The Science Talk: Dos and Don'ts

The previous posts talked about communicating science to the general public.  It's also important to be skilled at communicating your science to colleagues.  Here is an amusing video that focuses on giving science talks at conferences:

Who Is Mr. X?

For those of you who’ve never heard of Bob Newhart, he was the star of a TV sitcom back in the 70s. One of the most hilarious episodes was called “Who Is Mr. X?” in which his character (Bob Hartley) is ambushed during a live TV interview. Bob is a psychologist and has been invited to appear on a local TV show. This episode is used quite extensively in media training programs to show how NOT to give an interview.

Although some complain that this video is out of date, I still find it incredibly funny and a great way to get across some of the pitfalls of being interviewed. Unfortunately, the video is not freely available. However, here is how the interview begins:

Bob expectantly arrives at the TV studio fully expecting an interview in which he will be asked various softball questions about himself and his profession. However, he’s not done his homework and just shows up with no knowledge of the show, the show’s host, or what questions he’ll be asked. Host Ruth Corley introduces Bob and says, “It’s been said that today’s psychologist is nothing more than a con man, a snake-oil salesman flimflamming innocent people, peddling cures for everything from nail biting to a lousy love life—and I agree. We’ll ask Dr. Hartley to defend himself after these messages.” It’s all downhill from there….

The first time I saw the Bob Newhart interview episode was at a scientific conference during a workshop on how to interact with the media. The viewing of this episode was a great way to break the ice among the participants and get them thinking about what to do and not to do in an interview.

If you have an opportunity to see this episode, you won’t be disappointed.

Sagan's Rejection

Carl Sagan was undoubtedly one of the most influential science communicators in recent decades. Most of you have likely heard of him, if not seen one of his TV series (Cosmos: A Personal Voyage) or read one of his books (The Dragons of Eden). His book, Contact, was a best-seller and eventually made into a major motion picture. The latter was one of the most effective portrayals of how women scientists can be (mis)treated by their colleagues and superiors I’ve ever seen.

The public loved Sagan. He frequently appeared on the Tonight Show and was a sought-after speaker. He died in 2006 at age 62. That is sad, but what’s even sadder is what happened to him in the latter part of his life. A group of scientists headed by Stanley Miller (abiotic origins of life on Earth) nominated Sagan for admission into the National Academy of Sciences. Sagan made the first cut, which apparently virtually guarantees entry because at that point only an objection raised by a member can stop the final entry.

Sagan was only the second person in the history of the Academy to be rejected in the second vote. The reason? Some Academy members felt he was a lightweight scientist, in spite of having published over 100 peer-reviewed papers and numerous books. Some of his science accomplishments in astronomy were major contributions. However, all the objecting members saw was his enormous popularity as a science communicator. One person referred to his efforts at communicating science as “symptomatic of an inadequacy in doing science.” Despite the efforts of many well-known scientists who defended him, the Academy ultimately rejected Sagan.

The point of this story is to convey the potential risks to scientists who attempt to communicate science broadly to the public. This negativity comes from the scientific community, not the public and is surprising considering the requirements of some government funding agencies (NSF) to demonstrate in proposals the “broader impact” of their work (e.g., outreach, education, etc.).

I’ve personally experienced this negativity from some colleagues.

In recent years, I’ve been more active in science communication to the public. I’ve given talks in local middle schools, made videos describing some of my work that are on YouTube, set up websites devoted to showing aspects of science of interest to the public, implemented non-technical publications for a science society I belong to, established a foundation to provide travel funds to students, and, of course, host a science blog.

Many colleagues are extremely complimentary regarding these activities and often ask for more information about how to go about initiating something similar themselves. But then there are the others. The ones who make snide remarks about “wasting one’s time on frivolous things” or “thinking you are better than the rest of us”. I don’t pay much attention to the latter folks. However, I bring it up because it is this fear of colleagues’ rejection that stops many scientists from engaging in science communication.

The other objection is: “I just don’t have time to do any science communication. I’ve got my hands full just doing my research, teaching, and keeping up with the science literature.” I understand this feeling, because that’s how I felt even as recently as five years ago. However, after seeing the major change in the public’s view of science and scientists and the rise of anti-science groups, I decided that it was important for each scientist to be an effective communicator.

This negative perception really must change if we are to develop a new generation of scientists who are as comfortable and effective at speaking to the general public as they are while working in their laboratories. Some universities are beginning to recognize the need to train science students in communication and are implementing informal and formal workshops and courses.

Not everyone is cut out to be a science communicator of course. But even if only a fraction of students become effective communicators, these emissaries will greatly improve the communication of science to the public.

The Future of Science Communication

In previous posts, I’ve mentioned the rapid changes that are taking place in how science is communicated. Some people think that we are at the cusp of a revolution in how science is reported by scientists. I described earlier how some scientists are beginning to delve into the use of video or similar approaches to showcase their research on websites or as a way to illustrate a scientific method rather than a text description.

When I mention such ideas to colleagues, I get three reactions: 1) I’m already using video to illustrate my work, 2) that’s neat--how do I learn to do that?, and 3) I don’t have time to fool with that stuff.

I remember when Powerpoint was first used at science conferences.  There was a lot of grumbling from participants about newfangled computer graphics and how their 35 mm slides (or overhead transparencies!!) were good enough. I can even remember when the first scientists switched from black text on white background to white text on blue background (diazo processing). That caused quite a stir!

There were always lots of skeptics who said these new ways of giving presentations were just fads and would never catch on.

I also distinctly remember trying to convince my spouse that he needed to get a computer. This was the early 80s and I was one of the first in the lab to get a computer (a Mac). His response was that he had a secretary to do his typing and in any case he thought personal computers were not going to catch on. A bit later, I recall going into his office and saying, “You know, I think this Microsoft company is going to be big. Maybe we should invest?” Eventually, of course, he got a computer, but dismissed the idea of investing in Microsoft (and now claims he does not remember these early conversations).

My point is that things are constantly changing. Some people have to be dragged into the future while others are madly sprinting ahead of the crowd. Scientists are natural skeptics (as they should be) about new ideas, methods, etc. However, things are changing so fast, that it’s easy to get left behind if you don’t make an effort to be somewhat open to new ways.

Probably most of you who read this blog are relatively young and are wondering what I’m talking about. But I imagine you know some dinosaurs in your departments who resist every single change that comes along. Don’t let them discourage you from trying new approaches to communicating your science.

The Voice of Science

If you’ve been following along, you know that I’ve been talking about how scientists are slow to recognize the new media environment and the need for us to step up and participate in the communication of science to policy makers and the general public. In recent years, there has been a huge change in modes of communication: blogging, YouTube, WiKis, Twittering as well as new ways of presenting technical information (see the Article of the Future). Although some organizations are promoting the idea of better science communication, their efforts do not always involve scientists directly in the planning or delivery of this information.

The government agency I work for has traditionally employed “science writers” who are basically journalists with a little science background. Although most of them mean well, it can be extremely frustrating for a scientist to work with them at times. What typically happens is that the science writer wants to write about a particular topic (e.g., my area of research). They gather some materials and put together a piece about that topic. Then they would ask a scientist (e.g., me) to read it over to see if it is accurate. Sometimes it’s fine, but more often the information is slightly “off”. Not exactly wrong, but not right either. I remember one piece that I tried to “fix”, but finally threw up my hands and said that it would be easier for me to just rewrite it from scratch rather than try to figure out how to correct all the statements. That did not go over well.

After a few more frustrating interactions like the one described above, I began thinking about science communication and why it was not being done by scientists. After complaining (OK, whining) to close colleagues about this for a while, I decided to do something about it. Or at least make a step in that direction. I wrote a proposal to the governing board of a science society to initiate a non-technical publication, one that would summarize in lay terms technical papers published in the society’s journal and would be free to download as pdfs from the society website. The key aspect, however, was that these would be created by the scientist/author of the technical paper. After some initial resistance, the idea was approved. I created an electronic template that was easy to use whereby the author could insert text, graphics and photos. These articles would go through a modified review process and once accepted would be posted.

The next hurdle was convincing authors that this was a worthwhile thing for them to do. I pointed out that since these articles would be freely available (and searchable) on the internet, that they should boost the citation rate of the technical paper. A number of people agreed to write these, although expressing some initial reluctance (they later admitted that they “enjoyed” preparing these articles). Several of these non-technical articles have now been published and are amazingly popular. We put counters on each one, and some have been downloaded hundreds of time in the few months they’ve been online. Some of the authors have told me that these have become very useful to them--to give out to policy-makers, land managers, students, and others who would not likely want to read the technical paper.

My hope is that this experience will demonstrate how easy it is for scientists to communicate their science to broader audiences and encourage more scientists to participate.

Do Scientists Need Better Manners?

Thanks to biochem belle for pointing out an article in The Scientist called "Mind Your Manners" by Steven Wiley. My previous post basically made a similar point regarding how disrespectful behavior on the part of some scientists (in public debates, on blogs, etc.) ultimately colors the perception of the public's view of us.  It's one thing to be passionate about your ideas and opinions and quite another to express that passion in a negative diatribe against someone else with a different opinion.

I find it quite interesting that others are becoming concerned about exchanges among scientists that are increasingly disrespectful.  My post "Rude Scientists" was basically about science communication and the public's perception of scientists, but it occurred to me while preparing it that how we treat each other could influence how we are perceived as a group by the public.  I had not seen the article by Wiley in The Scientist, but we make similar points, albeit in different ways.

If you read the responses to Wiley's essay, you will see that quite a few respondents don't "get it".  A few agree and express similar concern.  One respondent to Wiley's article lays the blame on blogs.  There may be something to that, although I wonder if it's more related to the anonymous nature of blogging that brings out the lack of manners?  Perhaps this behavior is like road rage.  People who are totally polite and mild-mannered in person turn into The Hulk on the highway.  I've always believed that road rage was partly due to the (somewhat) anonymity of the driver, partly to the stress involved in driving, and partly the lack of face-to-face interaction that holds most people in check.

Wiley also makes an important point about maintaining your composure when attacked.  If you remain calm and respectful toward your attacker, you will almost always win the respect of the audience--as well as the argument. I described some clear guidelines for dealing with verbal attacks in previous posts: "Sticks and Stones...", "Verbal Self-Defense", and "How to Counter a Verbal Attack".  I agree with Wiley that going over the line (e.g., into an irrational screaming match) only shows you to be immature and out-of-control.

So I don't think blogs are to blame for the rude behavior that seems to be emerging in science exchanges on blogs and elsewhere.  Blogs have just given those with little self-control a ready outlet for their frustrations.

Rude Scientists

This series is about science communication.  We now have so many wonderful outlets to share our excitement and fascination with science: websites, blogs, YouTube, Twitter, etc.  How do we come across to the general public in these venues? Serious or Fun-loving? Boring or Interesting? Lackadaisical or Enthusiastic?  Respectful or Rude?  We each must develop a "voice", which is not necessarily the same for all scientists.  I don't think we should all be deadly serious and focused entirely on facts and figures.  There is room for many different styles that are informative, yet entertaining. 

Blogs are great for giving others a glimpse into how scientists think and the idea that we are not all total nerds.  Blogs are also helpful to aspiring scientists by providing some insight into the highs and lows that are encountered in our profession (reality check) as well as to provide some helpful guidance here and there (mentoring).  Blogs can convey guidance and information that is not taught in school or can be found easily in books.

However, I’ve noticed in the blogosphere that some science bloggers gain notoriety by engaging in negative rants, heavily laden with cursing and rude attacks on anyone with a different opinion. You probably know which blogs I’m talking about. Some have huge followings, probably because readers mistakenly think that an angry voice is bound to be a truthful one. Instead of expending effort to develop an intelligent, interesting, or useful voice, these angry bloggers use their vitriol as an easy way to attract attention. Take a close look at some of these blogs, and you will see that very little real information or useful insight is conveyed.

I sometimes wonder if these negative bloggers behave equally rudely in real life among colleagues. I also wonder if their followers in the blogosphere would put up with them in person.  I think not, because most rude and obnoxious people are ostracized or at least avoided by co-workers and acquaintances.  

I’m not advocating that bloggers should (figuratively) sit around the campfire holding hands and singing Kumbaya, but to take the time to develop a positive voice.  One can point out problems and have disagreements without all the acrimony and sarcasm.  This is important, because how science bloggers behave can influence how scientists are perceived by the public.  Most people have never met a scientist and never will.  Their only insight into what a scientist might be like is through media interviews, film, and now blogs.  The public's perception of scientists has been generally good in the past, but mainly because we were believed to be honest, dedicated, unbiased--all admirable traits.  However, this could easily change as more and more people become "acquainted" with scientists through blogs and other venues.

I’m hoping some science blogs with respectful hosts will ultimately gain similarly large and loyal followers as the ranters.

(Fortunately, I could not find a photo of scientists in a fist-fight to illustrate this post.  So I used one of rowdy politicians.)