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?

What I Study

In my Careers in Scientific Communications class, we were given the writing assignment below. I liked it enough to post my answer here. I would love to see yours too!

Write a short essay (125-175 words) about your lab research or a science topic of your choice. The essay should describe/explain the science so that it is understandable to the non-scientific public.

I study how stem cells make and use energy - stem cell metabolism. I don't use the controversial stem cells that get all the headlines. Instead, I use stem cells from bone marrow, also called mesenchymal stem cells or MSCs. Stem cells have two defining properties that make them stem cells. First, they can make more stem cells, exact replicas of themselves. Secondly, a stem cell has the ability to become a different type of cell. MSCs can become bone, fat, or cartilage. There are two main ways cells make energy. Glycolysis makes a little energy, and doesn't require oxygen. Oxidative phosphorylation does require oxygen, and makes a lot of energy. Stem cells mostly use glycolysis. Bone cells mostly use oxidative phosphorylation. Somewhere along the path from stem cell to bone, the cells switch how they make their energy. If you stop oxidative phosphorylation from happening, you also stop the stem cell from becoming bone. We don't know why or how this switch happens, and that's what I want to find out.

Writing Exercise Turned Publication

I have a writing group. It is awesome. We meet once a month. The day before we meet, we send each other some writing we've been working on. One page limit. We then meet for an hour, and tear apart each piece. It has both improved my writing, and inspired me to write more.

About a week before our June meeting, I was casting about looking for something to write. I had no upcoming abstracts, no manuscripts in process, and no blog posts in the pipeline. Then I got an email from a new student journal that I read about science policy, the Journal of Science Policy & Governance. It was a call for submissions for their upcoming special edition on Healthy Food Policy.

I'm interested in science policy. I think it would look good on my CV to publish in a policy journal. My writing group was in one week, and the submission deadline was the following day.

Challenge accepted.

I spent some time thinking hard about topics, then a week of literature searching and mad writing. Submitted, and to my surprise: accepted.

The editorial team at JSPG is really fantastic. They helped to really polish the piece, and give it better flow. This also helped me realize the importance of writing regularly. Publishing was a bonus, but achieving the goal of actually finishing it was incredibly satisfying.

The article is linked below, and any comments are always appreciated.

http://www.sciencepolicyjournal.org/special-edition-healthy-food-policy.html

Science of Being Happy: Back to Basics as a Coping Mechanism

Life getting to be too much? It was for me. Through the winter of 2012 into 2013, everyday functions were becoming a problem. Getting out of bed, getting to work, and taking care of myself all became insurmountable tasks. I'll spare you the details, but eventually, with time and the help of some wonderful people, I got into a better place.

Every now and then, the darkness comes knock, knock, knocking again; when I haven't slept well in days, when stress from grad school get overwhelming. There is one thought exercise that pulls me away from that abyss almost without fail.

"I have a roof overhead, and food in the belly. Everything else is a luxury."

I return to the absolute basics of survival, and start a list in my head of how they all get met without fail in my life. I know where I'm sleeping tonight. I know where my next meal is coming from. If the plans I have in place for each of those were to fall through, I have other options.

Using Maslow's hierarchy of needs, we can expand: there's no one trying to kill me. My personal safety is not in imminent danger. I have a job (more or less). I have no major health issues. I have family and friends I can turn to in times of need. I could go on, but you probably get the idea. I often don't even need to go through the whole shebang, but just the first line a few times:

"I have a roof overhead, and food in the belly. Everything else is a luxury."

It sounds too simple to work, but it works for me. This has become incredibly useful in dealing with the stress of grad school. When I remember that all my basic needs in life are more than adequately met, it seems like less of a deal that I have an upcoming exam that I'm not prepared for, that my schedule is packed, that day to day life is stressful.

This might be too dark for some people, but I find it comforting. If I were to fail out of grad school, if the PI kicked me out of the lab, if I had a major medical emergency, everything would still be okay. Because I would still have a roof over my head, and I would still have food in my belly. And everything else can be dealt with. 

It's Been Said Before, Just Not By Me: Discussions on Open Access

Open access is a big buzzword in the world of science these days. One Friday morning, I decided it was time to learn a little more. The idea of open access gets tossed around a lot, and it sounds good in theory, but truth be told I know little about it. What do I do when I need information? I tweet about it:

My followers (affectionately referred to as my Tweeple, or my Tweeps), have proven to be a valuable source of information with a diverse range of opinions. The first response was from a fellow graduate student:

Flippant at first glance, until further pondered. I was between institutions during most of the summer of 2013, after leaving a job as a technician, and before starting grad school. I was unaffiliated with a university, but still interested in science, and wanted to keep up with new research. There are sources for "science news" (Live Science, The Scientist, Scientific American, to name a few), but if I've learned anything about scientific communication (#scicomm), it's to check the original reference before getting too excited about a new discovery. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to do this. I was surprised at just how often I was attempting to get papers I didn't have access to. Open access is more than not needing a library, but also being able to keep up with new discoveries and keeping current with the disciplines that are important to me. As I found out that summer, you can't do this without institutional access. 

My response (mostly playing devil's advocate), was that if the next generation of scientists all chose to publish open access, then the status quo would shift and the change would happen naturally.

We had a fairly predictable back and forth about needing high impact factor for grant funding, and discussing whether impact factor is really all that relevant. Some scientists, physicists in particular, seem to favor h-index, calculated by citations per published paper. It is the opinion of this barely-published not-quite-scientist that individual citations matter more than a journal's impact factor because impact changes year to year, but citations are the timeline of science.

From there, we had a different viewpoint chime in. a PI responding to the question of what open access means to him: 

He went on to remind me that he already pays overhead costs to a library that covers subscription fees, and that cost to him wouldn't go away if he published all his papers in open access. Despite his reluctance to the currently proposed model of open access, he still agrees that the public should be able to access the results of the research they fund through their taxes. But this model isn't going to get changed by people who have no incentive to change it.

Then I was asked the big question:

I'm stumped. It's one thing for rock stars like Randy Schekman to decry the luxury journals right after winning a Nobel Prize. But if I had a paper, as a graduate student, that was capable of getting published in one of the big names, would I turn down that career-boosting opportunity for a model that I think is "a pretty good idea, at least in theory?"

Should these changes be coming from top-tier scientists who already have a reputation and little to lose, or should the next generation give up the old ways and blaze a new trail?

Luckily (or unfortunately), I don't have to answer that question yet. However, I do think it's important for people even at my early career stage to be thinking about these topics. I'm part of the next generation of scientists, and if we don't think about what needs to be changed, who will?