Science Writing Radio: Science Communication | Sci

SWR 32: The End of SWR

Jason Goldman is the co-editor of the new book, Science Blogging: The Essential Guide. He is a cognitive scientist and animal behavior researcher who now works as a science writer and blogger. His work has appeared in  Scientific American, Los Angeles Magazine, The Washington Post, The Guardian, the BBC, Conservation Magazine, and elsewhere. For the full show notes, head over to sciencewritingradio.com/swr31

What’s the point in starting a blog? With everything else going on in your life as a scientist, and your real life as, you know, a person, why take the time to mash the keyboard and run your mouth online? Not to mention, there are hundreds, probably thousands of science blogs. The market is crowded, especially when you look at the number of really good, high traffic blogs, both amateur and professional. So again, why should you blog? While Emily talks about how to create a great blog post, and we constantly talk here on the blog and the podcast about jumping onto the bandwagon and getting started, we haven’t really talked about the benefits of blogging about science. So here you go.

Kevin McCormack is the director of public communications at the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. He has a long and impressive history of work in media, dating back to his days at the BBC. Kevin coordinates the CIRM elevator pitch contest, which gives scientists a chance to showcase their skills presenting a 30 second synopsis of their work and why it matters. A few weeks ago, I talked about elevator pitches and how important they are, and it made sense to bring Kevin on to talk about this sort of strange form of communication in more detail. Everyone needs an elevator pitch, and often more than one. Kevin explains why and how. For the full show notes and links, head over to sciencewritingradio.com/swr29

Adam Ruben is someone I’ve followed for years and has had a significant impact on how I look at research. He is a molecular biologist working in industry, but that’s not really what makes him interesting. Instead, Adam is both an author, columnist, and stand-up comedian. He writes the Experimental Error column for science careers, and authored the book, Surviving your stupid, stupid decision to go to grad school. Adam has a great perspective on how humor and science interact, the importance of having things to do outside of lab, and finding any and all opportunities to talk about science as both a public service and form of personal development. For more notes and all the links, be sure to check out the episode page at sciencewritingradio.com/swr28

This week, I’m going to cover an overused, misunderstood, eye-roll inducing type of communication that also happens to be extraordinarily important for your success. It is the epitome of simple but not simplistic, and it proves that short and sweet is really really hard. “It” is the elevator pitch. You know the idea. You get on an elevator with someone you want something from, let’s say a potential employer. You have the length of that elevator ride - 30-60 seconds to tell them what you’re all about and get a second meeting. It sounds easy…but of course it never is. For more, check out the full transcript at sciencewritingradio.com/swr27

Happy New Year! This week, I sort through some thoughts about science communication that came from the recent controversies with Martin Shkreli (Former CEO of KaloBios Pharmaceuticals and Turing Pharmaceuticals) and Elizabeth Holmes (CEO of Theranos). In short, are scientists in a unique position to help avoid these problems in biotech, and if so, how should we go about doing it?

This week, as we roll through the heart of the holiday season, I take some time to recap my four favorite books from this year related to science writing and science communication. Each of these books has influenced my work in some way. All of them are engaging and easy to read, and will give you new perspectives and tools to become a better writer…and a better scientist. They are: Everybody Writes, by Ann Handley Making the Complex Compelling, by David Chapin Houston, We Have a Narrative, by Randy Olson Thing Explainer, by Randall Munroe And be sure to listen at the end for your chance to win a free copy of one of these books.

My guest this week is Lehanna Sanders, a graduate student at Vanderbilt University. She is closing in on her PhD in Cell and Developmental Biology, but, as you’ll hear in our conversation, is looking outside the lab for her career. She is heavily involved in science communication in various contexts, including a long history of volunteering in educational capacities. Additionally, Lehanna helps run the Life Science Tennessee academic alliance, which helps grad students and post-docs get exposure to the world of business and biotech. She has a great perspective on not just finding opportunities, but making them work for you. Also, I have a favor to ask. The new year is coming up fast, and I want to get 2016 off to a great start. So, your input would be a huge help. Send me a note at writemore@sciencewritingradio.com and tell me who you would like to hear on the podcast. This can be anyone in or around science who you think has a unique perspective on science communication, science writing and careers in those areas. In this conversation, Lehanna and I talk about: The value of being at the forefront of new science, even if you’re not going into an academic career (3:30) Building on your innate strengths (5:30) Science communication skills you can learn from teaching schoolkids (7:00) Recognizing opportunities and making them work for you (10:20) New resources and initiatives to help grad students with career development (14:00) What to do if you don’t have access to those new resources and initiatives (17:00) The group of people desperate to meet scientists (22:00) An overlooked but critical part of science communications, and how to do it (23:10) Why you shouldn’t do a post-doc. Maybe. (25:00) The notes: Lehanna on LinkedIn (if you connect with her, be sure to mention where you heard her) the BEST program Life Science Tennessee Academic Alliance How to build a better PhD

Welcome back to Science Writing Radio! Good to be back after a week, sort of two weeks off for the Thanksgiving holiday here in the states. For those of you in the US, I hope you had a great time with family and friends last Thursday, and for those of you in the 71 other countries listening to this podcast, I hope the last couple of weeks of November were productive and enjoyable. Before we get started, I also want to mention that last week, Daniel Arneman and Josh Hall hosted me on their fantastic podcast, HelloPhD. The episode came out on Sunday, November 22. To hear our conversation, where we talk about science writing, mythical creatures and, of course, beer, go to HelloPhD.com and click on the “episodes tab in the top right corner.” Listen to them all, but our conversation is episode 21: The 4 simple tips that will make your writing stand out. Ok, so on to the show: My guest today is Aakriti Jain, a graduate student at the Francis Crick Institute in London. She also holds a Masters degree that she earned in Paris following a BS from UC Berkeley. In addition to her PhD research, Aakriti is editor of the PLOS Synthetic Biology Community, where she writes, edits, recruits contributors, conducts interviews, and generally keeps tabs on synthetic biology in order to give scientists a place to discuss the field and a way for the public to see what’s going on and engage with members of the community. As you’ll hear in our conversation, she emphasizes the importance of being conversational in all of her work, which is a great way to make science more accessible and exciting. In this conversation, Aakriti and I talk about: Why get into science writing when you’re busy in lab (4:20) Writing as one of the easiest ways we can communicate what we’re doing in lab (5:30) Wait…did you just say that science writing is easy!? (7:00) Practical tips to get started and avoid writer’s block (9:20) The secret to making a good article great (12:50) An intro to the PLOS Synthetic Biology Community (17:15) What scientists can do to promote good discussion around controversial topics (20:40) The excitement of being part of the global scientific community (27:00) The links: Aakriti Jain’s website Aakriti Jain on Twitter: @twitajain The PLOS Synbio Community Rev (recording and transcription app)

Quick show this week, and please note that there will not be a show next week for the Thanksgiving holiday here in the US. In this episode, I briefly introduce LinkedIn as a powerful tool for scientists’ professional development. More than that, though, it’s a key form of science communication and science writing. As scientists, building a personal “brand” online is important for our success in any scientific career. Having a clear, compelling presence online and presenting our work effectively through tools like LinkedIn is one way to showcase who we are and what we do. We’ll be talking more specifics on how scientists can create and maintain a good LinkedIn profile in a future episode. With all that in mind, the new Science Writing Radio Group is now open on LinkedIn. Come join the conversation, come interact with fellow scientists from around the world to talk about science writing and science communication. We’ll be exchanging ideas, sharing resources, asking for advice, and helping each other solve problems related to communicating our work. And maybe even giving feedback on members’ LinkedIn profiles. To join, go to sciencewritingradio.com/community

Retraction Watch editor Alison McCook has a unique perspective on science journalism and writing. She earned her MA in science and environmental reporting from New York University in 2002, and has since worked both as a freelance writer and for scientific publications. She spent five years at The Scientist, where she ultimately served as the magazine’s deputy editor and was responsible for overseeing all editorial content both in print and online. In addition, her work has appeared in Reuters, Nature, Discover, Scientific American, Popular Science, The Lancet, The Scientist, Genome Web, and The New York Sun, among others. Today she is editor of Retraction Watch, which covers retractions in the scientific literature. As you’ll hear during our conversation, many of these occur due to error, but there are also an unfortunate number of papers pulled because of flat-out fraud. This work gives Alison, as I said, a unique perspective on science journalism and scientific publishing, and there’s a lot we can learn from her work covering these stories. In this episode, Alison and I talk about Venues for scientists to safely voice their concerns (6:25) Honest experimental error and remembering that mistakes don’t have to be catastrophic (8:25) One common problem in biology labs that leads to retractions (9:10) The process Retraction Watch goes through to find, investigate and publish a story (12:00) The writing scientists have to do vs the writing they enjoy reading (17:10) The collective problem of hype in science (19:50) Talking off the record (22:50) Insomnia, Twitter, and breaking the internet…sorta (26:00) The links Alison McCook online Alison on Twitter: @alisonmccook Retraction Watch Retraction Watch on Twitter: @RetractionWatch PubPeer Nature article by the RW staff on self peer review: Publishing: The peer-review scam The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

Let me know what you think about today’s conversation. Leave a comment below or tweet @swrpodcast with your thoughts! My guest today is Stefano Bertuzzi, a tireless and passionate advocate for science and scientists. Stefano has worked in research at every level, and has learned many valuable lessons about the scientific training process, advocacy, policy, and science communication in general. Now, he helps to shape all of those things. He is the current Executive Director of the American Society for Cell Biology, although he will be leaving that position at the end of the year to take over as ED and CEO of the American Society for Molecular Biology. Prior to his work leading non-profit associations, Stefano was Director of the Office of Science Policy, Planning and Communications at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), as well as an advisor to then-NIH Director Elias Zerhouni. He holds a PhD in Molecular Biotechnology and a Masters in Public Health. In our conversation, Stefano and I discuss: Finding a career in science by following your passion and what’s important in the moment (3:00) Knocking on doors to build a career (for Stefano, in science policy) (5:20) Why not following the “traditional” scientific career trajectory IS NOT A FAILURE (7:10) Communicating effectively by feeling comfortable with knowing less about more (8:55) Knowing your audience, and thinking like them (11:20) The most valuable part of our training as scientists (13:40) “The attitude of the colonizers” and why it doesn’t work for science communication (16:50) Having the right attitude while connecting with your audience (21:25) A senator’s advice to a scientist (22:15) What Alexis de Tocqueville had to say about associations and what it means for scientists (24:30) The Notes: Stefano on Twitter: @sutefune Stefano’s Activation Energy Blog ASCB ASM Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not Democracy in America

This week, I’m talking to someone who carries around a pipette in one hand and a pen in the other. Metaphorically, anyway. Emily Poulin earned her PhD from Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Today, she is a post-doc at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, where she works on Ras signaling. While at Vanderbilt she was intentional about finding opportunities to feed her love of writing, habit that she has taken with her to Boston. She worked at the Vanderbilt Reporter as a science writer, and today blogs for me at Science Writing Radio. This is a great conversation with someone who is in the trenches, building her CV and figuring out what the next steps will look like. In this conversation, Emily and I talk about Why telling your PI about your interests early on can be key to career development Finding opportunities in lab to build your writing skills Writing science for wealthy donors…when money’s on the line The skill of pretending to be your sister Ways to take advantage of your post-doc to become a better writer Why it’s so hard to edit your own writing Breaking the rules of grammar Taking advantage of more resources, earlier Transferrable skills, and what people don’t know we know The links Vanderbilt University Medical Center Reporter SWR Episode 5 with Bill Snyder Write for College Writing in the Sciences (free online course from Stanford) And my interview with Professor Kristin Sainani

This is the second half of the two-part series on creating great scientific writing, presentations, blogs, and more. In this episode, I talk about the importance for scientists to have a personality, use the active voice, leave plenty of white space, and edit ruthlessly. For the show notes, head over to sciencewritingradio.com/swr18

For the shownotes, head over to sciencewritingradio.com/swr17

My guest today has an interesting history that I think should be encouraging to anyone in lab trying to figure out the next steps. Nick Oswald is the founder of BitesizeBio, a digital publication that came out of his experience as a research scientist trying to create a simple, useable collection of protocols. Since then, it’s turned into an active site where scientists can go for protocols, tips and ideas for all the problems that come up in lab. Prior to founding Bitesize Bio, Nick spent time as a journal editorial manager and worked as a research scientist for a couple of biotech startups. During our conversation, Nick and I talk about What working in biotech can teach about science communication (1:50) Simple and personal science communication (3:35) Two of the best places to be yourself (4:35 and 17:05) Keeping the focus narrow and stopping when you’ve made your point (7:20 and 15:50) Seeing a need, solving a problem - the founding of Bitesize Bio (10:05) How Bitesize Bio is using content marketing to make money by solving your problems (12:00) Not running with the crowd (17:05) Using blogging best practices to improve scientific manuscripts (20:35) Advice for scientists thinking about leaving lab (21:10) The Notes Bitesize Bio drnickoswald.com Bill Bement’s video abstract

This week I’m talking to an artist turned scientist turned entrepreneur. Shelley Sandiford is the founder of Sciconic Media, an Ottowa-based graphic design and animation studio. She describes herself as a communicator whose mission is to tell scientific stories. Shelley uses a unique style to do this, infusing everything she works on with personality and presenting it with compelling visuals. Her work shows how being a little unconventional, thinking unconventionally, can be beautifully effective. In this episode, Shelley and I talk about Making the leap from lab to entrepreneurship Desperation and fear The slow burn of science and entrepreneurship Respecting your audience Simplifying your science Always starting with your audience in mind Trying to push emotional buttons The Notes: Sciconic Media Shelley on Twitter: @sciconic Shelley’s email: info@sciconic.com Shelley on LinkedIn Shelley’s interview on Hack the Entrepreneur

Today’s conversation is definitely different than the usual here on Science Writing Radio, in that my guest has no direct relationship with the scientific community. Daniel Gleason is an English Professor who has spent years teaching at the high school and undergrad levels. He currently teaches at Bryan College, where he also runs the school’s writing center. His primary research area is in 20th century American fiction. I brought him on to talk about language and narrative in a different context than what we normally think about in science, but to tie those things in to our world. Because there are a lot of great lessons we can take from our colleagues in the humanities. For the full show notes, head over to filamentcommunications.com/swr014

In science and in life, the best thing often is to just get started. Try new things and see where they lead. It’s what we do in the research lab, and scientists can apply the principle to other areas of work. Then experiment, take feedback from mentors and peers, and adjust as necessary. With that in mind, I’m making some changes to science writing radio to make it more useful for grad students and post docs in biology, chemistry and physics who are interested in science communication. For more on that, head over to filamentcommunications.com/swrbonus-start