Demographic Impact
Figure 1 illustrates themes seen across all datasets. The elimination of the travel and cost burdens realized with the virtual conference format resulted in a large increase in attendance at all events. The increase in attendance was particularly pronounced for international attendees. This trend can be explained by the decrease in costs as compared to in-person conferences.
The cost of attending legacy conferences for international attendees was dominated by airfare (Figure 2). Air travel cost was calculated by converting one-way travel distance to cost using a conversion factor described in Duda et al17 and doubling the value to obtain the cost for a round trip flight. A sensitivity analysis where the one-way cost is instead multiplied by 1.5 is presented in Table S1. When compared to US attendees, researchers from Africa paid 174% more, Asia paid 145% more, Europe paid 92% more, the Middle East paid 127% more, Oceania paid 203% more, and Other Americas paid 7% more to attend legacy NAMS conferences (Table S2). When placed in financial context, the cost of attendance for scientists from Africa to past in-person ICLR conferences (2018-2019), AAS (2016-2019) Conferences, and NAMS (2015-2019) conferences was on average 140%, 142% and 81% of their country’s annual per capita gross domestic product (GDP), compared to just 3% of per capita GDP for US participants (Figure 2a). Cost of attendance for participants from Asia to past in-person ICLR (2018-2019), AAS (2016-2019), and NAMS (2015-2019) conferences was on average 16%, 15%, and 14% of their country’s per capita GDP (Figure 2a). However, it is important to note that many conferences not included in this analysis have registration fees in excess of $700. For these events, registration fees can begin to compete with airfare as a significant contributing financial consideration.
By eliminating these travel and registration costs, the 2020 virtual ICLR, AAS and NAMS delegations were more geographically diverse. Notably, the audiences were 118%, 97% and 41% larger than the historical average for in-person conferences, respectively (Figure 2b and Table S3). Attendance by scientists from NI>10 countries increased significantly from the historical average at legacy ICLR, AAS, and NAMS conferences (204, 11, and 50.3 attendees) to the 2020 virtual ICLR, AAS, and NAMS conferences (955, 64, and 65 attendees), respectively (Figure 2b). The increased representation was more comparable to delegations seen at conferences originally designed for the virtual environment; specifically, 31% and 38% of attendees at the virtual POM 1 and POM 2 from NI>10 countries (Figure S1). Survey responses indicated that reduction in cost and travel burdens such as documentation and time away from home were primary factors in the increase in attendance from underrepresented countries:
“[The online format] saves money and it makes it possible to attend without giving up on other professional & private duties. I might haven't attended a conference as I live in India far away from the venue. It takes a lot of time for the visa process. As a research scholar, it's tough to get a travel accommodation budget for it. It was time-saving too.” -POM 2 survey respondent
Participation of Women The virtual conference format also eliminated travel burdens that can act as a barrier to attendance for certain sociodemographic groups. This was reflected by changes in the gender makeup of virtual conference delegations (Table S4). Attendance by women increased between 66% and 253% at ICLR, AAS, and NAMS virtual conferences compared to the in-person baselines (Figure 3). On average, women made up 24 ±10% of delegations at the most recent years of these in-person conferences (2018-2019); this fraction increased to 29 ±8.5% in 2020 when these conferences transitioned online (Figure 3g). The increase in the number of female attendees is especially significant considering that women make-up smaller portions of STEM fields compared to men. For example, women make up only 33% - 34% of STEM researchers in the countries that make up the delegations for historical in-person ICLR, AAS, and NAMS conferences(Table S5, S6, S7). Thus, an increase in attendance represents a larger portion of female scientists who would not have attended an in-person conference, relative to the portion of men that would not have attended. Survey responses confirmed that the elimination of the travel requirement realized with virtual conferences could partially explain trends in attendance by gender. About half (47%) of the 2020 virtual NAMS survey respondents that did not plan on attending the in-person 2020 NAMS conference indicated that the primary reason for attending the virtual conference was convenience (Figure S2). Survey respondents pointed specifically to alleviation of concerns about childcare, a burden that disproportionately affects women18, as a driver of social equity at virtual conferences:
“[The online conference format is] Environmentally friendly, allows people with caring [responsibilities] to attend, the opportunity for a far more diverse speaker pool and delegates.” -POM 2 survey respondent
The transition from a legacy to virtual conference led to a significant increase in interest and participation from female researchers as revealed from analysis of abstracts submitted to the 2020 NAMS conference before and after the decision to switch. Approximately a quarter (25%) of abstracts submitted to the 2020 in-person NAMS conference were from female researchers, which was aligned with historical average attendance by women to 2015-2019 in-person NAMS conferences (Figure S3). After it was announced that the 2020 NAMS conference would be held online, 37% of submitted abstracts came from female scientists (Figure S3). The 2020 virtual ICLR also saw an increase in attendance from gender queer and transexual scientists. On average, 2018-2019 in-person ICLRs were attended by 1 gender queer scientist and 0 transgender scientists. The 2020 virtual ICLR was attended by 8 gender queer scientists and 2 transgender scientists (Figure 3a).
Participation of Students and Postdoctoral Scholars. High costs characteristic to legacy conferences can also be exclusionary to certain sociodemographic groups that may face challenges securing funding for travel, such as students and postdoctoral scholars. While attendance at the 2020 virtual NAMS conference by academic scientists and industry personnel remained fairly constant compared to past in-person events, attendance by undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers increased by 344%, 100%, and 108%, respectively (Figure 4 a,b). The impact of the cost reduction with online conferences on attendance was evident in survey responses, as 33% of respondents to NAMS surveys indicated that they were not planning on attending the scheduled 2020 in-person NAMS conference prior to the decision to move online (Figure S4). Of the respondents that were not planning on attending the 2020 in-person NAMS conference, 34% indicated that cost was the primary motivation for attending the 2020 virtual NAMS conference (Figure S2). Responses to surveys distributed to 2020 virtual NAMS attendees indicated that increased student participation was a direct result of this reduction in the cost of attendance:
“I think this format was also great for allowing additional student participation and I had more students attend online than were going to come in person due to the financial differences.” -NAMS survey respondent
Consistent with previous conferences discussed, attendance by students to 2020 virtual ICLR increased dramatically relative to in-person ICLRs. Students as a fraction of the ICLR delegation increased from 33% for the 2019 legacy ICLR to 52% for the 2020 virtual ICLR (Figure 4c). These high student participation levels are consistent with trends seen at virtual conferences. Students made up 49% of the delegations at both POM 1 (January 2020) and POM 2 (June 2020) conferences (Figure S5), likely due to the accessibility of the virtual format. The AAS conference surprisingly did not show much change in conference composition as seen from surveys (32% completion) (Figure S6). On average, for all conferences evaluated, the virtual conference delegations had higher proportions of students (29% to 43%) and postdoctoral scholars (5% to 11%) compared to the most recent in-person event (2019) (Figure 4d).
Participation from Historically Underrepresented Institutions. Attendance from non-research-intensive institutions also increased at virtual conferences. Attendance at the 2020 virtual NAMS conference by persons from Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs) and High Research Activity (R2) Universities (as distinct from the Very High Research Activity Category – R1) increased from the in-person conference baseline by 157% and 45%, respectively. Attendance at the 2020 virtual AAS conference from PUIs and R2 Universities increased by 72% and 106%, respectively (Figure 4e). Increased attendance from PUIs and R2 universities could interest more undergraduates in graduate school and improve the educational experience for virtual conference participants from these historically excluded institutions.
Effect of Time Zones and Conference Format. While virtual conferences eliminated many barriers to participation, the impact on international attendances was strongly dependent on the virtual conference format (Figure 5) with the primary variations being synchronous or asynchronous content delivery. The 2020 virtual NAMS conference was organized around synchronous live talks. Consequentially, attendance from regions where the conference was held during normal work hours significantly increased, with attendance from Europe and the Middle East increasing by 102% and 76%, respectively, when compared to the 2015-2019 NAMS conference average. Conversely, for Asia, where the 2020 virtual NAMS conference was held around or past midnight local time, attendance decreased by 62%. The 2020 virtual ICLR was asynchronous, with only a few live events and most talks pre-recorded and released for consumption at the attendee’s leisure. Consequently, attendance at the 2020 virtual ICLR increased for all regions (57% to 1700% increase), when compared to the 2018-2019 legacy ICLR average. Attendance at the 2020 virtual AAS conference also increased for all regions compared to legacy AAS conferences (60% to 700% increase), with the largest percent increases coming from Europe, Oceania, and Other Americas. Thus, it is clear that to take full advantage of the virtual format and to make these events effective at disseminating science, it is necessary to offer content asynchronously.
Initial Attendee Perceptions of Virtual Conferences. The virtual conference format, in general, was well received by attendees and helped to shift negative perceptions to more positive views towards this format. Attendees to 2020 virtual conferences indicated via pre-conference surveys that they were initially skeptical about the efficacy of virtual conference components, but overall felt that the format could possibly improve legacy conferences in some ways. When asked what they foresaw as the biggest challenge with the virtual format, networking and social interaction was the most common response for NAMS surveys (42% of respondents) and POM 2 surveys (25% of respondents) (Figure S7). Aversion to engaging with the virtual format was lowest among students, as indicated by the fact that only 25% of graduate students and no undergraduate students who submitted abstracts to the 2020 in-person NAMS conference elected to withdraw from the conference once it was moved online. Conversely, 37% of industry personnel and 39% of postdoctoral researchers who applied to the 2020 in-person NAMS conference elected not to attend the 2020 virtual NAMS conference (Figure S8). NAMS survey respondents indicated that they were looking forward to some aspects of the virtual format, particularly the opportunity to seamlessly transition between sessions and quickly access the internet to research unfamiliar concepts that arose during the conference.
Part of the success is related to the wide range of currently available virtual environments for hosting oral sessions. Oral sessions at analyzed conferences were either livestreamed via webinar (synchronous format) (Figure S9) or pre-recorded and released at a specified time (asynchronous format). They were popular among attendees, with 43% of NAMS survey respondents and 74% of POM 2 survey respondents indicating that they preferred the virtual format for oral sessions over the in-person format (Figure S10 and S11). The presentations and Q&A sessions were recorded and made available indefinitely, eliciting persistent viewing after the conference ended. The ICLR platform drew 652,087 total pageviews during the scheduled conference days, and then views increased again by 74% (481,092 additional views) in the three months following the conference, indicating increased exposure time for presenters and sponsors compared to the in-person format (Figure S12).
Analyzed virtual conferences had poster authors publish their posters via twitter, using a web-based iPoster sharing platform, or by uploading a 5-minute pre-recorded presentation to the conference website. The poster presentations had high view counts (NAMS iPosters had on average 142 views) (Figure S13), but presenters could not tell how many attendees were viewing their posters and features for communicating with poster viewers were not effective. Consequently, virtual posters were less popular, with 85% of NAMS survey respondents and 43% of POM 2 survey respondents indicating that they preferred in-person poster sessions to virtual poster sessions (Figure S10 and S11). Analyzed virtual conferences experimented with incorporating social media and organizing virtual breakout rooms to facilitate networking with some success. However, survey respondents indicated that the interactions felt inauthentic and contrived. As a result, 75% of POM 2 survey respondents and 96% of NAMS survey respondents indicated that they preferred in-person networking to virtual networking (Figure S10 and S11).
One approach to overcome this challenge, holding locally-organized viewing hubs, was piloted during POM 1. This “conference within a conference” approach allowed for reduced cost and travel, increased local and regional networking, and created an international conference. Notably, approximately half of the POM 1 attendees participated in the conference from a local hub-site. This approach could be one solution post-pandemic.
Environmental Impact
The carbon footprints of in-person conferences was defined as the warming potential in CO2 equivalents (CO2e) of the sum total of GHG emitted by the hotel stays and air travel of all conference participants. This value was dominated by air travel emissions and has increased over time (Figure 6a, 6b and Table S8). Given the increase in attendees at the virtual conferences, both absolute numbers and international participation, the theoretical GHG emissions for the 2020 virtual conferences would have significantly increased if they were held in-person. However, as expected, carbon footprints were practically negligible for online conferences.
As shown in Figure 6b, the carbon footprint for a single international attendee to the 2019 in-person ICLR, AAS or NAMS conferences is approaching the median global per capita carbon budget (0.72 tonnes CO2e) for the entire year of 2030 in a collection of proposed decarbonization pathways designed to limit global warming to 1.5° C with a small overshoot19. Therefore, the carbon footprint of a single attendee to an in-person conference is a substantial fraction of the recommended per capita annual carbon budgets, and many attendees attend multiple international events per year. For further context, the ~2.5 tons of CO2e emissions caused by an international attendee to one of these in-person conferences is roughly equivalent to the footprint of an average US passenger vehicle traveling ~10,000 km20.
Conversely, the total carbon footprints of the 2020 virtual ICLR, AAS, and NAMS conferences were 0.80, 0.17, and 0.10 tonnes CO2e, respectively (Table S8), calculated as the GHG emitted due to computer processing13. The carbon footprints for 2020 virtual ICLR, AAS, and NAMS conferences represent only 0.005%, 0.013%, and 0.012% of the emissions that would have been released if the same delegation for the virtual events had attended in-person conferences at the originally planned locations. For further context, the cumulative footprints of the more than 7000 attendees to 2020 virtual ICLR, AAS, and NAMS conferences (1.07 tonnes CO2e) was comparable to the average footprint of a single attendee to one of these 2019 in-person conferences (Figure 6b and Table S8).