You in the back

Other New Postdoc and I were discussing the nature of post-seminar questions. We agreed that while we sometimes ask questions for the purpose of, like, learning the answer, we more often ask questions that we think will make us look smart.

It sounds awfully mean, when I put it this way. But the fact of the matter is, there are perhaps 40 to 100 people in the room. Why would you waste their time asking the speaker something unless you thought it was of sufficient significance that anyone who came to this talk would be interested as well? It's usually no problem to approach the podium after the room has cleared, and I think that's the appropriate time to ask slightly off-topic or hazy questions.

Not only do I not want to waste other people's time, I do not want other people to hear my question and think, "What a doofus." Because, to be honest, I judge people based on their post-talk questions. It's not an absolute--anyone can (and does) misunderstand a slide or fail to hear a relevant morsel of information--so it's only if I hear someone ask silly questions at two or three talks that I mentally downgrade them. I assume other people judge questions in a similar fashion (though I know that's not always the case), so I want to ask a question that will not just avoid embarrassing me, but make other folks think, "Wow, that Dr. Jekyll is really on it."

There are, simplistically speaking, two major ways to ask an insightful question. One is to suggest an experiment, or an interpretation, that will extend or enhance the speaker's results. This sort of question shows that you too might be able to run a lab and come up with good ideas. The typical speaker response to such a question is a pleased or knowing smile, followed by, "Yes, that's a great question, and we're in the process of trying those experiments as we speak/trying to get the equipment we need to do that experiment/trying to get around such and such an experimental issue." Often the speaker will close by thanking you again for your question. Everyone gets to feel good.

The other is to suggest that the speaker's data or interpretation are flawed in some critical way, and that if they had controlled for this variable, or if they had considered this other possible explanation of their data, the outcome/interpretation might have been different.

If you do it right, the speaker response to this type of question is a more fixed or clenched smile. (If they do have an answer--say it turns out they did that control, but they didn't happen to show it during the talk, then they revert to pleased/knowing smile plus a bonus slide, saved at the end in case someone asked that question. This is nice because everyone gets to look smart.) If you really nailed them, they will say all manner of strange things trying to cover their butts.

Frankly, that's the most fun part of the seminar, for me, regardless of who asked the killer question. I know it sounds heartless, but the fact is that this back-and-forth is what makes science stronger, by letting everyone voice competing ideas in the marketplace (read: stuffy seminar room). It can clearly be unpleasant for the speaker. However, it's for the good of the science, assuming* that everyone asks questions based on scientific evidence, rather than on personal vendettas.


* Yes, that's a hopeless assumption.