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.





Toyota Recall: You Can’t Fix Stupid

3 02 2010

Regardless of whether Toyota finds and fixes the flaws in their cars that cause uncontrolled acceleration and faulty braking, their mismanagement of communications has been an unmitigated disaster that alone will cost them huge financial losses and a severely damaged reputation. Or, as the old saying goes, “You can’t fix stupid.” Reuters has published one good account of Toyota’s PR problems.

Perhaps the only slightly silver lining in this dark cloud is that Toyota’s blunders offer useful communication lessons for anybody facing a crisis. Some examples:

  • Toyota took far too long to respond publicly to the problem. Its CEO did not comment for months after the problem started and has only responded informally. A smart communications plan would have had him speaking on YouTube and at news conferences from the time the crisis first began.
  • Toyota should have offered clear steps its customers could take to protect themselves.  In an article in the Fort Myers News Press, public relations expert Tina Matte pointed out that the company didn’t tell consumers what they should do about driving vehicles with the flaws.
  • Toyota was far from transparent. The company  only gave the public vague reassurances that it was developing a solution, and it hid the process behind the usual corporate wall of silence. A far more effective, albeit daring, approach would have been to put the company engineers out front, discussing candidly what they knew and didn’t know about the problem as they were working on it. Such candidness would serve  not only to reassure the public, but to portray Toyota sympathetically as an open organization, deeply concerned about the quality of its products. Perhaps public discussion might have even brought useful insights from the vast legions of engineers who would have avidly followed the developments.
  • Toyota used 20th-century communication methods. For example, full-page newspaper ads are woefully outdated. And when it did use social media, it did so ineffectively. In the News-Press article, public relations expert Ginny Cooper pointed out that the company’s Facebook page merely redirects readers to the recall Web page on Toyota’s main site. Cooper recommended a separate tab on the Facebook site addressing the recall. And, she said, there should be a separate Web site for the recall.
  • Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Toyota should have apologized early and often. Not only were apologies slow to come, but PR consultant Msato Takahashi pointed out in the Reuters article that the first apology by a headquarters executive did not include a deep bow, a standard gesture in Japan when a firm admits responsibility for a mistake. (Update: CEO Akio Toyoda finally issued a formal apology, complete with bow, on February 5, 2010, in his first formal remarks about the problems). Corporate lawyers often advise against such public apologies, arguing that they establish fault and weakens a company’s position in lawsuits. However, lawyers don’t take into account the full business impact of apologies. I suspect that early, frequent, heartfelt apologies would have been far more financially beneficial to Toyota–both in reducing lawsuits and in maintaining reputation.Certainly, the medical profession has found that apologies reduce malpractice suits.

It will be fascinating to watch how Toyota continues to handle their crisis communications, and whether their reputation recovers. For more tips on handling a communication crisis, see this tipsheet on the Explaining Research site.





Funny Engineering Conversions!

1 02 2010

Yes, Virginia, engineering conversions can be funny! A friend sent me this collection from crosswalk.com. A few of my favorites:

  • Ratio of an igloo’s circumference to its diameter? Eskimo Pi
  • 2,000 pounds of Chinese soup? Won Ton
  • Half of a large intestine? 1 semicolon
  • 2,000 mockingbirds? 2 kilomockingbirds
  • 10 cards? 1 decacards
  • 1 kilogram of falling figs? 1 Fig Newton
  • 1 millionth of a fish? 1 microfiche

Slip a couple of these into your next talk and give your audience a giggle.





Evolution of Explaining Research: Lessons for Authors

31 01 2010

(If you’re considering writing a popular science book, my experiences in bringing Explaining Research to publication might be helpful. Here’s an article I wrote on the process for ScienceWriters, the magazine of the National Association of Science Writers. Below is the introduction, followed by a link to the full article:)

Explaining Research (Oxford University Press, 2010), began its eccentric evolution as a modest booklet-sized manuscript that I planned to self-publish; but ended up as a 368-page book produced by a major academic publisher. The tale of that evolution, I think, offers useful lessons for authors who face a daunting new era of self-publishing technology and an economically depressed publishing industry. (Read the article)





Snagit: a Great Tool for Screen Captures

30 01 2010

If you’ve done screen captures like I’ve done in the past, you probably just hit the “Print Screen” button (PrtScrn) to copy the whole screen to your clipboard, then inserted it into your presentation or document. Or, maybe you used the simple snipping tool in Windows Vista and Windows 7.

But now that I’ve discovered Snagit that’s all changed. It’s an incredibly useful piece of software for selectively lifting  all or part of a Web page or other screen segment and sending it to Excel, Word, PowerPoint, e-mail, or just about any other program. You  can capture images, text, screen video and even a Web page, complete with active links. In fact, I usedSnagit home page graphic Snagit to capture the image of the Snagit home page graphic on this post. You can even record animated sequences of interactions with a Web page, showing cursor movement and the effects of clicking on links.

When I created a recent PowerPoint presentation, I used Snagit to record such an interaction, as well as capturing and editing logos, selective chunks of Web page and other visuals to make my PowerPoint presentation look much more professional. You can also add arrows, speech bubbles, labels and other explanatory elements to the captured images. And if you want to emphasize a particular section of a Web page, you can even blur out the whole Web page except for that section.

Try the free 30-day trial. I can just about guarantee you’ll end up buying it. At $49.95, it’s a bargain. I should add that there are other screen capture programs out there, including  CaptureXT, CaptureWizPro,  FastStone, and !Quick Screen Capture. They may work well, too, but I chose Snagit because it received the best reviews.