News Hub

Joaquim Vives, PhD
Contributing Editor, ISCT Telegraft
Ban de Sang i Teixits
Spain

The World, viewed through the lens of a microscope, is a place of a delicate elegance. We observe the migration of cells, the effect of cytokines or the kinetics in a validated assay. In the lab, we are somehow the architects of a controlled environment to test our new hypotheses. However, as we step beyond the sterile airlock of our facilities, we find ourselves entering a much more chaotic macro-environment. One where the variables are increasingly volatile.

A subtle tension runs through modern science, shaping how we collaborate, travel and advance knowledge. We live in a time when a single event can send ripples far beyond its immediate context. Earlier this year, escalating security concerns in parts of Mexico forced the postponement of what was meant to be a vibrant exchange of ideas at the Cumbre Internacional de Terapias Celulares e Inmunológicas (CITCI) meeting. A conference I had eagerly anticipated was abruptly postponed, replaced by security alerts and travel advisories. These are the external forces we cannot control, yet they dictate the boundaries of our global scientific collaboration.

Moving to a closer dimension, we encounter a different challenge: the economic friction that increasingly shapes how we participate in the scientific community. While I am often invited to attend conferences, as a group leader, I am acutely aware of the reality of shrinking budgets. Our CGT field is growing at an extraordinary pace, yet the cost of participating in conferences is rising just as quickly. Registration fees continue to increase alongside the escalating costs of flights and accommodation. For many early-career researchers, the barriers extend beyond finances. Visa restrictions, caregiving responsibilities and the growing expectation to balance productivity with limited institutional support can make participation in international events increasingly difficult. Some scientific societies and professional networks offer bursaries, discounts or initiatives, like the ESACT’s registration waiver program, that not only cover costs but also invite recipients to act as “ambassadors,” supporting fellow participants and gaining leadership experience.

With limited funds and many competing priorities, attending a single conference can represent a significant share of a laboratory’s annual discretionary budget. Decisions about travel therefore become careful calculations of value and impact. And yet, conferences remain one of the most powerful spaces in science: places where ideas are challenged, collaborations are born and careers often take their first real steps forward. The question we now face as a community is how to ensure that these spaces remain open and accessible to those who need them most.

Now, we arrive at the most personal dimension of this discussion: the ethical and professional crossroads between in-person and virtual engagement. As I prepare to travel to the Chula ATMP Symposium in Bangkok, where I’ve been invited, the broader geopolitical context offers a sobering reminder of the uncertainties that increasingly shape international collaboration. Following recent escalations in the Middle East, regional instability has already begun to disrupt flight paths and close airspaces. In such moments, it is reasonable to ask whether the risks associated with travel are justified. Yet the evidence consistently points that collaborative research networks often emerge from informal, spontaneous interactions (e.g. the hallway conversation, the shared coffee between sessions, the unplanned exchange over lunch). These interactions, difficult to replicate in virtual environments, are often the catalysts for new ideas and partnerships. Studies suggest that researchers who participate in small-group, face-to-face discussions are up to eight times more likely to establish future collaborations (1,2). For a principal investigator, these moments frequently become the starting point for international consortia and long-term scientific alliances. For a pre-doctoral or early-career researcher, however, the stakes may be even higher. A cancelled trip is not simply a missed flight. It can mean a missed introduction, a lost opportunity to connect with a future mentor or a delayed entry into the global scientific conversation.

In an era of digital transformation, financial pressures and geopolitical uncertainty, the real challenge for our community is not choosing between virtual and in-person engagement, but finding ways to preserve the human interactions that drive discovery, while keeping global participation inclusive, safe and accessible for the next generation of scientists. 

How, then, do we find the balance? Building a resilient and equitable scientific ecosystem requires deliberate action. Societies, institutions and conference organizers have a central role to play, but they cannot act alone. Industry partners, funders and philanthropic organizations are equally important in ensuring that the early stage professionals can participate in the global dialogue shaping the CGT field. Practical steps include expanding travel grants and mobility support (such as those offered through the European initiative COST Actions), offering flexible registration models and designing hybrid meetings that actively foster networking, mentoring and collaboration. At the same time, strengthening regional and satellite gatherings alongside global congresses (as effectively supported by the ISCT) can lower barriers to participation while preserving the face-to-face interactions that help collaborations take root. In the end, the challenge is not choosing between physical and virtual spaces, but ensuring that both strengthen an open and connected research community. 

In uncertain times, sustained collaboration remains our strongest safeguard against fragmentation. Whether we meet in a lecture hall or across a digital screen, our direction is clear: advancing transformative therapies for patients worldwide. 

references

1. Adams J. The fourth age of research. Nature. 2013 2013/05/01;497(7451):557-60.
2. Mutz R, Daniel H-D. How to consider fractional counting and field normalization in the statistical modeling of bibliometric data: A multilevel Poisson regression approach. Journal of Informetrics. 2019 2019/05/01/;13(2):643-57.