Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

It is no secret that one of the greatest impediments to improving the public understanding of science is the inability of scientists to articulate the importance of their work and ideas to non-scientists. 

Early in my career I was guilty like most of the rest of you. The first hint that I was not getting through to lay people was their eyes glazing over when I attempted to explain what my research was about. I quickly realized that I needed to learn how to better present my ideas to non-scientists if I wanted to engage them in casual conversations about science. 

Unfortunately, most of the persons charged with training scientists see little or no value in teaching their students to communicate to lay persons about their research or science in general. After all, they wouldn’t understand it anyway so why bother? That justification may have been valid 30 years ago but with the advent of the Internet and more recently social media, it is vitally important that the correct scientific information is disseminated to the lay public. In case you hadn’t notices, there is an awful lot of scientific misinformation out there that is being taken as “the truth” by large segments of the American public.

Recognizing this, Pat Marsteller a biologist and science educator at Emory University in Atlanta developed a course entitled “Communicating Science” which is designed to tech graduate students to write for and talk to non-scientists. She teaches the course with two chemists, mainly because the majority of students who took the class last semester (the first time it was taught) were chemists. Apparently, most of the students were “volun-told” to take the class by a chemistry adviser. This became apparent to Dr. Marsteller during the first class meeting when a chemistry student quipped: “Why Should I want to talk to anybody who doesn’t understand carbon?” Go figure....

While the course is designed to eliminate jargon and science speak so it is more comprehensible to non-scientists, it also stresses the different ways in which scientific information ought to be transmitted to different audiences that a scientist may encounter during his/her careers. For an example of this click here.

Hat tip to Dr. Marsteller for developing such a forward-thinking and necessary course.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I just returned from the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) annual meeting that was held this past week in Washington, DC. On the surface, the meeting was not much different from the others that I typically attend—I was providing resume critiquing services and career counseling to graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. But, this meeting felt different to me than most and I couldn’t quite explain why! That is; until I read a blog post by Magali Charmot-Sauva entitled “Are Scientist Purely Rational”

The gist of the post was that scientists are not much different than non-scientists and like most “normal” people they do have emotions and secrets that have little to do with science! In other words, scientists are “just like everyone else” as Charmot-Sauva contends. But, she posits that society has convinced scientists that they are different and most have embraced the notion. 

After reading the post, I started thinking about the different feeling that I had at ASGH this past week. Many of the graduate students and postdocs that I talked with were folks engaged in rare disease research, genetic counseling, diagnostics and epidemiology. In other words, unlike most research scientists, they were working on serious “human” diseases and closer in many ways to the people who suffer from them. Put simply, the label “human genetics” rather than molecular or biochemical etc somehow permits these scientists to more easily express their humanity and ultimately their humanness! And, interestingly enough, the ASGH leadership sponsored a symposium for students and postdocs designed to improve their communication skills with the news media and the lay public. Clearly the ASHG leadership understands that scientists and “normal people” need to communicate with and get to know one another better.

The lack of emphasis on communication and interpersonal skills in most graduate programs sends the wrong message to graduate students and postdocs. Most interpret this to mean that they are not necessary or important for a successful scientific career. And it also helps to promulgate the myth it is okay for scientists to be different than other people. While this may be acceptable for some academics (they don’t get out much anyway), it is entirely unacceptable in the non-academic science world where a premium is placed on well honed oral and written communication skills. 

For those of you who may not believe me, take a look at some of the job ads for industrial scientist positions. Invariably, all require that prospective job candidates have outstanding written and oral communication skills. In the past, companies were willing to overlook these requirements in order to acquire the requisite technical skills that they needed. However, there is currently a glut of PhD-trained bioscientists in today’s market and life sciences hiring managers no longer have to sacrifice any requirements in order to hire the best job candidates. That said, I think it is time for scientists to “come out of their ivory towers” and learn what it means to communicate and be human again!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Communicating!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Let me say at the outset of this post that I have a PhD in Bacteriology and admittedly less than objective when it comes to the topic of microbiology education and improving the public understanding of science. However, in today’s New York Times Science Times section there were no fewer than five articles that required some knowledge of microbiology to understand the implications about what was written.

1. Vaccination is Steady, but Pertussis is Surging
2. Really? The Claim: More Sugar Leads to More Cavities
3. Steep Drop Seen in Circumcisions in the U.S.
4. Patterns: Medicare Coverage Drives Antibiotic Use
5. Vital Signs: Nipple Piercings Add to Risk of Abscesses

While it doesn’t require a PhD to decipher the information in this article a basic understanding of microbiology would allow readers to understand the significance and future implications of the material that was presented. For example, in the article about nipple piercings; anybody who has taken an introductory microbiology class knows that bacteria like Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes can cause pus-laden infections and if left untreated can result in potentially life-threatening abscess formation. Sugar and cavities? Microbiology 101 students all know that bacteria like S. mutans (that live in everyone’s mouths) ferment sugars and produce lactic acid that degrades tooth enamel and can cause cavities. And, most entry level microbiology students understand that the overuse of conventional antibiotics is largely responsible for the emergence of multiple drug resistant bacteria like multiple drug resistant S. aureus MRSA) and vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE).

The point that I am trying to make is that bacteria are all around us; some do good things like fix nitrogen to improve crop yields and produce oxygen during photosynthesis while others cause devastating acute and chronic infections. Nevertheless, the lay public is largely ignorant about the microbes on and around them. Most of my friends, many of whom have advanced degrees in their fields, don’t know the difference between a virus and a bacterium and believe that it is okay to treat a cold with antibiotics! How can people modify their behaviors to effectuate change to improve their lives if they lack a rudimentary understanding of the factors responsible for conditions that afflict them?

Don’t get me wrong—we don’t need more PhD microbiologists. However, requiring all high school biology students and maybe biology degree students to have a firm understanding of the fundamental principles of microbiology would be a great start toward improving the lives of many Americans!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ed Silverman at the Pharmalot blog reported that Abbott disclosed in a Securities and Exchange filing that it will cut about 1,000 jobs in medical diagnostics over the next four years to cut costs and save about $150 million per year.

According to an Abbot spokesperson “The streamlining includes the closing of a clinical chemistry plant in South Pasadena, California and transferring production of some diagnostic products to plants in Europe that are closer to a big part of the company’s customer base.”

I guess this is good news for Abbott employees—the company could have eliminated all 1,000 positions in one fell swoop. The four year timeline gives current Abbott employees some time to beef up their resumes.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link