Some of you may be familiar with a new trend at some science journals: video abstracts in which the authors explain their findings on camera, sometimes enhanced with animations or other visually-rich media. A few journals routinely accept and publish video abstracts prepared by authors. Two of these are the New Journal of Physics and Cell, and you can see examples of their video abstracts by going to their websites.
These video abstracts are typically short (3-5 minutes) and often published on a video-sharing site such as YouTube, rather than on the journal website. By providing video summaries on such accessible and popular video-sharing sites, authors make their work widely available. Anyone can access these media without having a subscription or paying a fee.
In addition to the above journals, several other journals are currently "experimenting" with video abstracts. This movement reflects the overall trend in multimedia communication of information on the internet, in combination with the availability of digital devices and software for creating and sharing video.
What are the advantages for an author? By using video, authors can explain their work in a way that they are not able to do in print, such as showing footage of their laboratory setups or methods, field sites, and/or study organisms. The authors are able to provide a more personal explanation of their findings and put them into a broader perspective. By posting a video on the internet, the author can raise the visibility of themselves and their research because search engines rank video high in comparison to text-only descriptions (especially if it's the only video out there on the topic). People searching for information on a topic will be more likely to find their video abstract, and the video will lead viewers to the technical paper. Also, if the video is published on YouTube, the authors are free to embed their video abstract on their own websites, something they often cannot do with their journal publication because of copyright restrictions.
What are the advantages for the reader? Video can provide a richer, more interactive experience for a reader. For non-specialist readers, a video in which the authors explain their work in everyday language would provide greater insight, spark their curiosity about the topic, and possibly encourage them to learn more about it. For example, as a scientist, I'm interested in keeping up with major discoveries in other fields. Although I'm not likely to read a technical paper about the Higgs boson, I would watch a video that explains what's been discovered and what it means.
Are video abstracts just a fad or will it become a common practice at science journals? Hard to say.
Some video abstracts are well-done:
Others are pretty awful:
Some science disciplines (physics) seem to be getting on the multimedia bandwagon faster than others. Whatever the future of video abstracts, we are clearly in a learning phase. Many of my colleagues have never even heard of video abstracts and expressed no interest in doing one, even if offered the opportunity. Students seemed to be more receptive to the idea, and I suspect this is because they are more technically-savy and accustomed to watching YouTube videos than most of their professors.
If video abstracts become standard practice, authors will need to either develop some skills at creating such videos or will need access to multimedia specialists who can help them. My guess is that most authors will end up paying someone, either at their institution or a free-lancer, to produce a video abstract. Possibly some journals will offer the service at a price. It will be interesting to see how this practice evolves.
For more on the video revolution in science communication, see this video:
We've all heard or read advice about how to give presentations, or more specifically, how not to screw up in front of your peers. It's sometimes worthwhile, however, to revisit sage advice to see if it is really germane or if it needs some clarification or modification.
One recommendation I often hear is, "Never apologize for a bad slide." Yet many of my colleagues seem not to have ever heard this one. They continue to put up slides with long tables filled with data in font so small that it's impossible to read even from the front row. These presenters apologize for the busy slide, then say that they just want to point out one or two data points and that the audience should just ignore the rest.
Well then why not just create a slide with those one or two important data points in large font? It's easy enough in PowerPoint. The audience will be able to read the values and can concentrate on them. Better yet, add a graphic or photo that emphasizes the relevance of those data to the point you are trying to make. See the following example.
Much more effective than a dense table. So why do people persist in presenting bad slides? Part of the reason is sheer laziness. They cut and paste the table, graph, or diagram from one of their papers (or someone else's paper). They think that to do anything else requires more time and effort (which is usually not true). The other reason is that they collected all those other data and so must show it....right? Wrong. The audience will be aware of the effort you went to to get to that key data point. Showing extraneous data has the opposite effect of annoying, rather than enlightening your audience.
Showing a slide that is impossible to read or understand is also insulting to the audience. It sends a clear message that you don't care about them. And if you apologize, it means that you are well aware of the poor quality of the slide but didn't care enough about the audience to fix it.
The advice about never apologizing for a bad slide suggests that it's OK to use bad slides as long as you don't acknowledge it. Actually, most of us realize that this advice means never use a bad slide. No slide is better than a bad slide. However, it's easy for novices to misinterpret this advice....which is why I bring it up. I should mention here that using tables and complicated graphs or diagrams in posters is OK (because the viewer has the time to digest them and likely wants to see the data), but you should still design them well so that your point is clearly made.
I would amend this recommendation to be, "You should never HAVE to apologize for a bad slide. If, while practicing your presentation, you find yourself saying, "Now, I realize you can't see the data on this slide, but I just want you to focus on this number...", delete that slide and create a new one. Your audience will thank you.
The SpotOn Blog is developing a toolkit of useful resources for female scientists wanting to raise their online profiles (note that some of these resources are useful for male scientists as well). This effort is a really good one because it encourages women to get their names, their work, and their stories online. As I've tried to emphasize on this blog, women must be their own advocates and make sure their voices are heard. The Web is a great place to promote your accomplishments, advertise your skills, and generally make yourself more visible.
The resource pack has links organized into the following categories:
Important websites where every female scientist should have a profile Other websites where it could be interesting for a female scientist to have a profile/be listed Women in science on Twitter Good tips about science communication Where to create my blog Good places to get a post hosted Online communities
Everyone is invited to add links to useful blog posts, websites, twitter lists, and other online resources.
In the last post, I talked about the "elevator speech" and why it's important to have one. I described an experience that made me realize few students are trained to explain their research in terms that the average person can understand and appreciate. Such an ability is not only good for an individual scientist (e.g., making a good impression on a potential employer or talking to the press), but it's good for science and the public's impression of scientists. When scientists are unable to explain their work in everyday terms or relate it to the average person's experience, then the public may conclude that the research area is esoteric or not relevant to them.
During fieldwork, I've frequently come into contact with the public. I've been approached by local fishermen, land managers, tourists, and various bystanders who ask what I'm doing and why. I always take the time to talk to them and explain the importance of my work. And I always answer carefully because you never know when the questioner might be someone of influence (member of Congress, local politician, land owner), which has happened to colleagues. I'm especially circumspect if they happen to be armed (which has occurred to me a few times).
I was confident about myself, but wondered about my research group. So a number of years ago I decided to test them to see what they might say to a member of the public about our work. I routinely held lab meetings and required semi-annual progress reports by group members. Each person (student, technician, post-doc) would get up and give a short presentation about their project, and then I and other team members would ask questions or provide constructive criticism. At one of these progress reviews, I told the group that I wanted to do something slightly different. After the last person's presentation, I said, "OK. You've explained your work in terms that we understand. I want you to pretend that you are out in the marsh doing your research and a local fisherman has stopped you and asked what you are doing. How would you explain your work in everyday language?"
Well, you can probably guess what happened. If you read the last post, you may have guessed that everyone proceeded to spout off an incomprehensible explanation, even more convoluted and abstruse than their scientific presentation. It was as if the challenge of explaining things to a non-specialist caused a brain malfunction. This outcome turned out to be highly entertaining, and before long, we were all in stitches. The succeeding speakers, who had laughed uproariously at the first person's attempt, did no better. The more they tried to explain, the worse it got.
Despite the hilarity, I was horrified at what my team might be saying to members of the public they encountered in the course of their work. At the end of the meeting, I told the group that I wanted them to think about this and by the next progress review to have a short, simple explanation of their work to present to the group.
I could see that they all expected a repeat of the first exercise: to stand up and say a couple of sentences. They would be ready for that...no problem. So I came up with a slightly different plan. I enlisted the help of one of the administrative staff, a woman who agreed to dress up and act like a local fisherwoman, which would create a more realistic situation. When the next progress meeting convened, I asked the group if they had their speeches ready. They all eagerly responded that they were ready and confident. I told them that I had invited a local fisherwoman to help with the exercise. A few of them looked stunned, but soon began laughing when they saw it was a staff member.
However, she played her part perfectly.
When the first person started explaining their project on sea-level rise, she immediately interrupted and said she did not understand what sea-level rise was. Did they mean vitamin C? She proceeded to ask questions of each speaker, forcing them to explain unfamiliar terms and asking why they were studying those particular topics. She soon had everyone flustered and stammering. It was another eye-opening experience. Whereas the first exercise revealed the lack of a good elevator speech, the second one showed that just having a canned elevator speech is not sufficient in a real world situation, with real people who ask difficult questions.
Some of my research group really liked the exercise and went on to become quite good at explaining their science to lay audiences. Others were less enthusiastic and did not seem to understand the reason or the need for the exercise. My goal was to get them (and me) to start looking at our research from an outsider's viewpoint and how best to explain it. Turns out, it is very difficult to forget what we know about a topic and see it through the eyes of the non-expert.
How good are you at explaining your work? How do you know? A good place to start is with your friends and family (assuming they are not in science). You can not only practice on them, you can ask for their feedback as to how you are doing. At family gatherings or similar events, you will run into people who will ask what you've been doing lately. You can then try out your elevator speech, tailored for the non-specialist. If your speech is short and intriguing, it will stimulate questions. With experience, you'll learn what works and what doesn't. You'll eventually develop responses appropriate for different situations and audiences.
Then, when you run into that Important Scientist or Potential Future Employer at a conference and she asks you about your work, you will know exactly what to say.
I've mentioned what is known as an "elevator speech" previously in the context of having a short description of a presentation you might be giving at a conference. I suggested that it would be worthwhile to have a one or two sentence description of your presentation to use in conversations during mixers or in the event you meet a potential employer or representative of a funding agency.
Having a well-thought-out speech that describes your work in brief, clear, simple terms is essential in a fast-paced, short-attention-span world. Most people, particularly those outside your area of specialty, are not going to want to listen to you hem and haw about what your work is all about. Few people are able to provide an off-the-cuff description of a complex topic in a way that the non-specialist will fully understand or appreciate. The rest of us need to plan and practice.
I recall distinctly when the idea of an elevator speech occurred to me (although I did not think of it in exactly those terms and had never heard that phrase before). I was working as a research associate and was returning from a field trip with a professor and one of his graduate students. It was late, around 9:00 pm, and we were passing through a swampy area locally known as a popular dumping ground for serial killers, when our vehicle suddenly conked out. There was little traffic, and in any case, no one was going to offer assistance to three scruffy looking people dressed in old, muddy clothes. We were about six miles from the next populated area likely to have a telephone (this was way, way before cell phones). It took us a couple of hours, but we finally made it to a public telephone and called a tow truck. Once we got our vehicle hooked up, we all piled into the tow truck cab and headed back to campus.
During the drive, the tow truck driver asked us where we were coming from and what we were doing out in that area. The professor explained that we were from the university and were returning from a field trip to conduct some research. The driver then asked what kind of research. The graduate student, who was quite full of himself, launched into a description of his research project, which was the reason for our field trip. He explained that we were studying "anaerobic metabolism in Species name" and proceeded to talk about enzyme assays, adenine nucleotides, and various soil chemistry parameters. You can imagine the puzzled look on the tow truck driver's face. The professor just shook his head and said, "We are trying to understand why our coastal wetlands are disappearing." The truck driver flashed him a look of relief and said, "Oh, right. Now I understand. That's really great what you are doing. I do a lot of fishing at the coast and know that the marshes are really important."
That interaction stuck with me. In the next post, I'll describe how I tried to train my own staff and students in the art of talking to non-specialists.
In the last post, I talked about factors that may (or may not) increase the citations of your papers. Some of the bibliometric studies report correlations that have led to dubious recommendations about how an individual researcher can increase their own citation rate. For example, one study found a correlation between numbers of references in a paper and the subsequent citations that paper garners. A Nature News article took that finding and suggested that researchers might improve their citation rate by including more references in their papers. Such strategies rarely work because the observed relationship may not be due to cause and effect and, in any case, reflects statistical outcomes involving thousands of papers.
So what does work? In this post, I'll be talking about some strategies that are more likely to attract attention to your publications and that simultaneously provide other benefits.
Why Worry About Citations?
But first, some of you may be wondering why anyone would worry about how many citations they have. Citations provide an indication, along with other metrics such as the h-index, about what impact your work has on your field of science. Citations are important because most search committees and tenure review panels use citation information (e.g., in Thompson-Reuter's ISI Web of Science or Google Scholar Citations) to assess a candidate's credentials and potential for success. Whether you like it or not, think citation metrics are valid or not, they will likely be used at some point in your science career to assess your qualifications for a future job or promotion. Not knowing your citation rate or h-index is like a student not knowing their GPA. Without that information, you have no way of gauging how you stack up against the competition or how much you may need to improve.
As long as review panels emphasize such metrics, we will have to be at least cognizant of, if not proactive about, our citations. Being proactive does not mean trying to "game" the system, as some of the bibliometric studies seem to suggest. Instead, it's much better to seek valid ways to promote the visibility of your work, which will lead people to your publications and hopefully to cite them. I'm going to take the results of one of these bibliometric studies and show how you can take the concept and apply it in a more useful way to promote your work.
Some evidence suggests that open-access papers garner more citations than papers requiring a subscription to access. The implication is that when more people can easily acquire and read your paper, the more likely they are to cite something in that paper. However, many scientists lack the funds to pay for open-access for all their publications. Some may think that a less expensive option is to offer their papers as pdfs on their personal websites. There are two problems with this option. First is that it's unlikely that your website (and your papers) will show up on the first page of an internet search of your topic of research, unless you are working in a really obscure field. Second, and more importantly, unless you have the journal publisher's permission, posting pdfs of your published papers on your website is copyright infringement. When you signed that copyright agreement with the publisher of the journal, you gave over that right to the publisher.
Is there anything else you can do to attract attention to your papers, perhaps increasing citations of your work? The answer is yes. Some people post the unformatted manuscript version on their own website or in an article repository. Through these versions, others can access the content of the work without paying the subscription fee to the journal. However, there is another way, which is the topic of this post.
A Better Idea
You can create an attractive, informative, and interesting brief, which describes the essence of a paper, along with some key photographs or other images. The image above illustrates an example of a template I've used to create a one-page brief for a number of my past publications. I used Pages, which is an Apple application, to create this template, but PC users can use Microsoft Publisher or a similar program. These applications have a number of templates to choose from and come in a range of visually pleasing designs. They are very easy to use and to modify for your purposes. They can be one pagers or more, but generally shorter is better.
The briefs that I've created for my publications typically contain the abstract or a summary of the paper along with a sentence or two stating the take-home message plus several photographs or figures. Note that it's important not to use any graphs or other figures from the published paper unless you get permission from the publisher. However, I've found it easy to pick one of the many unpublished photos or other images from my media library to illustrate my briefs. Most journals will allow an author to post the abstract of a paper on their website because these are usually publicly available anyway (as long as you provide the journal citation along with the abstract). So adding the abstract to your brief is usually acceptable (however, if you are not the author, using an abstract this way is not advisable). If you think using the abstract verbatim might be challenged by a publisher or is just too technical, then it's relatively easy to write another, less technical summary. Within the brief, I provide the citation information and create a hyperlink to the journal page where the full paper is published. I also include links to my websites and my email address where someone can contact me for a reprint of the technical paper.
Click on the above image to see the additional instructions for creating a brief with this template.
You may be thinking that this is a lot of effort that takes too much time. However, I found that once I created the template, that I could complete a research brief in five to ten minutes, depending on how long it took me to find appropriate photographs. The process involved four steps:
1. I find three photographs to illustrate the paper (you might choose to show only one photo). I have an extensive media library of photographs I've accrued over the past 40 years, so there's no problem with choices. I usually only need to modify the size of the image so that the brief is not too large. Then, the images can be dragged and dropped into the photo placeholders. This takes only a few minutes.
2. I add the paper title, authors, and journal citation in the appropriate places (along with the hyperlink). A couple of minutes.
3. I copy and paste the paper's abstract into the main text box and resize to fit. Another minute or two.
4. I then think of a sentence or two to summarize the significance of the work or the take-home message and type that into the appropriate text box. That may take a few minutes.
And that's it.
Once the brief is finished, it can be exported as a pdf or jpg, which can then be posted on a personal website. I've created briefs for around twenty of my recent publications and posted these on my professional profile website. On the webpage where my publications are listed, I've put a thumbnail of the research brief alongside the relevant citation. When the viewer clicks on the thumbnail, the brief opens up in a high resolution image that can be read online. I also provide a link that allows the brief to be downloaded as a pdf.
What Are the Advantages?
The beauty of this approach is that images or pdfs (as opposed to text) can get your brief listed higher on a search engine ranking. For example, if there are a lot of text-based listings for the topic of your research, your paper is likely listed on page 41 of a Google search. On the other hand, if there are no or only a few images associated with your research topic, then your brief (posted as a jpg file) will more likely show up on the Google Image page.
Even if you don't want to go to the effort of creating a research brief for every one of your journal articles, just posting a thumbnail photo alongside each text citation will get your work noticed by search engines looking for images about a topic. You want to be sure, however, to include appropriate keywords in the file name as well as any other tags or alternate titles associated with that image so that Google can associate it with you and your research.
Another idea is to post an image of a conference poster, which offers similar information as your publication, but in a non-copyrighted format. You can create a one-page flyer, similar to the ones people often offer as poster take-aways, and add it as a thumbnail image next to the journal citation in your publication list. Because it is visual and clickable, people will have immediate access to the key information that is in the journal publication. Again, you want to include somewhere on the poster image a link to the journal article, your professional website, and email address.
By the way, videos about your research are very effective in getting a high ranking by search engines, especially when your topic has mostly text-based listings. I've created and posted several videos about my research on YouTube and professional multimedia galleries. When a search is conducted for the topic of my research, the Web listings do not include links to any of my technical papers on the first page, but the only videos listed on the topic are mine and show up on the first page of a Google search. So anyone (especially students) searching for information on the topic of my research will see the link to my video, likely click on it (because it is visual and potentially interesting), and ultimately be led to my technical papers, which are listed at the end of the video and in the text description accompanying the video. On my webpage listing of publications, I have a link to these videos alongside those relevant citations. At this point, so few scientists use videos to describe their work, that this strategy will put you in a league of your own.
The feedback I've gotten, especially from students, is that they really like these one-page summaries and videos. They bring the dry, sometimes esoteric, information in the technical paper alive. The photos and video footage appeal to the current generation of students who are accustomed to acquiring their information from audiovisual media. They obviously appeal also to visual learners and to those students and scientists in other fields who want to know more about a topic, but not enough to read the technical paper.
So in addition to making your publications more visible to those likely to cite it, this approach will also help you reach a broader audience. Explaining your research in a way that is interesting and understandable by non-technical audiences will help promote the value of science to the general public and to familiarize the public with the scientists behind the research.
Another advantage of developing audiovisual communication products to accompany your technical articles is that they can fulfill the "broader impacts" criterion required by some funding agencies (e.g., NSF). In addition to having a clear plan to address the "broader impacts" criterion, successful proposals include evidence that the PI has previously developed materials that, for example, explain the significance of their work to broader audiences such as the general public or policymakers. Having created semi- or non-technical fact sheets, podcasts, interactive graphics, and videos to explain your technical work shows review panels that you have the capability of meeting the broader impacts criterion. I'll talk more about this aspect in future posts.
I was talking with a colleague the other day about science videos and that more scientists were making short films about what their research is about, how they go about doing research, and some of the interesting things they are discovering. This colleague, who is a statistician/modeler, suggested that this activity was not something he could participate in because his area was too abstract and did not lend itself well to visual media.
I was a bit surprised by this statement and pointed out that there were lots of interesting and informative science videos that deal with math, physics, and similar topics. I suggested he take a look at YouTube where one can find some quite amazing and creative examples. His reaction to this suggestion indicated that he thought YouTube was a repository comprised of mostly amateur, puerile videos. Although there are a lot of those, there are many excellent and professionally-produced videos.
Also, YouTube is the second largest search engine in the US (Google being first).
Anyway, I often conduct searches on science topics on YouTube just to see what interesting and creative videos are out there. Here is one I came across recently, which was created by Cristóbal Vila, a 3D illustrator and animator (with no formal science background that I can see). It is about geometry and mathematical relationships, using examples from nature to illustrate concepts. The video is embedded below, but you can read more about how the video was made here. Last I checked, this video has been viewed over 2 million times on YouTube. That's a lot of people potentially inspired to learn more about the mathematical proportions in nature.
Enjoy..(to see a high resolution version select the HD version and full screen mode to view)
A commenter on an earlier post in this series brings up an important issue regarding scientists who are reluctant to be cheerleaders for science. He argues that the days of scientists working in isolation in their laboratories and never having to bother with staff meetings, congressional hearings, or explaining their science to taxpayers are long gone.
I agree that we are in a different era in which there is an increasing demand for scientists to justify their research. I do think it's important for scientists to communicate their work to a broader audience…which is why I’ve devoted numerous posts to talking about the importance of science communication by scientists (see the nav bar-- Science Communication). Many argue that scientists can no longer afford to stay in their laboratories and never communicate with the ultimate end-users…policy-makers, land managers, and the general public. Personally, I’ve done a complete about-face from being a scientist who does her research in isolation (never talking to the public) to actively promoting the value of my work….developing information products (fact sheets, videos) describing my research and its importance to the general public. I talk to grade-school students about science and about wetlands. I founded and edit a non-technical publication (articles written by scientists) with the purpose of encouraging scientists to directly engage the public. I started writing this blog. In other words, cheerleading for my own work and talking about what it's like to be a scientist.
As I've also pointed out in previous posts, however, there are dangers to speaking out in the public arena....just ask any climate scientist (see Who's Got Our Backs? and Sagan's Rejection). Science communication also takes time and resources, which may not be available to the average scientist. Such costs should be balanced against the need for science communication. We should also understand that good science communication takes training and effort and is not typically taught to scientists (although this is changing). We must also acknowledge that not everyone has the talent for science communication (see Don't Be Such a Romulan). Many people who are attracted to science are often workers who are quiet, contemplative people and are just not very comfortable dealing with the public.
The point of my series is to consider the hypothesis posed by the book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts...i.e., that introverted people are unfairly judged and should not be prodded to be more like extroverts. These are people who are thoughtful, who weigh their words carefully before speaking, and who process information differently from those who are more verbally facile. In the hypothetical example I gave, Jennifer is a young introvert with a lot of potential as a scientist. There are many like her in science, both male and female, who need help and encouragement to feel confident in their inherent nature, not criticism for something they cannot easily change. Such people often do just fine in one-on-one interactions, but find it difficult to speak up in larger groups, especially ones dominated by loud know-it-alls. Their reluctance to speak up is often misinterpreted and mishandled by teachers, mentors, and supervisors who fail to recognize how different introverts are.
We can try to encourage such people to become more verbally skilled, but expecting an introvert to testify successfully at a congressional hearing or participate in a public debate (without extensive training) is perhaps not reasonable (or wise). Not everyone is cut out to be a good science communicator, nor should everyone be forced to be one. We can help such people improve their verbal communication skills through focused training and similar means, but there will be a limit to how much one can change an inherent way of thinking and feeling. Scientists who are strongly introverted can be encouraged instead to develop non-verbal communications with the public (writing popular science articles, producing/directing science videos, hosting science blogs, for example).
The point of my series is to explore the mind-set of introverts and how they differ from extroverts and to consider how this dichotomy relates to scientists. We are perhaps better off taking advantage of the introverted scientist's natural skills rather than forcing them to change. We can teach students the importance of communicating their science, try to provide them opportunities to hone their communication skills, but emphasize that they can select whichever communication mechanisms best fit their nature. Over time, we'll hopefully end up with a science community in which there are a lot of good communicators, but who go about it in diverse ways.
I mentioned in the last post that I recently attended a regional conference in another country. I gave one of the plenary presentations, but was the only speaker (plenary or session) to deliver a talk in English. There were other Americans in attendance, but they were apparently fluent in the local language. I knew beforehand that this would likely be the case and that many in the audience might not understand English very well.
What should one do in such an instance? Just deliver in English and hope for the best? Read a foreign translation of your talk?
I had briefly considered reading my talk in the native language of the host country, but finally decided that my pronunciation/accent might not be understood. Also, reading a talk is boring, in any language. I decided I had to deliver in English and have a translator. I've done this before, but it was not a simultaneous translation. Instead, the translator stood beside me and translated after each sentence or two. Simultaneous translation is much better, but requires more preparation.
I initially relied on the conference organizers, who invited me, to make whatever arrangements might be necessary. The plan was to have a simultaneous translator and to give out headphones to those who needed them. However, I learned after arriving at the conference venue that only 100 or so headphones would be rented, but that they were expecting around 600 participants (turns out around 350 or so attended the day of my presentation).
After meeting a few people who spoke so little English that I was forced to use what little I knew of their language to communicate, I realized that this would not be like a typical international conference where the official language is English and most people understand it. I began to be concerned that some people would not be able to follow my presentation. So in addition to the translator (more about that later), I made a few adjustments to my Powerpoint presentation.
First of all, I asked a former student from that country to help me translate key phrases on my slides into their language. I know enough of the language to get by, but cannot carry on a conversation or trust myself to do an accurate job of translation. However, knowing some basic vocabulary and conjugation was a big help. We also made use of online translators to check for alternate definitions and to look up technical words. This all worked well. Each slide had the title translated. I also inserted a sentence on key slides that summarized the main point. Most of my slides were very visual, with photos, graphs, and diagrams--to facilitate understanding without a verbal description. I also used a lot of animation with arrows or circles to emphasize key aspects of the data (and minimize the need for additional verbiage).
It took us about an hour to go through the presentation and do all the translation. I later added some more slides to the presentation and was able to use the online translator by myself to fill in the text translation.
As I mentioned above, they also hired a simultaneous translator, and the conference hall was set up for this with a booth and microphones. Prior to leaving home for the meeting, I sent the translator the script of my presentation so she would have plenty of time to do the translation. She took the script and wrote all of it out in the native language. The day of my presentation, I met with her to go over the talk and to answer any questions she had about technical terms. I was very impressed with her professionalism and how much she understood of the science. I answered her questions, and we went over last-minute changes in the order of slides.
Then it was time for my talk. I hesitated to start off by apologizing for speaking in English, but decided to do so. However, I made a joke about it, which seemed to be appreciated. During the talk, I made a point to speak slowly and to enunciate my words carefully. I also paused frequently and looked directly at different sections of the audience (to make eye contact). I tried to gauge how well people were understanding, but it was impossible (I find this difficult anyway with most audiences, who tend to sit with blank expressions). Anyway, I proceeded with the expectation that I was being understood.
Apparently, I was. Afterwards, several people who were not fluent in English came up to tell me that they had no trouble following my talk and really appreciated the efforts I made to make my talk understandable. They mentioned my speaking slowly and especially the language translation on each slide as being the biggest factors that helped them follow me (they also hinted that this had not been their usual experience with other American and British speakers who tend to talk very rapidly).
I was very pleased with how well it all turned out. Maybe I'll get confident enough in the future to deliver a talk in another language. For now, though, I see what I should do to help non-English speakers to better follow my presentations.
Photo Credits: Creature from District 9 (TriStar Pictures); NASA/JPL Planetquest; modified still image, unknown photographer
Eleanor Arroway (as a young girl): "Dad, do you think there's people on other planets?"
Ted Arroway(Ellie's dad): "Don't know, Sparks. But I guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space."
The idea is that the Universe holds many worlds that support life, including intelligent beings. Carl Sagan, of course, was the scientist and science communicator extraordinaire who promoted this message. The concept is sometimes called the "principle of mediocrity", i.e., that Earth is a common rocky planet in a typical solar system, positioned in a typical galaxy...hence, there are likely many other such planets in many galaxies scattered throughout the Universe. The SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) program featured in the movie Contact exists based on the assumption that someone is out there listening. Of course, this message resonates with the UFO and alien abductee crowd (who never seem to question the wisdom of aliens who return these witnesses to Earth after their "physical exams"....and other illogical alien behavior).
I think something like 50% of Americans believe we have already been visited by aliens, despite the absence of a single piece of evidence. A corollary belief is that when we finally deplete the resources on Earth, we will simply move to some other Earth-like planet...again, despite there being no evidence that such a planet exists. Hollywood (and science fiction) has contributed to these beliefs. Recent films such as Avatar create imaginary worlds so realistic that it's hard for some young viewers to separate fantasy from reality. The idea that there are many civilizations out there in the Universe has become ingrained in our culture.
In this post, I'd like to explore these ideas from the standpoint of how it influences our decisions about protecting the Earth and its resources. In particular, are there other viewpoints that would influence people to be more appreciative of what we have on our little planet.
In fact, there is an opposing hypothesis: the "rare earth hypothesis", which states the alternative that Earth is instead a rare anomaly in the Universe. I've just finished reading "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe" (2000) by Ward and Brownlee. It's been around for a while, but I had never read it. The authors argue that the emergence of complex life, particularly sentient life, has a low probability due to the combination of astrophysical, geological, and evolutionary events required to facilitate it. Obviously, that rare combination can occur...here we are. The point is that life on Earth arose from a series of serendipitous events, without which, complex life would not have evolved or would have been extinguished prematurely (the probability of worlds with microbial-level life is higher).
However, what catches my attention about the rare earth hypothesis is the notion that life can be easily snuffed out by any one of a variety of cosmic occurrences. The geologic record documents at least 5 major events in the Earth's past in which mass extinctions have taken place. Some scientists estimate that 99% of species that once existed are now extinct. Some extinctions are attributed to cosmic collisions; others to huge climate swings. You see where I'm going with this...
At this point in time, we know only one planet that can support life--Earth. There may be others out there, but no evidence so far...and even if there are, we don't have the technology to reach them in the event Earth becomes uninhabitable. We know that mass extinctions are part of Earth's history and that some were caused by climate extremes (Snowball Earth, Runaway Greenhouse). We also know that human activities are altering the Earth's atmosphere and biosphere.
I'm sure that Sagan, in proposing the large estimate of habitable planets, was thinking mostly of supporting space exploration and astrobiology...not about the possible effect such a belief might have on how we view Earth and its resources. Yet here we are facing some serious questions about climate change and other issues.
Hollywood movies typically have happy endings with groups of humans surviving apocalyptic events in subterranean shelters or some other ark-like system (Deep Impact, 2012), humans colonizing other planetary systems (Avatar), or more advanced alien civilizations sending blueprints for transport of humans across the Universe (Contact). These are entertaining stories that convey a compelling message about human resilience and persistence. We naturally identify with the survivors, not those unfortunate people who succumb to the meteor impact. Government plans for response to such events also send the message that these catastrophes are survivable. However, one only needs to consider how we handled lesser events (Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf oil spill, Japan tsunami) to see the reality that our current abilities are insufficient to meet a global-level disaster.
Are there people on other planets? Don't know. But I guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like we should treat our planet (and each other) better.
Image Credits: Film clip (introductory sequence) and modified stills from the movie, Contact (Warner Bros.)
Scientifically-proven is an oxymoron. In most scientific fields, it is impossible to prove something, e.g., that all birds fly. We might survey a thousand species throughout the temperate zone and conclude that, yes, all birds fly. Unless we’ve examined every bird that exists in the world, we cannot say that we’ve proven anything. Instead, we proceed by trying to falsify a scientific hypothesis. This approach encourages scientists to design rigorous experiments. We search for environments in which birds might not fly and soon discover penguins, ostriches, and other flightless birds. So we amend our hypothesis that “all birds fly” to “most birds fly”. The discovery of flightless birds raises further questions about bird evolution and adaptation to certain habitats. Other hypotheses are less easily falsified. Complex systems, such as ecosystems, and their workings are more challenging. We chip away, a few data points at a time. Sometimes a pattern emerges, which may become the basis of a generalization.
We never stop trying to disprove even widely-accepted concepts. Scientists attempt to replicate previous findings, and in the process sometimes overturn the original result or uncover new information, which adds to the overall picture. In the process, we continually gain new knowledge, which allows us to modify our initial conceptual model. If instead, we announce that something is finally proven and that we are certain, knowledge stops accumulating. Scientists know that their knowledge about a certain topic is limited and that there are many unknowns yet to be revealed.
The average person rarely understands these concepts and is frustrated when scientists don't express certainty about a subject and equivocate in their answers to questions. They assume that the scientist, who does not convey certainty about a topic, simply does not know or is confused, is not competent, and/or lacks confidence in their knowledge. However, the good scientist is prepared to shift her viewpoint when new evidence is unveiled. This flexibility does not necessarily mean that what scientists thought before was incorrect. It means that what was previously correct, given the state of knowledge at the time, may be modified in the future with new data.
Scientists state their level of certainty based on statistical probabilities. We are 95% certain that an observed phenomenon is caused by human activity. There's a 5% chance that our observation is due to some other process. The average person interprets the lack of absolute, 100% certainty as a weakness...as evidence that scientists don't really know the cause of a particular phenomenon. However, what if an average person was told that without surgery to remove a malignant brain tumor, there is a 95% chance they would be dead in 6 weeks. Would a person gamble on the probability that there is a 5% chance that they won’t die and refuse surgery? I doubt it.
Such confusion by the public is often exploited by certain interest groups.
The book, “The Merchants of Doubt” describes how special-interest groups raise doubts in the public’s mind about climate change by highlighting disagreements among scientists about specific points, the lack of complete data on a specific topic, or changes over time in what scientists accept as a valid explanation for some phenomenon. Interestingly, the authors document that the people (some are former scientists) who are behind the climate denial machine are the same people who worked for the tobacco industry (smoking is not harmful) and who were behind the denial of the existence of the ozone hole as well as acid rain. Their basic approach is to plant the idea that there are data on both sides of the issue (neglecting to mention that one side has failed to publish their research in refereed journals and/or was funded by the very industry being investigated). This strategy creates confusion over issues by a public that is scientifically illiterate.
When scientists remain silent in response to unscientific claims by doubt-mongers, the public may conclude that the non-scientific viewpoint is correct. Or worse, that the scientific community is perpetrating a hoax on the public. It’s difficult to convince scientists to speak out—for various reasons, not the least of which is the possibility of becoming a target.
Could you explain your research in 90 seconds or less? Ten years ago, the American Institute of Physics created Discoveries and Breakthroughs Inside Science (DBIS) as a way to provide lay audiences with accurate and reliable science information. One of the talks I heard at the AGU meeting a couple of weeks ago was given by Emilie Lorditch entitled "Everything I Need to Know about Science Communication, I Learned from Local Television News". Lorditch is a media specialist.
She described the process whereby DBIS distributes twelve 90-second news segments to local TV stations in the US and abroad each month. They cover a range of topics from astronomy to zoology. Story ideas go through a rigorous background research and peer review (by scientists and media). They identify research breakthroughs in different scientific fields and put together these short news reports, which are then distributed. National and international news programs pick them up and use them in their broadcasts.
I think that the approach used by DBIS is a very effective one. Instead of waiting for the media to do a hasty report (usually with errors) on a science finding, they prepare careful stories that are checked beforehand by scientists. By limiting these reports to 90 seconds, they not only provide news segments that can be aired immediately, but also focus on the most important message. The network of news stations that subscribe to their newsfeed totals 60 stations, representing a potential audience of 70 million.
Lorditch had a couple of insights to share. One was that real people make the story. The scientists are center stage in the news segment--sending the message that real people are behind the science. The other point she made was that visuals and animations were important in getting the science message across. People reported that what they remembered about a news story was often an animation or demonstration explaining some aspect of the science. In other words, the talking heads approach is not the most effective in getting a science message across. Yet, that is often what you see--a scientist being interviewed about some discovery or asked to comment about an environmental disaster.
Even a simple slide show inserted into a story does a great job of providing lasting images and also illustrates the main message of the story. See this site for an example (involving computer-generated snow crystals). One of my favorites is a story about phantom traffic jams (when traffic back-ups occur for no apparent reason)--something I often encounter in my own commuting. See below for the 40 second animation showing the scientists' model in action (of how traffic jams occur).
One of the charges made about scientists in their attempts to communicate science is the tendency to use jargon. Jargon is defined as "vocabulary peculiar to a specific trade, profession, or group". Jargon is necessary within science to convey information accurately and simultaneously save time in getting our message across. The problem arises when we try to speak to those outside our profession and who are not familiar with our technical terms.
I've encountered junior scientists who think that the more complicated their terminology, the more knowledgeable they will appear to others. I had a former post-doc who insisted that writing or speaking about science using concise, simple language was wrong. Her point was that to uphold the image of the scientist as the expert, one must speak in technical language (the more obtuse, the better). If others could not follow, too bad. I strongly disagreed with her viewpoint. Even when writing for technical audiences, use of straightforward sentence structures and simple terms where possible is preferable. The reason is that you must prepare your text or presentation from the viewpoint of the reader (or the audience). You are familiar with your information, but your audience is not. It's your responsibility to present that information in a way that is understandable...to that particular audience. If you make them work hard to figure out what it is that you are trying to say, you may fail to reach them, or even antagonize your audience.
I could provide a lot of examples, but here is a great essay written by a former director of USGS in 1921. It is just as relevant today as it was then.
Photo Credit: modified Life magazine photo of a volcanologist speaking to the media.
Another presentation I attended at the AGU meeting was entitled "Fostering Science Communication Via Direct Outreach by Scientists" and given by M. Vinas. The focus was on getting scientists and their science into the public eye. Part of the effort is to foster volunteer scientists who are interested in communicating to the public. This presentation highlighted three programs by AGU to encourage science communication by scientists: 1. "a suite of blogs that were launched in Fall 2010, written by external Earth and space science bloggers for an audience of scientists and the lay public", 2. "The Plainspoken Scientist", a blog emphasizing science communication (more about this below), and 3. professional development workshops held at scientific meetings in 2009 to teach communications skills to scientists.
Vinas made the point that many scientists complain about the press and what they view as inaccurate science reporting by the media...yet are unwilling to do anything about it. She noted that mostly graduate students have attended their workshops on science communication. Also, most attendees have had some experience in science communication. Vinas also described one of the most effective teaching techniques: making videos of the workshop participants speaking and then having everyone critique the performance. She reported that seeing themselves on camera was worth hours of lectures telling people how to communicate science. When people could see the mistakes they were making or how they came across on camera, this insight convinced them of the necessity of making changes (or paying closer attention to the recommendations of the instructors).
The Plainspoken Scientist is a blog site that has posts by guest bloggers. There is a series called "Why I Blog"--scattered posts written by different scientists. One of the most popular posts is called "Dude, you are speaking Romulan" by Chris Reddy, whose writings I've mentioned here previously.
The most recent post is a Q&A with the host of "The Skeptical Scientist". In it is mentioned the existence of an iPhone app called Skeptical Scientist, which contains all the major arguments by global warming skeptics and links to the real science that counters these unscientific and often politically-driven stances. It's designed for those of us who often get into "discussions" with our skeptical relatives and friends. When your outspoken uncle challenges you with some skeptical argument, you can whip out your iPhone and pull up technical information in a flash with this app. I downloaded it to my phone and tried it out. The information is conveniently categorized by topic: It's not happening, It's not us, It's not bad, and a full search option. Within each of these categories are more detailed questions, such as "CO2 effect is weak". When you click on each question, you are led to a page that begins with the skeptic argument, followed by the science facts. Very useful app.
Image Credit: still from Star Trek, the original series on NBC TV picturing the female Romulan commander, who captured the starship Enterprise.
Continuing my report on presentations at AGU, I will describe one that provided some tips for scientists who wish to communicate their research to non-technical audiences. The presentation, entitled "Communicating Science" was authored by G. J. Holland; M. S. McCaffrey; J. T. Kiehl; C. Schmidt.
The talk began with a quick review of how the communication media is rapidly changing--in some ways for the better and other ways for the worse. The latter includes the disappearance of science journalists and presenters who are being replaced by internet reports and blogs, YouTube, and journalists with little or no scientific training. There are still some journalists and writers who do an excellent job of reporting science, however. The presenter, McCaffrey, mentioned the book by Bill Bryson, "A Short History of Nearly Everything", which I've described here previously. He pointed out how such science reports, written for the lay audience, can be successful at getting across complex ideas in simple language (without errors or "dumbing down" the information.
Anyway, the point of the presentation was that scientists were increasingly needed to fill the communication gap, but who were ill-prepared for doing so. Scientists may be excellent communicators when it comes to talking to their peers, but are less effective when speaking to non-technical audiences. McCaffrey listed the qualities of a scientist: attention to detail and logic, open acknowledgment of uncertainties, and dispassionate delivery. These qualities become liabilities when talking to the non-scientific audience who expect to be entertained with attention-grabbing information or visuals in 15 seconds or less....and the presenter must convey complete confidence in themselves and what they are reporting.
The presentation reported on a program initiated by UCAR (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research) and NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) to develop new approaches to science communication and to equip current and future scientists with the necessary skills to be successful science communicators. Most of the talk and the examples were focused on climate change and how to convey science information about that topic. However, the basic concepts are applicable to other science topics.
One of the recommendations was to target audience attitudes and beliefs, which some studies indicate is key to effective science communication. McCaffrey particularly mentioned the common image of a polar bear on an ice floe (which was photoshopped) as a "framing trap". Reference to far away places and environments outside the average person's experience often backfires because they do not see how changes in the Arctic, for example, directly affect them. Another "framing trap" is the "inconvenient truth"...dire predictions about hurricanes or air pollution, which leads to resignation by the public because they see these problems as so overwhelming that there is nothing they can do to change them.
McCaffrey and colleagues recommend targeting specific communities and not waste time on audiences who are strongly resistant to the message. Along with this is the idea that the message must be tailored to the specific audience. Logical and dispassionate delivery of science facts works well for a scientific audience, but not necessarily for a non-technical audience. Alternate targets would include factors that people are personally concerned with: economics, cultural concerns, immediate impact to community (e.g., sea-level rise on coastal areas). (My observation is that there are many people out there who are open-minded, but ill-informed....they've been fooled by the "merchants of doubt" whose misinformation campaigns about climate change have drowned out the voices of scientists. Such an audience is open to being informed by the facts, especially if the message is tailored to their interests.)
The second recommendation is to shift the primary emphasis from the "science" to the "art" of communication. This is a tricky point because the science communicator can't play loose with the facts in order to get attention or to support a particular position. Included in this shift in perspective is the recommendation to resist advocating particular policy positions. It's possible, for example, to present both sides of an issue and then show which is supported by scientific facts and which is not--and let the viewer make up their own minds. I've found this approach to be very successful with fair-minded people, but even makes some headway with people resistant to a particular viewpoint. Simply by acknowledging other viewpoints sends the message that you are open-minded--at least to the fact that others may hold different opinions and beliefs.
I think it's also appropriate (and important) to distinguish between your opinion as a scientist and your personal feelings or beliefs. It's also important to clearly distinguish between an opinion based on your expertise and one based on your understanding of a research conducted by other scientists. I'm often asked questions about climate change science with which I have no first-hand experience. My response is usually, "That's outside my area of expertise, but based on my reading of the scientific literature...this is what I understand to be the prevailing opinion of scientists working in that area...".
Many of the points made in this presentation are common-sense. However, I found it interesting and informative to have the common approaches to conveying climate science (drowning polar bears, apocalyptic warnings, etc.) dissected and shown to be ineffective in getting the appropriate science message across.
Much of the information and the recommendations given in this talk were based on studies conducted by these programs (NCAR, UCAR) into science communication. Such studies can help science communicators move beyond the "inconvenient truth" approach to conveying science information.
Image Credit: The above image from iStockphoto.com accompanied a letter in Science Magazine decrying recent political attacks on climate scientists. The journal (not the letter authors) included the image of a polar bear isolated on a shrinking ice floe, which turned out to have been photoshopped. Oops. If you look at the Science letter now, it has been replaced by a real image of two bears on a somewhat larger ice floe. The erratum accompanying the image reads: "Due to an editorial error, the original image associated with this Letter was not a photograph but a collage. The image was selected by the editors, and it was a mistake to have used it. The original image has been replaced in the online HTML and PDF versions of the article with an unaltered photograph from National Geographic." The unfortunate outcome of this error is that climate deniers have used it to further their claims that climate scientists are faking their data (aka "Climategate").
This past week, I've been attending the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco. Not being a geologist, I've never attended AGU before. However, I was invited to give a talk on carbon sequestration in one of the sessions, so here I am. Don't worry, though. I'm not going to talk about that.
Instead, I wanted to report about the interesting sessions that were held on science communication and also blogging. First of all, this was a huge meeting--around 19,000 attendees from all over the world. Easily the largest scientific conference I've ever attended. I can only imagine the planning that went into this conference.
Anyway, there were several sessions devoted to science communication and associated topics. In one session, I heard Michael Mann (Penn State Univ.) talk about his experiences with harassment due to his climate science work ("hockey-stick" temperature pattern). Mann has been the target of personal attacks and investigations by various special interest groups, certain media outlets and politicians who have sought to discredit him and his work. His presentation, "Climate Scientists in the Public Arena: Who's Got Our Backs?", focused on the dilemma of scientists who are out-funded and "outmanned" in the battle, especially if their institutions do not back them up. He described his experiences in the public arena, into which he was pushed. It was a chilling story he told. He was ultimately exonerated by investigations into his involvement with "Climategate". He is currently being pursued by the attorney general of Virginia (Ken Cuccinelli), who is also working to get the state seal changed.
One point Mann made, however, stood out. He wondered how the attacks on climate scientists would affect recruitment of students to the field, if they saw how their future research might lead to similar harassment.
I'm on the road, so will describe some of the other talks/sessions in the coming days.
The science blogosphere was abuzz a short while ago with postings about science cheerleaders: neurodojo, scicurious. For those unaware of the topic, this is a group of scientists/cheerleaders whose goal is to motivate people to learn about science and perhaps become scientists themselves (citizen scientists). The movement was initiated by Darlene Cavalier, a scientist and former professional cheerleader, who "founded the Science Cheerleader to unite the citizen’s desire to be heard and valued, the scientist’s growing interest in the public’s involvement, and government’s need to garner public support. The Science Cheerleader serves to get the conversation going, rally the troops, solicit views from all sides and change the tone of science and science policy in this country."
When I first saw a link to a post about the phenomenon, I thought that it was about science communication--a favorite topic of mine. Instead, it seems that this group is actually cheering, with pom-poms and sexy outfits:
As you can see, the science cheerleaders are composed of several attractive women who have some training in a science field and who also happen to have been cheerleaders at some point in their lives. Randy Olsen, scientist-turned-film-maker, helped the group create the video above.
The cheerleading idea is one that warrants a bit of discussion. So here's my take on the idea of "science cheerleaders"--as implemented by the group in the video.
What image does the cheerleader model convey?
First, it's important to point out that traditional cheerleaders are not actually participating in the central event being cheered, i.e., they are supporting a sport and the (typically) male participants in that sport. One can argue about whether their activity is athletic, important to the team, conducted by both sexes... or not. The point is that cheerleaders are on the sidelines and are peripheral to the main event. Why select such a model to promote science and especially women in science?
The cheerleader model conveys the subliminal message that the role of women is to lead cheers for the real scientists: men who are on the playing field smashing atoms or doing other amazing things. That's obviously not the intent of these science cheerleaders, but I'm afraid that that is the message their approach sends. One wonders what the young children in the video think about these science cheerleaders. All they see is a group of attractive women dressed up like real cheerleaders, shaking pom-poms, and prancing around. The women are not shown in labs or out in the field doing science.
Having the cheerleaders talk about their careers in science doesn't counteract the negative image their skimpy outfits convey.
What is the cheerleader message?
I understand that the women who have formed this science cheerleading group are trying to show that women can be scientists and also be attractive and sexy. It's true that scientists have an image problem and are often viewed by the average person as nerdy, awkward, non-athletic, and fashion-challenged. I'm not saying that scientists are like this--just that the general public has this inaccurate image of us. Most people have never met a scientist, and so their perceptions about what a scientist looks like and how they behave are molded by what they see on TV and in the movies.
But do we need to go to the other extreme to counter the unattractive, nerdy image of scientists? The opposite end of the spectrum is beautiful, sexy, and cool. Is that a superior image to strive for? The cheerleaders for science seem to be taking a similar approach as the creators of the "Rock Stars of Science". That idea is to show that scientists can be just as cool as, say, rock stars. The select group of scientists, including some Nobel Laureates, are depicted alongside real rock stars.
Huh? Why would someone who has done something scientifically awe-inspiring need to be shown alongside a rock star, whose societal accomplishments pale in comparison? I would be insulted that my image would need to be enhanced by association with some celebrity.
I get the basic idea behind this effort, but I think it is an ineffectual one. Does anyone really believe that the average fan (in awe of celebrities, athletes, or rock stars) will be fooled by such a campaign to promote scientists? Will the rock star approach really change how the public views scientists and science?
Is there another way to change the public's perception of scientists, particularly of female scientists? I think so.
What image should (women) scientists convey?
Let's first consider what would be an appropriate image for a scientist. Not a rock star. Not an athlete. Not a sex symbol. Not a cheerleader. How about just a regular person who happens to have a talent for science? Someone the average guy could have a beer with?
Part of the image problem for scientists, maybe the central problem, is that most people find it difficult to visualize scientists as normal people with normal lives, families, and hobbies--in other words, just like them. They also cannot see themselves in the role of a scientist, partly because no rational person would choose to be a nerd (or whatever image they have in their heads). Therefore, they cannot empathize with someone who is a scientist.
So I can't see how promoting an image of scientists as rock stars or sexy cheerleaders is going to improve the perception of scientists by the general public. If anything, it will make us look like silly wannabes. Most adolescents would laugh at the idea that a scientist is just as cool as a rock star or famous athlete.
For women in science, attempts to convey a sexy or physically attractive image can backfire and sometimes send the wrong message (see Dress Code). My approach (after years of trying various "looks") is to dress and behave so as not to call attention to the fact that I'm a woman (or anything other than a professional and a scientist). Dress in the same general style as the male scientists (business casual, jeans, or whatever style your (successful) colleagues' tend to select) and appropriate to the occasion. Note that this doesn't mean you should dress like a man or be unfeminine. You can even work out a fashionable style that is your own "look". The idea is not to go to any extreme--too sexy, too high-fashion, too sloppy, etc.
Be careful what you wish for.
If the rock star/cheerleader idea is to attract more young people to science, is the portrayal of scientists as "cool people" going to work? Will it attract the type of person who is going to be able to succeed in science? Or will it attract people who are only interested in the "image". Those of us who deal with students every day know that a percentage are just not cut out for it. They have unrealistic expectations, are unaware how difficult and often tedious the work is, and/or don't have a real passion for science. I think we need to convey a realistic image of science--one that is exciting, rewarding, and interesting--but also that it takes a person who's ready to work hard at it and who can deal with setbacks.
We don't need more students who will ultimately become disillusioned and drop out.
Toward a better model for the (female) scientist image.
To attract more people to science, especially women, I think it takes more of us showing that we are normal people who happen to be very curious about the world we live in---curious enough to make a career of it. I made a list of ideas/images that counter some of the stereotypes surrounding scientists:
--We like to figure things out and use the information to make the world a better place. This image counters the stereotype of the scientist as only focused on an esoteric science question and uncaring about the world around them.
--Interviews with scientists who are excited and passionate about their work sends a positive message and counters the stereotype of scientists as cold, logical Spock clones.
--Images of scientists who are average-looking, but normal, happy, and confident people. Counters a major stereotype of scientists as odd, peculiar characters who are unpopular.
--Images of scientists doing their work along with colleagues, students, and other people sends the message that we don't work alone in our ivory towers (another stereotype).
--Scientists have hobbies, just like other people. Some of us draw or paint; others are wine connoisseurs; still others are good athletes. Counters the notion that scientists have no life or skills outside the laboratory.
--Some of us get to travel to fascinating places and see and do things that most people don't. Such images counter the stereotype of the scientist confined to a cold, clinical laboratory.
--Images of scientists doing research, teaching, or outreach in different environments shows the variety of places and jobs that a science career can take them.
--We also have families--who are supportive of our careers and proud of our accomplishments. I've worked alongside colleagues who did their field research while pregnant--such images belie the notion that a science job means a choice between career and family for women.
--Many scientists are religious, and their work in science affirms their beliefs. The stereotype of the scientist as non-religious is apparently a big turnoff for many people. Even scientists who are not religious can have high moral standards that are consistent with the beliefs of many religions.
--Women often prefer careers in which they can help other people or society and think that science does not offer such opportunities. Examples of how scientists directly and indirectly help society (biomedical research, restoration of ecosystems) will help counter this false perception.
Programs that expose adolescent students to the scientific process are excellent ways to break down stereotypes, but can be expensive, time-consuming, and reach a limited population. Promoting positive images of scientists in the media and on the internet can potentially reach a larger audience.
I imagine you can think of many more images that would show what it is really like to work in a science job. In fact, if you have any images you particularly like and don't mind showing, send them to me (drdoyenne@gmail.com) and I'll post them here (can be anonymous, but be sure to get permission from anyone depicted in a photograph).
