{credit}iStockphoto/Thinkstock{/credit}
Guest contributor Maria Wheeler-Dubas
The average American does not personally know a scientist, which leaves their opinions of science open to the mercy of pop culture and political pundits. In spite of this concern, one thing that has been greatly encouraging to see in the scientific community is the rise in discussion of STEM outreach. More and more scientists are recognizing science engagement as a way to break stereotypes, have a broader impact with their work, and manage sceptics of tax-funded grants—which is fantastic. However, an important part of the discussion that has been missing is how to go about getting involved in meaningful outreach. How can a research scientist maximize the use of what little time for outreach they might have? Here is what I’ve learnt as Science Outreach Coordinator. Continue reading
In the wake of the US presidential election in November 2017, the scientific community has recognized that it has fallen short in communicating the value of science and research. As a result, scientists are now calling for increased public outreach and communication efforts. While this awareness is important, the path forward is not entirely clear.
Elizabeth Walters
After completing her PhD at Oregon Health Science University and doing postdoctoral and associate researcher work in neuroscience at Rockefeller University, Elizabeth Waters transitioned to a position in science outreach there. She describes her move to science education.
Click here to read about how Waters pursued science outreach as a career.
What do you do as lead scientist at the university’s outreach programme?
We offer lab classes to NYC high school students. This was something that was previously run twice a year and now it is run twice a week. We introduce kids and their teachers to the molecular biology skills that were so important in Rockefeller’s discoveries, and to the idea of how scientists choose what scientific questions interest them. We ask: do you like top down questions or bottom up questions? Even in science, you have to discover what kind of scientist you want to be. Continue reading
“We want to know whether our future baby’s health is based on genes or the environment.” This is a concern shared by a lot of would-be parents for sure, and is the question posed to Dr. M. Elizabeth Ross at the beginning of this short video. The video, made by the labs of Dr. Ross and Dr. Christopher E. Mason at Weill Cornell Medical College is part of a competition sponsored by the NIH to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Common Fund.
The video takes a tongue-in-cheek approach to explaining an NIH-funded project investigating the role of epigenetic changes in birth defects. The contest ends tomorrow, May 9, and the results will be determined by the number of “Likes” the videos receive on YouTube.
To vote for this or any of the other amazing videos (and songs), check out the contest page here.
When he’s not studying virus evolution, Tufts Postdoc Ravi Subramanian has another life as a comedy writer. He thinks scientists could learn something from stand-ups about how to engage an audience. A guest post as part of our #reachingoutsci series.
Nothing irks me more than seeing a lousy presentation. When people go to see a science talk, they want to learn and become engaged.
But, the standard biology lecture is this – a presenter gives 10 minutes of background and then spends 30-40 minutes blasting through 150 pictures of Western blots. After an obligatory 5 minutes of questions only one question remains: What was the point of all that?
We as humans love stories, but scientists are not good at telling them. I understand that science is difficult, and asking scientists to also be entertainers is a bit much. However, we should consider the possibility that our inability to entertain and engage non-experts is linked with the decreased funding over the last 30 years.
I don’t think that we as scientists really appreciate what our job is. Those who run labs think, “I have to get grants”, while post-docs, graduate students, or technicians think, “I need to get results so my advisor can get grants.” This should not be the motivation of scientists. Instead, the principal reason we do science should be to communicate science to people.
I have many friends who are comedians, and they talk about economy of words, something lacking in most scientific talks. If you can’t explain what the data on your slide is in a few sentences, your audience probably won’t understand it. Scientists need to understand that data serves to tell a story, not the other way around.
We need to start considering scientific talks as performance art. The best talks I’ve seen are narratives of the pursuit of knowledge. Good speakers don’t need to justify what they study; their research should be intrinsically interesting. I recently saw a fascinating talk about the relationships between parasitic wasps and aphids; not once was it mentioned that aphids are a major agricultural pest, as it had nothing to do with the story.
Also important: humor. All too often, scientists try to prove themselves as “serious researchers”, which leads to dry, boring talks. You’re not expected to be a stand-up comedian, but it wouldn’t hurt to laugh at yourself or provide humor in the talk. Studies have shown that humor enhances knowledge retention, and if you’re going over complicated data, perhaps a joke about how the staining pattern of an antibody in a cell looking like a smiley face might help the audience appreciate your research better.
We need to to engage non-experts. People scoff at research focusing on fruit flies, yet much of our understanding of DNA has come from fruit fly genetics. These non-experts will listen to our talks and just lose interest and not appreciate the value of the research that is taking place. Perhaps the Ph.D.’s we’re making who can’t get jobs in academia or can start working on making science entertaining? Bright minds are fascinated by how the world works, so it’s appalling that we’re not able to get more investment in what we’re doing. I believe better scientific storytelling is the key.
Science Online New York (SoNYC) encourages audience participation in the discussion of how science is carried out and communicated online. This is one of a series of posts tied into June’s event which looks at how scientists reach out of the ivory tower, communicating science to the public.
The crowd at last week’s talk sponsored by a group called, “Science for the Public” was small. About 10 people eventually made it to the top floor of the College of Arts and Sciences building at Boston University. But, two of them were videographers who taped the talk for The Forum Network, a website hosted by the public broadcasters at WGBH.
So, the session will virtually fulfill the non-profit group’s goal of encouraging, “appreciation for science in the adult community.…There is no science curriculum for the adult population. So this is our attempt to keep the general public –the folks that vote and pay taxes– well informed on the vital role of science in every area of modern life…” Continue reading
