Second Annual Great Plains Emerging Infectious Diseases Conference

For those of you in the general vicinity, the University of Iowa Department of Epidemiology will be once again sponsoring the Great Plains Emerging Infectious Diseases Conference on April 19-20 in Iowa City. This year’s keynote speaker will be Dr. Peter Daszak, President of the EcoHealth Alliance:

Dr. Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, is a leader in the field of conservation medicine and a respected disease ecologist. EcoHealth Alliance is a global organization dedicated to innovative conservation science linking ecology and the health of humans and wildlife. EcoHealth Alliance’s mission is to provide scientists and educators with support for grassroots conservation efforts in 20 high-biodiversity countries in North America, Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

As Executive Vice President of Health at EcoHealth Alliance, Dr. Daszak directed a program of collaborative research, education, and conservation policy. The program examined the role of wildlife trade in disease introduction; the emergence of novel zoonotic viruses lethal to humans such as Nipah, Hendra, SARS, and Avian Influenza; the role of diseases in the global decline of amphibian populations; and the ecology and impact of West Nile virus in the U.S. Dr. Daszak holds adjunct positions at three U.S. and two U.K. universities and serves on the National Research Council’s committee on the future of veterinary research in the U.S.

Like last year, we will also be having breakout sessions in an “unconference” format–loosely moderated by discussion leaders. If you’re thinking of attending the conference and would like to suggest or lead a session, please leave a comment or drop me a line (tara dash smith at uiowa dot edu). Looking forward to seeing some readers here in April!

Skeptical science and medical reporting (#Scio13 wrap-up)

Ivan Oransky and I moderated a session last week at ScienceOnline, the yearly conference covering all things at the intersection of science and the internets. We discussed the topic ““How to make sure you’re being appropriately skeptical when covering scientific and medical studies.”

We started out discussing some of the resources we’d put up at the Wiki link. Ivan teaches medical journalism at NYU, and noted that he recommends these criteria when evaluating medical studies. I noted I use similar guidelines, and as a scientist, think about papers in a journal club format before I cover them on the blog, considering their strengths and weaknesses (especially in study design and analysis). Ivan also mentioned the need sometimes to consult a real statistician if you don’t understand some of the analyses–suggesting to “keep a biostatistician in your backpocket” or, failing that, to reach out to those at you local university, as “they tend to be lonely people anyway.” (Just kidding, biostats friends and colleagues!) A number of stats references for journalists were also mentioned (see the Storify for specific links). From here, we handed the discussion over to the audience.

One of the first topics we reviewed was just what is meant by being “appropriately skeptical,” which was a theme of the session that we kept coming back to. How does one do that without being an asshole? The importance of criticizing the study’s limitations and weaknesses–and not necessarily being a jerk to the authors–was noted. No study is going to be perfect, after all. It was also pointed out that anyone reporting on the study should go beyond the press release, and not to do so is in fact “journalistic malpractice.” Bora also started an interesting tangent–are medical studies more likely to be fake (or more deserving of skepticism about results) than more basic science reports? Also, is it worth reporting on bad studies? Sometimes this can help to point out the bad science (like that recent mouse-GMO study, which was reported on–negatively–in many venues). This recent study on “out” versus “closeted” homosexuals in Montreal was also brought up by Annalee Newitz–a small study that was widely reported, but was it designed and powered correctly to examine the questions it supposedly answered? (I haven’t read it, but just looking over the article, looks like “no”.)

Audience members also asked how to find sources to comment on studies. Ivan has previously written a post on this, and others in the audience recommended looking at other references in the story itself, or looking at reviews or meta-analyses on the topic to see who else may have expertise in these particular areas. However, SciCurious also noted that you need to be somewhat skeptical of those as well, and examine if the authors of these reviews or analyses have their own biases that may skew the information being presented.

The idea of “Glamour Mags” was also introduced. How should those reporting on a story know whether the results were published in a “good” journal or not? Several pointed out that just because a study is in a lower impact-factor journal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not to be trusted. Eli elaborated, noting that fraud is actually higher in the big, fancy journals, and that many studies that end up in lower-tier journals actually go through *more* peer review in some cases, as they have been rejected from higher impact publications.

Unfortunately as I was moderating, I wasn’t taking notes, and I can’t recall what we ended the session on (but it was a great comment and general agreement that it nicely tied things up). I’ve also tried to Storify the session based on the #medskep hashtag, but I’m new to Storify and it doesn’t want to embed for me. If you were there, please feel free to add to the discussion in the comments below.

Great Plains Emerging Infectious Diseases Conference–Registration Open

I mentioned last month that we are planning an Emerging Diseases conference here in April. Things are moving quickly and registration is now open (here). Abstract submission is also up and running here.

The details:

Oral and poster presentation research abstracts are due by 5:00pm on March 23, 2012. Individuals may submit up to two research abstracts. Abstracts must not exceed 250 words in length. There are a limited number of spots available for those interested in providing a 15-minute oral presentation. Abstracts submitted for oral presentations that are not selected for a talk will automatically be considered for the poster session. Please do not submit an abstract if your attendance is questionable. Confirmation of participation must be received no later than April 1, 2012.

Monetary awards will be conferred upon the top three student presentations (oral or poster).

Authors will be notified of the review committee’s decision by April 2, 2012.

If you have any questions regarding the conference, registration, or abstract submission, drop me a line or visit the conference website. We’re also still accepting ideas for breakout sessions in an unconference format, so feel free to contact me about thoughts for those as well. Hope to see some of you there!

Great Plains Emerging Diseases Conference

I mentioned earlier in the week that I had two pending announcements; now I can officially share the second. We’re putting on an Emerging Infectious Diseases conference here in Iowa City April 27-8th, and the Keynote speaker will be Ian Lipkin, a world leader in the field of viral discovery and most recently, a consultant for the Stephen Soderbergh movie “Contagion.”

For the conference itself, it will be a regular research conference in one sense (abstract submission, poster presentations), but much of it will be done in “unconference” format a la ScienceOnline. We’re working on finishing the website etc. and that will be available soon, but in the meantime, I’d love it if those in the area could assist with word-of-mouth via this “save the date” flyer. If you have any interest in helping out, suggesting session topics, or any general questions, feel free to pose them below. Looking forward to seeing some of you here in Iowa!

Epidemiology and social media: conference fail

I have written and deleted this post. Twice. But damn it, it needs to be said.

I’m here in charming Montreal for the North American Congress of Epidemiology. It’s a good-sized meeting, as far as epi meetings go. The site notes that it’s a joint effort between four major Epi organizations: The American College of Epidemiology (ACE); The Society for Epidemiologic Research; the Epi section of the American Public Health Association, and The Canadian Society for Epidemiology and Biostatistics. Collectively, those associations represent a lot of epidemiologists.

The conference started off well. The first night kicked off with a movie about bioterrorism preparedness followed by a panel discussion. Great–movies! Engaging public in novel ways! Love.

On to Wednesday, when the first real sessions begin. The opening plenary discussed Science, skepticism, and society. Great again–this is a perfect warm-up. Later that afternoon, there was another session titled “Communicating Epidemiology: The Changing Landscape”. I was happily surprised when the room for this was pretty packed, as these types of meetings tend to be heavy on chronic disease epi and epidemiology methods. However, I was disappointed with the content. While the first talk was to give “a snapshot of how premier science journals experiment with features that blur old distinctions: blogs, data repositories, standard-setting, and advance online publications,” almost none of that was discussed–instead, it focused on how Nature Genetics was doing…something….about datasets. (Unfortunately I don’t have great notes and was at this point still trying to get the wifi to work; more on that later). Either way, it wasn’t anything as advertised in the description I quoted above, and it discussed *only* Nature Genetics–surely there are more “premier science journals” than just NG? (Why only NG discussed? The talk was by Myles Axton, who is the Editor).

Next on tap was Jennifer Loukissas, communications manager at the National Cancer Institute’s Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, to discuss “When epidemiologists talk to press and public.” However, there really wasn’t any “public” involved–it was a media training session. Period. Use soundbites, stay on target, think about your message, control the interview, call the journalist back in 5 minutes if you need to collect yourself, etc. Good stuff for scientists to know, to be sure, but isn’t there a world out there beyond talking to journalists? More on that later as well.

The third talk was Jonathan Samet of USC, on “Communicating around conflict.” He’s recently worked on the WHO cell phone-and-cancer opinion that was released earlier this month, and essentially extended what Loukissas began as far as what to and not to say to interviewers, particularly in controverisal areas.

This was not exactly my idea of science communication in 2011, especially since everyone agreed at the beginning of the session that scientists were terrible communicators, our messages frequently ended up getting distorted, all the typical canards. Merely telling scientists to stop being so jargon-y and prepare soundbites–while necessary–isn’t going to solve these problems.

During the (very brief) Q&A, I asked about scientists directly communicating with the public–via their websites, blogs, web video, etc., to get their own message out there and not have to worry about journalists messing it up. Loukissas was the main one to answer the question, saying–incredibly–she hadn’t thought about that.

It was all I could do to keep myself from saying “d’oh!,” complete with facepalm.

The reality is that scientists don’t have to be passive any longer, relying only on reporters to translate their work for them in order to send it along to the public. We should have our soundbites, but realize that we can go beyond our manuscripts (I’ve had ones recently trimmed down to 1200 or even 800(!) words). We can write about the research if it’s behind a paywall. We can write about the realities of doing our work as a jumping-off point after a journalist covers your research, and go beyond the dry data that goes into the paper. We can go beyond the press release and talk about what may be interesting to us about our findings, but maybe aren’t the “meat” of the publication, or are secondary to the “main point” that you’ve worked on for your soundbites and want to emphasize to interested journalists. We can elaborate on interesting research done by others, to discuss subtleties that you can’t fit into a 20-minute interview.

And more.

Communication-wise, this meeting has unfortunately been a bit of a letdown. The science is interesting and there have been some great speakers, but I haven’t been able to share much of that because wifi wasn’t arranged for in the conference rooms. I have internet in my room ($14.95/day, of course), but the password from my hotel room isn’t valid downstairs (something it took me almost a day and a half to find out, after getting the run-around from various people), and the organizers either didn’t care, didn’t think, or couldn’t afford to allow attendees to use the wifi network in the hotel conference rooms. So while I was able to take conference notes from the American Society for Microbiology meeting right on Twitter and share them with everyone via the conference hashtag, not so for this meeting. (ASM even had their own mobile app for smartphones).

The thing is, *epidemiologists need to be plugged into these kinds of things.* So many of the studies reported in the media have to do with epidemiological topics–cell phones and cancer, vaccines and autism, “chronic” lyme, does the internet really give you “popcorn brain”, just to take one current story from CNN. We can’t sit in our towers and just wait for a journalist to call us about those studies anymore–and why should we?

Last year, Craig McClain wrote about why scientists need to use Twitter. That post, while good, focuses mainly on the benefit to the scientist (though he does note that the public can also find information there). We need more of this. We need good, reliable information to be out there on the internet, freely available–and if that’s not possible in your academic publishing model, it’s still possible with a blog, or YouTube video, or basic website that you keep updated with recent news. Epidemiologists are certainly using social media and Google to explore disease; why not give back by wading out there and actually taking part in the conversation?