By Shira D. Gordon, PhD; @SheRockScience
Edited by: Christina M. Marvin

When a crisis happens, we all react differently. My way of bringing hope was to help spread useful and accurate information. I created an educational video for lay audiences, from the perspective of understanding the science behind the virus.
​ 
As misinformation continues to spread, more professional scientists are eager to flood news and media outlets with reputable information that will keep people safe. Check out my video below and keep reading for some tips on how I did it successfully!

We probably all have different moments of realization when the pandemic situation really started to sink in. The news started to mention it when it was overseas, in China and Europe, but not the United States. It hit the United States, but what did that mean? In early March, many people realized it was soon approaching the status pandemic, but few were  prepared for what would follow. 

As a scientist with a PhD in biology, people asked my advice. Initially, I struggled with what I should tell them. I think about things from a scientific perspective and understanding the virus helped me understand the social situation. Furthermore, understanding how scientists are researching ways to fight this pandemic kept me at more ease.

Ultimately I wanted to help people stay calm about the situation. I decided to create a video that was unique in content, not the quick fix of social distancing & hand washing videos that were already circulating, but a video that helped explain why this was necessary.  

I had a secret weapon: a good friend doing the frontline research, Dr Andrea Pruijssers, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. I learned about her lab getting virus samples in early February, one of five or so BSL3 labs in the United States allowed to work with any CoV virus at the time. Just before coronavirus became officially a pandemic on March 11, 2020, she and I discussed creating a video to help explain what was occurring. 

During our weekly catch up calls, I would ask her a few coronavirus questions that I had been thinking about. She would clarify the virus, the research, and the pandemic for me—helping with my curiosity and putting my concerns in perspective. 

I asked her for references so that I could learn more about the topic.  She referred me to a site with good information (which is likely outdated by now with how fast things change), one page for live coronavirus updates, and a technical talk by her boss, Dr Mark Denison, an expert about the virus conducting research. I learned a lot from these few resources. 

While I had some understanding of viruses, I re-learned a large amount of basic information during my video research process. I realized that my audience may be others with little to no experience thinking about viruses, who likely did not have the same basic knowledge. I wanted to translate this basic virus information so that the general public could be a part of the conversation about what was happening around us.
​
I planned a script and rough images of what I wanted to use. I knew I wanted to illustrate the virus, giving key ideas for people to digest and not feel overwhelmed. Cartoons do a great job at highlighting certain elements of information. I used Adobe Photoshop and a Wacom Intuos drawing pad to create my images. The layers feature enables an easy way to change one small element of an image, or to create seeming movement—in a basic animation style.

On Sunday, March 15, 2020, I sent Dr Pruijssers my script to proof and got to work on the illustrations.  Monday morning, the Community Media Access Collaborative (CMAC), where I edit videos, announced they were closing to the public by the end of the day Tuesday. 

​CMAC is a nonprofit organization and cable channel that helps communities with Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) issues, funded in part by cable companies as part of the Federal Cable Act. You can find similar stations throughout the country. Through CMAC, I could  check out equipment, editing studios, and take workshops to learn how to produce videos and podcasts.

​Working around the clock, I finished all of the drawings by Tuesday morning. I recorded my script in the sound booth with a high-quality microphone and sound proofing walls and set the voiceover to the images using Adobe Premiere.  
​
Then, I sent the preview version to my friend as well as another scientist who works at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on policy and program, planning, and analysis.

Feedback came in the form of several edits to the script. Frustrated as I now could not go back in to re-record, I tried to make only a few changes where I could cut and paste previously recorded words. It was a small band-aid, I needed sutures. ​

For instance, my initial understanding was that CoVid19 was the overall name, synonymous with the virus and the disease. I was wrong: CoVid19 is the disease, Sars-CoV-2 is the virus. In another example, I said “duplication” when the correct term was “replication”. While they seemingly mean the same thing, Dr Pruijssers explained that common terminology in virology uses replication—not duplication.  For science communicators, these details are important.

My next set of corrections came from the NIH reviewer. From his perspective, my tone was off and my message was not complete. I tried to justify that I had a previous version, with different text that justified my smiling coronavirus. He helped me realize that the people who are learning about coronavirus may be experiencing tragedy, such as sick friends and relatives, and who would not take smiling well. 

For a good science communicator, both types of changes are vital. The science needs to be meticulously correct. Also, the message needs to reach the audience and their current mental state.
​
I re-recorded some text with my not-as-nice microphone and in my bedroom, to reduce noise reverberations. I created more images to fit the text better. I used a free video editing program, Lightworks, to piece it together. ​

Released on Sunday, March 22, 2020, I received positive public feedback. In the first 24 hours I had almost 300 views and in less than two weeks I had over 1K views (which is a lot for me). Scientists complimented it. Non-scientists told me how much they learned. Friends told me they indeed feel better about the situation knowing what scientists are doing to try to fight the pandemic. I consider the video an overall success.

If you want to create a video on a topic, think about your unique perspective. What can you contribute to the topic?  Creating the video can be done with a variety of programs, I find Adobe Premiere to be the easiest for me to use, alongside the sister Adobe programs of Photoshop and Audition. Be sure to get feedback.  Making changes may seem like a chore--but do not bandaid something when it requires a more severe fix.  Ultimately your video will be out there and you want to be proud of it, so have fun creating!

Shira D. Gordon, PhD, aka SheRockScience, is a science communicator after years of conducting her own research.  She works with scientists, organizations, and individuals to create written, illustration, and video content to explain nuances of science to wider audiences. To learn more, please visit her website https://SheRockScience.com/ and follow her on YouTube and other social media @SheRockScience.  Feel free contact her if you would like to discuss working together on any projects.

Edited by Christina M. Marvin

Part 2! Earlier this month, we covered the ins and outs of science writing. This week, we continue our conversation with Siri Carpenter as she discusses the transition from science writing to science editing. 

​Siri is a scientist and science writer who is now the editor-in-chief for The Open Notebook, an amazing and comprehensive resource for science writers. She recently published a new resource for science writers, The Craft of Science Writing. 






​I'm curious about the skill transfer from science writing to editing... What writing skills make you a successful editor?
​
I was a freelance writer from 2002 until 2012, when Discover magazine moved from New York to Milwaukee.

When Discover announced it was moving and rebuilding an all-new editorial staff, various friends messaged me and suggested I should apply to be an editor. My initial reaction was like, “What? No! I’m a freelancer, silly, not an editor! I work from home! People with jobs have to wear shoes!” But I did decide to apply, and then I got really excited about the idea, and I was fortunate to be offered a job as a senior editor.

Learning to be an editor was quite a ride — I mean, in many ways I think I’ll *always* be learning. The biggest things I had going for me, though, were that I had excellent co-workers, and I had a M E N T O R — Pam Weintraub, who is a kind of legendary editor.

Pam gave [the new editors] this enormous gift: She said “I know you don’t know what you’re doing, but I will teach you.” I will always be grateful to Pam for saying that, because in doing so, she was giving us permission to not have to hide how much we had to learn.

The reason I say that having been a writer first was so important to my development as an editor is that I feel the #1 skill that's important to cultivate as an editor is to have empathy with writers as well as reader, and to be able to act as a coach and partner. And it’s our job to work with writers not just to improve their stories in all the technical ways, but to support them when they’re at their lowest, most self-doubting point, and to be their cheerleaders all along the way. ​​

Do you know of any resources (books, websites, communities) about science editing?

We've done a few articles about editing at TON. Here are a few links:
​

• Track Changes: From Writer to Editor 
• Are You a Writer or an Editor? Part I: The Writers 
• Are You an Editor or a Writer? Part II: The Editors 
• Congratulations, You’re an Editor! What Do You Do Now? 

The Poynter Institute offers excellent training workshops on editing — I've done one and loved it — but they're not specific to science. The Knight Science Journalism program at MIT periodically offers training workshops for science editors. And The Open Notebook is hosting its first editing workshop this year. [NB: This workshop was canceled because of the pandemic, and will be rescheduled when it’s safe to do so.]

How about the other side of it... how can a science writer work gracefully with editors?

There are some basics of writer-editor relationship hygiene that I can mention, which aren't always obvious. In the realm of pitching, here are a few suggestions:
​

1. When you pitch stories to editors, do it by email, and put the words "pitch" or "freelancer pitch" in the subject line.
2. Only pitch one story at a time.
3. It's fine to follow up on pitches politely after a reasonable time — say, a week or two if the story isn't a breaking news story.
4. Finally in the realm of pitching, don't expect that editors will always be able to give you an immediate answer about pitches (though they should certainly give you an acknowledgement of receipt at least); they may have to run it by a larger group (and wait for the right meeting date for that to arrive), or they may have to just think about it, or they may have to get budget approval if there's travel involved ... or they may just be receiving such an onslaught of pitches that it's impossible for them to deal with them all in as timely a way as everyone might like.

Once you're actually on assignment with an editor, my #1 piece of advice is to communicate. If your story changes, or something's going wrong, or you're going to miss a deadline, or you're just lost and need to talk it through — speak up. Of course editors love to see stories come in clean and on time and then to need minimal editing, but honestly that scenario is extremely rare. Much worse than missing a deadline is just ... ghosting. So: Communicate. Editors want to help!

When you've actually gotten edits:

1. Curse the editor. They're an idiot! Who gave this person a job?!? THEN 
2. Read again, start to figure out what edits you can deal with easily, what ones you have questions/uncertainties about, what ones you outright disagree with. 
3. Curse the editor a little more. 
4. Get to work. It's OK to push back on edits, both to correct any factual inaccuracies that have been introduced, and to steer the ship in a different direction if you feel it's needed. Just explain your reasoning and approach the interaction in a collaborative way. And whatever you do, don't: ​

               a. ignore edits you disagree with or just change them back, OR
               b. respond to editors' questions by typing answers in tracked comments;                       the questions need to be addressed in the actual draft.

I think it is a challenge to figure out how hard to push back against edits as a freelancer. If you push too hard will you get hired again? But, I imagine it all comes down to COMMUNICATION.

Yeah, and just ... courtesy. Pushing back in a way that makes your case but in which you're also listening to the editor's point of view and working to understand why whatever the thing is isn't working for them is entirely different than just being mulish, or doing passive-aggressive things like ignoring/undoing edits.
​
If I were speaking to a group of editors about how they could work better with freelancers, I'd say 1. Understand that the writer’s job is harder. 2. Give them the courtesy of a prompt response when you get pitches. 3. Keep them apprised of any delays in the editing schedule. 4. Pay them as quickly as you possibly can.

​Last month we launched #SciCommMake, a collaborative project between Science Talk and Sigma Xi. The purpose of this new project is to help scientists, artists, and communicators to come together and develop creative projects to explain science in new and unique ways. Our inaugural class pitched their project ideas last week – and we have two winning teams! Check out the video to learn more.
 
Winning teams will receive $1000 to advance their project and a trip to the Sigma Xi meeting this November, where they will present their projects at the conference.
 
Look for the announcement for our second #SciCommMake cohort, with projects focused around creative communication of COVID19-related topics. 

Edited by Christina M. Marvin

Earlier this year, the Science Talk team hosted a live chat with science journalist and editor Siri Carpenter. Members of the Science Talk community submitted burning questions on science writing and editing to Siri in real time — keep reading to see what we learned! This week's focus is on science writing. Be sure to tune in next week when we continue our conversation with science editing. 

​Siri is a scientist and science writer who is now the editor-in-chief for The Open Notebook, an amazing and comprehensive resource for science writers. She recently published a new resource for science writers, The Craft of Science Writing.

What was the impetus to make this book [The Craft of Science Writing] happen? What drove you to put all this information together?

Over the years, The Open Notebook (TON) has published around 400 articles about the craft of science writing.  One reason [the idea of a book] appealed to me was that I knew that there were themes we could draw out, ways that articles we’d published at disparate points in time would connect with one another. And I knew that realistically, no one is going to go ahead and open up 400 tabs on their browser and just happen to discover those things! I wanted to be able to do that work for people and give people something they could hold in their hands and digest in one piece — or that they could skip around and read pieces of as the spirit moved them.

But we didn’t have the resources to do it. Then, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, which since 2013 has supported our early-career fellowship program, offered us a grant to financially support development of a book — so then it was a no-brainer to do it!

How did you get into science writing, Siri? 

I was working on my PhD in psychology when I realized, one day, that "science writing" was a thing that existed. I actually had nosed around this idea earlier, as an undergrad, even going so far as to ask professors in my psychology department, and in the English department, at the University of Wisconsin, where I was an undergrad, whether there was a way to be a writer who wrote about science. But they were all like: "No, that's not a thing." Somehow it never once occurred to me that the thing I was talking about — thinking and writing about science but not actually doing the science — was JOURNALISM. So I never went and asked journalism professors.

I went to grad school for psychology, and about 2.5 years into my PhD program, I was reading the NYT science section one Tuesday, when I just kind of had this realization that these people whose articles I was reading ... this appeared to be their JOB. Science writing was (maybe?) a job.

I went to grad school for psychology, and about 2.5 years into my PhD program, I was reading the NYT science section one Tuesday, when I just kind of had this realization that these people whose articles I was reading ... this appeared to be their JOB. Science writing was (maybe?) a job.

I just kind of knew, instantly, that I wanted that job. But of course I had no idea how to prepare for or get such a job. But on the National Association of Science Writers website, if you can believe it, they had a list of "science writers who have email." I emailed everyone on that list, with what were probably the vaguest questions ever, about what a science writer does and how you become one.

One person wrote me back — Charles Seife, who at the time was a pretty new science writer, and who now is a journalist and professor at NYU. Charles very kindly explained it all to me, and he told me about the AAAS Mass Media Fellowship program. (This program is an EXCELLENT way to get started in science writing.)

By that point, I knew in my bones that I wanted to somehow become a science writer, but then I had to figure out what to tell my advisor. Finally I went to her office, shut the door for what I thought would be a tense and possibly tearful discussion, and just kind of barfed out everything I wanted to say. Her response was, "Oh! If that's what you want to do, I will support you to do that." WHEW!!! (My advisor was the psychologist Mahzarin Banaji, and she is still a very close friend.)

I was very lucky to get that AAAS fellowship, so I spent a summer working as a reporter at the Richmond Times-Dispatch in Virginia; and then the next summer at Science News. These internships were the only training I got as a science writer before my first real job (which was at the APA Monitor, a magazine for members of the American Psychological Association), so I was extremely lucky to have great mentors. But I still had sooooo much to learn.

I would love to hear your advice on what I can do at this stage of my life to further explore and prepare for a career in science writing.

Depending on how certain you are about trying out science writing, I'd recommend considering joining the National Association of Science Writers as a student member (it's about $30/year), and attending the annual ScienceWriters meeting (in October) if you can. (Full disclosure: I'm the current president of NASW; but I'd still encourage you to join and attend that meeting even if I weren't on the board!) I’d also recommend looking into whether there are any regional science writers’ groups in your area; check out the website for the Congress of Regional Science Writers groups (SciWriCongress) for a listing.

Then, you should read a lot of science writing, and you want to read a lot about science writing. In addition to the TON book and website, which of course I'm flogging like there's no tomorrow ? I'd recommend two other books: “The Science Writer's Handbook”, published in 2013, and the “Field Guide for Science Writers” (2nd edition), published in ~ 2006.

If you're active on Twitter, I'd recommend starting to follow a bunch of science writers, and the #scicomm hashtag. You might also like to follow the Friends of TON Twitter list (https://twitter.com/i/lists/1177315816678789127), which includes people who have been contributors to TON or who have worked with us as editors, early-career fellows, mentors, etc. ​

I think even if you are aware that choosing the non-academic career is a good option for you, people do find a lot of roadblocks, both internal (imposter syndromes etc.) and external (sometimes staying a bit too long in academia doing postdocs, might make it more difficult to be seen as someone more than a 'failed' academic)

In the intro to “The Craft of Science Writing”, I make a joke about impostor syndrome — specifically, about not even being able to spell it correctly (impostor? imposter?).

There's also a long, in-depth article in the book about it, and it's one of my favorites, because this is such a pervasive feeling among science journalists. (And of course many others!) I have wrestled with impostor syndrome for ... uh ... my entire life I think. And I think it's something people should speak more openly about, because knowing how common it is can PARTLY help you brush it back. Partly. But I think what's also important is to kind of personify impostor syndrome — acknowledge its existence as a force in your mind, call it the a$$hole that it is, and then, to the extent that you possibly can, dismiss it.

But also, know that it may never go away, and that doesn't mean you failed — or that the impostor syndrome a$$hole was right all along. It's just part of living.

Do you have some advice for people who feel like they could become science writers for a living, but might need to develop new skills, and are rather afraid of lack of stability, therefore it is difficult to completely commit to this path, as it is full of uncertainties, especially when starting. What I mean is, how do I break into the profession? 

There is no single correct path, either for getting initial opportunities in science writing or for what type of role to pursue.

The first steps, of course, are all about learning. There are a number of excellent science journalism or science communication masters programs out there that you may already be familiar with (e.g., at UC Santa Cruz, NYU, MIT, and elsewhere); these are excellent ways to get started, if you can make them work financially (I think some offer significant financial aid, but I'm not familiar with the details). 

Internships (which should be paid!) are hugely valuable, but they can require at least temporary relocation, which is a challenge for some; and of course even if they're paid, they don't tend to be paid very generously. At TON, we see part of our role as being to offer a free educational experience to science writers.

As for making a living at science writing ...

​I think if you asked 10 different science writers their thoughts on that, you'd probably get 10 different answers.

I will say that over my career, my annual gross income (during years when I've been full-time, not counting when my kids were babies) has ranged from about $23K to about $75K (that was when I was in a staff editing position at Discover). Most years, I make less than $50K/year.

Most science journalists I know are in one of several situations, financially:
​

1. They make great money working as journalists! Somehow they are amazingly productive human beings who have managed to get well-paying jobs or freelance gigs, enough to call it "a living." I believe these people are probably rare.
2. They do non-journalism work as well as journalism work, and the non-journalism work pays better and helps subsidize the journalism — and of course in many of these cases, it's just as fulfilling.
3. They have a partner who earns more and/or has health care benefits.

​
I suspect that in general, institutional writers and public information officers have a more steady income stream than journalists (many of whom are freelancers) do, but I don’t think that by and large it’s a path to getting rich, either. 
There's a lot of uncertainty in journalism, and it's a tough time. But it's also an exciting time in science journalism — there are so many cool new opportunities for telling science stories in new ways, and for finding audiences for stories.

The program
We offered all conference presenters the option to present virtually or to move their presentations to Science Talk ‘21. Our goal was to provide a shorter but still action-packed conference. We therefore scaled back to provide 5 hours of content a day, rather than the usual 8-10 hours; 5 hours is enough to sit in front of a computer! In addition to traditional talks and panels, we invited poster presenters to give 3-minute lightning talks about their posters; we then posted the posters on our online forum for later viewing. 

For the virtual conference, we developed a few new sessions - breakout discussions, and a “fireside” chat (bring your own fire!) about science communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. The coronavirus chat was obviously popular during this highly dynamic and uncertain time and the audience asked insightful questions during the 90-minute session. Attendees submitted questions using the “ask a question” feature in Crowdcast, which allows other attendees to then upvote questions. The session moderators selected the most popular questions and posed them to the expert panel, which kept the session moving.
​
The breakouts each focused on a different theme (connecting science and art, reaching underserved audiences, etc.) and conference attendees could pick the session they wished to attend, or jump between sessions, just like you can move between rooms at a FTF conference. As small, discussed-focused sessions, the breakouts would have benefitted from a platform like Zoom or Google Hangouts where all participants could simultaneously share audio and video. Mixing technologies might work better, although more platforms also equates to more opportunities for something to break. 
​
​We also scheduled coffee breaks with “rooms” for people to text chat while they got their snacks. Over 100 people joined these breaks and networked with other conference participants - not quite the same as FTF, but still a good experience. Finally, we ended with a virtual dance party (thanks DJ Kiki), with music, virtual toasts, and a disco ball.

We’ve all heard the term STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. What about STEAM? The “A” stands for Art, because art is a beautiful and fun way to connect complex topics, attract interest to cool research, and explore science in new ways.​

Science Talk and Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Honor Society, are partnering together on a new project to connect scientists and artists/creators to create new creative products. #SciCommMake will form teams of scientists and artists while providing them with expert advice and the chance to win funding to create projects that share evidence-based scientific research findings with non-traditional scientific audiences. 

The project starts with a virtual match-making session and informational event on April 20th (time TBD). By the end of that session, scientists and artists will find partners and develop a project concept. Each team will then be paired with a scicomm coach to help them develop their project idea. Then, on April 30th, each team will pitch their idea to a panel of judges (and members of the scicomm public!). Two teams will be selected to receive $1,000 each to complete their projects, thanks to support from Burroughs Wellcome Fund. The two teams will have five months to create and test their products, which will be featured at the Sigma Xi Annual Meeting and Student Research Conference from November 5–8, 2020, in Alexandria, Virginia, particularly during a public science day. In addition to the prize money, registration and travel expenses to the Sigma Xi conference will be provided for up to two members from each team. Products will also be featured at the Science Talk ’21 conference in Portland, Oregon.

Are you a scientist who wants to share your work in a new and creative way? An artist excited to use your talents to make science fun and accessible? We’re looking for visual artists, musicians, graphic novelists, poets, videographers, and more! Sign up here to participate in this exciting new program. Priority will be given to attendees of the Science Talk ’20 virtual conference on March 26-27, where Sigma Xi CEO Jamie Vernon presented a talk about the project.

By Alli Coffin, Science Talk President

We live in a crazy time. I’m writing this post from home, having just opened my emergency COVID-19 bottle of wine after the Governor of Washington State announced that all bars and restaurants are closed for at least the rest of March. Glad I stocked up on wine!

While current events seem like something from a bad scifi movie, they aren’t...and we need real science to provide the best information. In our rapidly changing world, science communication is more important than ever before. Therefore, the Science Talk Executive Board decided to proceed with Science Talk ‘20 as a virtual, live-streamed event.

I’ll admit, I was skeptical at first. Some of my favorite parts of Science Talk conferences are the informal networking - meeting people in line for coffee (it’s Portland - gotta have coffee!), greeting old friends and making new ones, and of course, the post-conference dance party. But I also love the excitement around scicomm, the exchange of ideas, the collaborations, and the community. Science Talk is the scicomm community and we are committed to bringing the community together on March 26-27. Dr. Kiki convinced me that a virtual conference is the wave of the future and I’m excited to experience Science Talk ‘20 using new technology.

Once you register for the virtual conference, you will receive a secret link to enter the conference “facility” (like a secret door, but with more scicomm). From there, you can watch the keynote, panel discussion, and other sessions while simultaneously participating in the text chat during each session. We’ll have moderators for each session to keep the conversation moving. Watch for the secret link in your inbox on March 25th (and check your spam folder if you don’t see it - somehow spam filters don’t like us).

The breakout sessions will be moderated chat rooms around specific topics, such as online media, landing your first scicomm job, and evaluating the success of your scicomm project. No need to register for these sessions in advance - just select your breakout each day and join the conversation. We will also have moderated chatrooms for coffee (or other beverage) breaks - just bring your own beverage. 
​
The virtual conference is an experiment for us and we ask your patience as we develop each component and bring them together. Our goal is a seamless virtual experience with the excitement, networking, and community building of our regular face-to-face event. Only thing missing is the dance party...

See you online on March 26th!

Watch and share on Vimeo
Center for Environmental Filmmaking, American University  
Director/Producer Larry Kirkman, larry@american.edu, larrykirkman.com
Editor/Producer Shannon Shikles, shannon.shikles@gmail.com, shannonshikles.com

“Clear and simple is not enough,” argues Rush Holt in my new video, SciComm: Raising Our Voice for Science in Public Policy. “It has to be meaningful,” he says.  “It has to communicate the science in a way that people feel they can take it in, not just understand it but embrace it and care about it, in other words believe that it is relevant…What scientists should be doing is not just simplifying their research, but rather enabling everybody else to think like a scientist, to think on the basis of evidence.”
 
I’m new to Science Talk and I’m hoping this 12-minute video, which you’re free to use and share, is a starting point for exploring mutual interests and potential collaborations.  The video is a project of the Science Communication Lab in the Center for Environmental Filmmaking at American University. 
 
In the March for Science, I found an intensity, an urgency, and a desire to communicate the fundamental importance of science to all aspects of our lives. We asked scientists why they are demonstrating and how they define the challenges of science communication practice, training and strategy.

Chants of “this is what a scientist looks like” animated the 2018 March for Science and frame the discussion of diversity and representation in the video. Sonia Zárate makes the case that people will listen if they are engaged by scientists who look like them.  She says: “Science for the public good is about making sure that all voices are included in science.  It belongs to all of us.”
 
Lynn Scarlett sums up: “This is about the well-being of all of us, it’s not about about political divides, or particular policy solutions even.  Science lies at the root of human progress.”

How is this video useful?  What audiences, platforms, networks? What is your advice for my next video(s)?
 
I want to go beyond profiles and interviews, to document communication best practices, to capture dialogue, one-on-one and in small groups, to show how scientists and science advocates learn to be more effective communicators and listen to them reflect on their experiences in public education and advocacy. 
 
I want to tap into the latest science communication research revealing new ways to engage, inform and persuade the public.  Where is the science of science communication being applied?
 
I want to put this work in historical perspective, from Rachel Carson's Silent Spring through tobacco and climate, using archival material and interviews with scholars, journalists and science communication strategists.
 
I’m looking forward to Science Talk ’20 in Portland.  Let’s talk.  

Around 1440, Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press and changed the world. Words—and thus information and ideas—could now be easily duplicated and distributed by the thousands. Printing technology caused a literacy revolution around the globe. 

We’re now in the midst of another revolution—not of words, but of pictures. It’s been said that “the digital revolution is a visual revolution.” (1) I agree. Ironically, digital technology is now making it possible for humans to return to our original—and in many cases our best—form of communication: the picture.

Check out this timeline. Humans communicated through pictures for about 70,000 years before somebody devised a way to put spoken words into a visible form through written language.

​No question about it, written language is very useful. However, translating our thoughts into words that can be written and read is tedious and indirect. It requires two sequential steps: the translation of thoughts into words by the thinker, and then the translation of words into thoughts by the reader.

Pictures, on the other hand, offer communication with no translation necessary. Pictures actually mirror physical, spatial qualities of the real world. Imagine looking at a map. In an instant, you immediately understand what’s far, what’s close, and what barriers stand between you and your destination.

Even more important, the way we organize objects in the physical world—into groups and subgroups for example—mimics the way we organize conceptual information in our brains. So we can instantly see concepts when we look at a picture —no translation necessary. Imagine a calendar or an organizational chart. You instantly know how far away your birthday is. Or which departments have the most influence in your organization. 

From the point of view of biology, this makes a lot of sense. The brains we use today evolved about two hundred thousand years ago—long before written words existed. At that point, what we needed were brains that could navigate a complex 3-dimensional world and make instantaneous decisions about what to run from and what to run toward. We needed brains that could very quickly process complex shapes, sizes, colors, edges, and other visual elements of our natural surroundings. And we got them! It’s estimated that in a quarter of a second, our human brains can analyze 30 different characteristics of visual input. To perform this feat, more than a third of our brains are devoted exclusively to the processing of visual input entering our eyes​. (2)

On the other hand, it’s pretty certain that written language is at most only several thousand years old. This means that in order for us to read, we’ve had to adapt the brains and neural systems we already have (3) The fact that we can read at all is a testament to the adaptability of our brains. But it’s still a Rube Goldberg construction. ​

For example, in a data graphic you can actually see the links between the data and the conclusion that the data supports—simultaneously. With words alone, the reader might forget some components of the data by the time they read the conclusion.

​Last but not least, pictures are universal. Pictures can transcend the barriers of verbal and written language. This is obviously a critical advantage in helping us move forward with interdisciplinary, multicultural, and global communication and collaboration. ​

Pictures are powerful tools for communication that can connect people to knowledge in ways that words and numbers cannot. But currently, pictures are often poorly used and profoundly underutilized. Marketers have been taking advantage of the power of pictures for years now. They know that good visuals get their content and products noticed and purchased. But we can certainly employ pictures for loftier science communication goals!

Our challenge now is to ramp up the teaching of visual communication skills, move it out of the visual arts, into the mainstream, and into STEM and STEAM programs. Because pictures are worth a lot more than a thousand words.