Communicating Research in 3-D Virtual Worlds

5 03 2010

Today you write news releases and feature stories, produce videos and podcasts, and use social media to disseminate research news; but in the near future you could also add 3-D models, interactive simulations, and immersive virtual environments to your communications toolkit. Given that we humans are naturally perceptually three-dimensional, you can imagine how such media could add to the impact and information value of your communications.

The major force driving communications into an online 3-D world is that important audiences are already there. For one thing, a survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that more Americans already get their news online than from newspapers or radio, although both still lag behind television. And another survey showed that more than half of all Americans play video games of some kind, undoubtedly in 3-D.

The education community is already using immersive Web environments, adapting existing 3-D interactive virtual worlds such as Second Life; and there are extensive materials on use of Second Life in education. Basically, the environment enables students to attend virtual lectures, move around in the cartoonlike world as avatars, and communicate with one another—frankly capabilities that don’t seem to add much value to the educational experience. Indeed, “the virtual world has not lived up to the hype,” writes Jeffrey Young in a critical article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. He reports that

Moving around in Second Life can be so clunky that some professors and students have decided that it’s just not worth the hassle …. If all you need to do is chat with far-flung students, there are many easier ways to do it…. Plus, a lot of decidedly nonacademic activity goes on in Second Life, and it’s difficult to limit access so that only students can enter a classroom there.

And while there is a new project called OpenSimulator that aims to improve educational uses of immersive environments, it still does not offer particularly new interactive capabilities.

Writes Young, “It turns out that virtual worlds are at their best when they look nothing like a traditional campus. Professors are finding that they can stage medical simulations, guide students through the inside of cell structures, or pre­sent other imaginative teaching exercises that cannot be done in a physical classroom.”

This promise could be realized by a new flexible open-source system called OpenCobalt. Watch the video below for an introduction:

As the video shows, the OpenCobalt environment enables users not only to naturally interact and collaborate with each other and with traditional videos and Web pages; it also enables them to play with 3-D objects and simulations in an engaging and informative way.

Users of OpenCobalt will not be limited to the usual keyboard and mouse, but can also interact with the environment using multitouch screens, as this video illustrates. To me at least, the authoring system —as illustrated in this video—is intuitive enough that designers can master it well enough to work with communicators to create effective interactive environments and other products.

“Wonderful stuff can happen when you move away from the page metaphor,” asserts Duke researcher Lombardi, one of OpenCobalt’s architects, in an article on the Duke Research blog. “We’re living in a 3-D world. We need to interact with each other and with information in 3-D spaces.”

Certainly, such immersive environment platforms as OpenCobalt are still in their infancy. And, there is an element of trendiness that leads Young to comment that “Maybe 3-D online environments are just one of those technologies that sound cool but never fully materialize, like personal jetpacks.”

But there does seem to be legitimate communications value in such 3-D interactivity. And, of course its flashiness can attract eyeballs. So, it’s not too early to at least begin considering how to use virtual environments to not only communicate research more effectively, but make your communications stand out in the tidal wave of information inundating today’s Web.





The Seismic Changes in Science Communication: “Radio In Vivo” Interview

4 03 2010

I was interviewed about the extraordinary changes facing science communication and about Explaining Research, on the science radio program Radio In Vivo, WCOM-FM, on March 3, 2010.

The discussion with host Ernie Hood explored the new pitfalls and opportunities facing scientists, public information officers and journalists in communicating  research to important audiences—colleagues, potential collaborators in other disciplines, officers in funding agencies and foundations, donors, institutional leaders, corporate partners, students, legislators, family and friends, and the public.





Duke Lemur Center “Path to Tomorrow” Project: Premier Example of Effective Communications

2 03 2010

The Duke Lemur Center is a contender in the Pepsi Refresh contest, in which Pepsi awards $50,000 to the most popular projects aimed at making a positive difference. The Lemur Center’s “Path to Tomorrow” project description page on the Pepsi site represents an excellent example of how to create compelling communications on a limited budget. First of all, there’s the video, produced by the Center’s advancement officer Lari Hatley and her videographer husband Jeff:

The video combines basic techniques—simple panned-and zoomed still images, punchy text, dramatic music, and stock footage—to create a memorable, moving message. The video illustrates vividly how ingenuity is the most valuable asset in creating good communications.

Then there’s the page’s descriptive text, which is concise and compelling. For example, the title is a simple, effective statement that the project aims to “Save lemurs by growing public awareness through a new tour path.” Notice how the very first words are “Save lemurs,” which is a grabber phrase—a lesson that should be heeded by any communicator faced with writing a headline.

And the bullet points for the goals also grab readers and inspire them to action:

  • To increase the number of guests to the Center by 50 percent
  • To create an inspiring tour path easily accessible to all guests
  • To build four additional state-of-the-art outdoor animal habitats
  • To prevent the extinction of more than 70 species of lemurs
  • To use lemurs to enlighten guests about all endangered animals

Finally, the Lemur Center description introduces the center in a highly engaging way, using words that captivate readers and describe the Center’s mission in human-centered terms:

For more than 40 years, the Duke Lemur Center has been a safe place for lemurs. Today we learn from and care for more than 200 endangered animals, and we share our passion for lemurs with guests. By creating awareness, we hope to inspire a future generation that will learn from and care for lemurs.

All-in-all, an excellent, instructive communications package.

And now for a confession/commercial: I’m an avid supporter of the Lemur Center, and I urge you to go to the Center’s project page and vote for their Path to Tomorrow project. And do it every day until the end of March!





Play “Bad Presentation Bingo”: Losers are Winners!

26 02 2010

So, you’re sitting in a boring talk and suddenly somebody yells “Bingo!” QuiteBad Presentation Bingo likely audience members have been playing “Bad Presentation Bingo,” the brilliant brainchild of Monica Metzler and the Illinois Science Council. It’s the niftiest way I’ve seen to vividly impress on speakers the aggravations of bad presentation skills and the benefits of good ones. Like any Bingo game, you win by completing a straight line, but in Bad Presentation Bingo the squares contain not numbers but bad presentation practices like “Text-heavy slides,”"Monotone voice,” and “Use of jargon.”

For your own self-protection, if you plan to give a presentation I highly recommend that you download the Bingo card, which Monica was kind enough to allow me to post here. Read it carefully and avoid its array of bad practices at all costs. That way, you won’t hear the embarrassing shout of “Bingo!” during your talk.

And if you’re planning a symposium, distribute the card and accompanying  presentation tips to all your speakers. Believe me, it will put them on notice that they can’t get away with the same mind-numbing speaking techniques they may have been used to.

And if you encounter Monica Metzler, thank her profusely!





AAAS Slidecast: Using Multimedia to Advance Your Research

21 02 2010

Here’s the narrated slidecast of my presentation “Using Multimedia to Advance Your Research,” given at the 2010 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Besides the slidecast itself, I offer tips I learned to producing better slidecasts from your PowerPoint presentations.

Using Multimedia to Advance Your Research

In creating the slidecast from my PowerPoint slides, I realized that I couldn’t just record the live session and use that as the audio narration. Live sessions include noise, interruptions, audience questions and other extraneous audio that reduce the effectiveness of the slidecast.

So, I had to do a special narration in a quiet room, using a standard digital recorder. Then I could upload that as an mp3 file and synch it to the slides. However, I also discovered that I coudn’t just exemporize my narration. Such an off-the-cuff narration — complete with pauses, stammers, and uhs — comes across as less than professional. So, I had to write out a formal script and recite it as the narration. Scripting actually helped my live presentation, because it crystallized my phrases and made the presentation smoother.

Also, unlike the live presentation, SlideShare presentations do not allow embedded video. So, for the slidecast I substituted still images of the videos with links to the video on YouTube or other sites. Which brings up an advantage of doing a Slideshare slidecast: that you can embed both text and image links in the slidecast, so users can explore the sites you discuss.

If you do a lot of slidecasts, you might also take advantage of Slideshare’s new branded channel feature, which enables you to produce branded channels.

I should emphasize that Slideshare is by no means the only game in town. There are also myBrainShark, Slideboom, and authorStream. In fact, according to this review of slide-sharing sites, they are superior to Slideshare. For example, myBrainshark enables uploading of narrations via telephone. And, you can add images, video, and quiz questions. So, I will likely be migrating my slidecasts to myBrainshark in the future. See the reference section of Explaining Research for a full list of such sites and resources.

Finally, here’s a whitepaper that covers the use of lecture capture technology in academe, which concludes that that

Lecture capture now falls into the “need-to-have” category. The relatively new breed of lecture capture solutions, which refers to any technology that allows instructors or presenters to record what happens in their lecture hall and make it available digitally, is changing how higher education thinks about technology while also changing the competitive landscape.

Although  the whitepaper covers much broader issues than just slidecasting your own PowerPoint presentations, it does show that you’ll likely be doing yourself a favor by learning to use slidecasting technology.





AAAS meeting: A Wrongheaded Myth Still Hinders Scientists’ Communication

20 02 2010

To my delight as a research communicator, the American Association for the Advancement of Science chose “Bridging Science and Society” as its theme for its 2010 meeting. And, I was heartened by meeting’s call “on every scientist and engineer to make their work both beneficial and understandable.”

And indeed, as I scanned the program I found that many sessions were devoted to helping scientists communicate their research to a broader audience.

Unfortunately, the meeting also revealed evidence that the scientific community still clings to the myth that it is the public’s lack of respect for scientists that hinders their communication, and not science’s own lack of a culture of explanation. Witness President Peter Agre’s statement in his opening address that

“I think we have a big challenge in science because the public often views us as nerd-like individuals in lab coats, consumed with equations, data-driven, and actually less than the humans and the passionate humans that scientists really are.”

Nothing could be further from the truth, as I demonstrated in my article “Scientists are Heroes.” While the lab coat is, indeed, a badge of scientists, and their data-driven nature is a part of their public perception, those are symbols of honor not derision. As I demonstrated in my article, public polls and Hollywood movies from Avatar to Indiana Jones overwhelmingly depict scientists as dynamic heroes. And popular televisions shows including the CSI series and Numb3rs also portray scientists as “passionate humans.”

I contend that scientists use this myth of the denigrated scientist  as one excuse to avoid confronting and correcting their own serious lack of a culture of explanation in science, as I discuss in the introduction to Explaining Research. They argue erroneously that “Since the public doesn’t respect us, why should we fight an uphill battle to explain our research?”

Besides this myth, there are other fundamental reasons for science’s cultural deficit of explanation, and since writing the book, I have come to understand them better:

For one thing, science and engineering are unlike such professions as law and medicine, in that there is no immediate need to explain their field to lay audiences in order to have a successful career. Imagine what would happen to a lawyer who couldn’t effectively explain principles of law to juries or clients. Imagine what would happen to a doctor who was inept at explaining medical problems to patients.

In contrast the career success of scientists and engineers depends almost completely on their ability to communicate to technical audiences–colleagues, deans, laboratory heads, etc. Even scientists who teach undergraduate classes are not judged heavily by their success at lay-level communication to those classes. At least, I have never heard of a researcher denied tenure because his/her teaching was not up to snuff.

So, it will take more than the fear of career failure to prompt scientists and engineers to reach out to the public. They must take a broader view that such communication does ultimately help their career, as well as their field and their society.  For example, a greater public appreciation of science and engineering helps persuade donors and legislators to support science. And it helps the voices of scientists and engineers be heard in public debates over such science-related issues as childhood vaccinations.

But an important first step toward creating a healthier culture of explanation is for scientists to abandon the corrosive myth that the public doesn’t respect and admire them.





Interview: Are Scientists Geeks or Heroes?

17 02 2010

I had a delightful interview with Maureen Cavanaugh of KPBS Radio San Diego on the topic “Are Scientists Geeks or Heroes?” Guess which side I came down on.





How Not to Tweet Twaddle

15 02 2010

My piece “How Not to Tweet Twaddle” has been posted on the Oxford University Press blog. It covers what the experts are saying about Twitter logothe best way to use this stunningly popular medium. Take a look. I hope it offers some useful insights. Also, thanks to a tweet from a friend, I just discovered this nifty Twitter Guide Book by Mashable.





Tips on Teaching Tykes (and Grownups, Too)

13 02 2010

My daughter, Dr. Wendy Hunter, a pediatrician, gave a talk at my granddaughter’s elementary school this week, and

Dr. Wendy Hunter

Dr. Wendy tells a second grade class fascinating tales of bones

the presentation reminded me of some good principles for giving successful presentations for kids. In fact, since adults are just grown-up kids, these principles could also make your talks at the local civic club or college class more successful:

  • Bring your energy. Enthusiasm is contagious, and if you show your own enthusiasm for your subject, the audience will catch it. You might be used to low-keying your scientific talks, but being restrained for a public talk lowers audience interest. Dr. Wendy’s animation and energy helped grab and hold the kids’ interest.
  • Bring interesting props. Dr. Wendy found an accurate model skeleton at Carolina Biological Supply that was the perfect demonstration for bones, how they fit together, and how they can break.
  • Give the audience a job. She passed out plastic skeleton kits for the students to assemble as she talked about the various bones and how they fit together. Doing while they were hearing helped the kids remember the lessons.
  • Bring “real” things. Dr. Wendy showed cross-sectioned cow bones to give the kids a chance to see and touch real bone marrow, memorably showing them where blood cells are made.
  • Personalize your presentation. For example, using a volunteer, Dr. Wendy showed how the kneecap “floats.” She also explained how it can be knocked out of joint, and how it can be repositioned.
  • Give useful tips. She explained how people fracture their forearms by “foosh”– falling on outstretched hand–and how people can avoid that fate by bending their arms to catch themselves if they should fall forward.
  • Give the audience a mystery to solve. She passed out x-rays of various bone breaks and dislocations and challenged the kids to identify the part of the skeleton shown and the abnormality.
  • Learning can be loud. The sound of learning in kids can be cacophonous. It’s hard for presenters used to respectftul silence in their adult audiences to remember that fact. Dr. Wendy’s class reverberated with excited chatter as the kids assembled their skeletons, crawled around looking for a lost (model) foot, and poked around on themselves looking for various bones.

So, heed these tips for both your young and adult audiences, and they will, indeed, feel your presentation in their bones.





Scientists are Heroes

12 02 2010

(Here’s the latest round in my campaign to convince scientists and engineers that the public sees them as respected heroes. This article appeared on The Scientist Web site, February 12, 2010. Free registration required)

The author of a new book contravenes the myth that the public views scientists as geeks or villains.

by Dennis Meredith

For me, the last straw came several years ago when the director of a major national laboratory declared to an audience of reporters at a large scientific meeting that the public sees scientists as geeky, unattractive, or “mad.” He wasn’t the first scientist to spout this corrosive myth about his own profession. But I hope that the clear evidence to the contrary in my book Explaining Research will make him the last.

In fact, I think that the public overwhelmingly sees scientists as heroes. This is demonstrated most convincingly in the positive portrayal of scientists in movies and TV shows, which are prime barometers of public perception.

Opinion polls also bear out the public’s perception of scientist-hero. In a 2006 Harris Poll, for example, Americans said they trusted doctors (85 percent), teachers (83 percent), scientists (77 percent) and professors (75 percent) far more than they did journalists (39 percent), lawyers (27 percent), or pollsters (34 percent). And respondents to a 2009 survey by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press said that people who contributed the most to society’s well-being were members of the military, teachers, scientists, medical doctors, and engineers. The major survey Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, by the National Science Board concluded that “more Americans expressed a ‘great deal’ of confidence in leaders of the scientific community than in the leaders of any other institution except the military.”

However, the most dramatic insight into public perceptions of scientists comes from their depiction in movies and TV shows. After all, Hollywood tends to follow popular opinion when casting its heroes and villains. It seems to me that criminals, terrorists and greedy businessmen are the most frequent villains, and scientists among the most prevalent heroes. For example, in Jurassic Park, the heroes were paleontologist Alan Grant, paleobotanist Ellie Sattler, and mathematician Ian Malcolm. The villain was foolish entrepreneur John Hammond.

In Explaining Research, I decided to confirm this notion by presenting statistics on Hollywood’s portrayal of scientists. I compiled a list of some 140 films depicting scientists and engineers—drawing on the filmography in Sidney Perkowitz’s book Hollywood Science and also searching the Internet Movie Database. I then judged whether the scientists in those movies were heroes or villains. The analysis revealed about six times more scientist-heroes than scientist-villains. (For complete movie lists and discussion see “Scientist heroes” on the Explaining Research Web site.

Actually, the list of truly villainous scientists is even smaller because of a key caveat: most of the putative scientist-villains were not really evil, but merely flawed—either misguided or overly ambitious—or suffered when their research escaped their control. For example, in Spider-Man 2, the virtuous Dr. Otto Octavius transformed into the villainous “Doc Ock” when he was taken over by the mechanical tentacles he had developed as artificially intelligent tools. And in the end, it was Octavius, and not Spider-Man who saved the day by sinking the uncontrolled fusion ball into the sea.

Movie biologists have saved the earth—or at least a significant chunk of it—numerous times. For example, the scientists in the Andromeda Strain and Outbreak, rescued humanity from catastrophic infectious disease outbreaks through cutting edge science and a healthy dose of luck. They’ve even fought to save alien planets, as did Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) for the verdant Pandora in James Cameron’s latest blockbuster Avatar.

Some of Hollywood’s biggest stars have portrayed scientist-heroes, including Ben Affleck, Jessica Alba, Nicolas Cage, Russell Crowe, Laura Dern, Robert Downey Jr., Harrison Ford, Cary Grant, Anthony Hopkins, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Eddie Murphy, Bill Murray, Liam Neeson, Edward Norton, Gwyneth Paltrow, Bill Paxton, and Will Smith. Would those A-list actors sign on to play scientists if researchers were really considered geeks, devoid of personality?

Scientists are also equally heroic on TV these days. The bane of countless fictional criminals are the scientist-heroes of Bones, CSI (Las Vegas, New York, and Miami), Criminal Minds, NCIS, Numb3rs, and other popular crime dramas.

My aim in demonstrating that the public sees scientists as heroes is not just to boost scientists’ self-esteem, although that’s certainly important. I also hope that the next time a scientist stands before an audience to advocate for adequate research funding, argue for policies to alleviate global warming, or debate creationists, he or she will do so confident in having the considerable advantage of being seen as a trusted, credible, hero.