I want to shine a high efficiency, low energy spotlight on a paper, thirteen of my colleagues and I, have co- written.

In a time of restricted activity and travel, this paper takes time out from the typical research effort of looking outwardly at other organisms and takes a reflective look at one particular cultural practice of the scientific discipline - the conference.

This is certainly not the first paper to cover this topic and hopefully it will be followed by many more papers calling for change.

We provide a position paper and argue that scientists should transition away from traditional in-person conferences, ones that are inherently both high carbon and low inclusion and suggest a move toward a more ethical model of conferencing as exampled by virtual conferences.

The novel approach to conferencing gained widespread use during the restrictions created by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and has led to a suite of technological innovations that helped facilitate this stop gap measure. We suggest that these virtual stopgap measures in fact, provide a more ethical way of gathering, sharing and connecting over large distances and as such should become the dominant and permanent model for conferencing.

Once adopted, this approach can create greater accessibility and reduce carbon pollution while maintaining research networks and knowledge sharing. Environmental scientists can then, more authentically pursue the varied aspects of environmental and conservation research.

Here is a link to the brand new article in Conservation Biology but for those who don’t have institutional access or a subscription to the journal, here is a synthesis of the position.

Photo courtesy: Tom Fisk

Conservation science is all about preserving the environment but there is an inherent contradiction when scientists gather at long-distance conferences, creating large carbon footprints. Up to 6 tonnes of CO2 can be produced when a single person attends an international gathering, while CO2 emissions associated with just one conference have been calculated to produce eye watering high levels of CO2 (Stroud & Feeley 2015; Klöwer et al. 2020). These high emission international conferences can, not surprisingly, be mostly attended by those who can afford the associated costs. Resource-poor, organisations, researchers and countries are often, less well represented, which is somewhat ironic considering developing nations can also be hot-spots for biodiversity and research.

Conferences per se have many benefits to those who can access and afford them. For mid and late career scientists, conferences provide stimulation, collegial catch-ups and networking, while early career scientists can find conferences confronting but also a critical venue to launch a career, be noticed for collaboration, networking or research opportunities.

Colleagues, academics, career scientists express many reasons as to why conference attendance is beneficial if not essential to them. But registration fees alone can be a significant barrier, even before travel and accommodation costs are considered. However, for some societies and associations, tiered fees, based on socio-economic as well as on nature of attendance, such as virtual vs in-person, are coming into vogue. This has been most recently exampled by the International Coral Reef Symposium with its upcoming July 2022 symposium.

We study environmental issues across the planet and recognise the causal relationship humans have with many of these problems. Unsurprisingly environmental scientists call for urgent action on climate change and greater sharing of scientific knowledge. We ask others to act and listen. Yet while we do this, there appears little desire to look at our own house and reflect how in-person scientific conferences contribute to environmental impacts and pervasive inequities. The behaviour of scientists is noticed and matters to politicians, policy makers and the public (Rosen 2017). As such it is imperative to maintain credibility and address matters we call for others to action (Haage, 2020).

Virtual conferencing is nothing new, advocates have been promoting the merits for decades, but despite this, unlike some other disciplines, the environmental sciences seem to have clung on to the traditional in-person conference (Sanders et al. 2020), which has both environmental and social consequences.

Virtual conferences have been shown to elicit greater inclusion as well as reducing travel/accommodation burdens (and associated carbon emissions). Research into comparisons has highlighted higher numbers of attendees but also more widespread country representation when compared to in-person conferences. Demographics also improved with higher attendance by both student and early career scientists with the virtual model (Skiles et al. 2021, Sarabipour (2020).

Environmental and conservation scientists can surprisingly be a conservative bunch and not readily accept change. In person conferencing has served and benefitted many and virtual conferencing is definitely still in its infancy with numerous limitations. However, the question of permanent adoption or avoidance, goes well beyond personal satisfaction. It is one of collective responsibility and discipline ethics. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 10 is all about reducing inequalities and promoting inclusion while SDG13 clearly requires urgent action to mitigate climate change. Virtual conferencing begins to address these inconsistencies in science culture and of course more development needs to happen to provide a completely satisfactory virtual alternative. Early adoption and commitment will contribute to driving this needed technological development. Staying in the comfort zone and avoiding this opportunity for change is an opportunity missed.

Reducing Inequality and Carbon in the Science Sphere