For those who don’t know, the Rutgers graduate school (through Project AGER) regularly offers a variety of outstanding workshops on professional development for grad students. I recently attended one on science communication. The workshop was run by Sangya Varma, of the Rutgers Professional Science Master’s Program and an alumna of the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University. (In his post-M*A*S*H career, Alan Alda hosted Scientific American Frontiers on PBS for many years and has been a vocal advocate for popularizing science.) The center at Stony Brook offers multiple courses, a master’s program, and various workshops to train scientists to better communicate their work with different audiences. It’s a fascinating and one-of-a-kind place, and I for one would love to take part in some of their activities.
The two-hour workshops at Rutgers provide a small sample of what the center at Stony Brook offers. After highlighting the basic motivation for scientists to cultivate communication skills and some general principles of how to convey complex ideas in simple ways, we embarked on exercises of “translating” our own research into accessible language. We also chose from a list of specific audiences (e.g., a family member, a group of investors, a newspaper reporter, etc.) and spontaneously tried to present our research to that audience.
This last activity really hit home for me, since a few months ago I participated in an interview with members of my group about our research for The Daily Targum. Neither we nor the reporter had much experience with this, and while the resulting article was a nice plug, I was rather dissatisfied with it. We ended up saying very little in the interview about our specific research activities, instead being sidetracked on general issues about the state of the field. I also realized how terrible the spontaneous things we say aloud look when put into print. I learned that one really has to prepare for these things: you have little control over what the reporter will pick to include in the final article from whatever you said in the interview, so you have to give them a very polished set of statements (pretty much at the level of sound bites, which is what they will end up using) that you won’t regret having in print. Speaking off the cuff makes it too easy to say something careless, incoherent, or just plain silly.
This previous experience and the workshop (plus all those times I felt dissatisfied after trying to explain my work to friends and family) have inspired me to take a more deliberate approach in the future for communicating my science. I’m starting with a list of audiences that I may likely interact with, based on my research and career interests:
- Family members and friends
- Basic life scientists outside of my specific subfield (e.g., molecular biologists)
- Physicists outside of my subfield (e.g., condensed matter physicists)
- Biomedical scientists (e.g., cancer biologists)
- Biotechnology scientists and entrepreneurs
- Science news media (e.g., Scientific American)
- Mainstream news media (e.g., NY Times, Rutgers Today)
- Program officers and review panels at funding agencies (e.g., NIH, NSF, private foundations)
My goal is to prepare short descriptions of my work customized for each of these audiences. Most of us have at least partially done this implicitly — say, by writing applications to different funding sources or concocting one spiel about your work for your parents and another spiel for your grad student friends. But I think a more systematic approach is a good future goal. Even a list of important points or key words to emphasize for each audience is probably helpful; for most of us, we will definitely emphasize slightly different points or use different words for distinct audiences. For me, I would likely emphasize the “coolness” and basic science relevance of my work when speaking to my friends or peers in science (especially from physics), while to an audience of biotech people I would definitely emphasize future potential applications.