Guest post on Yet Another Mostly Male Meeting (YAMMM) - Programming for Biology

I have posted on Twitter and other places saying that I would be willing to share here anonymous postings about meetings with skewed gender ratios.  I generally am not overly fond on anonymity on the web but realize it has some very important and powerful uses, including protecting people from retribution.  So in the case of meetings with skewed gender ratios, I know from personal experience that posting about them can lead to serious vitriol, threats, and possible repercussions.  I feel confident enough in my status and position to mostly ignore these responses but I know that not everyone is so blessed.

So - here is one such anonymous post I received.
-------------------------------------------------

Last year I was looking around for good workshops to learn programming for biology
(http://programmingforbiology.org/index.html) and
about genome assembly and annotation. I came across the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
course called "Programming for Biology" and applied as they have a good reputation.
I was happy to get in and overall really enjoyed the course. I learnt how to program in
Perl (not Python what I regret a bit), a lot of background on downstream genome analysis
and had a mostly pleasant time. An interesting slogan of the meeting was
"It's not only what you learn here, but also who you meet that makes this workshop so special"
(I am paraphrasing here a bit). Great! But wait are all big players in the field of bioinformatics
guys?

Out of the 10 Guest Lectures ALL were male.

• Scott Cain             Ontario Institute for Cancer Research
• Brian Haas            Broad Institute
• Winston Hide        Harvard School of Public Health, South African National Bioinformatics Institute
• Tomas Marques     Universitat Pompeu Fabra
• Barry Moore          University of Utah
• William Pearson    University of Virginia
• James Robinson     Broad Institute
• Michael Schatz      CSHL
• Jason Stajich          University of California, Riverside
• Paul Thomas          University of Southern California

Only 2 out of the 7 instructors and tutors were female

• Simon Prochnik DOE - Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA
• Sofia Robb         University of California, Riverside
• Steven Ahrendt University of California, Riverside
• Dave Messina Cofactor Genomics
• Shawn Rynearson University of Utah
• Deborah Triant University of Virginia
• Ken Youens-Clark University of Arizona

This means only 2 out of 17 teachers were actual women. This together with the fact that
the meeting was also sold as 'who you meet here is important' was the most disappointing
fact. There are so many talented and great female bioinformatics out there it would be
great to see at least some of them present at this workshop in 2015.

P.S.: Don't get me wrong Simon and Sofia are great and organize a lovely meeting. So this
goes under the category 'even when it hurts'.

Four simple tools to promote gender balance at conferences - guest post from Julie Pfeiffer @jkpfeiff

Guest post from Julie Pfeiffer.

Julie Pfeiffer
Associate Professor of Microbiology
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
https://twitter.com/jkpfeiff
http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu/pfeifferlab/Index/Home.html

---

Four simple tools to promote gender balance at conferences 

1. Know that you are biased. Identify your biases.

We all have biases and many of them are unconscious. You can discover your own biases using online social attitude tests developed by Project Implicit, a non-profit organization affiliated with Harvard University. The Gender-Science Implicit Association Test is particularly relevant here. It turns out that I have moderate bias linking science with males, as well as other biases. Knowing this fact has been extremely important. It is very difficult to alter unconscious bias, but it is easy to understand that you are biased and edit your actions accordingly. For example, if I need to make a list of potential speakers or authors quickly, the list will be of senior men from the United States. The key is to spend time EDITING the list to ensure diversity.

2. Keep track of numbers.

Most individuals in leadership positions are not seeking to exclude women or other groups from plenary talks, career opportunities, etc. Instead, they simply forget to count. They forget to keep track of gender ratio and other types of diversity. They forget to edit. When leaders/organizers have diversity in mind, diversity is relatively easy to achieve. Two examples illustrate this point:

1) Vincent Racaniello is President of the American Society for Virology and his goal was to put together an outstanding and diverse group of plenary speakers for the annual meeting in 2015. He asked for speaker suggestions via emails and Twitter (https://twitter.com/profvrr). He made a list and he edited it. The result? The best representation of female scientists at a conference I have ever seen--- 50% of the plenary speakers at ASV this year are female.



2) The Associate Editors at the Journal of Virology choose topics and authors for short reviews called “Gems”. The goal was to have high diversity in several areas including author gender, author career stage, author location, and topic. To keep ourselves on track to achieve this goal, we included several extra columns in our author/topic spreadsheet: Female? Non-USA location? Junior PI? This simple reminder in the spreadsheet has helped us select relatively diverse authors and topics: ~30% are female, ~30% are Assistant Professors, and ~20% are at institutions outside the United States.

3. Create lists and ask people for suggestions. 


Trying to come up with names of female scientists de novo can be a challenge. A few months ago, Carolyn Coyne, Erica Ollmann-Saphire, and Clodagh O’Shea made a list of as many female virologists as they could. Over wine, they devised a list of 70 names. We have circulated this list to many of our colleagues and tweeted a request to send missing names. The list is now at 349 and is publicly available (please tweet missing names to https://twitter.com/jkpfeiff). It is much easier to think of diverse options for speakers and authors by using a pre-existing list. Virologists with this list can no longer claim that they “couldn’t think of a female speaker”. Each field could benefit from a list like this, which could also include other underrepresented groups. Several of these lists exist, as has been highlighted on this and other blogs.

4. Speak up and enlist the help of supportive senior faculty.

Expressing concern to conference organizers about low speaker diversity can go a long way. While it may be difficult to change the speaker list close to the conference date, mentioning the lack of diversity could change the future landscape of the conference. I have an example from my own experience: I created an international shitstorm that had a great outcome. In year three of my faculty position I was considering whether to attend a major conference, so I checked the speaker list to help make my decision. Zero of 18 plenary speakers were female. I decided not to attend. Instead, I emailed the conference organizer to express my disappointment with the complete lack of female plenary speakers. His response, over several emails, was less than supportive:

“…. Finally, the gender, race, religion has never been, to my opinion, valuable ways to select presenters of scientific works. The selection of the Plenary Lectures has been made by the Organizing Committee, that comprises a woman, based on the topic, then the best possible speaker on the topic…. I am aware of the current debate in our societies about "minimum numbers". I do not think they would help the cause of women in science.”

While this organizer was not supportive or responsive to my speaker suggestions, five senior (famous) faculty members in the field were hyper-supportive. Upon hearing this story, they each contacted the organizer and expressed their concern about the lack of diversity. It was too late to change the program for the conference that year. However, in every subsequent year, the plenary speakers at this conference have included women and other underrepresented groups. So, it’s possible that a simple email from a young scientist can make a difference, particularly with the help of senior faculty.

Calling attention to meetings with skewed speaker gender ratios, even when it hurts, part 2

A few weeks ago I gave a talk at the Future of Genomic Medicine 2015 (aka #FOGM15) meeting.  The talk seemed to go over well.  I talked right after Martin Blaser in a session on "The Microbiome".  I posted my slides and then a video of my talk as well as notes from the meeting: see My microbiome talk at #FOGM15 - the perils (and fun I guess) of redoing one's talk at the last minute.  And I met some really interesting people at the meeting and enjoyed most of the talks I went to.

But alas, one thing stuck in my head from this meeting.  One single Tweet from someone out there threw me for a loop:

Hey @phylogenomics, 77% of talks at #FOGM15 given by male speakers #justsayin
— Mick Watson (@BioMickWatson) March 6, 2015

And this let to a bit of soul searching on my part.  Some of the conversations on Twitter are captured in this Storify:

Which I guess culminated in a post to the organizers of the meeting

Dear #FOGM15 organizers - next time - you can (and really MUST) do MUCH better with the gender ratio of speakers
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics) March 6, 2015

Then, when I left the meeting I went to say goodbye to the organizers.  And, well, one of them did not take too kindly to the critique of the meeting, saying that they were doing a better job than other healthcare meetings.  I disagreed and said I thought they could do much better, but I had no numbers to cite at the time and the conversation ended there.

So on the way to the airport I started digging around for some numbers and I found some great resources - especially this from Rock Health.

Reading - The XX Speaker Project — XX in Health re #fogm15 http://t.co/Z5ir26g3qd
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics) March 7, 2015

And for the last few weeks I have continued to fester wondering - well - should I post more about this?  Should I dig into the gender ratio of the FOGM meetings in more detail?  Well, why do it?  Because I think it is important to know how meetings perform in terms of diversity.  Why not do it?  Well, I like Eric Topol and the other organizers.  And the meeting has many strong points.  But, as I wrote a few days ago - sometimes one needs to call attention to meeting gender ratio issues, even when it hurts.  

So then I decided to dig a little deeper and look at past versions of the "Future of Genomic Medicine".  And, well, when I did this, things just do not look so good (detailed analysis is at the end of the post). (Note - for the numbers i counted all presenting slots - session chairs, keynotes, welcomes, etc.  The numbers are not much different if one counts just "talks").

If one compares these meetings to the ones catalogued by Rock Health, the FOGM meetings are at the low end.  Not the worst certainly.  But definitely not something to be proud of.  And certainly something that could be improved upon enormously.  So I repeat the Tweet I posted during the meeting, and I stand by it, even if it means I am unlikely to be invited back and even if it means pissing off some big shots in the world of genomics ...

Dear #FOGM15 organizers - next time - you can (and really MUST) do MUCH better with the gender ratio of speakers
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics) March 6, 2015

If you are running a meeting, please consider the ways in which bias may creep into the speaker and session chair slots.  If speakers come from invitations, perhaps the invitation list is biased.  Perhaps certain types of people are more likely to say no to invitations.  Perhaps the timing of the meeting (e.g., on weekend) may lead certain types of people to not be able to participate.  Perhaps the meeting does not provide enough travel funds or child care or the right kind of schedule.  There are so many things that can lead to bias - from explicit bias against certain groups to very subtle implicit biases.  Consider inviting people from diverse career stages, which can open up speaking slots to more women and underrepresented minorities.  Consider providing child care.  Consider asking people why they say no to invitations to try and understand what is going on if many people say no.  Consider asking for help in finding speakers covering the diversity in the field.

If you do all these things, and the meeting still does not have diverse speakers, well, try some other things.  Keep trying to figure it out.  There are resources out there that can help.  Read things like Some suggestions for having diverse speakers at meetings (by me) and Ten Simple Rules to Achieve Conference Speaker Gender Balance (by Jenny Martin) and Increasing Diversity at Your Conference by Ashe Dryden (which is just completely awesome) and How To Create A More Diverse Tech Conference ... and Would I attend my own conference? - O'Reilly Radar by Sarah Milstein.

Why is this important?  Well, speaking at a meeting is important for people's careers.  It helps in merit and promotion and tenure cases.  It helps get their work recognized and known.  Speaking at a meeting is also good practice for speaking at other meetings.  Having diverse speakers also is important in terms of providing role models to attendees.  And having diverse speakers helps a meeting not just be about the same old, white, men talking about their ideas.  Or, in other words, it makes a meeting more, well, diverse.  And almost certainly more interesting.  And so on.  Diversity of speakers at meetings is important for 100s of reasons.  And don't just focus on one aspect of diversity.  I post a lot about women speakers because, well, it is easy to make a reasonable guess as to whether a person is male or female.  But there are MANY other aspects of diversity to consider (see Increasing Diversity at Your Conference by Ashe Dryden (which I referenced above and which really is awesome).

Anyway - if you are organizing a meeting, make sure to think about these issues.  And do something about them.  And if you are invited to a meeting, look at the speaker list (if it is available) and consider saying no to speaking if the meeting has diversity issues (see a post of mine about doing this here: Turning down an endowed lectureship because their gender ratio is too skewed towards males #WomenInSTEM).

And if you are considering attending a meeting, consider diversity of speakers when deciding whether or not to attend.  Meetings with high diversity of speakers should be supported.  Meetings with poor diversity relative to possible candidate speakers (e.g., who is in the field) should be avoided, shunned, and called out.  We need to force change upon some fields and the only way will be to call out the bad apples.  Mind you, it is not possible to know WHY a meeting has a skew in terms of diversity of speakers.  Thus one additional thing to consider is whether something is a consistent pattern.  For example see my post about meetings from the National Academy of Sciences Sackler Colloquia - Apparently, the National Academy of Sciences thinks only one sex is qualified to talk about alternatives to sex #YAMMM. Sadly it seems to me that the FOGM meetings have a consistent pattern of poor representation of women among the presenters.  Unless the organizers commit to changing this, I think people should not attend this meeting in the future.

---

Detailed analyses of these meetings are below.

People I have identified as males are labelled in yellow.  People I have identified as females are in green.  I realize that this is an imperfect thing to do.  I may make mistakes in my inferences.  And dividing people into two categories is not representative of the true diversity in the human population.  But I still think this is a useful, informative thing to try to do.

---

2015 FOGM (schedule is from the one sent around to participants on 3/4/15)

• Welcome
• Eric Topol
• Pateint #1 - Eunice Lee and Nilesh Dharajiya
• Francis Collins
• Session 1
• Moderator Ali Torkamani
• Diana Bianchi
• Evan Muse
• Stephen Quake
• David Hoon
• Session 2
• Moderator Ali Torkamani
• Mark McCarthy
• Christopher Austin
• George Yancopoulos
• Session 3
• Moderators Nathan Wineinger and Andrew Su
• Atul Butte
• Eric Schadt
• Andrew Su
• Joe Pickrell
• Welcome Day 2
• Patient #2
• Eric Topol
• Session 4: 
• Moderator Ali Torkamani
• Cristian Tomasetti
• Nazneen Rahman
• Roni Ziegler
• Session 5
• Moderators Kristin Baldwin and Fyodor Urnov
• J. Keith Joung
• Fyodor Urnov
• TBD
• Kristin Baldwin
• Session 5
• Moderator Kristian Andersen
• Martin Blaser
• Jonathan Eisen
• Stephen Steinhubl
• Session 6
• Moderator David Goldstein  (he did not show up)
• Elizabeth Worthey
• Ali Torkamani
• Seth Mnookin
• Virginia Hughes

All speaker and session chair slots

• Male: 30 (81%)
• Female: 7 (19%)

Just speakers

• Male: 23
• Female: 6

---

2014 - Future of Genomic Medicine VII -  schedule from here

• Welcome
• Chris Van Gorder, FACHE
• Eric J. Topol, MD
• Patient / Family #1
• Session 1
• Frank McCormick
• Bert Vogelstein
• Elaine Mardis
• Robert Nussbaum
• Sarah Jane Dawson
• Michael Pellini
• Session 2
• J. Craig Venter
• Eric Topol 
• Al Gore
• Heidi Rehm
• Muin Khoury
• Session 3
• Moderator Katrina Kelner
• Leonid Kruglyak
• Carl Zimmer
• Magdalena Skipper
• Chris Gunter
• Session 4
• Patient / Family #2
• Athur Beaudet
• Jay Shendure
• Howard Jacob
• Hakon Hakonarson
• David Epstein
• Nir Birzalai
• Ali Torkamani
• Jeffrey Hammerbacher
• Session 5
• Michael Specter
• Jessica Richman
• Andrew Feinberg
• Russ Altman
• Anne Wojcicki
• Harry Greenspun
• Zubin Damania

Speakers

• Male: 25 (76%)
• Female: 8 (24%)

---

2013 - Future of Genomic Medicine VI - schedule from here

• Welcome: Eric Topol
• Patient / Family #1
• Session 1:
• Michael Snyder
• William Gahl
• Howard Jacob
• Ali Torkamani
• Gholson Lyon
• Cinnamon Bloss
• Misha Angrist
• Session 2
• Evan Eichler
• Eric Schadt
• Katrina Armstrong
• George Weinstock
• Session 3
• Joe Ecker
• Stephen Kingsmore
• Stephen Quake
• Session 4
• Patient / Family #2
• Siddhartha Mukherjee
• Elaine Mardis
• Daniel D. Von Hoff
• Randy Scott
• Susan Desmond Hellman
• Elias Zerhouni
• Janet Woodcock
• Session 5
• Peter Vesscher
• David Goldstein
• George Church
• Jonathan Eisen
• Atul Butte
• AJ Jacobs
• Neil Risch
• Lonny Reisman
• Daniel MacArthur

Speakers

• Male: 26 (84%)
• Female: 5 (16%)

---

2012 Future of Genomic Medicine V - schedule from here

• Welcome
• Chris Van Gorder, FACHE
• Eric J. Topol, MD
• Joseph Beery and Family
• Moderators: Samuel Levy, PhD and Eric J. Topol, MD
• Samuel Levy, PhD
• Matthew J. Price, MD
• Julie Johnson, PharmD
• Michael R. Hayden MB, ChB, PhD
• William E. Evans, PharmD
• Moderators: Evan Eichler, PhD and Sarah Murray,
• Evan Eichler, PhD
• Christofer Toumazou, PhD
• Siddharta Mukherjee, MD, PhD
• Sarah Murray, PhD
• Moderators Nicholas Schork, PhD and Bradley Patay, MD
• Hakon Hakonarson, MD, PhD
• Isaac Kohane , MD, PhD
• John A. Todd, FRS, PhD
• Moderators Eric J. Topol, MD and Nicholas Schork, PhD
• Howard J. Jacob, PhD
• Joseph G. Gleeson, MD
• Stanley F. Nelson, MD
• Lynn Jorde, PhD (note - originalled labelled as female - corrected thanks to comment from Bruce Rannala)
• Eric J. Topol, MD
• Moderators: Aravinda Chakravarti, PhD and Richard Klausner, 
• Aravinda Chakravarti, PhD
• Joseph Nadeau, PhD
• Nicholas Schork, PhD
• Hakon Hakonarson MD, PhD
• Moderator Eric Topol
• Matthew Herper
• Daniel B. Vorhaus, JD, MA
• Issam Zineh, PharmD, MPH
• Moderators: Elaine Mardis, PhD and Jeffrey Trent, PhD
• Richard D. Klausner, MD
• Thomas J. Hudson, MD
• Jeffrey M. Trent, PhD
• Daniel D. Von Hoff, MD
• Elaine R. Mardis, PhD
• Moderators: Samuel Levy, PhD and Fred Gage, PhD
• Fred H. Gage, PhD
• Bruce D. Gelb, MD
• Joseph C. Wu, MD, PhD

All speaker and session chair slots

• Male: 44 (88%)  45 (90 %)
• Female: 6 (12%) 5 (10 %)

Just speakers

• Male: 31 32 (91.4%)
• Female: 4  3 (8.6%)

---

2011 Future of Genomic Medicine IV - schedule from here

• Session 1: Moderators: Sarah S. Murray, PhD and Eric J. Topol, MD
• Hannah A. Valantine, MD
• Geoff Ginsburg, MD, PhD
• Steve Shak, MD
• Cinnamon S. Bloss, PhD
• Matthew J. Price, MD
• Session 2: Moderators: Bradley Patay, MD and Nicholas J. Schork, PhD
• Kevin Davies, PhD
• Thomas Goetz, MPh
• Melanie Swan, MBA
• Session 3: Moderators: Samuel Levy, PhD and Nicholas J. Schork, PhD
• Kári Stefánsson, MD
• Aravinda Chakravarti, PhD
• Howard J. Jacob, PhD
• Sarah S. Murray, PhD
• James R. Lupski, MD, PhD
• Nicholas J. Schork, PhD
• Stephen L. Hauser, MD
• David R. Bentley, D.Phil, F.Med.Sci.
• Keynote: Juan Enriquez, BA, MBA
• Session 4: Moderators: Robert L. Strausberg, PhD and Samuel Levy, PhD
• Robert L. Strausberg, PhD
• Elaine R. Mardis, PhD
• Thomas J. Kipps, MD, PhD
• Samuel Levy, PhD
• Daniel D. Von Hoff, MD
• Dennis A. Carson, MD
• Session 5: Moderators: Eric J. Topol, MD and Bradley Patay, MD
• Eric J. Topol, MD
• Amy Harmon
• Misha Angrist, PhD
• Session 6: Moderators: Sarah S. Murray, PhD and Samuel Levy, PhD
• Hakon Hakonarson, MD, PhD
• Mark McCarthy, MD, F.Med.Sci.
• Karen Mohlke, PhD
• Stephen S. Rich, PhD
• Philippe Froguel, MD, PhD
• Muredach P. Reilly, MB, MS

All speaker and session chair slots

• Male: 35 (80%)
• Female: 9 (20%)

Calling attention to poor speaker gender ratio - even when it hurts

So I saw this Tweet earlier today

Will be an excellent symposium! Register here @UCPlantBreeding http://t.co/Nd86UAr3hJ

— Gena Hoffman (@GenaEHoffman) March 24, 2015

And that sounded very interesting. So I clicked on the link to check out the Plant Breeding for Food Security: The Global Impact of Plant Genetics in Rice Production A symposium honoring Dr. Gurdev Khush symposium.  And, then I went to the program.  And sadly I saw something there that was not to my liking.  The speakers were almost all male (men labelled in yellow, women in green)

• Welcome to the Khush Symposium (Alan Bennett)
• The Plant Breeding Center (Charles Brummer)
• The Confucius Institute (Glenn Young)
• Global food production – challenges and opportunities (Ken Cassman) Food production, technology and climate (David Lobell)
• Panel – Impact of Gurdev Khush on plant genetics and food security Tomato genetics
• (Dani Zamir)
• (Pam Ronald)
•  (Gary Toenniessen)
•  (Gurdev Khush)
• Lunch; The California Rice Industry (Kent McKenzie)
• The rice theory of culture (Thomas Talhelm)
• Recent advances in rice productivity and the future (David MacKill)
• Hybrid rice technology contributions to global food security (Sant Virmani)
• Super green rice (Qifa Zhang)
• Tackling the wheat yield barrier (Matthew Reynolds)
• African Orphan Crops – inspiration and execution (Howard Shapiro/Allen Van Deynze)

If this was a symposium outside UC Davis the first thing I would do would be to post about it.  To Twitter or my blog or both.  And to critique them.  Why?  Because there is a bad history in STEM fields of having meetings and conferences have under-representation of women as speakers.  And this has become a passion of mine and I write about it a lot.  But I hesitated.  Why?  Because this was from UC Davis and many of the people involved are friends / colleagues.  I did not want to anger them, or embarrass them.  And I don't think there is any intentional bias here by any means.  But, if I am going to critique people outside UC Davis, it seems like I should also apply the same standards to people inside UC Davis and to colleagues and friends.

So I posted to Twitter a response:

@GenaEHoffman @UCPlantBreeding sadly the gender ratio of speakers is pretty disappointing - looks like about 14:1 M:F #STEMWomen
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics) March 25, 2015

But that did not seem sufficient.  So I wrote up this post.  Underrepresentation of women as speakers is a serious issue in STEM fields.  And it is solvable (e.g., see Some suggestions for having diverse speakers at meetings by myself and the wonderful Ten Simple Rules to Achieve Conference Speaker Gender Balance by Jennifer Martin).

Now - do I know who the possible speakers were for this symposium?  No - I don't really know the field.  Is it possible that there just are no women in the field?  Sure.  But I would bet anything that is not the case here.  Having a meeting where the ratio of speakers is 16:1 male: female sets a bad example.  UC Davis and the organizers of this meeting can do better.  And though this will possibly hurt me in various ways (I already got grief from one person who I will not name for the Tweet), I think it is critical that we call out examples such as this.

And finally I note - I have taken on the issue of women at STEM conferences and meetings because, well, it is easy to identify cases where the numbers are anomalous and it is relatively easy to solve.  But it is also important that we consider other aspects of diversity of speakers (age, ethnicity, career stage, etc).  It is important to have diversity of speakers at meetings for many many reasons.  Speaking is a career building opportunity.  Speakers serve as role models for others.  Diverse points of view are important to have represented.  Bias - whether simplicity or explicit damages the whole practice of science.  And more.  Yes, we need to work on many aspects of diversity in STEM fields.  Improving the diversity of speakers at meetings is but one part of this.  But it is an important part and it is relatively easy to do.  So just do it.  And call attention to it.  Even if it hurts.



UPDATE 3/25 11:29 AM

The meeting organizers have responded on Twitter

@phylogenomics @GenderAvenger Hey Jonathan, we were writing a response & 140 characters didn't cover it. #STEMWomen pic.twitter.com/rmGkSJTUBc
— PlantBreedingCenter (@UCPlantBreeding) March 25, 2015

Storify of some responses here

Today's gender biased meeting-GlycoCom2015-sponsored by @generalelectric @ualberta #YAMMM

Got pointed to this via a Tweet:

@phylogenomics yet another ... http://t.co/lNCJJ6CiLo
— Lewis-X Research (@Lewis_Lab) March 8, 2015

The Tweet pointed to this meeting: Home - Glycomics Official Website of GlycoCom Conference 2015 in Banff, Alberta, Canada.  Lame.  14:1 ratio of men: women speakers.  Just completewly lame.

Confirmed Speakers

• Richard Cummings, Emory University School of Medicine
• Paul DeAngelis, University of Oklahoma and Caisson Biotech LLC
• Donald Jarvis, University of Wyoming and GlycoBac LLC
• Nicole Koropatkin, University of Michigan Medical School
• Mario Feldman, Washington University, St. Louis and VaxAlta Inc.
• Gordon Lauc, University of Zagreb
• Todd Lowary, Alberta Glycomics Centre and University of Alberta
• John Magnani, GlycoMimetics Inc.
• Glenn Prestwich, University of Utah and GlycoMira Therapeutics Inc.
• Peter Seeberger, Max Plank Institute
• Tadashi Suzuki, RIKEN Global Research Cluster
• Ajit Varki, University of California, San Diego
• David Vocadlo, Simon Fraser University and Alectos Therapeutics Inc.
• Michael Wacker, GlycoVaxyn AG
• Robert Woods, Complex Carbohydrate Research Center & Glycosensors & Diagnostics, LLC

The University of Alberta and GE and the other sponsors should be embarassed by this.  

Today's YAMMM - The British Society for Plant Pathology

Well, this is not the most egregious example of a mostly male meeting but it still has some issues: The BSPP - The British Society for Plant Pathology 2015 meeting.  Nine speakers.  Seven male.  And this in a field with plenty of excellent female researchers.

Cassava brown streak disease
(1) James Legg - IITA Tanzania
(2) Stephan Winter - Leibniz Institute DSMZ Germany
(3) Maruthi Gowda - Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich

Late blight
(1) Bill Fry - Cornell University
(2) Sophien Kamoun - Sainsbury Lab, Norwich
(3) Jonathan Jones - Sainsbury Lab, Norwich

Rice blast
(1) Sarah Gurr - University of Exeter
(2) Lauren Ryder - University of Exeter
(3) Thomas Kroj - INRA, Montpellier, France

But the weirdest part --  it says

"This year, the BSPP President, Prof. Gary Foster, has only chosen a few invited speakers on specific diseases, and wishes the remainder of the talks to be selected from offered papers."

So does this mean Prof. Gary Foster just picked all speakers?  If so, perhaps Prof. Gary Foster needs to do a little thinking about his possible biases ...

Another "Yet another mostly male meeting (YAMMM)" from BGI

Well just saw an announcement for this meeting on Twitter: The First Announcement of The Tenth Annual Meeting of the International Conference on Genomics (ICG

And I hoped beyond hope that they would have a decent representation of women speakers at the meeting.  Why did I hope this?  Well, in the past, BGI run meetings have had incredibly skewed gender ratios of speakers.  See this post for a discussion of their past record: Kudos to the DOE-JGI for organizing a genomics meeting w/ a good gender ratio - no kudos to BGI - yet again

I guess I had hoped that perhaps they would try to change their practices after I and other people criticized them for their past record.  So - I went to the web site for the ICG10 meeting advertised in the Tweet.  Oh well, silly me for hoping.

On the front page they have 14 speakers they are promoting - all of them male.

Screen shot from ICG10 web site

On the announcement page they have a slightly different list where the ratio is 14:1

• Jef Boeke, NYU Langone University School of Medicine, USA
• Sydney Brenner, 2002 Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine, Singapore
• Charles Cantor, Sequenom, Inc., USA
• Julio Celis, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Denmark
• Richard Durbin, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, UK
• Leroy Hood, Institute for Systems Biology, USA
• Thomas Hudson, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Canada
• Maria Leptin, Chair of EMBO, Germany
• Maynard Olson, University of Washington, USA
• Aristides Patrinos, J. Craig Venter Institute, USA
• Mu-ming Poo, University of California, Berkeley, USA
• Richard Roberts, New England Biolabs, 1993 Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine, USA
• Eils Roland, Heidelberg University, Germany
• Mathias Uhlen, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
• Tilhuan Yilma, University of California, Davis, USA

Regardless, this is a consistent pattern of not having an even remotely balanced ratio of male to female speakers at their meetings.  And please, avoid their meetings until they change this.