How to talk science without sounding like a pompous jerk

The class I am taking this summer is rather unique, though it certainly shouldn't be. I'm trying to develop lifelong skills necessary (in my opinion) for success in academia, but they are skills woefuly ignored. Specifically, I'm trying to learn to be a better communicator with those outside my field of research.

Video interviewing at Medill

As students in classes taught by famous, yet boring professors can attest- being a great researcher does not mean you are a great communicator. It doesn't even mean you are a good one.  Northwestern University offers a wonderful program to help turn this pattern around, called 'Ready, Set, Go!' The aim of this program is to help scientists and researchers across all disciplines to disseminate their work to the broader world. It's a surprisingly daunting task.

For one thing, content really does matter. On my first day with the other students, I realized that my research is at somewhat of an advantage. I study human systems (memory and sleep) so they are easier to understand intuitively. My classmates studying nanoparticles or non-newtonian fluids have a lot more jargon to deal with the complex systems they study. Learning to cut back the three-plus syllable words is only the first step. We have also learned how to use analogies, craft stories, and pull approachable aspects of our research to the forefront. All of these pieces must fit together to create a coherent story.

Beyond storytelling, there are also other aspects to consider. For instance, this week we spent our class time in the Medill television studio to record interviews on our research. It quickly became apparent that outside of knowing the research, we had to know how to turn a question towards a topic we want to discuss and and leave hooks for other points you want to make, so the interviewer can pick them up.

And of course, we must remember the physical aspects of a tv interview. To look like a credible source, you need to dress the part. Wearing bold colors (but no patterns), sitting at the edge of the chair to avoid slumping, and wearing a suit jacket are all tricks that you only realize after watching yourself on the screen. Although I still feel there are many things I'd like to tweak on my interview, I think my last take was a solid of example of how to put some of the skills I've learned into action.

Of course, the class isn't quite over yet. I will be making a final video where I will explain my research in full, and hopefully get to play with some neat video editing tools. I will certainly be posting that video, along with a recap, when the summer ends.

But for now, I'm actually going on holiday to Europe. I'll try to post updates of my trip here, though don't expect too much science- I'll mostly be enjoying local culture and food!

Modelling Biological Processes using Technology

I was recently at a lecture in which the presenter referred to the "circuitry of long term memory" and I was stuck by how often we refer to anatomy as a physical system. Talking about circuits and pathways and such leads one to think in almost mechanical terms on how our organic bodies function. It's a helpful short cut to explain things in terms that are easier for a layman to follow.

It's a practice especially prevalent in neuroscience, although that is the area with which I am most familiar. In any case, I realized that this trend has been going on for quite some time and is often dependent on the current state of our technology. Take for example how the the famous Galen of the Roman Empire thought the blood system worked. "Galen incompletely perceived the function of the heart, believing it a "productor of heat", while the function of its affluents, the arteries, was that of cooling the blood as the lungs "...fanned and cooled the heart itself". Galen thought that during dilation the arteries sucked in air, while during their contraction they discharged vapours through pores in the flesh and skin."

This pumpe system as Galen saw it, was based on the ancient Roman understanding of heating and cooling similar to their intricate water ducts system.  The technology of the day formed how people thought the human body functioned. In modern lingo, cognitive scientists often speak of 'serial/parallel processing' or 'streams of information' and this all calls to mind the inner workings of a computer.

I have to wonder, in the future when we have some new fantastic technology will we compare it to another anatomical feature of ourselves? Or is it our embodied experience that allows us to come up with such technology because we are actually mirroring it after ourselves?

Anthropomorphizing Science

One of the graduate classes I'm currently taking is called Biology of Sleep. It's a new class through the neuroscience department, so we don't have a rigorous structure. Each week, we discuss a new topic in relation to the biological basis of sleep and/or circadian rhythms. When I signed up, I thought this class would be right up my alley. I have a relatively strong background in sleep and my advanced biology classes are only 2 years in my past and thus relatively fresh.

Super cute idea, the rest are at: http://kcd-elements.tumblr.com/

Turns out, I was absolutely wrong. This class has been incredibly difficult, especially when we have to read papers with terminology I can't even recall. This week, we focused on sleep, metabolism and obesity so I was expecting something about eating behaviors changing with a lack of sleep. Instead, we got this. I didn't know I was signing up for advanced genetics and biochemistry when I decided to take the class.

So in reading these highly technical and complicated papers, I've taken to anthropomorphizing ligands and kinases to tell myself a story and follow the molecular cycles. I create heros and villians who steal or give electrons in redox reactions. It's a form of mental shorthand for me to get the gist on these otherwise extremely difficult papers.

This is the kind of thing I memorize using stories

But I wonder, is this a good thing to do? Sure, it helps get the 'basic storyline' of the paper and what's happening in the cell, but is this a good way to teach students? I came up with the technique for my own personal use, but I wonder if professors find such an idea useful or not. The downside is that by creating a story, you give agency to things which do not think or feel. ATP doesn't get its feelings hurt when it phosphorylates and becomes ADP. Lysosomes aren't homicidal killers of proteins. These molecular components don't have feelings or motivations, which a story implies.

So what's your opinion? Is it worth learning information in a story format helpful for memory retention? Or harmful because of the associated assumptions?

Don't take notes on your laptop

Hello 2015! I can't believe the year passed so quickly and it's already a new year! I had a wonderful winter vacation in the sunny state of Texas, but now it's back to the grad school grind. This quarter is particularly looking to be extremely busy. I'll be taking classes, running my own study, and TAing for the first time. That's a lot to accomplish in just a few months. Luckily the winter weather keeps me inside, so I suppose I'll be more productive.

When it's cold out, why not drive to Wisconsin for some cheese?

As for the main meat of this post, I learned something rather unsurprising, yet interesting, in the class I'm TAing. (TA= Teacher's Assistant) I'm TAing developmental psychology which is an upper divsion psychology course. Before we got into the meat of the class, the professor presented some research she conducted on previous classes. She and several other professors conducted an observational study whereby they looked at technology usage of their students and grades earned in that class. Below are the results.

As you can see, those who didn't use a laptop scored the highest in the course on average. Second highest were those who reported staying on task while using their laptops to take notes in class, although they still earned a significantly lower grade than those with no technology. Students who reported being off-task on the laptop (ie, internet browsing, email, etc) scored just as poorly as those who claimed to be multi-tasking. This result might surprise some, but previous research has shown that humans are incredibly bad at multi-tasking. Having to flit from one thing to another makes us bad at all of them overall. According to this study, you might as well just be off-task!

Personally, I've always noticed that I have trouble focusing on class when I have my comnputer out. I am better at remembering information when I write it, rather than type. It seems old-fashioned, but I much prefer carrying a bunch of spirals around instead of a laptop. I'm just glad real research supports my own habits. I have to wonder, when I'm a professor will I allow my students to use laptops? I think not, though maybe we will be such a technology-driven society that I wont have much of a choice. That's a long way away so I better just focus on surviving this quarter!

Brave New World (of sleep research!)

If you've ever read Brave New World (and I sincerely hope that you have), then you probably remember the strange hypnopaedic training used to keep people thinking as the World State wants them to. Basically, the State trains citizens from childhood by using softly spoken mantras played in their sleep.  These constantly repeated ideas are designed to keep them from rising above their prescribed station in life by cuing them to how they should think. When I first heard of this idea, I thought it interesting but outlandish. I'm not so sure about that anymore.

You see, the Cognitive Neuroscience Lab at Northwestern University has recently delved into a research vein similar to Huxley's idea. In a very easy-to-understand paper,  members of my lab tested whether sounds played at night can actually help with memory the next day.

The paradigm went like this- participants learned where 50 objects were located on the screen and each object was paired with a matching unique sound. So they would learn the tea kettle is in the upper right corner and that a kettle whistle is associated with that picture. Next, participants took a nap and during the deep sleep stage, half of the sounds they heard were replayed to them (without waking them up). When they woke up, they were tested on how well they could remember where the objects belonged. Results showed that participants remembered more of the objects that were cued while they were asleep, and were better at closely matching where those images went on the screen. Basically, it seems like playing the sounds reactivated the memory traces during sleep and helped consolidate them to make a stronger memory!

And this research doesn't just extend to visuospatial learning. Another member of my lab showed that participants can better learn to play a keyboard to produce a melody that's been cued during sleep rather than one that hasn't. So it appears this memory reactivation is multimodal, even when we sleep.

I cannot tell you how fascinating I find this research. Currently, I'm working on a project regarding implicit memory but I'm dying to get my toes wet in some sleep-memory research. I just haven't found the right research question yet.

Let me know if these projects bring any questions/ponderings to mind!

Creative on Demand

I feel like I have some idea of how many people in the creative field must experience their work. There's something very mentally straining in trying to be creative on demand. As a first year graduate student, I am supposed to jump right into research and get my feet wet. In other words, I am expected to  have a first year project. Generally, this isn't too much of a problem as advisors constantly have pet projects that they need someone to work on.

However, I was blessed with a very flexible advisor who is happy to let me approach problems that I find personally engaging. That means when I first met with him and asked about a first year project, he lobbed it back into my court and asked what I wanted to do. Thus, I've been asked to be creative on demand.

The thing is, you can't really be creative if you're stressed out. I'm someone who loves to have my entire schedule all planned out and obvious. But you can't plan how to come up with something as big as "what do I want to research?" So it has been a struggle.

But I think if I take some of the pressure off, I might be able to harness that intuitive thinking and come up with a cool first year project.

Short Update

I know I'm in the habit of having long breaks between posts and I'm trying to break that habit. So while this is a short post, I just wanted to make sure I'm keeping friends and family abreast of my life.

My first day outfit was an EEG dress and neuron jewelry

Speaking of which, I can now officially claim to be a graduate student! Yesterday was my first day at Northwestern University as a first year student. It still really hasn't hit me that I'm actually on my way to earning a PhD within the next 5 years. Sure that's quite a long time, but I couldn't be more thrilled to be on this journey.

Only a day into school and she's anxious to be an over-worked grad student? Yeah, I'm weird that way. I also prefer more structure to my schedule so I'm hoping to settle into a more full routine while still keeping some "me time." That's not to say I don't experience any anxiety. I know I've only just begun, but I'm chomping at the bit to have something to work on. I'm a bit of a work-a-holic and not having a current project makes me feel too lazy for comfort. I'm sure you're shaking your head.

I will do my best to post more often and will hopefully have some interesting fodder in the form of lectures and articles I will soon be devouring.