Carla Bautista Rodriguez is a PhD candidate in evolutionary biology at Laval University (Canada) and a member of the Genetics Society of America. She is also passionate about outreach and scientific communication. She is an active member of various American and Spanish societies that are dedicated to bringing science to the general public.

The GSA multilingual seminar in Spanish, titled “Challenges of Doing and Communicating Science as Spanish Speakers,” was held on September 3, 2021. As revealed by the participant survey conducted during registration, the participants’ origins were very diverse, including many non-Spanish-speaking countries, which indicated the active participation of professionals working in their non-native tongue. Among the outstanding areas of expertise of the participants were pharmaceuticals, agriculture, government jobs, education, and research. This wide range of topics ensured a very fruitful seminar.

The need to meet

This survey revealed shocking perspectives on Spanish speakers in the field of science. While 50 percent of respondents claimed to have an advanced level of English, more than 75 percent admitted to feeling afraid or ashamed when expressing themselves in their professional field. Despite these concerns, more than 80 percent of participants reported making presentations in other languages, and more than 50 percent reported staying abroad. Most respondents also expressed interest in finding a job in countries where their mother tongue is not spoken.

Our panelists

The Spanish seminar was led by 3 incredible panelists with very diverse and interesting profiles. With a more industry-oriented profile, Roberto Carballido is a talent scout and defender of diversity who works for Eli Lilly and Company. A professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo, Javier Blanco is a renowned researcher in the fields of biochemistry and pharmaceutical sciences. And finally, with a biochemical background, Attabey Rodríguez Benítez is as an important science popularizer and editor of SciShow, a YouTube channel.

Challenges as Spanish speakers

We should normalize the experience of not being understood when we arrive in a new country. Consistency and practice are key. After years of dedication to learning a language, feeling disappointed when you do not achieve fluency in practice is normal. In addition, we have to consider the cultural shock of experiencing all these feelings alone, without the support of family and friends. Furthermore, researchers face constant pressure due to the highly competitive and demanding research environment. Therefore, finding a secure network where you feel comfortable is crucial. 

Practical strategies for overcoming the English language barrier

As part of the seminar, we collected great tips from our panelists on speaking and interacting in English:

1. Outreach is a good way to learn English because you have to explain difficult concepts in an easy way.
2. If you feel that the language barrier is endless in the first instances of your scientific journey, look for other ways to communicate. Your skills can be displayed in many ways: scripts, graphs, techniques, new methods, etc.
3. Find a community where you feel safe. The scientific community is likely multicultural in any country. You will interact with many people who are probably going through the same difficulties as you.
4. Because of #3, native English scientists are used to many different accents, errors, vocabulary, etc. Accept that your accent is not native but still perfect. Your accent is what it is, and it’s nice because it’s a mixture of your native culture and your new culture. Enjoy that distinction! Do not be afraid! Stop looking for perfection. The important thing is to communicate effectively.
5. If you feel that someone does not understand you, ask: have you understood me? Likewise, when you do not understand, ask your interlocutor to repeat and speak more slowly.
6. There are many people who want to help, but they will not help you if you do not raise your hand. They won’t read your mind. Ask For Help. You will be surprised by how they help you.
7. Use tools that make your day-to-day life easier—for example, Grammarly and Wordtune, which are web browser extensions that help correct your texts. (I’m currently using them as I write!)

Why should we continue speaking in Spanish about science?

Transmitting and communicating what we do in our native language is important. English-speaking children are more likely to become passionate about science because they have been exposed to more scientific content in English, the most used scientific language. We, therefore, have to end this bias! We need more resources in Spanish to create scientific interest among young Spanish speakers. The only ones who can do it are scientific Spanish speakers because they can translate science. Furthermore, during the pandemic, there was a growing need and demand from the general population for tools that would allow them to understand what was happening. Let’s take advantage of this opportunity and inform the public about our findings. 

Model your professional career from now on

Finally, we had a conversation more oriented to each participant’s area of expertise, where they shared valuable advice and resources (Table 1). We hope you find all of this information useful, and we especially hope to see you at future GSA seminars! (You can rewatch the webinar here.)

Notes:

1. a. https://college.uchicago.edu/academics/science-communications-courses
   b. https://libguides.ncl.ac.uk/sciencecommunication
2. https://www.aaas.org/programs/mass-media-fellowship
3. a. https://genetics-gsa.org/career-development/early-career-leadership/
   b. https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/bd8565f0/elife-ambassadors-an-invitation-to-take-part-in-2022
   c. https://www.ascb.org/associated_committee/postdoc-graduate-student-compass-committee/
   d. https://www.aquinoscuidamos.org/
4. https://www.linkedin.com
5. https://www.sacnas.org/
6. http://jobsontoast.com/how-to-convert-a-scientific-cv-into-a-business-cv/
7. a. https://app.grammarly.com/
   b. https://www.wordtune.com/
8. https://getpocket.com/es/

What scientists can learn from pandemic communication failures.

Guest post by Caitlin Simopoulos, Joseph Tolsma, and Elisabeth Marnik

Science communication is more important than ever. The world is constantly being updated on scientific data such as newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and results from vaccine clinical trials. With social media at everyone’s fingertips, research is communicated from scientists to the public rapidly, making conspiracy stories hard to separate from the science. Sometimes we read articles in newspapers that make it seem like the media just doesn’t “get it.” As scientists, why do our messages get so lost in translation? And what can we do about it? 

It turns out that scientists think they communicate with the public more often than they actually do. In addition, a study found that scientists may be perceived as competent, but they’re also seen as lacking warmth, leading to being labeled as “untrustworthy.”  Many people who are interested in science rely on information from people they trust, like reporters on the news or friends on social media, where the information isn’t always right.

You may remember the study out of Duke University where the authors presented an affordable and efficient method to test mask efficacy. This study quickly gained popularity for one reason: the unsupported worry that wearing a neck gaiter is worse than wearing no mask at all. Soon after publication, there was an explosion of news articles focusing on the possible problems with wearing neck gaiters as face coverings, leading to the study authors having to clarify their results with the media. 

This type of miscommunication isn’t isolated. Misleading and unclear communication surrounding the AstraZeneca/Oxford coronavirus vaccine has led to delays in vaccine rollouts and low confidence in the efficacy of the vaccine. Detroit Mayor Mike Duggun publicly declined the Johnson & Johnson vaccine allotment for his city, citing unsupported claims that other vaccines are superior.  

Even outside of the pandemic, science communication fails. For example, the conversation around climate change has been dubbed the “largest science communication failure in history.” A recent poll of Americans shows that only 17% of study participants believe that climate scientists have concluded that global warming is human-caused. Understanding how to be an effective communicator is an important part of a scientist’s job. 

Don’t get too discouraged. We can work to improve communicating our science to the public. One of the best ways to improve your own science communication is by watching others who are doing it well. The core goal of scientific communication is to equip people with fact-based information that will help them make informed decisions. But facts alone aren’t enough; there must be a narrative to engage the audience  For example, this article from journalist Shannon Hall details the state of Arctic sea ice, new discoveries about marine life during winter months, and the importance of new data for climate models. However, the story being told focuses on the lives of the research team while isolated in the Arctic for months. The story itself is interspersed with dramatic images from the Arctic darkness. This piece also emphasizes the passion that the researchers have for their work in a way that facts alone could not. In short, it demonstrates that scientists care, and it encourages the reader to care as well. 

Of course, we don’t always have the advantage of dramatic footage and polar bears on our front porch. We can still let our personalities shine through—that can even help with your perceived trustworthiness! Together, Siouxie Wiles and Toby Morris created a number of playful graphics that communicated the importance of physical distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic and helped explain the ongoing research. These viral cartoons avoid jargon while telling a story of how and why various preventive measures are important…all while encouraging the reader to “keep up with your own slice of cheese”.

Keep in mind that science communication within your sphere of influence takes time. Trust takes time to earn and begins with developing a relationship with your audience. Extend your own trust to the public that is trying to learn, and don’t be afraid to admit errors! The audience we reach won’t necessarily be the same for all of us. For example well-known science communicators Katie Mack and Katherine Hayhoe don’t reach the exact same audience. However, both use their genuine personalities to resonate with an audience with which they find some common ground, building trust over time. Go out and find your niche!

Here are some tips for talking to the public that will help you get your message across effectively: 

1. Prune down your concepts: Often scientists want to show how much work they did to get to a particular finding. This may be appropriate when giving your dissertation defense or a talk to experts in your field, but this will lead to losing your audience if you’re talking to the public. When talking to a general audience make sure you focus on only the core findings fundamental to your work. If possible, only have one or two main takeaway points and avoid mentioning things that are not related and can be taken out of context. 

2. Keep it short: Research shows that 20 minutes is the perfect length for a talk that won’t lose the audience’s attention. This is why TED talks are 18 minutes long. So, when possible, keep your talks to the public shorter, and perhaps use the extra time to answer questions and interact with the audience directly. 

3. Know your audience: Tailor your talk specifically to those you are talking to. If you’re meeting with a group of fourth graders make sure you check with parents and teachers of that age group to remember what things are reasonable for them to know and understand. If you’re talking to adults who are non-scientists, don’t be tempted to throw in jargon just because they’re older. It is better to simplify concepts as much as possible to ensure you’re not losing your audience. If you’re talking to a group with a specific common interest, for example, young students who want to be scientists, relate the topics to them and why they should care. 

4. Use analogies and stories: When possible, make the topic personal by incorporating stories from your own life or stories related to the concepts being discussed. When explaining difficult concepts, use analogies that relate the concepts to things people are exposed to more often. 

5. Make it interactive: Those of us who teach know that the education world is abuzz with active learning. Students learn better by being active participants in the process. This is also true for talks. If you make your talk interactive the audience members are less likely to sneak peeks at their phone or lose interest. Some great ways of incorporating interactive elements are to ask a question and have audience members spend a minute or two talking to the people next to them. You can also take polls through a show of hands or phone polling apps. Other great interactive tips can be found here!

Ultimately, the best talks to the public are ones where the scientist is having fun while talking. Their excitement over the topic comes through. So, make sure you allow your passion about the topic to shine, and don’t be afraid to infuse your personality. You are the expert, you just need to distill your knowledge in a way that is understandable.

About the authors:

Caitlin Simopoulos is a Postdoctoral Associate at the University of Ottawa who studies the gut microbiome through computational biology. She also aspires to make science accessible to everyone. Connect with Caitlin via email, or on Twitter.

Joseph Tolsma is a graduate student at North Carolina State University who studies plant gravitropism and the circadian clock using time course imaging and RNA sequencing. He is passionate about engaging undergraduates in accessible research that results in real progress. You can contact him via email at jsjoseph@ncsu.edu. 

Elisabeth Marnik is an Assistant Professor at Husson University. Marnik is a member of the GSA’s Conference Childcare Committee and a past member and current advisor of the GSA Early Career Leadership Program’s Communication and Outreach Subcommittee. You can find Elisabeth on instagram, FB or twitter.

FlyBoard is pleased to offer funding to five outreach programs, which aim to increase early career scientist participation, equity, and diversity in the Drosophila research community.

Amos Abolaji, Drosophila Research and Training Centre
The Drosophila Research and Training Centre (DRTC) is a not-for-profit and non-political organization based in Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria. It facilitates the use of Drosophila melanogaster as a cost-effective, alternative model for biomedical research and teaching in Sub-Saharan African countries. As part of its Drosophila for Schools initiative, DRTC will work with 10 public and private secondary schools in Ibadan to introduce students to Drosophila research. Researchers will visit the schools to discuss the importance of fly research and demonstrate fly handling and microscopy, and two students from each school will then visit the DRTC for further training.

Dotun Adeyinka, Science Education for Youngsters 
Science Education for Youngsters (SEFY) is a registered non-governmental and non-profit organization working to create science-awareness in Nigeria. In collaboration with Osun State University, SEFY will organize an event for 50 secondary school students in Osogbo, Nigeria to introduce the Drosophila model system, demonstrate lab equipment, and carry out hands-on training using Foldscope microscopes.

Eric Hastie, Discovering Drosophila Development
Discovering Drosophila Development is a summer research experience for undergraduates, which will be held at UNC-Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) in collaboration with Durham Technical Community College (DTCC). About 10-15  DTCC students will be trained in multiple scientific techniques to conduct student-driven discovery with unknown outcomes including: meeting and collaborating with scientists in UNC-CH Drosophila labs, learning fly culture and maintenance, researching literature to develop hypotheses, and using microscopy and antibody labelling. The goal of the program is to create micropublications via microPublication Biology and to encourage DTCC students to transfer to UNC.

Stephen Klusza, Genomics Education Partnership 
The Genomics Education Partnership (GEP) is a 140+ faculty collective that provides undergraduate students with bioinformatic CUREs on manual gene annotation in multiple Drosophila fruit fly species. As part of a global initiative to increase accessibility and diversity retention, GEP is working to translate their “Understanding Eukaryotic Genes” modules on manual gene annotation for undergraduates from English to Spanish. They are also creating accompanying Spanish-language videos. These new materials will be a first step to recruiting and retaining English as a Second Language students in Drosophila research across all postsecondary institutions.

Alana O’Reilly, eCLOSE Institute
The eCLOSE Institute will host a one-week summer camp program that introduces biomedical research to students in Philadelphia, more than 60% of whom are under-represented minorities. Due to Covid-19, the current hybrid format will ship students a “lab in a box” that they use to investigate the influence of diet on Drosophila development, guided by online instructors. The program aims to increase students’ research literacy, providing them with an understanding of what a research career is and technical and conceptual foundations for continuation in science.

Join the Communication and Outreach Subcommittee of GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership and Professional Development Program.

Are you a student or postdoc with a passion for science communication and outreach? Gain valuable experience, professional skills, portfolio pieces, and a vibrant network by applying for the Communication and Outreach Subcommittee, one of four subcommittees under the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership and Professional Development Program, brainchild of Sonia Hall.

“The opportunity to gain writing, communication, and storytelling skills as an Early Career Scientist is a huge opportunity. Whether your aim is academia, industry, or other, your ability to communicate science is of the utmost importance. Even if you do amazing science, if you can’t communicate it, the research won’t have much of an impact.”

— Aleeza Gerstein (Assistant Professor, University of Manitoba, former Co-Chair of the Communication and Outreach Subcommittee)

The goal of our subcommittee is to highlight discoveries that originate from the model organism community to demonstrate the roles genetics research plays in daily life. We invite all early career GSA members to apply to be part of our group. Keep reading to learn more about what it’s like to work on the subcommittee!

Building community while networking

Our committee places an emphasis on building community. Although we are spread across the world, we stay connected through monthly video conference meetings and online discussions on the team working platform Slack. We use these forums to support each other, share resources, advance projects, and celebrate individual and group accomplishments. Through these interactions, we’ve become better peer mentors and have gained a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by early career scientists.

“Being part of this subcommittee has opened up my network to a diverse and talented group of scientists who I now can call friends.”

— Alison Gerken (Research Molecular Biologist – USDA Agricultural Research Service, current member of the subcommittee)

“As I am interested in interdisciplinary problems, it is increasingly important for me to be able to reach peers with different ways of thinking, and this subcommittee is an outstanding platform to do so.”

—Angel Fernando Cisneros Caballero (Master’s student in Biochemistry, Laval University, current member of the subcommittee)

“This subcommittee has helped me expand my personal and professional network and further develop my leadership and organizational skills.”

—Jessica Velez (Graduate Research Assistant – University of Tennessee Knoxville, current co-Chair of the subcommittee)

Building a portfolio

Using Slack, video conference, and Google Docs, we work in small groups to write articles that are published in a variety of outlets. Our topics are varied, ranging from the practical applications of RNAi, the history of in situ hybridization, and the discovery of microtubules. Each member spends up to two years on the Subcommittee, so we’re able to develop a strong portfolio of work that allows us to stand out in a crowded job market—all while making meaningful contributions to the scientific community.

“The subcommittee has helped me practice throwing out the jargon and messy details and distilling complex ideas into something catchy and impactful.”

—Alison Gerken (Research Molecular Biologist – USDA Agricultural Research Service, current member of the subcommittee)

Developing diverse professional skills

Through our projects we develop strong writing and editing skills in addition to a variety of professional skills. Using a peer editing approach allows us to learn how to give and receive feedback. Our roles on the committee push us to refine our time management skills, manage projects effectively, implement teamwork strategies, and practice collaboration across space and time. These are important professional skills that take time and practice to develop. But perhaps most important, this experience allows us to develop ourselves as strong scientific professionals.

“I am not only developing my communication skills, but also expanding my professional network by working with a diverse group of early-career scientists, editing and reviewing each other’s work, and challenging myself by writing scientific pieces outside of my area of expertise.”

—Haifa Alhadyian (Graduate Research Assistant – University of Kansas, current member of the subcommittee)

“I’ve learned about various topics and contributed to pieces that are not within my area of expertise, and I’ve learned a lot from our senior members and advisors about the leadership skills that are needed to keep a team motivated.”

—Angel Fernando Cisneros Caballero (Master’s student in Biochemistry, Laval University, current member of the subcommittee)

Engage in novel opportunities

Beyond the unique experience that the projects afford, committee members are also empowered to become more involved at GSA conferences. From developing workshops, to hosting panel discussions, or participating in unique community events—there are lots of new opportunities!

“Jessica and I developed and led a workshop on establishing and expanding an outreach program. We summarized our outreach activities and presented ways others can break into their communities, in both local and web-based contexts. This was a new experience that helped me develop new skills I may not have had the opportunity to develop without being part of the subcommittee and Leadership Program.”

—Adam Ramsey (Graduate Teaching Assistant – University of Memphis, current Co-Chair of the subcommittee)

“I had the opportunity to pilot and host the first GENETICS Discussion event at a GSA Conference. We used this discussion to dive into the story behind the paper.”

—Jessica Velez (Graduate Research Assistant – University of Tennessee Knoxville, current Co-Chair of the subcommittee)

Join us!

We’re very excited to continue growing our subcommittee while publishing interesting articles for the general public and fellow scientists. We have some new project platforms and ideas in development, but we need your assistance! If you are interested in joining our subcommittee, please apply for the Early Career Scientist Leadership Program by November 30th, 2018. We welcome you as we continue to expand the subcommittee and communicate science!

“While I have a history of performing outreach and being an active proponent of science, I was a little apprehensive to be moving into a more visible role within the scientific community (a bit of imposter syndrome!). But the welcoming atmosphere of the subcommittee dashed that apprehension away. I realized I was selected for the subcommittee because I have talents to offer. It has been an enjoyable and rewarding experience playing a role in—and seeing first-hand—the accomplishments of the subcommittee.”

—Adam Ramsey (Graduate Teaching Assistant – University of Memphis, current Co-Chair of the subcommittee)

About the authors: The Early Career Scientist Communications and Outreach Subcommittee aims to draw connections between fundamental discoveries that have originated in the genetics community and show how they have contributed to advancements in science, medicine, and technology.

As Director of RockEDU Science Outreach at The Rockefeller University, Jeanne Garbarino promotes equitable access to science and fosters a genuine connection with science in our society. Along with her team, she creates innovative resources and educational programs that inspire an appreciation for the scientific process.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

Jeanne Garbarino received her PhD at Columbia University and completed postdoctoral training at Rockefeller University. During her postdoc, she started exploring science communication and outreach, eventually turning her volunteer work into a career. As Director of RockEDU Science Outreach at Rockefeller University, Jeanne distills scientific concepts for students and teachers through elegant and creative experiments. She manages a team that puts on an array of outreach programs, including an annual science festival, middle and high school field trips to the RockEDU lab, after-school programs, and student research programs.

How did you transition into your role as director of an outreach program?

I was pregnant with my second daughter, and I had this existential crisis that all of my bills were going to double. I took a hard look at my own career trajectory, and I realized there was no way I was going to get an independent research position, and I began to question if this was even what I wanted. I needed to figure out how I was going to support my kids. I really resonated with science communication and outreach, and I knew that I didn’t want to leave Rockefeller. I had always felt at home here, and I was able to express my creativity in a supportive and professional environment. Rockefeller also offered daycare on-site, great health insurance, and a wonderful retirement package.

I made what felt like a Hail Mary toss: I wrote a proposal advocating for expanding science education programs to Marc Tessier-Lavigne, who was President of Rockefeller University at the time. It was impeccably lucky timing as there was a new opening for a Director of Science Outreach position, and Dr. Tessier-Lavigne encouraged me to apply. I was an ideal candidate for the job because of my active involvement in outreach, and I also had strong relationships with scientists and administrators at Rockefeller University.

The enthusiastic and talented RockEDU Science Outreach team.

I started my job as a director with the responsibility of running the Summer Science Research Program (SSRP), which left the rest of year open for me to do additional projects. I applied for grants to grow the program, and the funding I received allowed me to build the team I needed to support the new programs we created. Within two years of starting this position, we established RockEDU Science Outreach. This position allows me to share my passion for science while also doing the tinkering and tactile part of research work.

What does being the Director of RockEDU Science Outreach at Rockefeller involve?

As a director, I juggle a lot of responsibilities. I manage a team of scientists, educators, and support staff to develop and run science outreach programs. Our guiding principle is that a successful outreach initiative benefits both the university and community. Because Rockefeller University is a biomedical research university without undergraduates, our graduate students and postdocs don’t have teaching and mentoring opportunities on campus. We fill that niche by providing teaching experience, curriculum development opportunities, and classroom management experiences through the science education programs at RockEDU. Our primary program is the Learning At the Bench (LAB) initiative, which provides hands-on lab experience for students and fosters active dialogues between scientists, teachers, and students at various levels.

Aside from focusing on our programs, I am constantly fundraising and browsing funding announcements on government and private foundation websites. I work closely with Rockefeller’s Development Office to decide how best to write grants for our work that align with the goals of various funding announcements.

How do you approach managing a team?

Garbarino celebrating the success of Science Saturday, RockEDU’s annual STEM festival where over 1,000 children in grades K-8, parents and teachers participate. © 2017 Scott Rudd

I like to operate with a very transparent style and to afford people flexibility. Basically, I try not to micromanage – I want people to work in the way that is best for them and their life. I want the people I supervise to work really hard, but I never want them to put the work ahead of their personal well-being. I make myself available whenever they need support. When problems arise, I make sure they feel their concerns are being heard. As a manager, it is important not to take those problems personally and to work with the team to come up with a solution or compromise. When things are going well, I regularly offer praise. Overall, I ensure that my team believes in the program, themselves, our mission, and me.

What are good ways to get involved in science communication and outreach?

There are a lot of ways to get involved in outreach. While a postdoc, I planned events where I brought together scientists, journalists, and members of the public to discuss controversial topics like climate change and vaccines. Through these platforms, I interacted with organizations that bring authentic science experiences to kids; learning about their programs gave me the outreach bug.

Doing outreach digitally shouldn’t be overlooked. I started to do science communication by writing blogs and being active on Twitter. I learned that some outreach doesn’t require tremendous time, resources, or training. For those interested in starting small: you can begin by working with a teacher to talk to a classroom of students.

Finally, what’s your vision for science outreach in the future?

Learning at the Bench: Jeanne makes science accessible, fun and engaging for young New Yorkers.

My overarching goal for science outreach is to create opportunities that promote inclusion, increase trust in science, and reveal science as a human endeavor at the core. To accomplish this, we need to develop mechanisms that bridge research and communities while staying aware of cultural contexts. Towards this goal, I am organizing a national unconference called Science Outreach: Models, Methods and Measures in collaboration with the Public Outreach Committee of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. We want to form a community of outreach practitioners to create a common core of best practices and then advocate for them nationally.

About the author:

Sonali Majumdar is a liaison on the Early Career Scientist Career Development Committee and an Associate Director of Graduate Professional Development at University of Virginia. She is a firm advocate of empowering early career scientists for career readiness in different job sectors.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

Science Communications Officer Namrata Sengupta is building a career at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard by breaking down complex science for the public. Crafting her PhD training, she transitioned from conducting research to aiding scientists in sharing their research stories.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

Namrata Sengupta knew early in her graduate career that she needed to create opportunities outside her PhD training to grow as a science communicator. Through strong mentorship, Namrata built a portfolio that showcased her communication abilities. At Clemson University, she and her graduate student peers created a high school outreach program emphasizing scientific communication within their community. Whether tweeting her defense or telling incredible stories of researchers at the Broad Institute, Namrata continues to seek new and inventive ways to reach target audiences.

What empowered you to pursue a career in science communication?

I’ve always felt that we need more scientists represented outside of academia and scientific societies. We need more scientists in the boardroom, news office, Senate, community, and popular media. Eight to ten years ago, when I started this journey of science as a career, I wanted to make sure that other scientists could find their feet at one of these places. When I was a master’s student, a very well renowned scientist came to give a talk on environmental pollution and lead toxicity, and it really made a mark in my life. It was amazing to hear him talk about the science behind lead toxicity and why we needed to create public awareness. I clearly remember coming out of the auditorium and calling my mom saying, “I think I know what I want to be in life.” I didn’t have the right words for it at the time, but I essentially wanted to be a “science motivational speaker.”

What skills do you use daily as a science communications officer?

Science communication is defined by trying to wear multiple hats. You’re expected to be a good science writer and interviewer and to understand what an interviewee’s research is about, which may mean doing background research to write your news story. You also have to decide on the narrative and make sure the main message is conveyed. As a science communicator, your goal is always to figure out the most important component and to condense that into relevant and simplified content for the audience. That can be a bit daunting in the beginning. These days, you also need to be social media savvy. You’re acting as a mediator between scientists and the public, translating complex scientific research to a format that is relevant and digestible to your audience.

What opportunities did you use to improve your graduate training and gain science communication experience?

Sengupta working with high school students to communicate their research as a part of the WOW project.

I came into graduate school knowing that I needed more than I would get from lab experiences or classes. A pivotal experience in my graduate career was a sustainable outreach program I developed along with four of my colleagues called the Clemson WOW (‘What’s in Our Waters?’) Project. We mentored high school students, teaching them about careers in environmental or biological sciences while giving them real-world field projects. This really expanded my project management and mentoring skills and taught me how to get young people interested in scientific research. I was also very active in student government, which organized two major events: the Three Minute Thesis competition and our graduate research symposium. Managing the symposium, in particular, prepared me for my career since it involved everything from fundraising to marketing to communication.

Can you tell us a little about your job search?

Sengupta at her doctoral hooding ceremony with her earliest mentor, her mother Namita Sengupta. Photo credit: Dhaval Parmar

The initial job search process was very challenging. Most job descriptions were asking for applicants with degrees and experience in communication or journalism. One of the things that worked in my favor was that I had well-documented experience in multiple social media and communication projects. For about a year in grad school, I worked as an environmental communications intern for a local nonprofit in South Carolina, helping to give them a social media presence. I was also really active on Twitter. To share my PhD defense with those that couldn’t attend, I created a hashtag and scheduled tweets to be published throughout my talk. I mentioned that during one of my interviews and my interview board laughed and asked me questions about it. These kinds of experiences really showcased my communication skills.

What encouragement do you have for graduate students that want to pursue a career in science communication?

Sengupta leading the graduate student committee for research events at Clemson.

Your PhD trains you to decode very complex pieces of information. You are already so attuned to problem-solving and figuring things out for yourself that you can build the skill set needed to interview a scientist or read an article and then write about it in a concise manner. Most importantly, I encourage people to find a mentor outside of their department and their lab. I had two mentors during graduate school: one was the Director of Research Communications, and the other was an environmental educator who were priceless resources to me. I could not have made it if I had not gotten all those experiences during my PhD program.

If somebody is interested in a career in communication, they have to start practicing. Start writing a blog! If you’re at a big conference, volunteer to cover a session or write a post-conference synopsis. Volunteering like this can help you get writing pieces to show as work examples, and it can help you get noticed. Get in touch with other science communicators, other journalists, people in your university press offices. Talk to people who write great stories and cover amazing science. Try to understand how that field works. The idea is to believe in the power and the uniqueness of your own story; that is going to take you a long way as a science communicator, not just in communicating about research but in building your own journey.

About the author:

Nicole Green is a member of the Early Career Scientist Career Development Committee and a PhD Candidate in the Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics at Kansas State University. She advocates for scientists using their unique voices and perspectives to make research accessible in the classroom and the broader community.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

Model organism researchers face shared challenges in communicating the value of their work. How do you get policymakers to fund research on a microscopic organism they’ve never heard of? How do you explain to the public why scientists spend time understanding yeast and frogs and flies?

In 2015, the ciliate research community decided to invest in a shared tool they could all use to help convey the importance of research on their model system. The result, a 6-minute “Why Ciliates?” video screened at The Allied Genetics Conference in 2016, helped introduce these fascinating organisms to participants from all the other communities attending the meeting. Inspired by the project, and the “Small Fly, Big Impact” Drosophila videos, many attendees expressed the desire to try a similar approach for their own model system.

https://vimeo.com/191812936

‘Why Ciliates?’ stars the one-celled wonders whose mini size belies their mega importance in basic research and drug development. Meet the passionate scientists, including Nobel laureate Carol Greider, as they advocate continued funding of basic research as the necessary precursor to the translational breakthroughs that will cure disease.

In advance of the Ciliate Molecular Biology Conference this July 17–22, 2018 in Washington, DC, we talked to the makers of “Why Ciliates?” to learn more about making a model organism video and how to overcome the challenges of a big communication project of this type.

Diana Ritter runs the video production company Flying Dreams Inc. Contact Diana on flydrms@gmail.com.

Ted Clark is Professor of Parasitology and Immunology at Cornell University

Jeff Kapler is Professor and Chair of the Department of Molecular and Cellular Medicine and Professor of Biochemistry & Biophysics at Texas A&M University

(Both Clark and Kapler are members of the Steering Committee of the Tetrahymena Genome Project)

What was the inspiration for the video?

Ted Clark: I had worked with Diana to make “Expedition: Science”,  a video for a laboratory course called ASSET we’ve developed to teach basic biology to high school students. After I showed the video at the “Ciliates in the Classroom” workshop at the Ciliate Molecular Biology Conference, some of the folks in the Tetrahymena community asked if we could do a similar video to pitch ciliates as model organisms to the broader scientific community and beyond.

Jeff Kapler: I’m on the Tetrahymena Board, and around this time we felt the funding environment was becoming increasingly difficult for those using model systems. We wanted a way to get the word out about the value of ciliates that could be shown to Members of Congress, NSF directors, NIH directors, the public. Something that could be used on our webpages, in grants, in the introduction to talks, at outreach events and so on. Ted and Diana had done a great job with the education video, so we were able to get the community really excited about it.

How did you fund the project?

Jeff Kapler: We developed the initial concept, and then we just asked for support via the ciliate e-mail listserv. People really got behind it. We got donations anywhere from $10 to $2000 coming from all over the world—old retirees came out of the woodwork to support it and even grad students making a pittance of a salary. It was like a GoFundMe without the overhead! We raised about $5000 that way, and the remaining $20,000 or so were provided by the Tetrahymena Stock Center.

What aspects of the video were most successful?

Ted Clark: Diana and I share a similar warped sense of humor—we knew we could rely on humor to make it more approachable in contrast to the more dry, informational tone of some science videos.

We’ve found that people respond to it naturally, it’s very engaging. Part of that was we had to find the right people. Diana asked for interviewees who are passionate and can tell a good story, so I chose people who I knew would make it exciting.

We also received a lot of comments on the representation of women in the video.

Diana Ritter: That was not an accident! Something that really struck me and engaged me when my kid was in kindergarten about 15 years ago, was that when the kids were asked what they wanted to be when they grew up, all the boys said things like fireman and astronaut and doctor, and to a person all the girls said ‘I want to be a mommy’. Now I love being a mommy, but that put fuel on my fire to show more women and girls doing science.

Jeff Kapler: The other thing that stood out when I saw the video was the young people in it—it wasn’t just a bunch of old men.

How do you prepare for production?

Diana Ritter: You have to start by identifying what you want to accomplish, your message, and your audience. That helps you think about the style; do you want it to be rapid-fire and provocative?  Or attention-getting with a more laid back, conversational, or news report approach?

You need to keep your budget in mind when you are planning, because this will guide lots of decisions about resources. If you have a very limited budget you will need to be as efficient as possible. You might be able to use some existing footage and graphics for example, and consolidate all the interviews at an event, use local crews etc.

People often think you need a script in advance, and will ask people to memorize lines. That’s tough to pull off. My approach is to reverse engineer the script. We know the messages we want, so I come up with interview questions that elicit that content  in people’s responses. It can make the editing trickier, but we feel it results in a more natural and conversational end product.

Diana, how did you incorporate feedback from the scientists in the finished product?

Diana Ritter: I worked closely with Ted. After the interviews, we sent notes on our selects to Ted along with  a rough edit. He reviewed the scientific information and made suggestions, then we would make changes and continue the conversation through several more edits. It was a good give and take, because he knows the science while we know the pacing and style.

How long did the project take?

Diana Ritter: After the budget was finalized, there were maybe two weeks of scheduling people, assembling a crew, securing locations and agreeing on a general outline of what we hoped to get. We had a three-day shoot. Reviewing the material took several days, the back and forth of fact checking and rough cuts took a couple of weeks. And then another week to arrive at a final edit. So about a month to six weeks.

What were the biggest challenges?

Diana Ritter: One of the big uncertainties was getting the right lineup to adequately represent the ciliate community. We wanted to include some heavy-hitters and Nobelists who always have very busy schedules. We were lucky to be able to shoot around a conference in Washington, DC, where we knew we could get three of the interviews and then stop in Maryland to talk to Carol Greider and Sean Taverna on the way back, and then do another day in Boston.

From a creative standpoint, the challenges were like any communication project: how do you take the vast amount of material and find the order and flow—while keeping your audience engaged? The project was really a pleasure—all the people we spoke to were very happy to participate and share with us their time and enthusiasm!

As night fell, astronomer Jean Jacques d’Ortous de Mairan watched a plant’s leaves, symmetrically arranged side-by-side on a stem, clamp shut. It was 1729, and he was studying the dramatic nocturnal movement of Mimosa pudica. Strangely, he found that the plant behaved the same way even when it wasn’t exposed to natural cycles of light and dark, making his observation the first known example of a circadian rhythm that didn’t depend on external stimuli. Circadian rhythms are biological cycles that repeat daily, matching one full rotation of Earth. After this discovery in a weedy creeper, the planet would rotate tens of thousands more times before scientists studying the daily habits of a household insect exposed the mechanics of the biological clock.

This year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Jeffrey C. Hall, Michael Rosbash, and Michael W. Young for their studies of the circadian clock in fruit flies. But their discoveries weren’t just insect idiosyncrasies—they held true across much of the living world, from animals to plants and even some bacteria. And, as many researchers building on their work have found, circadian rhythms have immense importance in human health.

This story is not an isolated example: it’s the sixth time a Nobel Prize has been awarded for the study of fruit flies. In fact, a surprising number of Nobels—along with the insights and practical outcomes of biological research—have emerged from a few seemingly insignificant species: vermin, creepy-crawlies, and microscopic blobs. Alex Cagan’s artwork below samples just a few recent examples.

Sometimes, such research has been ridiculed—notably by politicians looking for examples of wasteful spending. In some ways, this is understandable. Research with clear, immediate applications is the easiest type to justify to the public. But the type of science that instead aims to fill gaps in our understanding of the world—known as “basic” or “foundational” research—doesn’t focus on specific applications, like a disease cure or a drought-resistant crop, so no one can predict the real-world impact of any individual line of inquiry. However, understanding the world we live in and the creatures we share it with has proven an essential fuel for technological, agricultural, and medical advances.

Art by Alex Cagan, @ATJCagan. Click to see a larger version. For more information on these Nobel prize-winning studies see: (1) Aplysia sea slugs, (2) Caenorhabditis elegans worms,  (3) Tetrahymena ciliates, (4) Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies,  (5) Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast

From fruit flies to cancer drugs

The most well-studied species on the planet are called model organisms, creatures chosen for intensive research because they are particularly suited to laboratory studies. Fruit flies, for example, have played a crucial role in unraveling the principles of genetics and evolution. Such fundamental insights can eventually lead to human health and other applications, but not in a predictable way.

For instance, in the late 1970s, scientists undertook an epic hunt for genes that affect the development of fruit fly larvae. This work uncovered several important biological pathways that govern how simple eggs transform into complex animals and earned Eric Wieschaus and Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard the Nobel Prize. Among the genes discovered was Hedgehog, named for the spiky embryos that result when it is mutated. Related genes were identified in mammals, and decades of work eventually revealed their connections to cancer and other diseases. 

Since 2012, two drugs that specifically inhibit tumor growth by targeting the Hedgehog pathway have been approved by the FDA to treat basal cell carcinoma, giving patients with advanced cases of this type of skin cancer a better chance of survival. Yet Wieschaus and Nüsslein-Volhard hadn’t set out to cure a disease—they were simply trying to understand how life works.

From dung gnats to developmental disorders

Different model organisms cater to different scientific needs. For example, mice and rats are mammals, like humans, which means we share much of our biology. The stripy zebrafish has a transparent embryo that allows scientists to watch development happen in real time. The nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans can be rapidly grown in dishes, and because its cell divisions can be individually tracked through a precisely defined ballet, it’s another good choice for studying development. The mustard cress Arabidopsis thaliana is a fast-growing weed with a tiny genome that is much easier to study than the massive genomes of key crops like wheat and corn.

Without knowing why scientists choose particular species, model organism research can appear frivolous—and some creatures scientists choose to study may even seem disgusting. Take, for example, the dung gnat Sciara coprophila. Studies on this poop-loving insect revealed the phenomenon of genomic imprinting, in which genes are turned on or off depending on whether they were inherited from the father or the mother.

As it turns out, imprinting exists in humans—and has important consequences. For example, there is a stretch of chromosome 15 that is turned off in the copy inherited from the mother but turned on in the paternal copy. If the paternal copy of chromosome 15 is missing or has a mutation in the imprinted region, the result is Prader-Willi syndrome. This serious disease is characterized by cognitive disabilities and constant hunger, often leading to obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Another nearby region of the chromosome shows the opposite pattern: the maternal genes are normally activated while the paternal ones are turned off. Individuals missing the maternal copy of these genes have Angelman syndrome, which causes developmental delays, seizures, and frequent smiling and laughing.

Insights from model organisms have long helped scientists understand the biology behind such genetic diseases, but in recent years model organism researchers have become even more directly involved in diagnosing the millions of people affected—and in searching for treatments.

Lessons from microbes

Some model organisms differ even more from us than insects do. For example, humans and the yeast cells we use to make bread and beer last shared a common ancestor a billion years ago. Yet brewer’s yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is one of the most thoroughly studied organisms on the planet. These single-celled microbes share many characteristics with human cells, but they can be rapidly grown in great numbers in a flask or petri dish, and they have a life cycle and genome that make their genetics easier to study.

Several Nobel Prizes have been awarded for research on yeast, including the 2016 Nobel Prize for Medicine or Physiology, awarded to Yoshimori Ohsumi. The prize was for his work on autophagy, a kind of cellular housekeeping that helps clear the cell of damaged proteins and other potentially toxic debris. The role of this recycling and disposal system in human disease was not appreciated until Ohsumi and his colleagues’ work in the 1990s revealed the yeast genes that orchestrate the process. Thanks to the knowledge and tools made possible by this basic research, studies of autophagy in animals have exploded since the 2000s, revealing its complex roles in embryonic development, cell starvation, infection defense, neurodegenerative disease, and cancer.

The road from a discovery to its impact on society is rarely straight. Few of the scientists in these stories could have predicted how their work might one day be applied. Every day in labs across the country, scientists start down new paths that could eventually lead to the next cancer drug or technique for controlling disease-carrying pests. But it will only be possible to follow these new paths if we, as a society, continue to support the pursuit of knowledge—with or without clear applications.

This post was co-authored by Nicole Haloupek and Cristy Gelling based on an article we wrote for the March for Science blog. The text has been revised and updated to include the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Worm pop art by James T. Wong. 2007.

In 1997, Ahna Skop approached her graduate advisor, John G. White, about adding a worm-themed art show to the International C. elegans Conference he was organizing that year. “He said I could do whatever I wanted, but not to involve him,” she recalls. That year marked the very first Worm Art Show, which has since become a beloved part of the annual meeting. This year, the worm community will celebrate the show’s 20th anniversary at the 21st International C. elegans Conference at UCLA June 21-25th.  

“Vulva monologues” by David Welchman. 2003.

For Skop, who was raised in a household of artists, uniting art and science came naturally. She first started studying C. elegans as an undergraduate, and remembers being struck by the beauty of microscope images in textbooks, even though she didn’t yet understand the science. The rest of the C. elegans research community responded enthusiastically to her inspired idea. The first show was small, but popular. Skop recalls that first show included a blown glass vase with the C. elegans genome sandblasted on the side and a driftwood mobile depicting the larval developmental stages. Even John White submitted a piece, a wooden reconstruction of the C. elegans vulva.

“Brisk swimmers” by Katherine Walstrom. 2011.

C. elegans art by Ahna Skop and Tri Nguyen. 1997.

These first submissions were pre-existing artistic works, and their creators were excited to finally have a place to share them. “People forget that science is a creative vocation,” Skop says. “Scientists are very creative in how they design their experiments, and it also comes out in their hobbies.” The data itself can also be quite beautiful; brilliantly colorful microscope images have been a staple of the art show since the beginning. Skop notes that microscopy is inherently a visually stimulating endeavor, a perfect example of the connection between science and art.

“On the shoulders of Lord Brenner” by Regina Lai. 2015.

The Worm Art Show has grown in size and popularity over the years, but the entries continue to be as varied as the researchers who attend the annual conference. C. elegans has now been interpreted in every media from embroidery to stained glass. According to Skop, the biggest change over the past 20 years has been the growing number of multimedia entries. Cell phone cameras and

“Life cycle on a thread”, a second place winner by Melissa Kelley. 2015.

YouTube have made audio-visual creation more accessible and popular than ever. The Art Show has also acquired yearly themes–the celebration of Nobel Prize winners, for example, or this year’s “C. elegans for social justice.” But through it all, the Art Show has remained a fun celebration of the worm community. Prize winners are selected by popular vote, and the video entries are screened on the last night of the conference, with the winner decided by who gets the most applause.

A painting by Adam Werts featuring C. elegans. 2007.

Skop, now an Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has organized every Worm Art Show for the past 20 years. Though the full show is enjoyed only by conference attendees, she says the created works are a powerful way to reach out to non-scientists. “It’s a testament to what science is all about, and I want the public to actually know that,” she says. “This is an easy way to share the beauty of science and shows that scientists are creative people–not just old white men in lab coats.” As a faculty affiliate in the Arts Institute at UW-Madison, Skop can now train art

“C. elegans and C. briggsae” by Todd Harris. 2008.

students in her lab and has helped install large scientific art pieces in the UW-Madison genetics building celebrating fruit flies, mice, yeast, E. coli, and zebrafish, along with C. elegans. She would love to open a scientific art gallery someday where the innate beauty of science can speak to everyone.

People from Denmark are genetically similar to each other no matter which part of the country they come from, report researchers in the journal GENETICS, a publication of the Genetics Society of America. Eight hundred Danish high school students contributed genetic material to the Where Are You From? project, and the data were used to decode population-wide patterns of genetic variation. Although there were subtle traces of the impact of Danish history on genetic similarity between different regions, the study revealed that, in genetic terms and disregarding recent migration in the last two generations, Denmark has a relatively homogeneous population and people have mixed freely between different parts of the country.

Denmark has played a crucial role in European history over the past thousand years, and the genetic signatures of its occupants can add perspective to that history. A recent study in the United Kingdom found that Danes have contributed to British ancestry in an important way, but a deep dive into genetic population studies in Denmark had not been conducted before now.

Georgios Athanasiadis, from Aarhus University in Denmark, led this detailed investigation of Danish genetics.

“Despite its small size and lack of geographic barriers, Denmark has many distinct dialect groups and has been in contact with neighbouring populations. Having a clear vision of the country’s genetic structure is an interesting endeavour,” he says.

Athanasiadis and his colleagues used a unique method of enrolling subjects into their study. They launched a nationwide outreach project called Where Are You From? in which high school students submitted DNA samples and demographic information. The project also presented seminars for participants to learn more about genetics and basic science with the aim of “building bridges between academia and young students interested in…a scientific career.”

“The response was overwhelming. We had more participants interested than the budget actually allowed us to genotype!” says Athanasiadis. Despite budget limitations, participants were able to attend the seminars even if they weren’t tested.

Participants in the “Where Are You From?” outreach program gather to celebrate the program’s completion. High school students from across Denmark took part in the program. Photo by Anders Traerup, Aarhus University.

Around 800 students contributed DNA and reported information on their ancestry. Researchers used genetic data from these students together with four additional European datasets to explore fine-grain patterns of genetic differences between regions of Denmark and historic mixing with other populations. For some of these analyses, they concentrated on DNA from around 400 students who had all four of their grandparents born in the country. They found that the majority of the students were distantly related, and they did not observe any strong correlation between geography and genetics. This led them to conclude that people whose ancestors all came from Denmark are genetically homogeneous.

Athanasiadis says that, although many ancestral European populations were also relatively homogeneous, he was impressed by the extent of the result in Denmark.

“I personally was surprised to see that all classical methods for detecting genetic ‘structure’ in populations failed to pick up strong signals. Even cutting-edge methods returned very similar “mixture profiles” for all regions in Denmark,” he says.

Athanasiadis recognizes that their findings are most true for an older Danish population; their sampling was not representative of recent migration to the area that has increased the ethnic diversity. A few regions of Denmark remain underrepresented in the study due to the sampling method, and the gene testing technology used focuses on common genetic variation instead of rare variation: populations tend to look less homogeneous when rare variants are taken into account. Still, the observation that genetic mixing of the Danish population has happened equally throughout the country is striking, and Athanasiadis is excited to revisit these results as independently-collected datasets continue to become available.

CITATION

Nationwide Genomic Study in Denmark Reveals Remarkable Population Homogeneity

Georgios Athanasiadis, Jade Y. Cheng, Bjarni J. Vilhjálmsson, Frank G. Jørgensen, Thomas D. Als, Stephanie Le Hellard, Thomas Espeseth, Patrick F. Sullivan, Christina M. Hultman, Peter C. Kjærgaard, Mikkel H. Schierup, and Thomas Mailund
GENETICS October 2016 204(2) 711-722;
doi: 10.1534/genetics.116.189241
http://www.genetics.org/content/204/2/711