What would you want from a SciComm class?

In the Spring of 2014 I took a class that was required for my program: Workshop on Scientific Communication. While not knowing entirely what to expect, I was still a little disappointed in the content. This one credit, twelve session class was mostly long, text-heavy PowerPoint presentations on how to write papers, what the purpose of an abstract was, how to prepare figures, and similar topics. While these are useful topics, there seemed a lot missing from the class. Many slides were read to us on how to write an abstract, but we never actually wrote an abstract. We were required to do a ten minute oral presentation near the end of the semester, and received some valuable feedback. However, we never got a chance to revise and improve.

I approached the instructor, and asked to TA next time the class was offered. She said the class was a lot of time and effort, and she would love the help. I asked about including some extra topics, and got a very enthusiastic response.

Here are some things I would like to see added:

• Twitter: what it is, and why it can be useful
• Blogs: how they can improve writing
• Science policy: what is it and the importance of communication and advocacy
• Scientists speaking to the lay public: how to do this and why it matters
• More opportunity for feedback: we're often told the importance of good writing, but don't to practice.

And now I open it to you. What would you want to learn from a graduate level class on science communication? What do you wish other people would learn? This class is generally geared toward graduate students, but also attracts medical students, residents, and other people from the medical campus that were intrigued by the title.

What are your thoughts?

The Birth: What the Heck is Twitter?

Welcome to Shum Stuff. Or if you want to re-punctuate, you could also consider Shum's Tuff. I'm pretty okay with either one. I'm a Shum, one of many. This is my stuff.

Let's get one thing straight from the beginning. Shum. It's pronounced exactly as it is spelled. Shhhhhh. Ummmmm. Put it together now: Shhhuuuuuuum. As you can tell, it's a bit of a pet-peeve to have my last name mispronounced. I could understand if it had multiple vowels, or at least two syllables, but it's about as simple as it gets. Shum. Rhymes with bum, dumb, thumb, and scum. If you can come up with a nickname I haven't heard before, you win a prize! A small, cheap, probably plastic prize. Possibly a pipe cleaner.

Moving on.

Not too long ago, I could not for-the-love-of-all-that's-holy figure out what the big deal was about Twitter. I had an account. I had followed about 10 people, and had about that many following me (lookout behind you!). I would log on about once a month, look around a little and not really get it. I'm a scientist (or pretend to be), so I don't really like it when I don't understand things. It was time to figure out why people tweet.

As any reasonable 21st century woman does when she wants to embark on a new adventure, I Googled it. The best advice I found was to be active. Tweet, respond, follow, jump into conversations. Unless you're a celebrity, people won't come to you. You need to engage them.

And so I did. I started tweeting something 2-3 times a day, whether it be retweeting, responding to a question or just plowing my way into someone else's conversation. But the real trouble started when I followed @JacquelynGill. If you are unfamiliar with this ecologist, biogeographer and twitter-fiend, check out her blog here. I retweeted a few articles she wrote and it started a conversation. People in her science-sphere saw our conversation and followed me. I did the polite thing and followed them back. 

Then things started to snowball. You see, the fascinating Dr Gill is heavily into science communication (#scicomm). Science communication is exactly what it sounds like. Communicating about science. This can be between scientists, journalists, the general public or combination thereof. Science research, science policy, science education. These people are obsessed with science and attempting to engage those around in conversations. It just so happens that they were all at a convention about science communication, causing them to really blow up the Twitter-verse.

By golly, I had no idea that this was a topic so fascinating. As a lab technician, I talk a lot of science every day. The few non-scientists I interact with on a regular basis know a-plenty about science by sheer virtue of interaction with moi. In this insular science-drenched world it's easy to forgot that a shocking number of people still discount global warming, evolution, or even the basic science needed to make educated opinions about their own health care.

Science communication is vastly important, and I'm hooked on being a part of it. Where is my place in all this? I don't know yet. Stay with me to find out.

I'm a Shum, and this is my stuff.