Eurovision of ECTRIMS

There was a comment yesterday about the production of posters at ECTRIMS. 

NDG said it was a Eurovision of Presenters (not sure I saw too many bearded Ladies at the last one:-) and you wanted a look.

                              Conchita Wurst Austria Eurovision 2014 Winner
      (Conchita = Clam in Argentina. Wurst = Sausage in Germany…Wonder what this referred to)

After the event many of the posters are visible for example  click 
Check out the clinical trials section in the eposters at ACTRIMS 2014

                                    Boston ACTRIMS 2014

                    Country of lab doing work and product used
                   Some of them have branding of their workplace
                       but how much is branding for the company

  (Teva had two templates…The Green and the Fan of Lights
                         IND = Independent of a big pharma drug)

This is ProfGs  poster from the same meeting not much Barts Branding. Can you guess the company who makes the product?

If it is like Eurovision, then certain countries (UK, Germany, Italy, France, Spain) always get in the final, because they pay the lion’s share for the event. 

So yep it looks like Eurovision, a few pay for it and some get a free pass, but this is more Pharmavision than Eurovision?:-).

About the author



Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

  • I don't have any problem with company poster templates, providing the content is sufficiently novel and interesting. However, even company-sponsored satellite symposium I happened to attend (being attracted by the names of presenters whose papers I read and really liked) was so scripted that no new insights emerged. Snacks and drinks (non-alcoholic) were served, though!

    • What do you expect? Prof G has always claimed these meetings are a marketing jamboree. The posters are simply and extension the jamboree with a scientific face.

    • There was a suggestion that posters are all the handy work of the presenter.

      The point I was making is that people are having their hard work turned away, but it is presumably a green light for the corporate sponsored stuff in posters that may be seen in symposium and corporate booths. Likewise I should make the point that there are corporate sponsored stuff that does not feature in the other sessions and where the presenters have made their own posters.

      Surely the interesting stuff for a neuro is which new drugs can I prescribe. The rest is a bit of jam

    • MD, maybe ECTRIMS should look again at the ones rejected? One of the reviewers informed me over some peanuts (mention of food again) that they rejected only the ones which didn't have any good content. And about neuro's, the rest of Europe and all of the university affiliated US ones conduct their own research, so you find a large number of them hanging out in the basic science/imaging corners of conferences trawling for new ideas etc. Platforms on therapeutics are always bit of an anti-climax for me, the real questions are side-stepped and the punch is watered down.

  • NDG if ECTRIMS has 1500 poster boards and 1800 poster applications then 300 have to go. But careful you dont choke on your pubgrub as you are insulting 300 of your colleagues saying the content was no good. If one third are rejected as G mentions then you are saying that a third of what your colleagues do is boring and if binned over the interest in the baseline characteristics of trial then they must be boring.

By MouseDoctor



Recent Posts

Recent Comments