We were just talking about a site which tracks conferences in the neurosciences to determine how well their speaker list reflects the sex distribution of subfield neuroscientists.

The fact that there is a need for, and a lot of applause for, such a site is interesting in view of this recent notice from the NIH.

NOT-OD-15-152 includes this comment:

NIH-Supported Conferences and Scientific Meetings
The NIH recognizes the value of supporting high quality scientific conferences and meetings relevant to its mission and to public health.   These conferences are enhanced when they welcome participants and presenters from all backgrounds, and when barriers to participation are eliminated.  Therefore, a critical component of the application for NIH conference support is documentation of representation of women, racial/ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, and other individuals who are underrepresented in science in the planning and implementation of, and participation in the proposed conference. See, Guidelines for Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in NIH-Supported Conference Grants Policy, NOT-OD-03-066

Consistent with Federal civil rights laws, it is expected that organizers of NIH-supported conferences and scientific meetings take steps to maintain a safe and respectful environment for all attendees by providing an environment free from discrimination and harassment, sexual or otherwise. 

Do not, under any circumstances, for any reason, EVER use the same symbol to indicate different comparisons between points on sub-panels of the same figure that depict similar data sets.

[ e.g., if you have a dose-response function for one genotype depicted in Panel A and for the same measure in a second genotype in Panel B, don’t use # to indicate a difference from the vehicle condition on one panel and a difference from the highest active dose on the other panel. ]