Don't Volunteer Your Time For An Industry Conference Before Reading This

By Rob Wright, Chief Editor, Life Science Leader
Follow Me On Twitter @RfwrightLSL

When I was asked to participate in the 2015 BIO International Convention’s Program Committee as the co-chair, I weighed the decision very carefully. I know that my most precious, limited, and nonrenewable resource is time. If I am to commit some of this resource to BIO, it will necessitate me, by default, choosing not to spend some time doing other things — especially if I want to do a good job. I imagine other members of the 2015 committee similarly weighed their decision. At the conclusion of our first in-person planning meeting in Philadelphia this past October, I proposed committee members consider sharing some of their wisdom. Should you find yourself contemplating volunteering your time for the planning of a conference, consider the following insights from a couple members of this year’s committee, as well as some of the metrics from the convention’s recent call for session proposals.

Why did you choose to become a member of the 2015 BIO International Convention Program Committee?

Laurie Actman, COO, Penn Center For Innovation, University of Pennsylvania: To support the development of a world-class program and to align with the world-class academic, industry, and government leadership in the life sciences industry in greater Philadelphia.

Ian Wright, Consultant, Advanced Clinical Biosystems Research Institute: My first visit to the BIO International Convention was in 2014. I was very impressed by the atmosphere and buzz in the Convention’s Exhibition Hall and meeting rooms. There was such a spirit of entrepreneurship and feeling of things getting done that I made up my mind then that I would return in 2015. I was also acutely aware of the significance of having BIO return to the mid-Atlantic area. I am a proud board member of the Delaware BioScience Association, and I wanted to help make this event showcase all of what this region (and Delaware in particular) has to offer in terms of being world-class biotechnology base and exporter of technology.

What are some key factors you look for in grading a session proposal?

Actman: I look for thematic and strategic cohesion among the session topic and speakers represented as well as people representing stakeholders that will be of high interest to attendees.

Wright: I am looking primarily for sessions I would want to attend. I like to see participants clearly state and understand a question or problem that is not well enough understood or managed today. There is always plenty of room for new technology or basic science, but at a conference of this type, for me at least, there will be an emphasis on what problem any presented technology or business model is solving. This doesn’t always need to be disease focused. I think in terms of overall health impact, such as technologies that either make healthcare more affordable or easier for more people to participate, can be just as, if not even more, impactful.

For a conference of this stature, it should be a given that the quality of any results or analysis is very high. I also like interesting personalities, especially on panel sessions. I understand not everyone is comfortable “acting out” in front of a large crowd of peers, especially if the work or message they are presenting is high quality. But the time does go faster when the presenter is engaging and the message stimulating.

Metrics To Consider Before Getting Involved In A Conference

When I gave my opening remarks to this year’s committee, I discussed the metric of time. I noted that if you live to be 75 you have 39,420,000 million minutes. While this got everyone’s attention, I saw several folks stunned when I said, “This means at my current age, I have less than 15 million minutes left.” While I consider being involved in the planning of BIO 2015 a very worthwhile use of my time, here are some metrics to consider so you make a good decision on being involved in a conference.

• The complete list of this year’s session proposals received by BIO was over 300, totaling 740 pages. That’s a lot of proposals to review. BIO has divided the Sessions into six focus areas. This helps committee members by ensuring they are reviewing and grading only proposals in their focus area. However, here are the number of submissions per focus area:
  • Biomedical Technology: Research & Development (92 proposals)
  • Business Development & Finance (79)
  • Digital Health (19)
  • General Biotechnology Interest (59)
  • Intellectual Property (30)
  • Value, Market Access & Commercialization (59).

As you can see, this is a lot of work for a volunteer. Be sure that if you are going to commit your time to a worthy cause like the BIO International Convention, you are willing to put in the time necessary in your role — as the 338 aspiring change agents did in submitting their proposals.

Finally, I should note that I skimmed through the largest group of session submissions, Biomedical Technology R&D. Within the proposal is a question: “What company are you submitting on behalf of?” I began keeping tabs on the responses. What I found interesting is that although there are a number of companies you would expect to be seeking participation in a show as big as BIO, there were just as many conspicuously absent. I find this surprising because, to me, thought leadership demands leading by example, as well as a willingness to share best practices at key events and engaging with your learned colleagues.