Is declining an offer to give a talk at a conference halfway around the world a bad idea?

Question

My group leader was supposed to give an invited presentation (all expenses paid) at a conference halfway around the world. Due to personal reasons he can't go (more or less last minute, the event is in a month) and has asked me to give the presentation for him, the conference organizers are happy with this switch.

The issue is, this would be the longest flight I ever took in my life. I don't like flying and I personally try avoid flying whenever possible due to the impact of flying on climate change. I am torn, as this is quite the opportunity (I am still a PhD student) and that my group leader chose me as the replacement instead of other more senior colleagues, on the other hand I think it is insane to fly halfway around the world for a presentation that takes 1 hour.

Is it ok to say no to such an offer and explain why I do not want to go, or will this be carreer suicide? What is the best and most diplomatic way to decline without causing too much damage? Or should I rather bite the bullet and just go?

Answer 1

The problem with this type of opportunity is that you can't predict the outcome. It could be that you receive great applause after your presentation, and then someone approaches you with a job offer (this actually happened to me!) Or it could be that you attend, give your talk, nobody talks to you throughout the conference, and it turns out to be an absolute waste of time (this has happened to me more times than I can count). And then the Earth's climate is a bit warmer because of you.

I will argue that the critical piece of information in your question is that you are a PhD student. You need all the contacts you can get, and all the exposure you can get. The person who suggested you as replacement will owe you a solid one. The conference organizers will thank you. If there's a banquet, they might seat you with the big wigs. And you are at the stage where you need to get your ideas in front of as many people as possible.

If you decide to decline the invitation, however, it won't be career suicide. The reasons you were invited in the first place will remain to be true. And the Earth will thank you.

Answer 2

Oh boy, is there a lot of cynicism in the comments ...

Is it ok to say no to such an offer and explain why I do not want to go, or will this be carreer suicide?

First off, saying no to one specific conference invitation is certainly not "career suicide". Opportunities come and go, and all of us sometimes (or rather: quite frequently) need to leave some opportunities on the wayside because of circumstances. So if you feel particularly bad about this specific conference then just say no and go on with your life. Sure, just maybe this would have been the transformative event for your young career, but much more likely it would have been like most conferences - mildly interesting, but not something very different to the dozens of other conferences you have or will attend.

That said, saying no to all international conference invitations will be a severe hinderance (unless academia radically changes in the next years). I understand your concerns, and they are definitely valid, but right now academia is a reputation game, and not attending conferences would be a disadvantage you likely can't afford. We all like to believe that our journal papers will speak for themselves, but my slightly cynic observation is that they do not, if the competition also has good journal papers and travels around the world to advertise them.

So the question I would ask myself is: is this conference much worse than other conferences in terms of climate impact? For example, if you live in the US and the conference is in Australia this may be the case - there will be plenty of high-profile conferences that you could attend instead, some of which you can take the train to. However, if you live in Australia, almost any (international) conference will be "halfway around the world", and, quite frankly, you will need to come to terms with the idea of going to such meetings once or twice a year.

One way not to reduce the climate impact, but to make it more "worth it", is to combine your long international travel with other activities. For example, if you already go around the world you can take the opportunity to travel, have a nice vacation, or visit other universities. When I was a PhD student, I travelled to a lot for conferences, but I never went on a plane just to take a vacation (and even now, 10+ years later, my desire to take a long flight just to see a place is limited since I have visited most places that interest me after a conference).

What is the best and most diplomatic way to decline without causing too much damage?

If your group leader is sympathetic to your climate concerns you can just tell them. If not, I would make up some other reason (concurrent obligations, some family commitment, etc.). As you can see from the comments, the sad reality is that some people will get really upset if you bring up climate concerns, and start questioning your commitment to academia. If you are unsure I would probably make up a white lie.

Answer 3

I personally try avoid flying whenever possible due to the impact of flying on climate change. [...] I think it is insane to fly halfway around the world for a presentation that takes 1 hour.

I think this is an odd opinion for a researcher to have about their own group's work. Surely the reason you are doing research at all is because you think there is enough value in it?

Consider how much effort and resources went into the research project which culminated in this conference submission. Perhaps a few researchers spent a few weeks each on it, which means that bright minds were focused on that project rather than something else; and other costs may have been incurred. If it's insane to fly halfway around the world to present the results, is it not also insane to do the research that produced those results in order to present them? After all, submitting the results to an international conference was presumably the end-goal of this project from its inception.

You're probably thinking at this point that the paper containing the same results will be published in the conference proceedings, and people can read that paper whether or not you present at the conference. But the number of people who will ever read that paper, is probably at best similar to the number who would see your presentation; and certainly more people will read it if you present than if you don't.

So telling your group leader that you would rather not present for this reason, is essentially saying that you think presenting this work would have less value for the world than the cost of one plane journey's worth of CO2. Not only should you not say that to your group leader (it would be incredibly rude!), but if you really believe it, then it seems like you should have a much bigger decision to make about your work than just whether to present at this one conference. Is there some other research you could be doing instead, that would be worth presenting?

---

Consider this analogy: suppose Amy is tasked with driving across town to deliver a book to Bob, and Amy declines because driving will cause CO2 emissions. Without judging Amy for her decision, we still must conclude that Amy thinks the value of Bob receiving that book is less than the CO2 cost of one car journey.

This is not a cost-benefit analysis, and I'm not saying Amy should or shouldn't deliver the book. Rather I'm saying if she decides not to for this reason, then that reveals that she does not value Bob getting the book that much.

Now suppose that Amy is the author of that book! To me, there is an obvious question: if Amy doesn't think the book is worth delivering to a reader, why did she think it was worth writing and getting printed? Not only is the cost of creating the book much greater than the CO2 cost of delivering it, but the value of creating it depends on it being delivered.

And again, I'm not saying that Amy should think the book she wrote is valuable, nor am I prescribing what action Amy should take. I'm saying it seems like Amy has deeper things to figure out than just whether to make this one delivery to Bob.

Answer 4

You might look at the consequences of your action.

If you refuse because you have objections to flying as such: someone else will have to go and nothing has changed.

If you refuse because you are afraid of flying and being in another country: You should honor your feelings, but also consider to overcome them by just doing it. But at least you have a reason that your advisor can accept.

If you refuse on general grounds: You might be missing out on opportunities to learn and to interact with others. You might be loosing out on making connections that last for your whole professional career. (I speak from experience.) Also, there is a reason that conferences are still the primary way of disseminating ideas in CS: enough happens at conferences to justify the personal costs of the attendees (and the financial costs to who-ever has to bear them).

If you refuse: Your group lead has made a commitment and your group needs to honor it. You were selected for a reason. Maybe your lead sees this as an opportunity to "put you on the market", or to allow you to "start making contacts", or to introduce you to the world of science. Your refusal will put you at least temporarily into the category of "difficult Ph.D. students".

If you do not refuse: At worst, you have a few days of traveling and feeling out of your safe zone. At best, you learn better how the scientific world works, you are exposed to new ideas, you have the chance to make contacts, especially with other Ph.D. students, you make a valuable contribution to your group's work, ...

Answer 5

I understand your dilemma, but you'd be making a mistake to refuse that, and would look very bad, internationally. Thus, a big negative right even before having a career. Now, let's explore why is that. You said that you were selected instead of more senior colleagues, right? So this means that your group leader has FAITH in you. Now, do you want to disappoint him/her solely on the fact of "the impact of flying on climate change"? And what about the impact of that presentation? Sorry, but you sound selfish here...

You know, among the most hated people on this planet are those taking integrity to an extreme. Those people, generally, don't bring anything good to the table and are a nuisance. On the other end, those with very low, if not none at all, integrity are the worst of the worst ones. It's all about BALANCE. Also, as said above, what would be the impact on your lecture? That impact could very much offset the negative impact on planet Earth. The positive impact could be global, or affecting those present who in turn will do better in life, and/or even help you to get a better career, therefore to do more good in the future.

This being said, there are also circumstances where it's a total waste of time and energy but since you didn't tell anyone what that conference is about, and no other relevant info, then we can't say much.

Last, many would see it negatively that a young person working on his/her Ph.D. is refusing an opportunity and honor like that. Thus, closing many doors in the future. But, again, you avoided telling us what it is, so it could be a good thing to refuse something shady, and totally worthless. If so, refusing would make you look good.

Bottom line, based on the little info you gave us, refusing based on your reasons would have a serious negative impact, besides making you look selfish and narrow-minded. Everything is about perception and one with no audience or despised can't do much good... Think about Cousteau. He gained fame in order to get the necessary funding for the ocean's exploration, and got ocean awareness to an international awareness. Yep, he spent tons of fossil fuel traveling and with his boat, but the gains were much higher than the negatives. Having had your non-productive and narrow-minded attitude nothing of that would have been possible. And what about David Suzuki? Do you think he's traveling the world on foot and swimming to bring awareness and good things to planet Earth?

Answer 6

As apparently some people seriously believe that not going could amount to "career suicide", let me add to what has already been posted by saying that I am not aware of any single case in academia in which anything even remotely similar to the decision discussed here has come up as an argument when it came to admission decisions, and neither have I ever seen anything like this mentioned in reference letters. So I don't think there is any hard evidence that such a decision has ever had any direct negative impact (other than opportunity cost) on anyone's career.

Of course this doesn't exclude the possibility that such a decision may make a bad impression on somebody influential, which can have an informal impact, although I don't have evidence of this either from talking privately to scientists (admittedly some discussion comments here could be seen as constituting such evidence). Still, I am far from convinced that just the decision to be made now will have any negative impact at any more than negligible probability on career prospects other than simply missing anything positive that could come out of going there.