To celebrate SoNYC’s first birthday, we have been reminiscing on past events by highlighting some of the key take home messages, linking out to pictures and hearing from the co-organisers. (We recently summarised all of the past SoNYC events; you can read the recap of the events from the science communication and outreach strand here, online tools for scientists and digital publishing here and the implicational issues – legal, policy and community here.) It has been a great year and we hope you have enjoyed the conversations, whether it has been in person, online, or via our write-ups and Storifys. 

To finish our warm-up to the party, we’re hearing from each of the SoNYC co-organisers.  First up was SoNYC co-organiser Jeanne Garbarino from Rockefeller University. In her retrospective she details the birth of SoNYC and how the internet has enabled her to tap into a community she never knew existed. Next up is  co-organiser John Timmer, Science Editor at Ars Technica.

Putting the team together

My role in co-organising SONYC has its start with the National Association of Science Writers. They gave me a travel fellowship to go to the Nobel Laureates meeting in Lindau, where I met Lou Woodley, who was handling the social media side of Nature’s partnership with Lindau. Nature had a series of local “hubs” in various cities, but the one in New York (where Nature has some of its offices) had gone quiet. Lou was interested in getting something going in the city and I knew a lot of the scientists and science communicators there through the course of my research career and a science writers drinks night, as well as through national meetings like Science Online, so I offered to help out.

While we were kicking around ideas for what might work in New York, Lou cryptically told me that i should meet Jeanne, who I was told was “The Mother Geek.” It turned out that we were both going to the same event at Social Media Week and working with Jeanne since then has made it clear that, whatever the reasoning, meeting her was definitely a very good idea. Jeanne managed to solve the venue problem through her work at Rockefeller, and has been tireless in finding ways for us to cooperate with various groups on campus. She also put the team in touch with our fourth organizer, Joe Bonner, who is both at Rockefeller and helps run the local NASW chapter.

The format

One of the most successful parts of SONYC (as far as I can tell) has been its format: a monthly, single-topic meetings with a mix of presentation and discussion followed by drinks. It has worked really well for us, and appears to be translating nicely to other locations. It’s something we reasoned through pretty carefully.

There were some very practical reasons not to run a big, annual meeting. For one, New York City is expensive, both in terms of getting space and in terms of accommodations, and that would limit who could attend. Plus, New York had a huge science and scicomm community in place already, so it’s not like we needed to import anyone from out of town. Plus, there were already a number of excellent annual meetings, including the Science Online ones in North Carolina and London.

There had already been an example of a monthly, single-topic panel discussion of this sort in the city. Back in 2008, three graduate students ran something called the NY Science Communication Consortium. It ran a year’s worth of really successful panel discussions before folding as its organizers realized they had to focus on actually graduating. The format they had used – short presentations followed by Q&A with the audience – was also pretty close what we ended up with.

The only real difference is that, instead of a Q&A, we use the panelists’ presentations as a launching point for an audience-driven discussion (something you might call a semi-unconference). Lou and I had both seen this at events like Science Onlines in North Carolina and London, the National Association of Science Writers, etc., and we were in complete agreement that it was the best way to go. Lou, who seems to spend 90% of her life online, insisted on the livestream and heavy Twitter presence, both of which have really worked well for us and probably are the main reasons other cities are aware of this.

Another motivation for wanting to do something monthly was that the community reacts quickly to major events like #arseniclife and the Pepsi-pocalypse at Science Blogs. These ended up being a big deal as they happened but, by the time they were discussed at a big, national meeting, they’d become a bit stale. The hope was that, by having a monthly meeting, we could afford to jump on topics as they were happening. (So far, we haven’t really had the chance, though)

As a final benefit, I hate concurrent sessions. With only one topic a month, this wouldn’t be an issue.

We may have put the pieces in place, but SONYC has been entirely driven by the panelists and audience. We’ve been fortunate enough that people were willing to sign up before we had any sort of track record (our first panel, featuring Ken Bromberg, David Ropeik, and Gavin Schmidt, was excellent). And a mix of word of mouth, various forms of promotion and a bit of luck, seems to have brought in audiences that were ready to engage on the topics. We’ve been grateful for the fact that a lot of them have continued to come back for more.

SoNYC 4: Credit: Copyright (c) 2011 Sourabh Banerjee Photography. Any Use.

To celebrate SoNYC’s first birthday, we have been reminiscing on past events by highlighting some of the key take home messages, linking out to pictures and hearing from the co-organisers. (We recently summarised all of the past SoNYC events; you can read the recap of the events from the science communication and outreach strand here, online tools for scientists and digital publishing here and the implicational issues – legal, policy and community here.) It has been a great year and we hope you have enjoyed the conversations, whether it has been in person, online, or via our write-ups and Storifys. 

To finish out warm-up to the party, we’re hearing from each of the SoNYC co-organisers.  First up was SoNYC co-organiser Jeanne Garbarino from Rockefeller University. In her retrospective she details the birth of SoNYC and how the internet has enabled her to tap into a community she never knew existed. Next up is  co-organiser John Timmer, Science Editor at Ars Technica.

If it were 2005, you would undoubtedly find me avoiding the question “What do you do?”   At that point in time, I was trying to wrap my head around my PhD thesis and accompanying qualifying exams, leading me to completely dissociate from realities pertaining to the big picture.  I didn’t really understand the importance of science communication.  Hell, to be honest, I didn’t even know that the communication of science actually existed outside of academic instutions.  So when people asked me about my line of work, I skirted the issue, mostly because I just didn’t know what to say.  Or rather, I didn’t know how to say it.  In my mind, there was no way to make non-scientists understand, and trying to do so would only be frustrating for all parties involved.

Having been at the bench for more than a third of my life, I literally had no idea how technical my science English had become.  Traditionally, my science had always been communicated to other scientists.  Even worse was the fact that these scientists were usually in my field.  This undoubtedly led me to adopt a vernacular that was so completely inbred that it became its own dialect.

Then I found the internet.

Whether you want to call it serendipity, a product of the highly intricate algorithms inherent to social media networks, or getting a twitter follow by this guy who goes by BoraZ, I somehow found myself quickly immersed in the science online community.  I was devouring the information that was only a click away and suddenly, my favorite scientists were being replaced with my favorite science writers.  In one fell swoop, I could read on point science articles by John Rennie and David Dobbs, as well as share common experiences with other scientist women and mothers like Dr. O and Emily Willingham.  What was this cyberutopia and why did it take me so long to find it??

It started to come together a little more for me as I shared in the ScienceOnline2011 experience.  With an infant on the boob and toddler still in diapers, it was difficult for me to travel to North Carolina for that meeting, but I was lucky enough to follow through twitter and catch a few of the live video streams.  Now, I’ve been to plenty of meetings before, which are quite useful for making professional connections, but often, early career scientists (like myself) feel intimidated.  The ScienceOnline meeting in North Carolina, however, was different.  EVERYONE who wanted to be heard was heard.  There was no hierarchy and information flowed freely.  Even though I was tuning in from afar, I could tell that this meeting was different, for it was not a “meeting” at all.  To me, it seemed more like a gathering of friends who are all passionate about communicating science and, miraculously, the lines between being professional and being social became blurry.

I really wished that I could be there in person.  And naturally, I found myself thinking about getting my act together so I could attend ScienceOnline2012.  But then I started to ask myself, why wait a whole year?  My home base is NYC and I am a postdoc at The Rockefeller University, which is, in my opinion, is one of the most forward thinking and accommodating research institutions around.  Surely there is a community who would be interested in a regular science online discussion series.

Only days after my ScienceOnline2011 virtual experience and resulting epiphany, I met the ever-fantastic Shelley Cohen, who just happened to be a part of NPG.  We got to chatting and I told her about my desire have regular discussions surrounding the communication of science.  She told me how there were others interested in doing such a thing and recommended that I look into joining forces.  And with that, she introduced me to Lou Woodley.

I quickly came to learn that Lou would be the heartbeat of this movement.  She had a clear vision that was creative, organized, and exciting (just to name a few).  And, as it turns out, I wasn’t the only one who approached her.  John Timmer, chief science wrangler at Ars Technica (chief wrangler because he is probably one of the smartest guys out there), had also hopped on board.  And to complete our super-sonyc team, I asked Joe Bonner to join in as well.  As Director of Communications at RU and head honcho of Science Writers in NY (SWINY), I knew that his local expertise would be an incredible asset.

Photo Credit: Copyright (c) 2011 Sourabh Banerjee Photography. Any Use

We went from concept to the first SoNYC in only a matter of weeks.  The planning was streamlined and everything just seemed to fall into place.  But, that didn’t stop my nerves as the 7pm starting time drew near on that warm April evening.  We had a packed house and a great panel to discuss the communication of controversial topics in science, including vaccination, climate change, and the psychology of risk.

Photo Credit: Copyright (c) 2011 Sourabh Banerjee Photography. Any Use

We all had taken on a specific job.  Lou was assigned with introducing SoNYC, coining our catchphrase “have a super-sonyc evening” while doing so.  John introduced our panel and I followed with the moderation.  After two truly captivating hours, it was over.  And with that, we all funneled into the RU bar and toasted to a great evening (and I finally exhaled!).

From that event, SoNYC became a mainstay on the calendars of many locals.  Month after month, people like Sean Cusack, Maki Naro, Ben Lillie, David Levine, and Nancy Parmalee never disappoint with their insightful and sometimes provocative comments (I’m looking at you, Nancy!).  I have come to associate SoNYC with seeing and interacting with some of the best minds NYC has to offer.  And with each event, I am afforded the incredible opportunity to interact with our guest panel, giving me a glimpse of all the amazing science communications initiatives happening around us.

But let’s not forget some of the more humble aspects of SoNYC.  We are, for the most part, working on a next to nothing budget.  We dine on cold pizza and drink lemon soda.  We use a cup turned upside down as our microphone stand.  We record our events with my macbook.  Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to be able to upgrade some of our technologies, but there is something special about putting things together as best you can and having people think that what you’re doing is tops!

So how did a scientist who didn’t even take the time to explain her science to her own parents become so involved in science communication?  I don’t really have an aswer for this, but I do know its been a great ride so far!

I am honored to be a part of this super-SoNYC crew and am over the moon to see that SoNYC has inspired other local science communities, like Vancouver, Seattle, and San Francisco, to establish their version of the regular science online discussion.

Now if we could just convince the higher-ups at NPG to transfer Lou to NYC!  Then things would really be perfect super-sonyc!!!

This month, SoNYC, our monthly discussion series in NYC about all aspects of communicating and carrying out science online, turns one! We’re hosting a party on May 2nd to celebrate, and to warm up we’re taking a look back at all the SoNYC events from the past year.

SoNYC is co-organised by Lou Woodley of nature.com, John Timmer, Science Editor at Ars Technica and Jeanne Garbarino and Joe Bonner at Rockefeller University. We follow a rotating 3-month editorial cycle to ensure we cover all angles of science online:

In month 1 we cover topics relating to science communication and outreach. Month 2 focuses on online tools for scientists, including digital publishing and month 3 of the cycle looks a “implicational” issues such as legal and policy discussions.

In this post we round up all of the SoNYC events around implicational issues around carrying out science online – everything from legal considerations to research misconduct. You can read the recap of the events from the science communication and outreach strand here and the review of those that focused on online tools for scientists and digital publishing here. 

Science, science communication and the Law

On Wednesday 9th June, the third SoNYC took place.  The discussion laid out key ideas behind the US courts’ use of scientific evidence and application of libel law to journalists, addressing how intellectual property law and government regulations are responding to the rapid pace of innovation in the biological sciences, and how feedback from the online community is influencing those processes. The panel featured:

• Nadim Shohdy works in the Office of Industrial Liaison at NYU.
• Simon Singh is a UK science journalist who was subject to a libel suit as a result of one of his articles.
• Dan Vorhaus is the editor of the Genomics Law Report, and practices law at Robinson Bradshaw.
• Matt Berntsen

In the news but not yet reviewed

On Thursday 10th November, the sixth SoNYC  took place. The topic for discussion was whether the fact that a paper hasn’t been peer reviewed can influence how its findings are reported. Recent headlines have been filled with scientific work that hasn’t made it through peer review and the panel discussed the ways we can judge the quality of something that hasn’t been through peer review. They also considered whether focusing on peer reviewed science limits journalists to simply summarizing papers. The panel included:

• John Matson covers astronomy for Scientific American.
• Maia Szalavitz is a journalist who focuses on neuroscience.  Her current focus is on Time.com’s Healthland.
• John Timmer is the science editor for Ars Technica, and has trained his managing editor to recognize when a news story contains the word “arXiv”.
• John Rennie NY Science writer/editor.

Keeping the scientific record straight

On Tuesday 20th March, the tenth SoNYC tool place and the topic for discussion was Keeping the scientific record straight. The internet has enabled the faster and more thorough dissemination of published science, meaning that more eyes than ever are available to check the accuracy, veracity and integrity of the research record. With our enhanced ability to spot plagiarism and image manipulation electronically, it appears that the frequency with which we’ve flagged potentially fraudulent or plagiarized papers has gone up. The panel looked at the trends in retractions and how they relate to real or perceived increases in research misconduct. The discussion considered the steps publications are taking to deal with the sloppy or fraudulent research practices that sometimes result in retractions, and also what research institutions are doing to investigate and deter such practices.

Panelists:

• Moderator:  Brendan Maher, Nature 
• John Krueger of the Office of Research Integrity.
• Ivan Oransky, Executive Editor, Reuters Health and one of the people behind the Retraction Watch blog.
• Liz Williams, Executive Editor, The Journal of Cell Biology.

In anticipation of the discussion, we ran a series of guest posts on Of Schemes and Memes, discussing what steps publications are taking to deal with fraudulent research practices and what is being done to investigate and deter such practices. First we heard from Richard Van Noorden, Assistant News Editor at Nature. He gave us an overview of  what retractions can tell us about setting the research record straight, highlighting some recent high profile cases of retraction, revealing why retraction rates appear to be increasing. We also compiled a Storify from a session at February’s AAAS meeting in Vancouver on Global Challenges to Peer Review which touched on some of the challenges faced by journal editors. Next we heard from Dorothy Clyde (Dot), Senior Editor at Nature Protocols, detailing the role an editor plays in avoiding plagiarism, giving advice to all parties. In our final post, SoNYC panel member Ivan Oransky, executive editor of Reuters Health, explained the concept behind the Retraction Watch blog.

Find the take home messages below and a write up and Storify of the discussion here.

This month, SoNYC, our monthly discussion series in NYC about all aspects of communicating and carrying out science online, turns one! We’re hosting a party on May 2nd to celebrate, and to warm up we’re taking a look back at all the SoNYC events from the past year.

SoNYC is co-organised by Lou Woodley of nature.com, John Timmer, Science Editor at Ars Technica and Jeanne Garbarino and Joe Bonner at Rockefeller University. We follow a rotating 3-month editorial cycle to ensure we cover all angles of science online:

In month 1 we cover topics relating to science communication and outreach. Month 2 focuses on online tools for scientists, including digital publishing and month 3 of the cycle looks a “implicational” issues such as legal and policy discussions.

In this post we round up all of the SoNYC events around online tools for scientists and digital publishing. You can read the recap of the events from the science communication and outreach strand here, and the implicational issues – legal, policy and community here.

Are scientists anti-social when it comes to adopting online tools for science?

On Monday the 16th May 2011 the second SoNYC took place. The sharing of information and materials is an integral part of the scientific process.  Many communities have found that online tools can greatly enhance this sort of sharing, but the scientific community appears to be lagging behind when it comes to the adoption of social software, even though scientists have embraced various digital tools as part of their regular workflow. The panel discussed the technical challenges of creating social media software for researchers, the difficulty of attracting a scientific audience and looked at why it’s so hard to get a group of scientists to agree on anything. The panel included:

• Jessica Mezel, Mendeley.  Mendeley is an online reference manager that allows researchers to share the documents they find useful and compelling with other interested scientists.
• James Hedges, NYU.  James is a research scientist at NYU. He’ll talk about why it’s so difficult to get a group of scientists to agree on any software,
• Arikia Millikan, Wired.com.  Arikia will discuss the difficulties of building a software business for scientists from a technological and financial perspective.
• Lou Woodley, nature.com.  Nature.com hosts a variety of platforms that help scientists and scientific communicators exchange ideas.

For more information, you can find a write up and Storify summary from the event here and below are a few of the take home messages from the online conversation:

Advanced ebooks and book apps

On Tuesday 20th September the fifth SoNYC took place at Rockefeller University in NYC. The topic for debate was “Enhanced eBooks & Book Apps: the Promise and Perils.” Enhanced ebooks and tablet apps offer new ways to present material and engage readers. Yet some of the software restrictions and rights deals that these ebooks, apps and their platforms use can make them unfriendly to librarians, archivists, and future users. The discussion focused on ways authors, designers, and publishers can best exploit these new opportunities while avoiding their current and potential downsides? The panel featured:

• David Dobbs, moderator (As well as an author, blogger, and ebook experimentalist).
• John Dupuis, science librarian at York University and blogger at Confessions of a Science Librarian.
• Evan Ratliff, co-founder and editor, The Atavist.
• Amanda Moon, senior editor, FSG/Scientific American Books.
• Carl Zimmer, author, journalist, and blogger.
• Dean Johnson, creative director of Brandwidth, developer of The Exoplanets, an iPad book/app to be published this fall by Scientific American Books/FSG.

For more information, you can find a write up and Storify summary from the event here and below are a few of the take home messages from the online conversation:

Thinking digital: giving your research more reach and making sure others can find it

On Wednesday 25th January 2012, we hosted the eighth installment of SoNYC. The topic for debate this month was, “Thinking Digital: Giving your research more reach (and making sure others can find it).” Only a fraction of the things that scientists do in the lab ever see the light of day in a formal publication. Negative data, new tools, and public data sources rarely merit an independent paper, making it tough to receive credit for your work. Even when the work leads to a paper, it can be tough to accurately credit everyone’s contributions, or make the underlying data available to the scientific community.

This month’s panel discussed new tools like Figshare, a repository for negative data, and the ORCID author identifier, which can be used to associate any form of digital publication to your research record. It also featured two librarians who discussed how research libraries can help store and share information. The panel featured:

• Mark Hahnel is the developer of Figshare.
• Carol Feltes is the head librarian at Rockefeller University.
• Veronique Kiermer is an Executive Editor and Head of Researcher Services at Nature, and a member of the ORCID steering committee.
• Cathy Norton is the library scholar at the Biodiversity Heritage Library at Woods Hole’s Marine Biological Laboratory.

For more information, you can find a write up and Storify summary from the event here and below are a few of the take home messages from the online conversation:

This month, SoNYC, our monthly discussion series in NYC about all aspects of communicating and carrying out science online, turns one! We’re hosting a party on May 2nd to celebrate, and to warm up we’re taking a look back at all the SoNYC events from the past year.

SoNYC is co-organised by Lou Woodley of nature.com, John Timmer, Science Editor at Ars Technica and Jeanne Garbarino and Joe Bonner at Rockefeller University. We follow a rotating 3-month editorial cycle to ensure we cover all angles of science online:

In month 1 we cover topics relating to science communication and outreach. Month 2 focuses on online tools for scientists, including digital publishing and month 3 of the cycle looks a “implicational” issues such as legal and policy discussions.

In this post we round up all of the SoNYC events around science communication and outreach. You can read the recap of the events from the review of those that focused on online tools for scientists and digital publishing here and the implicational issues – legal, policy and community here.

Courting Controversy: how to successfully engage an online audience with complex or controversial topics

The very first SoNYC took place on Weds 20th April 2011 and asked how to successfully engage an online audience with complex or controversial topics. Questions such as; “How do science communicators can help ensure that accurate information rises above the noise?” and, “What are the challenges faced by experts who attempt to reach the public directly?” were discussed. The panel included researchers who have engaged the Press and the public about climate change, vaccines, and the perception of risk:

• Ken Bromberg is the director of the Vaccine Research Center at the Brooklyn Hospital Center, and has made frequent appearances in the media to discuss vaccine safety.
• David Ropeik is a former journalist who now lectures and consults on risk perception. In recent entries at his blog, On Risk, he has tackled vaccines and nuclear safety.
• Gavin Schmidt is a climate researcher at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and a driving force behind the RealClimate blog. His public outreach efforts have included an appearance on the Letterman Show.
  

You can find a write-up and Storify summary from the event here and below are a few of the key messages from the online discussion:

Reaching the niches: connecting under-represented groups in science

The fourth SoNYC event took place on Wednesday 24th August.  The topic for debate this month was how do we reach and connect groups that are underrepresented in science? Women, minorities and researchers in developing economies often face challenges when integrating into the scientific community. It can also be difficult for researchers with a niche interest to find and support each other. Groups such as teens often fail to view science as interesting or significant in its own right and have poor access to reliable, engaging scientific content.

The panel looked at how minority networks form and develop both online and off, and discussed the targeted efforts to reach communities that are underrepresented or disinterested in science:

• Khadijah Britton is the founder of BetterBio, a non-profit focused on helping minority communities connect with science.
• Meghan Groome is director of the NY Academy of Science’s K-12 Education and Science & the City programs.
• Dhiraj Murthy is an assistant professor at Bowdoin College, where he studies the use of social media tools within minority communities.
• Nancy Parmalee, a graduate student at Columbia University, will talk about how forming online communities have advanced her research.
• Daniel Colón Ramos is the director of CienciaPR, a group dedicated to promoting scientific collaborations and literacy in Puerto Rico.
• Bernice Rumala is co-chair of Rockefeller University’s Achieving Successful and Productive Academic Research Careers (SPARC) initiative.

In the build-up to the event, we also ran some guest posts here on Of Schemes and Memes by scientists representing minority or niche groups. Our first installment from SoNYC co-organiser Jeanne Garbarino, also a Postdoc at Rockefeller University, considered some of the underrepresented groups within science. In our second installment, Mónica I. Feliú-Mójer discussed her role as the vice-director of Ciencia Puerto Rico, a non-profit, grassroots organization that promotes science, research and scientific literacy in Puerto Rico. Our third post was from Subhra Priyadarshini, editor of Nature Publishing Group’s India portal who talked about life for scientists in India. In our forth post we heard from Satoshi Uchiyama, a Japanese researcher working abroad, as he details his career hurdles and visa issues. In our last post, we heard fromAmanda Adeleye, a medical student who reveals that the glamorous world of cheerleading can mix with science.

Find a write up and Storify summary from the event here and a few of the take home messages from the online discussion below:

Matching mediums and messengers to meet the masses

On Thursday 8th December 2011 the seventh SoNYC took place and the topic for debate this month was, “Matching medium and messengers to meet the masses.” Reaching an audience that’s already interested in science is a relatively easy thing to do. Reaching a broader audience, however, can be a serious challenge. The conversation looked at when and how scientists and science communicators should highlight science issues to the general public.

The panel had experience communicating with audiences from young kids to policymakers, and discussed what they have learnt about using different spokespeople and platforms to get their message out:

• Darlene Cavalier is the woman behind the Science Cheerleaders.
• Jamie Vernon, a science policy analyst.
• Molly Webster, lead producer for live programming at the World Science Festival.
• Kevin Zelnio is Assistant Editor and Webmaster for Deep Sea News and a freelance writer.

For more information, you can find a write up and Storify summary from the event here and below are a few of the take home messages from the online conversation:

Beyond a trend: enhancing science communication with social media

On Thursday 17th February the ninth SoNYC was a special event for Social Media Week. We teamed up with the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) and the topic for debate was social media. This month’s SoNYC wasn’t held in the usual location at Rockefeller University, but at the AMNH:

As a communications tool, social media is an undeniably effective way to enhance your message. But within the science realm, top communicators – both academic and professional – strive to use social media for something greater: to engage the public in a conversation about science. The panel included scientists, communicators, and educators who use social media tools to find creative, collaborative, and engaging learning opportunities:

• Ruth Cohen, Director of the Center for Lifelong Learning at the American Museum of Natural History
• Ben Lillie, the co-organizer of The Story Collider, which tells science stories by combining verbal narratives with podcasts, Twitter and an online magazine
• Matt Danzico, a BBC journalist who conducted a 365-day blog experiment called “The Time Hack” looking at how we perceive time
• Carl Zimmer, a science journalist whose latest book, Science Ink: Tattoos of the Science Obsessed, is based on feedback he received on his Discover Magazine blog when he asked the question: are scientists hiding tattoos of their science?
• Moderator: Jennifer Kingson, day assignment editor, Science Department, The New York Time

In the lead up to Social Media week, we ran a series of guest posts here on Of Schemes and Memes, recounting experiences where social media has been a key part of a science education project. To start the discussions, Dr Alan Cann from Leicester University gave us an academic’s viewpoint on how social media can be used as part of the curriculum. Next we heard from Ben Lillie, co-founder of The Story Collider, revealing how social media can also be used to tell a science story. We then took a look at the, “This is what a scientist looks like” initiative, interviewing writer and multimedia specialist, Allie Wilkinson.

Take home messages

All SoNYC events are live-streamed and the videos are archived so that anyone can follow along, whether you’re in NYC or not. We also tweet enthusiastically on the #sonyc hashtag and create Storifys of the online conversations around each event. Recently, we’ve also been providing preview posts for each event, where we start to explore the month’s topic in advance of the in-person discussions. Search our archive of blog posts to find out more.