List of AGBT2010 talks that do not allow public discussion.

Not that I want anyone to feel guilty, but I thought I’d keep a list of people who do not allow twittering (or blogging about their talk.)  Admittedly, sometimes there are good reasons, so I’ll post those as well, if I’m aware of it.

This is simply so that I can keep track of which talks will not have notes. I expect this list to grow, unfortunately.

  • Rick Wilson: Was presenting someone else’s talk, which included unpublished data.
  • Richard Weinshilboum, Mayo Clinic: No reason given.
  • Kerstin Lindblad-Toh, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard: No reason given.
  • Greg Barsh, Hudson/Alpha Institute: No reason given.
  • Olivier Harismendy, UC San Diego: (See comment below)
  • Michelle Sam, Ontario Institute of Cancer Research: No reason given.
  • James Lupski, Baylor College of Medicine: Discussing confidential patient information. [May have included unpublished data.]
  • Martin Hibberd, Genome Institute of Singapore: No reason given.
  • Shanmuga Sozhamannan, Naval Medical Research Center: Presenting unpublished data.
  • Peter White, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital: No reason given.

These are only the talks I’ve been to.  If anyone wants to give me the names of other who are anti-blogging/anti-twitter from the other sessions, I can add those, but those are obviously not strictly holes in my notes, since I wouldn’t have been attending those talks.

7 thoughts on “List of AGBT2010 talks that do not allow public discussion.

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention List of AGBT2010 talks that do not allow discussion. | --

    • Meh – if they don’t want us twittering and bloging about them, I certainly don’t think it’s worth advertising their talks for them. I’m pretty sure you can find them on the AGBT web site, if you’re curious enough to find them.

      • Fair enough. I just thought there maybe a theme to the talks with a no blogging/twitter policy; for example all clinical data etc.

        Thanks for all the notes you’ve posted, I’ve done this in the past for ISMB, so I know it requires more effort that just passively listening!

        • No, many of the early talks were just “non-twittered” from the lack of knowledge of the speakers about what twittering is. A few of them were clearly reiews of published data, which made the no tweeting that much harder to understand.
          Various theories were proposed, including correlation with age, but in reality, I just think that confronted with the question “Do you want your talk tweeted?”, most people just defaulted to no.
          And yes, tit’s impossible to take notes and listen passively – but hey, if you ever need a way to make sure you stay awake and you can’t drink coffee, this isn’t a bad way to do it!

  2. Dear Anthony,

    I was not given the opportunity to justify my non-tweeting restriction. I will simply say that I currently have several funding requests pending that are based on this work and I think that tweet/blog and all associated comments have a possibility to interfere with the review process. For this reason I would like to keep my work quiet on the web.

    I appreciate what you and all other tweeters are doing and am fully supportive of it. In other circumstances, I would have authorized the broad diffusion of my work.

    Thanks for your understanding,


    • Hi Oliver – that’s for letting us know. It’s hard to see why some of the talks are being restricted, when the content really appears to be in the public domain already, although it’s clear in other cases that there are good reasons.. I’ll update the post above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.