I get the idea parn, in that the refinement of analysis can benefit from the input of peers. I think this is why there are other authors of the paper, plus plenty of published work to use as examples and references towards interpretation of the data. I just don't see that this has to occur at some sort of science conference. I think wild speculations would still be prevalant prior to actual peer review and publication. You've participated in that yourself, so you'll have to excuse my perceptions about some of you scientist types.