Category Archives: Communication

Communication

Entering the Ebola red zone: #ScientistAtWork photo competition 2018

Posted on by
Entering the Ebola red zone

Entering the Ebola red zone{credit}Peter Horby & Rebecca Inglis{/credit}

This picture of Tom Rawlinson and Josephine Borbor, researchers in Peter Horby’s infection diseases research group at the University of Oxford, UK, was taken in Sierra Leona at the height of the West Africa Ebola outbreak. Taken by Rebecca Inglis (a member of Horby’s group at the time), it was submitted to Naturejobs as part of the 2018 #ScientistAtWork photo competition, which runs until 31 March.

Read more about the competition here.

Continue reading →

Where are the female first and last authors?

Posted on by

Women remain under-represented in many areas of science, but they are especially scarce in the pages of high-impact journals, according to an analysis published online 2 March in bioRxiv.

scales

Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle gathered names of first and last authors from papers published from 2005-2017 in 15 major science and neuroscience journals, including Nature, Science, PNAS, Nature Neuroscience and Neuropsychology Review. Nearly 10% of the names were excluded because they were relatively gender neutral, but the rest told a clear story: In these journals, authorship is a male-dominated enterprise.

For example, women accounted for roughly 25% of all first authors in Nature and Science and just over 35% of first authors in PNAS. Female first authors outnumbered men in only one journal, Neuropsychology Review, but just barely (53% vs 47%). Women made up an even smaller proportion of senior (or last) author spots, ranging from about 15% in Nature and Science to just under 40% in Neuropsychology Review.

The study found an inverse relationship between the prevalence of female authors and the impact factor of the journal—the higher the impact, the lower the chances that a woman was involved. Because publication in high-impact journals is so crucial for a scientific career, any gender gap could have serious consequences, says Ione Fine, a neuroscientist and co-author of the study. “If you aren’t published in high-impact journals, you don’t get awards or jobs,” she says. “It becomes a cascade of events.”

The scarcity of women in journals doesn’t simply reflect a lack of women doing high-quality science, Fine says. The study notes that roughly 30% of prestigious R01 grants from the US National Institutes of Health go to women. But in almost all of the journals studied, the percentage of women in senior author spots falls below that mark, a sign that the gender disparity in authorship exceeds disparities in other measures of academic excellence and productivity. “That’s the smoking gun that we have a real problem here,” she says.

Subtle biases by reviewers may make it harder for women to get published, Fine says. But she notes that women themselves may be contributing to the gender gap through a reluctance to submit to top-tier journals. “My feeling is that women are self-censoring because it’s just a more brutal process for them,” she says. “I know my male colleagues submit papers that I wouldn’t submit, and they seem to do just fine.”

Fine and colleagues call for all journals to keep statistics on papers submitted by women and minorities. They also suggest that journals could greatly reduce the possibility of bias by adopting mandatory double-blind reviews, a system in which the reviewer doesn’t know the identity—or the gender—of the study’s authors. Nature and other journals provide double-blind reviews on request, but Fine says that practice won’t protect women from bias. If an author requests double-blind review, she says, the reviewer is likely to assume that the request came from a female researcher, thus defeating the purpose.

In response, Nature Research, the parent organisation of Nature, issued a statement that read, in part: “Nature Research is committed to gender equality and our journals strive to support women in science.” The company says that it does not ask submitters to indicate gender, so it doesn’t systematically track gender statistics. It also says that it will “continue to assess the merits” of mandatory and voluntary double-blind reviews.

A 2017 Nature editorial noted that the journal has made slow progress in other areas of gender equality. For example, women accounted for just over 20% of reviewers in 2015, a small improvement over previous years. In 2013, 13% of reviewers were women. But Fine says that hiring more female reviewers won’t necessarily close the publication gap. “Women can be biased too,” she says.

 

Chris Woolston is a freelance writer in Billings, Montana.

 

Suggested reading:

Women in physical sciences

Fight the brain drain

Science is failing women

 

A term at the museum

Posted on by

Volunteering in a museum can be a great platform to expand communication skills and apply scientific knowledge, says Andy Tay

Earlier last year, I attended the Week of International Scientific Talent in Paris, and found that museums can be excellent platforms for scientists eager to apply scientific knowledge outside of their labs. Curious to learn more about this avenue of science communication, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that there is growing interest in applying scientific concepts to museum settings.

Sketch Town

Sketch Town; one of the exhibits at MAAS Sydney {credit}Reproduced courtesy of teamLab{credit}

One example that has captured wide attention is the use of fragrance in the Peabody Essex Museum (mentioned by Nature here) to provide visitors with a multi-sensory (including sight, hearing, touch and smell) museum experience. Nature also recently ran a feature on scientists-turned-curators. One step led to the other and soon, I found myself applying for and receiving the Visiting Research Fellowship by the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences (MAAS Sydney), in Australia.

Link between science and museum

At MAAS, my research focused on the exhibit ‘teamLab Future Park’, which used various stimuli such as lights, sound and touch to stimulate the senses of visitors. Capitalizing on this, I investigated how concepts in sensory neuroscience can be applied to improve visitors’ experience. In my research, I explored the idea of homeostasis (whether excessive sensory stimuli diminish the value of a museum experience) and adaptation (whether visitors get bored of interacting with exhibits in the same way). Beyond my research findings, I developed some useful communication tips that might be helpful to other scientists in their own outreach.

Consider others’ attention span

I’ve been involved in science communication for some time now, but this was the first opportunity to work face-to-face with people. With writing and other communication work, I’ve had the time to prepare everything meticulously. Not this time, especially because Future Park — by design — has a whole lot of distractions. I was forced into trying to engage children who were busy playing in the exhibits, and trying to engage adults who were concerned about the whereabouts and safety of their children. This trained me to speak quickly and clearly — and learn where I needed to improve. Considering others’ attention span is crucial.

Integrate different tools to help you communicate

During my fellowship, I explored the concept of adaptation — whether museum visitors would be bored interacting with museum exhibits in the same way. The most popular exhibits were all identical in terms of how visitors used them — in each, we asked people to color a drawing, scan it, and take a look at a 3D representation of their work. Cool for the first time you see it, but perhaps less novel the time after.

The majority (70%) of the respondents felt that Future Park was highly engaging but about 20% of the respondents suggested that their experience would be better had there been more variety in the activities.

This finding was a surprise to me — most of the visitors were there for the first time and already felt that there could be more varied activities. This finding confirmed my belief that there is value in diversifying the ways I communicate science in writing, drawing, infographics and videos. It also reminded me that it helps to integrate different tools into my presentations to engage my audience. In the past, I’ve shown my audience bits and pieces from my research lab during presentations, for example.

In a few weeks’ time, I will be volunteering in a community college with an infographic on my current research project. The museum experience has inspired me to develop ideas to incorporate hands-on interactions to help students learn about my research.

Light Ball Orchestra; another exhibit

Light Ball Orchestra; another exhibit{credit}Photo: Leïla Berney. Reproduced courtesy of the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences.{/credit}

Museum work

If you’re interested in museum work, there are a variety of internship and fellowship opportunities. The Smithsonian Institute offers a range of fellowships for scholars with different expertise including genomics, medicine and chemistry. The National University of Singapore Museum offers internship positions for students interested in programming, marketing and design. Universcience Paris (Cité des sciences), the largest European science museum, also offers ad-hoc positions.

As many museums operate on a tight budget, they might not be able to offer any stipends for internships. If you are truly curious about this industry, I would advise you to find a museum near your city to gain working experience first. Even if the museum might not explicitly advertise any opening, it doesn’t hurt to email a museum representative and the specific curator for volunteering opportunities. This exposure will come in handy when you apply for fellowships to work in larger, better equipped museums in the future.

 

Andy is a postdoctoral scholar in the Department of Materials Sciences and Engineering at Stanford University.Andy_Tay

His research focuses on nanotechnology and stem cell differentiation. In his free time, Andy enjoys using the gym and reading.

Andy is grateful for financial support from Endeavour Research Fellowship during his stay in Sydney and MAAS for hosting his research project and providing the images in this article.

You can find Andy on LinkedIn and Google Scholar.

 

Suggested posts

How to reach out

Exploring science communication

Dear Dr. Elena: How outreach kills the science stereotype

The leaky pipeline: Thank putdowns, slights

Posted on by

Searches for the reasons behind the ‘leaky pipeline’—the structural failures, such as equal representation, that drive women out of science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM)—often focus on large-scale problems such as work-family or work-life balance. But insidious psychological strikes also contribute to the outflow.

A study involving interviews and online posts of 28 women in the later stages of PhD studies in engineering and physical sciences in the United States, published 31 January in the journal Social Sciences, revealed many day-to-day slights that left them feeling alienated and undervalued. Some said they were contemplating leaving research as a result. “There’s a culture in male-dominated environments,” says Bianca Bernstein, a co-author of the study and a psychologist at Arizona State University in Tempe. “Some women feel it’s not for them.”

Even though they were already deep into their PhD studies, 12 of the 28 women indicated that they didn’t want to pursue research careers. Five cited personal or work-life balance reasons, but six chalked up their decision to change course to the workplace environment and culture, including two who specifically expressed a desire to escape a male-dominated field. Hypothetically, Bernstein says, more women would finish graduate school and remain in research careers if the gender balance wasn’t already so skewed, but noted that any such scenario is difficult to test.

The interviews and posts, which took place over seven months, highlighted many of the positive aspects of the scientific life, including feelings of accomplishment and mastery. But the women in the study also reported “frequent” instances of feeling ignored, dismissed or excluded. One woman reported that a male colleague reacted rudely when she won a scholarship. “He blamed it on the fact that I was a woman and that they probably gave me a scholarship to fulfill a quota,” she said in an interview as part of the study.

The women reported that they were disproportionately asked to perform “women’s work” such as cleaning up the lab or performing clerical duties. “We’ve been hearing that complaint for decades now,” says Bernstein, who is also a principal investigator with the US National Science Foundation’s CareerWISE programme, a coaching initiative for graduate-level women in science and engineering. “It’s surprising that it hasn’t changed.”

A few women reported unwanted sexual advances in the workplace. Bernstein notes that the interviews and posts tracked only study subjects’ recent experiences, not everything that had ever happened with them during their graduate programme. Also, the interviews and posts took place before the rise of the #metoo movement, so women may have been more reluctant to report such events than they would be today.

Kevin Miller, a researcher with the American Association of University Women based in Washington DC, says that even seemingly minor grievances can add up. “Women in STEM have to fight an uphill battle that starts when they are girls and their interest in the sciences may be discouraged or ignored,” he says. “The experiences described in this study show that women face bias both subtle and overt as well as systemic factors that make them more likely to exit STEM fields.”

 

Chris Woolston is a freelance writer in Billings, Montana.

 

Suggested reading:

Technology: Women are alienated

Academic housekeeping: Women’s work?

Men are more likely to be hired

March for Science 2018 gears up

Posted on by

Organisers of the second annual March for Science , scheduled for 14 April in Washington DC, are hoping to recapture the energy and enthusiasm that prompted more than 1 million researchers and others to march together last year across 600 cities around the world in support of evidence-based policy and upholding science for the greater good.

MarchforScience-Judith-2-smaller

Caroline Weinberg, an organizer for the upcoming march in Washington DC, expects smaller crowds than last year, although she admits her prediction may again be off the mark. “Last we expected 40,000 people, and we got around 100,000,” she says. She adds that most of the marchers in the nation’s capital city were concerned citizens, not practicing researchers.

In Washington DC and elsewhere, organisers envision events with fewer marchers, placards and chants but more advocacy-related activities. Weinberg and others aim to offer hands-on projects for those taking to the streets in Washington DC. In Berlin, Germany, organisers are planning a “local hero” programme where scientists will give public talks at bars, cafes and other venues. March-related activities in Portland, Oregon, will include speeches by local politicians and a science expo with at least 30 presenters, including a juggler who demonstrates the principles of physics.

The election and inauguration of Donald Trump for US president helped to spur marchers last year, and Weinberg says that she suspects that some scientists this year may be motivated to speak out against Trump’s recent budget proposal, which called for drastic cuts to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spending plan . But she adds that the march and other forms of science activism shouldn’t depend on crises to draw interest and participation. “Our challenge is to build up a huge crowd and send a message that galvanizes everyone but to also make it sustainable,” she says. “We can’t allow our advocacy to be tethered to those moments.”

Roughly 15,000 people attended last year’s march in Portland, but that kind of enthusiasm will be hard to replicate, says Denesa Oberbeck, a behavioral neuroscientist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland and a member of the steering committee for this year’s march. “There’s some fatigue and some burnout, but we need to keep fighting,” she says. “We have to maintain an activist stance.”

Kristine Wadosky, a cancer researcher at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, marched in Washington DC last year carrying a sign that read “Curing cancer is non-partisan.”  This year, she plans to join the march in Chicago, Illinois, where she will give a talk on advanced prostate cancer for the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. She says that she’s just as energized about science advocacy as ever before, and she thinks that many other young scientists feel the same way.

This time, Wadosky says, she won’t need a sign to send her message, which isn’t especially complicated. “I just want to go to show that I’m a scientists, and I exist,” she says.

 

Chris Woolston is a freelance writer in Billings, Montana.

 

Suggested reading:

Growing pains
In support of the March
Reflections on a movement