PNNL

Abstract

At about this time every year, I renew my memberships to several scientific societies, and every year I ask myself the same question: “Should I bother?” In years past, the answer was easy because being a member came with tangible benefits, such as inexpensive journals and the ability to submit abstracts to annual meetings. Nowadays, these perks don’t seem very important. Most society journals are freely available online, and the proliferation of scientific meetings has made it easier to find venues to present my current research. Thus, the volume with which I ask that question—“should I bother?”—has steadily increased. Most scientific societies were established to promote the development and acceptance of a particular field of research. Society journals and annual meetings were the primary way this was accomplished. More recently, the larger societies have expanded their roles to include lobbying for increases in research funding and providing career advice. Although these are worthwhile activities, I don’t need to belong to multiple scientific societies to support them. I almost always renew my society memberships, but I think that it is more out of a sense of tradition than need. Clearly, I am not the only scientist who is ambivalent about societies. Judging from their newsletters, many of the larger societies are struggling with stagnant or declining memberships, especially among young scientists. Although it is the youngest scientists who potentially have the most to gain from a scientific society (from networking, career advice), they are the ones who usually are most poorly served by those societies. This is because scientific societies generally cater to the status quo, not to the new and emerging elements of a field.