Counter-Communicating

From the vault on February 1, 2008

In New Voices we talk about research and about communicating it.  But, as Michael Tobis brings up in his recent post at Wired Science, sometimes we are advocating the types of changes even we may not be making.  He discusses his ideas for counteracting global climate change in the context of his inability to counteract his obesity.

As a science communicator, when we make recommendations, they need to be things we are sure to be doing (or would be willing to do) ourselves; for a number of reasons.

1. We're sure they actually work, because we've done it.
2. Personal examples are the most compelling.  In every possible form of communication, a story, quote, or image tends to bring the abstract into reality.  Also, we tend to be most passionate about things that happen to us, so it adds a persuasive element to our arguments.
3. Leading by example is a great way to gather followers.
4. We can also report on challenges.  By saying, yes it may be difficult to schedule that yearly exam because your doctor's office isn't close by/accessible/affordable/etc., you can provide rationale for why those burdens are worth overcoming.

For what other reasons is it important to "practice what we preach"?

My Little Pony & Effective Communication

Finally! I get to write about ponies. At work! No kidding folks, anyone in my family would tell you I was an avid fan of My Little Pony through about age 10, and so I'm thrilled to show you this student presentation examining the physics of My Little Pony.

I just want to clarify that
My Little Pony used to
look like this.

Of course, grown-up Heather is more impressed with the physics than the new adventures of my favorite ponies. Beatledude64 took creativity to a new level and approached his homework assignment with humor and finesse; exactly the sort of thing to celebrate, since June is Effective Communications Month.

Here at New Voices, we are huge fans of science communication and the sub-type of communication known as advocacy, so throughout the month we'll be sharing examples of great science communication to help all of us on our journey to become more effective communicators and advocates for research.

What makes this a great jumping off point? Most of us got our first experiences speaking in front of groups in classrooms, and regardless of where we're speaking now, the same general rules apply:

1. Speak to your audience. Know who you're talking to, and find something that will be interesting to your target demographic; whether that's sports, a movie, a TV show, or a local legend. Be sure to take the time to mention the pertinent details (ex.: "ponies fall a lot") that way anyone who isn't as intimately familiar with the example can follow along, too.
2. Talk about what you know. If you choose to make an analogy to driving a motorcycle, and you've never actually ridden one, you're not doing your presentation justice.You will be the best at talking (and responding to questions!) about the things you're most familiar with.
3. Make it a dialogue. If you get a question or comment mid-presentation, respond. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Laughter and heckling only gets bad when you don't take it in stride.
4. Work through any trouble spots. Your technology might not work. It may not even be plugged in. But if you don't make a big deal out of it, chances are, no one else will either. Not wasting time repeatedly apologizing for video delays or technological hiccups will keep you on your presentation rhythm and your audience engaged.
5. Be confident. You know more about your topic than probably anyone else in the room. If that wasn't the case, you probably wouldn't be the person  everyone came to hear in the first place.

Fear not, super presenter, you can do this. It takes practice. Lots of practice, usually out loud, and preferably in front of a mirror or friendly audience.

We may not be magic ponies, but your New Voices compatriots are here to support you in your endeavors, too. Drop us a line in the comments or by email if you have questions about effective communication.

Who Wants to Write an Op-Ed?

Image courtesy of: Pepsi Refresh Stories

This summer, I'll be working with researchers around the country to publish op-eds about the importance of funding for research to improve health, particularly federal funding of NIH. I'd bet you've cranked out hundreds of pages of science writing in your career, and I'll be the first person to tell you that writing for the public isn't the same as writing for academic purposes. But, writing an op-ed is not an impossible feat and I want YOU to be one of the researchers who gets published this summer.

First though, let's take a look back at a post on Op-Ed Advocacy from February of 2009:

One effective way to spread an advocacy message is through submitting an op-ed. Op-ed is short for opposite the editorial page.

Trivia: Most people call them opinion editorials, but editorials are - by definition - opinion pieces.

There are lots of ways to put together an editorial. I like the structure of rubrics, so my preferred method is Monroe's Motivated Sequence or MMS for short. This method can be used for speeches, letters to the editor, op-eds - basically anything persuasive.

1. Get attention. Also known as the hook, this first part is supposed to grab the reader. Studies show that stories (of any kind) are the best hooks. Make it personal and relevant for bonus points.
2. Establish Need. What is the problem? Why are you trying to convince the other person to do, support, or think something? This is the reason why you are writing the op-ed.
3. Provide a Solution. You told us what the problem was, now tell us how to fix it. What would make the situation better?
4. Vision of the Future. What does the future look like when your solution has been implemented? Use figurative language (but don't get too flowery), and really drive the point home in this section.
5. Call to Action. Tell people what you want them to do. This is your take-away message and your closing statement. Finish with a bang.

General writing tips:

• Avoid double negatives
• Never have more than one rhetorical question
• Use the reading level setting in your word processor. If it's greater than a 10th grade reading level, simplify.
• Stick to the specified word count. The paper you'll be submitting to probably has some rules about submissions. If you want to see it in print, follow the rules.

Three good examples of advocacy editorials in support of the NIH funding in the economic recovery package are included below.

• Laing Rogers Sisto in Roll Call (1/29/2009)
• Patrick Swayze in the Washington Post (2/8/2009)
• Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) in the Washington Post (2/9/2009)

Those are the basics for writing an op-ed, and a number of New Voices successfully published pieces (nine to be exact) during our last major op-ed campaign. If you're interested in being published, sharing your passion for why research needs to be funded, or are simply looking for a way to break into the field of advocacy, now is the time. Reply or ask questions in the comments or by email at hbenson at researchamerica.org.

Contributing to the public dialogue about science has a ripple effect, and it takes very little time to make an incredibly large impact. Start now.

Social Math & Priorities

Yesterday, my colleague Brian wrote about rapping economists (a brilliant Tuneage Tuesday idea!). This passage really got me thinking about priorities:

The idea of social math is presenting complex issues in a way that can be easily understood by anyone: For example, a 2010 report by the National Retail Federation found that graduates were expected to receive nearly $90 in gifts – in all, spending on grad’s gifts were expected to reach $3.9 billion.

Few of us can comprehend a billion dollars, unless you had boatloads of Microsoft stock back when it took off. Social math, then, insists we take another step: Find a way to translate. Knowing our audience here, that $3.9 billion could fund all but two institutes at the National Institutes of Health for a year – and in many cases, for several years. (Even the two exceptions, NCI and NIAID, would have a majority of their budgets covered by that amount.) The same $3.9 billion would fund 8,193 NIH research grants, according to FY10 numbers.

Social math is finding the common ground between a niche and the mainstream.

The case described above doesn't just elaborate on the social math - making it simpler to see what billions of dollars represent - it makes a point about the value of our dollars. If we're willing to spend $3.9 billion dollars on stuffed animals in graduation garb, balloons, and alma mater mugs, would an extra dollar a week in taxes to advance research be a real burden on American finances? For the cost of a beanie baby or tassel a piece, could we mark an important genome? Treat cancer? Provide a healthier future for all those graduates?

I'm not saying don't celebrate or shower grads with gifts (most of my first apartment's security deposit came from graduation gifts, and I still have a Minnie Mouse that plays Pomp and Circumstance). I'm just saying that in tight times, it's important to make investments in the things that really matter. Whether that's siblings using air horns to cheer for the first person in their family to receive a diploma or the government keeping pace with inflation at federal research agencies.

Priorities matter. What are ours?

A Blind Date With Science

Max recently shared with me this outstanding clip of Alan Alda talking about science communication at NSF. He's done a lot of work in this field, including serving as host of Scientific American Frontiers from 1993 to 2005 and knows just how to blend fact with humor.



I definitely would love to sit in on one of these workshops.

Meet Amit Mistry, AAAS Science and Technology Fellow at USAID

Amit is a former Science Policy Fellow for Research!America and was kind enough to tell us via email about his current work.

New Voices (NV): What do you do, and why is it important?

Amit: I am a AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). I am working on the development and implementation of a strategy to combat global hunger and food security. Part of my job involves communicating technical information to non-technical audiences, keeping them informed and engaged in our activities. Another part of my job is connecting research programs to country programs that may benefit from the research. More broadly, my work supports a coordinated effort across the U.S. government to sustainably reduce global poverty and hunger.

NV: What’s the most exciting part of what you do? Any particularly interesting stories?

Amit: The most exciting part of my job is getting to see the impact of our agency’s work through the real people who are impacted by it. In September 2010, I traveled to Uganda for a few weeks and provided the local government feedback on its plan to strengthen the agriculture sector and reduce hunger. I met inspirational government leaders, researchers, and farmers who all shared the goal of lifting millions of Ugandans out of poverty.

NV: What is the biggest policy issue affecting your work? Describe how you’ve dealt with it, or even advocated regarding that issue.

Amit: One of the important challenges I face is working across multiple sectors, such as food security and climate change. These two sectors are closely linked and should be addressed comprehensively for the greatest impact. At USAID, I helped create a Strategic Integration Working Group, which brings together various sectors so they can share best practices. The group has developed recommendations for USAID that can improve our work across multiple sectors.

NV: How might the public misinterpret your work? Is there anything you want to clear up?

Amit: There is a misconception that U.S. investments abroad don’t have an impact on Americans. In fact, investments in foreign assistance have a far-reaching impact that affects our own economic security and national security. Our investments in foreign assistance build allies, strengthen trade partnerships, and create opportunities for American innovators and entrepreneurs.

NV: What’s your advice for someone in science who wants to get involved in policy, advocacy or outreach?

Amit: My advice for someone interested in science policy is to strengthen your communication skills and practice communicating with different audiences, and for different purposes. Good communication skills are an incredible asset in science policy and will make you a more effective advocate or policy-maker. Also, I recommend learning the federal budgeting process because it is extremely helpful to understand, no matter where you work in the science policy world. Finally, I would encourage you to always promote the use of science-based decision-making in the policy area.


This is part of the ongoing Profiling New Voices series.

Tune in Thursday: Two Science Communication Opportunities

This Tuneage Tuesday, we want to share two upcoming opportunities for  learning more about science communication.

For anyone with an Internet connection:

Thursday, Feb. 17 starting at 7:30 p.m.: Beyond the Bench: The Perceived Price of Activism
A presentation and discussion with Dr. Kathy Barker, author of At the Helm: Leading your Lab. This is a free and virtual event. To attend this Seminar, RSVP to fellow New Voice Brie Welzer at brielle.welzer@sefora.org.

For those in the DC area:

Thursday, Feb. 17: Check out a screening of "The Human Spark" and have a discussion with science communication experts at American University in Washington, DC.

Morning Health News

I recently saw the new movie Morning Glory. It reminded me of the stereotype in the broadcast news business that morning news is "soft news." However, it seems to me that the folks on the morning shows have a pretty difficult job of not just distilling the key pieces of evidence to release in a short segment, but also to make it appealing to a mass audience.

Those of us looking to become stronger science communicators can learn a lot from how medicine and science news is translated. So for this Tuneage Tuesday, check out this clip from Good Morning America. What can we learn from how this surgical procedure is being explained?

A Haiku for You

A good poem can perfectly capture how the author and the reader are feeling, and then it just speaks to you. Funny or sad, short or epic, poems span the ages. Haiku is a popular Japanese style of poetry that consists of 17 moras, separated into three phrases of 5, 7, and 5 moras.

Though not technically correct, English-language haiku are typically written with 17 syllables: 3 stanzas of 5,7, and 5 syllables respectively. Haiku has become a fun pastime for amateur poets because of its short length and independence from difficult rules, like rhyming or rhythm--a haiku can be easily formulated in a matter of minutes.

I am challenging you to take a moment to create a haiku. Tell us what you think is important in verse. Please share it with the community via the comments section. Here are a few to inspire you:

From Kate:
Hope for the future
Seen through microscopes and slides
What will research find?

Research is vital
To live a healthier life
Tell Congress today

From Heather:
Communicate it
New Voices can show you how

Your voice must be heard

Comic credit: Doug Savage

Why Should Scientists Become Advocates?

Tomorrow afternoon I'm giving a presentation on why scientists should become advocates for their own research. As a science outreach specialist, this is a topic near and dear to my heart - and one I'm rather excited to have an opportunity to talk about to a room full of scientists.

However, working in this community has taught me that not everyone believes that scientists should advocate. To get prepared for this discussion with a room full of PhDs, I'd love your help.

What are your major questions about scientists becoming advocates or science communicators? What is your counter argument (be a devil's advocate if need be!) to scientists becoming involved in advocacy, science policy, or science communication?

Thank you in advance for the thought starters and I'll be sure to report back on how the session goes.

New Voices in Transition

In 2007, New Voices for Research began as a private community for a few dedicated early-career scientists; a place where they could go online to learn about advocacy, practice their skills in a safe environment, and network with like-minded researchers from around the country.

At that time, Stacie Propst, PhD was leading the initiative; a researcher herself, who had transitioned into science policy and wanted to make sure that others in her position would have the tools available to help them along. As Research!America grew and her responsibilities increased, she transitioned leadership of the initiative to me.

Together we developed language describing the initiative and worked to engage more researchers in the private community. However, it seemed silly to restrict so many of the postings to a small community of scientists when there were certainly more out there looking for information about science policy, advocacy, and science communication.

In December of 2008, the New Voices for Research blog launched. Aided by Research!America's talented interns and fellows we began posting five days a week on the topics we thought would most help readers. In the past two years, New Voices has evolved as more of our colleagues joined in as regular bloggers and as other New Voices moved on to pursue their careers or head back to school. Each has left their mark: unique writing styles, subject matter expertise, humor, competitions, projects, a Twitter presence; totaling - as of next week - more than 500 posts.

Despite all of that change, the last few months have been the biggest transition. Our writing team has become smaller and our fearless leader - Stacie - is departing Research!America after nine years to take the lessons she's learned in national advocacy and apply them in her home state of Alabama. Stacie will join the many New Voices operating on the state and local level around the country.

Though this time has been turbulent, we must look to the future. New Voices' mission to empower researchers to communicate about the value of their work and provide tools and resources online can only continue if we all engage. If you believe in New Voices, I ask you to make one simple step today:

Tell us that yours will be a voice that stands up for science.

Meet Allison Bland, Communications Program Assistant

Welcome to New Voice Allison Bland, Communications Program Assistant at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

NV: What do you do?

Allison: I help maintain ASCO's patient website, Cancer.Net, by working with oncologists to review and update the latest information on cancer treatment and care. I also work with Cancer.Net's social media on Twitter and Facebook.

NV: What is the most challenging part of what you do?

Allison: Another part of my job is to help answer phone calls, emails, and letters from people with cancer and their families. People turn to ASCO looking for resources at any point during their cancer treatment. I help these people by directing them towards the best resources and information, but it can be difficult because I'm not able to give medical advice. Many times, patients are very educated about their diagnosis and come to us looking for the next step. It's challenging to explain complex medical information to someone who is dealing with a cancer diagnosis over the phone.

NV: When did you first become interested in science?

Allison: My dad is a physicist, but he never pushed me towards a career in science. I have always been a writer, and dabbled in science because I was interested in how new discoveries can make the world better. Combining the two led me to science communication, and I'm following that track now.

NV: What’s the most common misconception about scientists?

Allison: I think one of the most common misconceptions about scientists is that there is a single-track, vaguely defined career for a "scientist." The reality is that there are many kinds of jobs in the science field, and these types of jobs are becoming more important all the time.

NV: What advice would you give to someone who wants to get involved in advocacy and/or outreach?

Allison: Take full advantage of online tools. The communities that form around online platforms like blogging networks or Twitter attract people who know the issues and have similar interests in science outreach and advocacy. I think the best way to get involved is through participation in online communities and then finding face-to-face events -- conferences, science cafes, happy hours -- to take the next step.

Some of you may remember that Allison was a contributor to the New Voices blog. We thank Allison for sharing her experience and advice about science communications and advocacy. This is part of the ongoing Profiling New Voices series.


Bookmark and Share

How To: Deliver an Elevator Pitch

Comic credit: zoitz

30 seconds to say who you are, what you do, why it's important. It just doesn't seem like enough time, does it?

An elevator pitch - or a pitch about yourself that you could deliver in the length of an elevator ride - is a great tool to have prepared for quick encounters. A good elevator pitch will include three key elements:

1. Your name. No kidding, please don't forget this part.
   
2. What you do. This should not be confused with your job title. "What you do" is a description of your goal or tasks.
3. Why it matters to the other person in the elevator.

The reason why the elevator pitch is so successful is because it not only tells who you are but it connects you to your audience (via part 3) and opens up the door for further conversation and questions. It's important to remember that elevator pitches:

• Do not have to be used in elevators alone. They are a great tool for use at social gatherings, conferences, when you're introduced to someone in a hurry, or really anytime you need to get started with an introduction.
• Do not need to take the full 30 seconds.
• Should be in simple, easy to understand terms that anyone can comprehend.

Practice makes perfect, so think about your 3 step pitch guide and use this 30 second timer to see if yours is brief enough.



How'd you do? We want to hear/read your elevator pitches! Add your 30 second (or less) self-promo in the comments section. Also, if you have any questions or can't think of a good way to simplify what you do, let us know. Think what you do is too complicated for 30 seconds? We're ready for the challenge.

Public Speaking Tips

Today New Voices tackles one of America's greatest fears: public speaking.

Ryan's three tips
Practice
It's normal to be nervous public speaking and my best advice is just to keep doing it. While this tip might not help much for any individual talk, every time you step in front of people to speak, it gets easier.

Prepare
If you have a serious complex about giving a specific talk, write down what you want to say for each slide. The act of thinking through your message for every slide and putting in on paper will help you organize your thoughts and might calm you a bit as well.

Feed your audience
Here's a nontraditional tip that works: if you can provide food, even just a plate of cookies or fruit and some coffee, do it. Something about speaking to an audience chomping and chewing makes them seem non threatening. Be forewarned - if you feed them too much, they will inevitably fall asleep afterward.

Alissa's advice on slowing down
The hardest part of presenting, at least for me, is speaking at a pace that the audience can understand. It is easy to get too nervous or excited and start rushing through your talk, frantic to get to the end. However, people tune out fast or incoherent speech, so they won't listen to or retain anything you say.

So in order to make sure you get your point across, follow these rules to speak at a good pace for your listeners:

• Breathe. It seems obvious, but taking some deep breaths before your presentation and between sentences can help you slow down if you're getting ahead of yourself.
• Look people in the eye when you're speaking. This way you can see if people are understanding what you're saying and slow down if they aren't.
• Take a pause. Pausing between phrases allows your audience to absorb and make sense of what you're saying, and helps you make your point.

Heather's keys to staying still
When it comes to public speaking, I find presentations to small, intimate groups of people I know MUCH harder to speak to than rooms with 1,000 listeners (I’m guessing this has something to do with my theater background). My biggest issue has always been fidgeting. I’m of Italian heritage and talking with my hands comes pretty naturally to me – especially if I’m nervous. To keep from flailing all over the place, I try to rest my hands on the edges of the podium in front of me. If I don’t have a podium, I try to not carry pages of notes. Papers make noise in motion; so if there has to be something in my hands, it’s going to be note cards.

Also, if you find that your legs are as fidgety as your arms, slide one foot just slightly forward so they are a bit staggered. (I find placing the ball of one foot at the midpoint of the other to be least obvious and most functional.) This prevents you from rocking (unless you want to fall over) and gives you a stance to come back to if you are prone to pacing. The pictures below demonstrate what I mean: the left shows balanced even feet and the right shows how to simply slide one foot back a few inches. Staggered feed will make a huge difference in how you can (or can't) move while presenting.

Thanks to our New Voices co-blogger Emily for demonstrating!

What tips would you give to burgeoning public speakers? What is the most difficult thing for you to overcome when public speaking?

Charm, Competition, and Communication

In the early 90’s, administrators at MIT realized that many of its students, while brilliant, were socially challenged. The bastion of engineering was producing geniuses that couldn’t give a decent handshake, talk to strangers, or dress reasonably. The solution? Charm School.

The university offered students the opportunity to fill any social holes that might have developed as a byproduct of possessing a superior technical intellect. The program was deemed a huge a success, and now in its 17th year, is popular and thriving.

Science researchers are another smart group that suffers from social deficits – namely the ability to communicating the importance of their work to those outside their fields. Should they be required to attend “Communication School”?

In 2007 there was a push from Congress to require scientists to do exactly that. The America Competes Act, which was a bill that intended to funnel big bucks to research powerhouses like the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, and the Dept of Energy, contained provisions requiring graduate students “to be trained in the communication of the substance and importance of their research to non-scientist audiences”. While the 2007 Competes Act made it through both houses of Congress, and was signed by the President, select pieces of it were not funded during appropriations. One of the casualties was the science communication training.

The science outreach community was disappointed by the 2007 Competes Act, and hoped for a chance of redemption this year when the 2010 America Competes Act was being written. Unfortunately, any language concerning communicating to non-science audiences is conspicuously absent in the 2010 version. Nearly all of the outreach wording in the 2010 Competes Act specifically focuses on energy, STEM education, and commercial applications of research - a sign of the times.

There may be a glimmer of hope. For some time, NSF has required researchers to address the broader impact of their research when applying for grant money. It is unclear exactly how much weight is placed up this review criteria but applicants are supposed to emphasis how the work benefits society and/or broadens dissemination of scientific and technological understanding. This is a good start and there are murmurs the NIH will soon follow suit and require similar activities from their grant applicants.

It may seem like an impossible feat to get scientists communicating about their work, but if the students at MIT's Charm School can learn Israeli folk dance, surely scientists can learn to do a better job of explaining why people should care about their research.

Scientific Babbel Fish

Scientists are not typically masters of communicating the importance of their work to those outside their field. Normal procedure is to quietly slip a scientific paper into a highly specialized journal, guaranteeing that it will be completely ignored by the general public. A publication in even one of the best journals like Science or Nature might, at most, garner a five second mention on National Public Radio. Sure, the physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson has been on the Colbert Report 15 times, but for the most part, there is little attempt from scientists to expose mainstream America to what they do. Working in Washington has opened my eyes to the fact that other fields operate differently.

On June 14th I was invited to attend to a press release on Capitol Hill of A RESEARCH PAPER! Two economists analyzed how woefully sluggish the FDA regulatory process is and wrote a report demonstrating that huge sums of money are lost by slowly bringing new medicines to market. It is a well designed and written study, but what was most impressive was the level at which these researchers publicized their work. The paper release was loaded with reporters, photographers, staffers from Congressional offices…there was even decent food. Could that be more different from science?

The publicity worked as well as Barry Bonds after a visit to his special "muscle trainer". A Google search for “The Cost of Caution”, the title of the report, produces 205 hits. The study received major attention from multiple fields. Journalists and bloggers from investors.com, medicalprogresstoday.com, Bloomberg's Businessweek, and Forbes magazine, all wrote pieces on the report. There are even facebook posts and tea party websites that covered the paper release.

Science researchers would be smart to try and replicate this formula. Far too little effort is exerted on the public outreach side of science. Imagine a world where a paper from the Journal of Molecular Ecology is explained in normal terminology to a group of interested reporters. It is not impossible but will only start with greater outreach from the researchers themselves.

What could be worse than death?

For many people, public speaking. National surveys have found that many Americans rank fear of public speaking as their number one fear, even above fear of death.

We here at New Voices often request that our readers stand up and be advocates, but sometimes it’s not easy for people to speak up – not because they don’t want to, but because they are terrified to do so.

Fear of public speaking (also known as glossophobia) is more common than you might think. Research has shown up to 70% of Americans list public speaking as one of their biggest fears.

Unlike the experience of those of us with just a normal level of nervousness during public speaking, for those with glossophobia, the anxiety does not go away as a presentation or speech continues, but increases.

The speaker notices how nervous they are, and instead of focusing on how well they are speaking, they focus on the symptoms of their anxiety, which makes the feelings worse. This often means that unlike most of us who are relieved once we are finished speaking in public, those with glossophobia are often even more anxious and upset than when they started.

There are many proclaimed cures for fear of public speaking, and some of us here at New Voices will be posting personal techniques we use to overcome our fears of public speaking. So, how do you go the distance and get over your fear of public speaking? Give 110% by letting us know in the comments and we can include your tips in our post later this month.

Communication Baseball: First Base

Today, New Voices welcomes Brian Hunsicker to guest post about communication.

My specialty at Research!America is communications. With that in mind, I'll be presenting the four bases for successful communication – with the public, with media, with anyone who doesn’t have a science background. Why four bases? Touch all four, and it’s a home run. (I can’t believe I wrote that.)

For the sake of Sports Cliché Week (July 11 to 17), I'm reversing everything I’ve taught myself since 1997. In a 12-year career as a sportswriter, I groaned at the sight of “gridders” and “cagers.” I shook my head at stories that began with, “What a difference a year makes.” I became visibly agitated at clichés of construction (overbearing parallel structure (right column)), thought (cursory opinions with no insight) and, of course, verbiage (Player X stepped up! Armchair quarterbacks! Any catchphrase from a SportsCenter anchor after the Craig Kilborn era!).

So, with great mental anguish and a healthy sense of humor, we press on.

It's a single up the middle – a worm-burner, a Texas leaguer, whatever; a hit’s a hit – and Jimmy Hitsalot makes the big turn around…

First base: Show, don’t tell.
This is the first rule of any communication. Think of it like this: If you were speaking to a group of middle schoolers, you’d certainly have demonstrations and examples to drive home the point you’re talking about. Are kids of that age going to listen to a lecture? Of course not.

Just because you’re excited about a certain subject doesn’t mean that others are. But the good news is that you can get them excited.

When you’re speaking, think about your audience beforehand and figure out ways to engage them in what you’re talking about. Different audiences will have different interests (though I think we can all agree that explosions would be cool for any audience). It’s your job, then, to connect the dots between what you’re trying to say and how you’re going to show this to the audience.

When you’re writing, think about word pictures and details. Which sounds more interesting?

Choice A: “A chemical reaction happens, and the liquid rises out of the beaker and spills over the side.”
Choice B: “At the instant the two liquids meet, something begins to happen. Bubbles form. Smoke rises. The reaction grows - quickly - beyond the capabilities of its container. This angry combination of chemicals boils over like an unwatched pot.”

Choice B is significantly more enthralling. You build suspense, and supplement that with words that can put a visual into your readers’ minds.

The beauty of the English language is the flavors of words: blue, aqua, turquoise and teal all mean roughly the same thing – but each is slightly different than the other. Challenge yourself to find unique ways to describe a certain event or action.

Be wary of overwriting, however. Make sure your details are relevant to what you’re talking about, and don’t meander. It’s easy to get caught up in creating this beautiful prose, but it will be for naught if your reader gets bogged down in all of the details.

Jimmy's not getting bogged down, though. The stone-handed left fielder bobbles the ball. So he's heading, full steam, for ...

Check back or subscribe now to see Jimmy Hitsalot's progress around the bases.


Brian Hunsicker is the communications specialist at Research!America. He has a Bachelors of Arts from Moravian College in English. This is his first guest post for New Voices.

Do Scientists Understand the Public?

First thing first: there is no such thing as one public. If there were, we’d only have one type of clothing store, one political party, one television channel … there are lots of people in a variety of publics out there. That being said, it is much easier to call all of those diverse audiences “the public” rather than parse them all out each time.

Second thing second: although scientists are their own special breed of people, they still qualify as being part of the public! In just the short history of New Voices, I’m sure I’ve said that scientists need to communicate better with the public – which, in a way, makes it as if scientists are not part of the public. That is not at all what I meant.

Scientists live in their communities (even if it feels like they live in their labs), vote in the same elections, eat in restaurants, buy new tech gadgets, drive on interstates … they are the public. We are ALL the public. But again, it is a bit easier to type “the public” than “non-scientific audiences.”

Now that we’ve cleared up that we’re only using the phrase “the public” because it is convenient, let’s get into the question of the day: do scientists understand the public?

To answer that, I think we have to look at what makes scientists different from the rest of the public. The number one thing is probably thought processes. From the four focus groups mentioned in the Mooney article to countless other examples throughout history, it seems as if the approach scientists take to an issue is incredibly different from the approach of someone without scientific training.

Some claim that the emotion that the public brings to a debate leads to impractical decisions. Others say that the lack of (com)passion shown by scientists in a debate denotes a lack of interest in any position but their own. This isn’t a gulf or even a two cultures issue – this is simply a communication problem.

As with any relationship, knowing others and how they work makes things easier. Just as men being from Mars and women being from Venus doesn’t stop male-female interaction, scientists and the public can successfully come together and understand each other. But everyone must take the time to get to know everyone else instead of resorting to stereotypes and popular (mis)conceptions.

Mooney presented a number of other issues in the piece. What struck you as most important? What are the next steps to answering the title question? To better communication between scientists and the public?

AAAS Science & Technology Policy Forum - Day 2

Yesterday, we started sharing some of the themes captured by your New Voices bloggers at the AAAS Science & Technology Policy Forum. Today we continue by sharing our notes from two of Friday's sessions.

Also - be sure to check out the New Voices Twitter feed for direct quotes from the speakers.

Strengthening the U.S. Climate for Innovation

• Innovation is using new knowledge to generate payback.
• Innovation has accounted for half of U.S. productivity growth over the pat 50 years (see slide above, courtesy of Andrew Taylor of The Boston Consulting Group).
  
• Increased direct government spending yields results.
• Excellence in science and technology is not enough to be a world leader.
• We need to remove barriers and encourage creativity.
• We need new kinds of scientists and engineers with: communication skills, multicultural understanding, foreign languages, and training in psychology and the creative arts
  
• What can the U.S. do?

Promote science & technology education

Increase innovation spending

Promote industry clusters & centers of excellence

Remove bureaucratic barriers

Promote intellectual property protections

National Security and the Roles for Science and Technology

• Cyber security is uncharted territory; there are no rules of war.
• There is a relationship between higher education and intelligence communities. One mechanism for collaboration is the NSHEAB - National Security Higher Education Advisory Board which works with federal intelligence community.