Public Speaking and Research Communication Masterclass, Loughborough

Yesterday I was lucky enough to attend a masterclass run by Screenhouse (Barbara Govern @screenhouseprod, Paul Bader @paulbader, Victoria Pritchard @vic1redvoice) and Dr. Maggie Aderin-Pocock. It was a really fun day and I left feeling inspired to take on any public speaking opportunity that comes my way!

The day began with us hearing from Maggie about her route into the media and what would await us if we chose to follow a similar path. She acted as an excellent role model, encouraging us to take opportunities rather than immediately passing questions on to someone more senior. They may not be a better communicator!

She then did a really interesting SWOT analysis of getting into TV presenting...

• Strengths include communicating your research out to a wider audience and getting your opinions heard. It can also be a great confidence booster!
• Weaknesses of time consumption and misquotations were mentioned, although the words "It's worth it" were mentioned a lot!
• Opportunities for female experts are appearing and being flexible about time and place but stubborn about content should allow you to use them. 
• Threats to your career and social life were the key disadvantages, but support is out there (e.g. STFC fellowships) - make the most of it!

Paul Bader from Screenhouse then took over to give us an introduction on how to present our work in a media release. The difference between writing styles was highlighted: the formality, detailed and tentative nature of academia vs the definite but broad stories told by the media. 

In general, a newspaper piece will tell the story 3 times:in the headline, the first paragraph and the conclusion. As with my writing course at ThinkTank last week, we were encouraged to take as many words out as possible - you should be able to summarise your story in one sentence. 

We then split off into pairs to come up with a headline and a first paragraph describing our research. Quotes add personality and authenticity to a piece and it's useful if you prepare yours in advance of talking to a journalist.

After a lot of crossing out, I finally came up with a headline:

 "Powders used to store hydrogen in vehicles prevent the need for high pressure tanks." 

and a quote:

"Currently, we use chemical hydrogen storage on a narrowboat here at the University of Birmingham, but the challenge is to make the system lighter for use in smaller vehicles such as cars"

Next came a different kind of exercise - the tables were pushed to the side of the room and Victoria Pritchard took over. She wanted not to encourage us to be more confident, but for us to be ourselves, confidently. This means embracing personal traits like accents without becoming overly loud or enthusiastic. During the course of this session, you could see huge improvements made within the group.

After lunch we split into 3 groups and were immediately put in front of a camera! We had 60 seconds to talk about something we felt enthusiastic about, and then we watched all the tapes back afterwards. This was awful! No-one in my group enjoyed watching themselves back, even though we'd all done a pretty good job - maybe this is a general lack of self-esteem?

My group as a whole was encouraged to give the viewer time to think - we have an association between slow and calm speakers and authority, so embrace the full stops! It was also really interesting seeing the effect of facial expressions on the tone of your voice. It is very hard not to be mono-tonal when you are expressionless...

I was advised to relax my shoulders, allowing me to breathe more deeply. To practice this I was given two tennis balls to put in my armpits! 

After two opportunities in front of the camera, we came together as one group and everyone got a chance to resent their 90 second piece to everyone. I loved this as the bigger the audience, the better, for me! It was great to see how everyone had improved, and the confidence level in the room was sky-high by the time we had all finished. 

All-in-all, it was an excellent day - thanks to all the organisers and Maggie for speaking. I feel very encouraged and inspired ahead of next week's FameLab heat in Manchester - Bring It On! 

"Writing for the Public" at ThinkTank

Late last week I was reading through the College of Engineering and Physical Sciences' newsletter and saw a "Writing for the Public" afternoon workshop at ThinkTank advertised. After enquiring, I discovered it was only for staff members, but then at the last minute I was told there was enough room on the course for me to go! The course was funded by the EPSRC, giving me yet another reason to be very grateful to them. So I eagerly headed back to ThinkTank for the second time in a week, keen to learn about how they make their science exhibits so appealing to the general public. 

Kenny Webster (@KennyWebster) was leading the workshop and began by showing us their "News Releases" exhibition. This is a touch screen which displays scientific news stories - the visitor sees a list of pictures and headlines, and then taps through to read the "article". I use quotation marks as they are less than 100 words long! These are usually 3 pages of around 30 words each and give a snapshot of current research, as they are one of the exhibits in the museum that can be updated very quickly. So quickly, in fact, that we were then told that the articles we wrote during the session would go live in the museum the next morning - very exciting, but also quite nerve-wracking! 

Luckily, before we started writing, we were given some tips on how to make our stories stick in people's minds once they had left the museum: how to make them "sticky". As with any workshop, there came an acronym, so hear is the path to SUCCESS:

• S is for Simple (although the word Clear is more appropriate, as ThinkTank are keen not to dumb-down science). The articles should be about one topic and the core message should be possible to explain in a sentence. 
• U is for Unexpected. Everyone loves a bit of mystery, and it's a great way to encourage people to read further, however it must be something that is surprising to the general public: it is important to think about what they already know. Is it possible to create a knowledge gap and then fill it?
• C is for Credible. Can you add details that show the information is from a trusted authority? Be wary of statistics and units: changing something from tonnes to elephants doesn't necessarily make it more accessible!
• C is for Concrete. Give people something tangible, that they can relate to. This led onto an excellent discussion on the use of nouns. (Now there's a sentence I never thought I'd say....!) For instance, "bicycle" is much easier to think about than "justice". The noun that prompted the discussion was "excellence" which we decided could mean whatever you wanted it to! 
• E is not for Excellence, but for Emotional. Why should someone care? Because they have self interest in the story? Because they can associate themselves with the characters involved? Or does it effect people like them?
• S is for Story. I remember reading an interview with Ed Yong, about the power of a story, and how they can always hold your attention, even when you're exhausted in an airport waiting lounge. Offer the reader a structure, allow people to "live" the article, and they'll be with you until the end. 

After hearing these words of wisdom, we were encouraged to go off and write our own piece for the museum. I say write, but most of my time was spent deleting! The course began with a quote from Pascal: "If I'd have had more time, I'd have written less", and this became very relevant once we began! 

I decided to write a piece not on my own research, but on a topic that had proved "sticky" for me in the past: bacteria that can sift through waste water and selectively collect palladium at their surface, forming metallic "jackets". A colleague of mine from the Doctoral Training Centre, James Courtney (@jmc991) spoke about it during his FameLab audition last year (you can watch it here) and I loved the idea of bacteria with bling. 

After about 45 minutes, and reading this article over and over, I managed to cut the story down, and this is what I ended up with: 

Bacteria with bling

Kevin Deplanche

Metals like palladium and gold are used a lot: from cars to jewellery. But supplies are running low and because of this, they are getting more and more expensive.

Researchers at the University of Birmingham have found bacteria that collect these metals at their surface and form a jacket of gold or palladium around them.

These bacteria can be used to collect precious metals from industrial waste, reducing the need for mining and lowering the cost.

So if you're wondering around ThinkTank in the next few weeks and see the above on the "News Release" screen, then you know where it came from! I definitely plan to write some more: watch this space!

Why water is weird and FameLab is wonderful

This weekend I had another go at FameLab, the three minute science communication competition. Again, the competition was brilliantly hosted by @KennyWebster and his team at ThinkTank - the science museum in Birmingham. The standard was exceptionally high, and it was a great afternoon packed with talks on a range of topics from double pendulums to evil basil plants! I wish everyone going forward to the next round the best of luck: and I'd recommend to everyone that they should go and watch the regional final, the judges will have a tough time! (Wed 29th January, again at ThinkTank)

I hadn't had much time to prepare this year and it showed a bit: I wasn't as comfortable presenting as I normally am. 
I spoke on the amazing properties of water and I have posted the transcript below if you fancy learning something new. 

Afterwards, the judges Jon (@Jonwoodscience) and Josephine (picture, right) gave me some great advice on the topic and the way I presented. 

Along with a friend who registered but chickened out at the last minute, I plan to go up and have another go, entering the heats in Manchester next month! Wish me luck!!



Water, water everywhere, but it's not as simple as you think...

Water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom: H 2 O. If it was as simple as that, you would expect the shape of a water molecule to be linear: all the atoms lined up in a row, but that's not the case. Water has a kinky secret, and it's all about electrons...

Each hydrogen atom has one electron and each oxygen atom has 6 available for bonding. Each hydrogen uses one of its own and one of the oxygen's electrons to form a bond, leaving 4 remaining electrons around the oxygen. These pair off with one another and are called 'lone pairs'. This gives us four groups of electrons around the oxygen atom: two bonds to hydrogen atoms and two lone pairs. These four groups are negatively charged and therefore all want to be as far apart from one another as possible.

Imagining your hands are lone pairs and your legs are bonds to hydrogen atom shoes, take a big step forward and lift your arms into a "Y" shape. You are now a water molecule! As the lone pairs are not visible, the water molecule is not linear, but kinky at an angle of 104.5 degrees to be precise. Which is lucky for me, as I can't do the splits...

So why is this kink so special? Well, the electrons in the bonds holding the hydrogen atoms to the oxygen are not evenly distributed: the oxygen has a larger and stronger positive core and so pulls the electrons closer to it: making the hydrogen end of the bond slightly positive and the oxygen end slightly negative. This is called a polar bond. (nothing to do with bears).

As they say, opposites attract, and my two negative lone pair hands are desperate to grab onto some positively charged hydrogen shoes and form what is called a 'hydrogen bond'. Now this is what makes water different. Because of having two lone pairs and two polar bonds, each molecule can form a hydrogen bond to four others: one in each hand and one to each leg. At room temperature, when the molecules are moving around, they won't get the chance to form all four, but as the temperature lowers, all the water molecules come together to form a circus act: making a large structure with big gaps in. Ice. These gaps mean that ice is less dense than water and floats on the top, unlike most molecules, which huddle like penguins when they get cold and form a solid that is denser than the liquid.

There are other molecules that can hydrogen bond, but not to the same extent: ammonia is the equivalent of having 3 legs and hydrogen fluoride one leg and three arms. Because they have less chance of grabbing onto one another when flying around at room temperature, these molecules are all gases. And because they'll always be a spare arm or leg, they cannot form a structure like ice.

So that is why a little kink makes water so wonderful: I urge you to go forth and hydrogen bond!! (although circus training might be recommended)

H2FC Supergen conference

My week started by going to the H2FC Supergen Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Researcher Conference. Running from Monday afternoon to Wednesday morning, the conference was jam packed with a variety of research presentations on a range of topics. As well as some great research, there were a number of really interesting keynote speakers and these will be the main focus of this post. 

Professor Nigel Brandon began the conference by reminding us of the benefits of using hydrogen fuel cells: their efficiency, the fact that they don't produce particulates and the flexibility given by the variety of hydrogen production methods. He concluded that research into cleaner hydrogen production will be necessary to ensure that a future containing hydrogen fuel cells will be sustainable. 

Monday evening hosted a lively panel discussion between some really very inspiring early career researchers. Dr. Greg Offer, Dr. Valeska Ting (@DrValeskaTing), Dr. Dennis Krammer and Dr. Paul Shearing were each given the stage for 10 minutes to talk about their route into academia and any tips they had for us sitting in the audience who might want to do the same. The passion and drive that these four exhibited during the short session made it clear that their lectureships were well earned! We were encouraged to aim high, to take networking seriously and (obviously!) to publish as much as possible. The range of pathways exhibited amongst the panel showed that failure does happen, and that a "Plan B" can come in very handy... 
Huge thanks to all the members of the panel - it was a really useful session!

Tuesday began with Dr. Mark Selby from Ceres Power. He encouraged the development of links between academia and industry through better listening, reminding us that companies do not want to make problems with their industry public, even if they do have a whole team of researchers working to solve them. Following on from the career session the previous evening, he advised us to be clear about what we do and don't know and to seize opportunities that fit our values. 
The second industrial keynote of Tuesday was Jane Patterson from Ricardo (@Ricardo_AEA), who gave an excellent presentation on the importance of applied research. 

After a great conference dinner at the Edgbaston Cricket Ground, the hall was looking emptier for the final day. However, it was well worth staying until the end for Dr. Kerry-Ann Adamson's (@KerryAnnEnergy, Navigant Research) "Wake Up Call" for the clean tech industry. As well as tips on which countries to target for future research opportunities, we were warned to beware of the word "optimal" and of presenting technologies and not solutions. Finishing on the very positive note that this is likely to be the most exciting time to be working in energy research, Kerry-Ann woke us all up and left us with something to think about. 

Overall, it was a really interesting and varied conference with some great sessions: thanks to all the organisers and presenters!!

ClimateSnack

I have recently discovered a new organisation called ClimateSnack. It's awesome!

ClimateSnack encourages researchers to translate their exciting climate research from academic speak into easily digestible "snacks" perfect for reading over a cup of tea.

The motivation behind ClimateSnack is to develop the skills of early stage researchers in climate science in writing for a general audience. Currently there are groups in Bergen and Imperial universities, and I am in the process of starting up a group at the University of Birmingham with the help of a post-doc in the geography department. 

The groups work as follows:

• A couple of group members draft an article ("snack") on a climate science topic of their choice.
• Before the meeting (they happen once a month), the snacks get sent round the group for everyone to read.
• When the group meets, the authors begin by reading their snack out loud to the group.
• The rest of the group give their comments and feedback.
• The authors go back to their laptops and finish off the snack. They then get their articles published on the ClimateSnack website.
• International ClimateSnackers can then also read the snack and give feedback to the authors.
• After receiving the feedback, the snackers can then put what they have learnt into practice and write another snack!

This cycle is an excellent way for researchers to develop their writing skills. Not only can you test run sections of your thesis introduction, student newspaper articles or blog posts; but by reading through other people's work you learn a phenomenal amount about what it is like to read work from a different field to yours. The process of giving feedback is also important in an academic environment, and ClimateSnack gives a great environment in which to practise. 

ClimateSnack treats writing for a wider audience the same as learning a new language: the ability to go through the ClimateSnack cycle a number of times brings the much needed repetition and an excellent way to track progress. The barrier to publishing your work online is broken down by the ability to test run the article before you make the (terrifying!) jump of putting yourself 'out there'.

For those group members who don't even know where to start, ClimateSnack offers online courses which are excellent. These are definitely worth a watch!

I introduced the concept of ClimateSnack to UoB researchers at the last graduate school "TGS Fridays" event and it went down pretty well! Looks like we will have a group ready for an inaugural meeting in January, which is great news. 

If you are a researcher in climate science at Birmingham and want to find out more information then get in touch @RDscience or via the comment box below.

For more information visit the ClimateSnack website, and/or follow @ClimateSnack on twitter. 

STFC Public Engagement Synposium

On Monday I attended the Science & Technology Facilities Council (STFC) Public Engagement Symposium at the University of Birmingham. It was an interesting and varied day, with some really good speakers and a lot of opportunity to speak to other attendees.

The Chairman of the STFC Council, Professor Sir Michael Sterling, set the scene by inspiring us that public engagement is "Good for you, good for your science and good for your career".

We then had a great presentation from Andrew Cohen, the head of science for BBC TV. He stressed the point of knowing your audience, exemplified by the different channels. BBC Four viewers will be actively seeking new knowledge, and are therefore much easier to write for. The challenge is taking people "across the divide" and programmes must be Important, Relevant and Entertaining. There were many clips of great scientific communication, from the "Science of Dr. Who" to Horizon. Our take home tips were to:

• Position the story correctly (BBC4 or BBC1?)
• Aim beyond the scientifically literate
• Support your fellow scientists who engage
• Watch the new film Gravity! (Apparently a great example of science in the public!)

The discussion afterwards brought to our attention another few great communication activities: Drunk Histories and Museum of Me. 

The second session introduced us to a varied panel, who each gave an introductory presentation before taking questions and leading a panel discussion. 

Dr. Robin Clegg, head of public engagement at STFC, directed us to the strategic plan we were given in our packs, along with showing us a number of other training and development opportunities. 

Dr. Penny Fidler, CEO of the UK Association for Science and Discovery Centres (@sciencecentres), reminded us that there is no need to 'go it alone' as there are many resources available, including the "Explore your Universe" project. She stressed the need for hands-on science, with their centres aiming to get people Intrigued, Inspired and Involved with the sciences. 

Bridget Holligan, of Science Oxford (@scienceoxford), gave us advice on communicating with 8-13 year-olds. We were advised to assume zero knowledge, but infinite intelligence - something I feel is very appropriate having taken some amazing questions at school events in the past!

The last panel member, Dr. Helen Featherstone (@HFeatherstone), began by playing "public engagement or not?": a game involving knitted neurons (see right!) which was a great way of making sure we were all clear of how much of a two way process public engagement needs to be. 

The discussion that followed was quite lively, and brought up how much children's career choices are based on their parents, and so how important it is to get the whole family involved. Before lunch, there was a quick Soapbox session, allowing people to bring everyone's attention to a specific project or activity that they could talk to them about later in the day. These varied from Open University practical labs to advice on how write a TV programme pitch. 

Over lunch, there were stands around the room representing a range of groups. I found it very interesting to talk to the Institute of Physics about their beer mat project: #cheersphysics - getting science into pubs (left). 

The afternoon began with Professor Iain Stewart (@ProfIainStewart) introducing the idea that risk is made up of both hazard and outrage. He encouraged experts to not only talk better, but also listen better: find out why people are outraged and what neighbourhood groups want to know. 

We then broke off into workshop sessions. My first workshop was on "Reaching the Hard to Reach" with Dr. Lucy Yeomans. We spoke about who we meant by the hard to reach, and looked at a number of case studies before drafting our own project ideas and discussing them with the group. Her advice was to be creative with how you engage, whilst not underestimating your audience. 

My second workshop was on Citizen Science, with Dr. Rob Simpson (@orbitingfrog) from zooniverse. I found this really interesting, as I really didn't know anything about citizen science beforehand. There are a huge range of projects going on, with the public helping a great deal in scientific advancements. We were encouraged to think of our own projects, remembering not to waste people's time! the projects should be doing real science and machines should not be able to do it. 

The final session began with Dr. Ceri Brenner telling us how we can bring our research into reality: her tips were to remember why we started doing science and to have a dinner party pitch ready with a good analogy. She also mentioned the idea of skype visits - which I thought was a great idea for bringing people into the lab if it's not physically possible. 

The day finished with a really great discussion. We were all encouraged to ask what would make public engagement easier: our group thought our main constraint was time, and discussed the possibility of ring-fenced time for this purpose. As I am on a doctoral training centre, which has a compulsory public engagement course and mini-project. I loved these opportunities and would have liked this time continued through my PhD. However, we also acknowledged that it's not for everyone, and so maybe optional courses should be made available. One thing the whole audience agreed on was that public engagement activities should be given tangible values, so that time spent on activities was rewarded. 

Overall it was a really good day! I learnt a lot and can't wait to implement some new ideas. Thanks STFC!

EPSRC launch event

Last Friday I was given the opportunity to speak the EPSRC event announcing the next round of Doctoral Training Centres to be given funding by the EPSRC. A list of the 72 successful centres and the EPSRC press release from the event can be found here. The event was held in the BT tower and was attended by a number of representatives from the different universities and some members of the press. 

There were 4 speakers (including myself), each giving a 5 minute presentation, followed by a discussion with the floor. I was asked to talk about my research, where I fitted into my DTC, what the difference between a DTC and a normal PhD course is and my aspirations for the future. After the discussion, I was interviewed by a journalist from the Times Higher Education supplement and the EPSRC video media team. A part of my video interview is on the online press conference part of the EPSRC link I mentioned earlier - I'm sharing a video summary with David Willetts MP! 

Thanks again to the EPSRC for inviting me, it was a great event and I hope my presentation made the audience realise the added benefits you can get as a student by being on a DTC! 

EPSRC Chair, Dr Paul Golby

Senior BT Host, Research MD Tim Whitley

Me, giving the student perspective

David Willetts MP (Minister for Universities and Science) 

 The speakers with David Delpy (EPSRC) answering questions from the audience