Subunit Meeting 7/23/15, "Don't Be Such a Scientist"

Last week, our student subunit met and discussed a chapter from Dr. Randy Olson's "Don't be Such a Scientist." Several members had read the book in its entirety or were familiar with its teachings through exposure during undergraduate.  Some of our subunit members had even met Dr. Olson and seen his documentary "Flock of Dodos" when it was presented at William and Mary. It has been praised by science and news outlets alike for pointing out the similarities between the film narrative and the story scientists need to be telling to lay audiences in order to engage and educate most effectively.  The chapter we read was titled "Don't be So Unlikable" which specifically addressed how to toe the line between optimism and pessimism, and how to stay positive in such a critical field.  Negativity gets attention, gets press.  Bloggers who rant and curse and condemn something will get much more web traffic than the equivalent blogger who promotes and lauds.  Conflict and anger is inherently interesting, and it is our jobs as young scientists to find a way to communicate our messages while still staying upbeat.

We started by discussing how best to "tell a story" with your research.  The the story's conflict in any research project is trying to puzzle together some inherent truth and either confirm or refute your hypothesis.  The story's progression in detailing how you go about isolating this "truth" from all the "untruth," and any pitfalls along the way to your conclusion.  And the reward, the happy or sad ending of the tale, is some new piece of information that benefits humanity or forwards the progress of science.  So our progress as researchers is much the same as any story in a book or movie- there is an introduction, a conflict, and through struggle, an eventual resolution.

But even structuring our research in such a way does not necessarily mean it will be inherently interesting to the public, especially if it isn't conveyed in a way that others can understand.  It is critical to know how much or how little "jargon" to include.  Though it is essential to simplify our language, we shouldn't "dumb down" our material.  Matt Siskey noted that as science communicators, we should "start broad, not dumb" by describing our work in big sweeping terms but not treat the audience like they are infantile or stupid.  If the people are still interested, you can gradually narrow the focus until you get at the heart and details of your work.  As long as you explain what each of the "jargon" terms are in a simple and respectful way, and don't throw them out willy-nilly to display your knowledge and ability and charge right through with your description, people will be more receptive to the message.  Suzan Shahrestani pointed out that she had the opposite problem when working in Jordan because of a language barrier.  She was having to mentally translate her research in an unfamiliar language, so she didn't necessarily have the vocabulary to increase the complexity of her communication!

The discussion then shifted into a consideration for the optimism/pessimism spectrum and when each of these attitudes is important in the scientific process.  Assistant Research Scientist Andre Buchheister described how he fluctuates between these approaches throughout his research.  When brainstorming, keep an open mind and don't strike any ideas from the ledger.  But when it comes down to brass tax and putting those ideas into practice, it's important to be critical, practical, and a little pessimistic.  After all, it's a scientists job to question and doubt.

Source: Fast Company

But more important than that, we need to extend this positivity to our fellow scientists.  Hillary Lane pointed to a section in the book chapter where Dr. Olson describes the unfortunate outcome of a real graduate student who prematurely ended her degree because she was so disheartened by the repeated scathing criticism of a notoriously harsh senior scientist.  Being a jerk in a field as small  as Fisheries Sciences will solidify your reputation as such, and will ultimately result in fewer collaborations and engagements.  Establish rapport, said the subunit's newest member, Matt Damiano.  Don't passively attend meetings and conferences, try to engage, promote, praise, and ultimately be genuinely likable.

So we finished up the meeting with some take-home nuggets of wisdom: be sensitive and considerate of other people's ideas and research.  Don't yell over others or try to get your message heard by drowning others out.  Engage, discuss, educate.  Those will be the keys to disseminating our findings to fellow researchers, the wider public, and critics alike.  By doing this, we might do Dr. Olson proud and not be quite such scientists.

A sample of the book can be found here, courtesy of NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113832764

We're still thinking about what we'll be reading/discussing in two months time.  But we'll likely go back to a primary scientific article.  Please don't hesitate to leave suggestions in the message section below.