In October, I participated in a workshop hosted by Medicine by Design (MbD) in Toronto. The workshop was right up my alley – blood stem cells and clonal evolution – but I’ll spare the Signals readership the specific details.* Rather, today’s post focuses on the bigger picture of why scientists need such workshops and how critical it is to plan them properly. Discussion and collaboration are still the driving force of academic progress, and focused workshops are an excellent way to stimulate new lines of thinking.
The importance of how questions are asked
During his introduction, our Toronto-based host made a simple but critical point: the people that had been brought together in that particular room not only shared a desire to answer the question of how blood stem cells are regulated but, most importantly, they cared about the way in which that question should be answered. The groups present at this workshop were not simply focused on describing the molecular state of a particular blood stem or progenitor cell. Instead, they each had a long history of tying those molecular states to robust in vitro and in vivo stem cell functional assays. This allowed every discussion of a particular project to start off with an assumed knowledge and motivation base, meaning that the real meat of the discussion could begin immediately.
Size and composition
Thematic workshops such as these must have the right number of people from the right stage of career. Graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are central to knowledge and technical mobility across different countries. Group leaders, on the other hand, are essential to grounding the projects in the history of the field, identifying resources, and ensuring a long-term commitment and interest in the workshop outcomes.
Open conversation and short talks
Leading on from the correct balance of participants, it is absolutely essential to create an open space for everyone to participate. Here, several important tools can be employed (and were done effectively at this workshop) as follows: keeping formal talks short to encourage the priming of a discussion not a lecture; having break-off groups for small group chats so less vocal people contribute more effectively; having plenty of breaks and informal meeting time so one on one discussions could be had around topics discussed earlier in the day; and, summary sessions to consolidate ideas and plan a way forward.
Avoiding a “great, but intangible” workshop
Over my 15+ years in academic science, I’ve attended many workshops that have ranged from completely useless to highly productive. The most frustrating of these are the ones where the discussion and interactions are incredible, but everyone leaves on the final day with no sense of “what’s next.” At the end of this MbD workshop, the four primary group leaders who participated sat down and mapped out a future collaborative plan, and the students and postdoctoral fellows mapped out the practicalities of data and technique sharing. This meant the production of a small grant proposal and the agreement to share data and analysis pipelines from different datasets instead of re-creating the wheel on two sides of the Atlantic.
Final thoughts
Workshops can be excellent, but the organizer’s need to think about why they are hosting them and imagine some possible outcomes so the right discussions happen. Choosing attendees with common goals, a collaborative spirit, and a full commitment to the workshop itself (i.e., active participation rather than grant writing during the breaks!) is critical and planning ample time for new things to emerge is equally important. If designed properly, workshops should always have a product at the end (a review paper, a grant proposal, a lab exchange visit, etc.) and it behooves us as scientists to ensure that there is good bang for every buck that is invested in these sorts of international interactions of experts.
*Ed: Here are a few of those details. The workshop was a strategic effort aimed at building a partnership between the Universities of Toronto, Cambridge and York, with a focus on supporting trainee mobility within these institutions. These are the labs that participated:
- Daniel Carvalho, University Health Network
- John Dick, University Health Network
- Brian Huntly, University of Cambridge
- David Kent, University of York
- Elisa Laurenti, University of Cambridge
- Mathieu Lupien, University Health Network
David Kent
Latest posts by David Kent (see all)
- Breaking down barriers between industry and academia to accelerate gene therapy - August 22, 2023
- Reversing aging: Not just a single system to consider… - August 25, 2021
- Regenerative medicine and COVID-19: The search for a silver lining - August 26, 2020
Comments