 532E (BIPAC)
Keble Road,                                  Phone:  +44 1865 273345
Oxford, OX1 3RH             http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~pjm

> --
> This message was sent to the "low-energy-astrophysics" Google group.
> To post to this group, send email to LEa...@googlegroups.com
> Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/LEastro?hl=tk
> Visit our wiki at http://low-energy-astro.physics.ucsb.edu
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to LEastro+u...@googlegroups.com
>

[James D. Lowenthal]

Jan, thanks for this link; I've pasted the text of the first letter below for those who don't have access to Science online.  It touches directly on one of the top three priorities we've identified for the AAS, and has several interesting and practical suggestions.  

I'll forward the 2nd letter in the next email.

Best,

James

                         Science 10 December 2010:
Vol. 330 no. 6010 p. 1476
DOI: 10.1126/science.330.6010.1476-a

• Letters

Travel Trade-Offs for Scientists

I recently returned from the annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA), my principal scientific society. This year's conference theme was “Global Warming: The legacy of our past, the challenge for our future.” Roughly 4000 scientists attended from countries around the world to discuss the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on ecosystems and species. In so doing, we likely emitted more than 1000 tons of CO₂ (1). We are not alone. Other scientific societies, such as the American Geophysical Union and AAAS, also focus on climate change while holding large annual conferences. ESA purchased $5 of carbon offsets for every attendee and implemented other green measures, but these measures do not go far enough.

Almost certainly, as individuals, scientists are responsible for an order of magnitude more greenhouse gas emissions than the average global citizen, in large part due to travel associated with our scientific interactions, presentations, and service to the scientific community (2). We warn about the serious consequences of “business as usual,” yet we ourselves have failed to make necessary changes.

Science funding agencies and scientific societies should be the leaders in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from travel. There is undeniably great value in personal interactions at scientific meetings; scientists should explore ways to facilitate those productive collaborations without requiring travel. Science funding agencies can develop technological solutions to substitute for face-to-face panels and committee meetings. Social scientists can focus on maximizing our effectiveness in scientific interactions over video teleconferencing. Funding agencies can encourage proposals that incorporate videoconferencing equipment, rather than large travel budgets. Scientific societies can develop strategies for less frequent national meetings, perhaps alternating with regional meetings, and advancing Web conferencing models.

Scientists must lead the charge against “business as usual” by demonstrating a different way of doing business. The technology is available, and it is time for us to find ways to promote scientific progress without contributing so substantially to the climate change problem we study.

1. Ingrid C. Burke

+ Author Affiliations

1. Departments of Botany and Renewable Resources, Environment and Natural Resources Program, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82072, USA.

1. E-mail: ibu...@uwyo.edu

[James D. Lowenthal]

Here's the second letter Jan pointed out:

Science 11 February 2011:
Vol. 331 no. 6018 p. 674
DOI: 10.1126/science.331.6018.674-a

• Letters

Leading the Charge to Virtual Meetings

In her letter “Travel trade-offs for scientists” (10 December 2010, p. 1476), I. C. Burke wrote that science organizations should lead the charge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from travel and that scientists should demonstrate a different way of doing business that doesn't contribute so substantially to climate change. These suggestions are right on the mark.

The NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI) is pioneering the use of collaborative tools for virtual communication—i.e., meetings and scientific data analysis across distance. The NAI hosted two Workshops Without Walls during 2010 (1, 2), which drew together hundreds of researchers from around the globe for scientific exchange, with no travel required. The integration of high-definition videoconferencing and online meeting software allowed attendees to participate in the workshops with just a computer and an Internet connection.

Surveys by the NAI after both Workshops Without Walls showed that 98% of 175 respondents would attend another one, although some noted that they missed the social interaction of in-person meetings (1, 2). One NAI survey respondent wrote, “The energy, money, and time saving of this method of scientific communication is spectacular. I believe it should be encouraged and expanded.”

View larger version:

• In this page
• In a new window

CREDIT: THINKSTOCK

A majority of NAI survey respondents participated in at least part of the workshops from their office or home. Others gathered in videoconferencing facilities at their institutions. Some moved freely between home, office, or conference room, catching talks most relevant to their research from wherever they happened to be. Experience has shown that holding meetings 4 hours per day over several days helps accommodate people in different time zones, as does recording and posting the talks in almost real time.

Virtual meetings are just the beginning. Emerging technologies such as 3-dimensional immersive environments to share, visualize, and analyze data sets across distance are enabling virtual workspaces for science and the potential for further savings of time, money, and natural resources.

1. Wendy W. Dolci1,*,
2. Marco S. Boldt1,2,
3. K. Estelle Dodson1,2, and
4. Carl B. Pilcher1

+ Author Affiliations

1. ¹NASA Astrobiology Institute, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA.
2. ²Lockheed Martin, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA.

1. *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: wendy....@nasa.gov

References

1. ↵
   1. D. Scalice

   , “NASA Astrobiology Institute hosts science ‘Workshop Without Walls,’” NASA Astrobiology Institute, 19 March 2010 (http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/nasa-astrobiology-institute-hosts-science-workshop-without-walls-/).
2. ↵
   1. W. Dolci

   , “NAI hosts second Workshop Without Walls,” NASA Astrobiology Institute, 29 November 2010 (http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/nai-hosts-second-workshop-without-walls/).

On May 31, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Jan Forbrich wrote:

[Phil Marshall]

Hi,

By chance (or rather, by coincidence with a probability raised via
buzz in our social network), I got asked this morning to write an
opinion piece for Physics World, very similar in content to Ingrid
Burke's. I'd be more than happy to include any ideas you guys have in
this article - it will be read by physicists of all types, and so it's
a great opportunity to inform, surprise and galvanise! What
suggestions would *you* like to make to the physics community at large
about its energy consumption in general and travel cost in particular?

Cheers

Phil

[Bruce Grossan]

Hello All: 

Not enough activity on this list, and also, I was encouraged to post this reply I made to Phil Marshall: 

Dear Jan and Phil:

Thank you for your interesting discussion.  Thanks to Phil for sending me the science articles which I could not access. 

Yes, "telepresence" is a great way to save energy.  Another important upside is saving money.

The downsides include:

*Meetings aren't for exchanging information, they are for schmoozing, meeting people in person.  It would be very interesting if one could fully or partly do this.

*Webex doesn't do a good job of repeating the laser pointer. The webex type meetings usually combine sound and some low-res video of speaker with their slides.  Unfortunately, you can't see the interaction of sound and pointer and slide.  Can you go back and show a slide in the middle of the talk during the question period?  I think often not.

*The partial failure rate for webex type systems is 100% from my experience.  Every tele-meeting I have been involved in started without video, or sound started terrible, or sound for questioners never really worked.

* I have skype meetings with 4-8 sites all the time, Asia to California. Most of the time with a large number of sites, one person's noise will dominate, and make the call difficult.  (Also, the current version of skype for mac makes adding people and adding new contacts during a call really really difficult.)  However, I would have to rate the skype audio only meetings as pretty workable.  (You send out PDFs to everyone, and regularly ask if everyone is on the right page.)

So, I still see large software obstacles, but none of them appear insurmountable.  The question is, is it appropriate for a public institution to make this kind of software really much better, because a public institution should be involved because of the energy savings? Could we somehow, as a group, write a letter to Google to ask them to improve on these issues for the good of our planet?  Might be worth a shot if we can really elucidate a short list of improvements that clearly make a big difference.

Again thanks for your comments and contributions to LEastro, which I find quite interesting, 

-Bruce

PS

How could one run a tele-schmoozing session?  How could one get live participants to interact with tele-participants that they don't know personally?  For example, I would be willing to ask a famous person a question after their talk on the way to coffee, but I would not be willing to bother them with a skype call, cold and out of the blue, especially during their meeting coffee break.