The Purdue Lecture Hall Series

Earlier this semester, I was invited to speak about my research at The Purdue Lecture Hall Series (TPLHS). TPLHS is an evening seminar series for high school students, teachers, and parents from the Greater Lafayette community organized by the Purdue Institute of Inflammation, Immunology and Infectious Disease (PI4D) in partnership with Mr. Joseph (Joe) Ruhl from Lafayette Jefferson High School. The series celebrates the work of a wide variety of the life scientists that represent the different areas of research within PI4D and it is meant to inspire high school students to consider life sciences as a career choice.

I began my talk by delving into my background in STEM — from high school and undergraduation to my Master’s research experience and starting my doctoral research at Purdue. I spoke about the brain and drug discovery for neurological disorders. I introduced the students to brain immunity and the role of microglial cells in phagocytosis and inflammation during Alzheimer’s disease. During the course of the talk, I also introduced the two undergraduate students who work closely with me in the lab since I was informed that many high schoolers in the audience were interested in pursuing undergraduate research while in college. This was a great opportunity to talk about how different labs on campus function and how one should go about getting involved in research early on during their undergraduate studies. Overall, this was a great experience since it made me step out of my comfort zone (which involves very little interaction with the general public) and also hopefully inspired a few students to be curious about science and research!

 

Advertisements

The three tiers of science communication

Perhaps one of the most important yet widely ignored skills that us scientists need to cultivate is to communicate our science better. By “communicate science”, I am not simply referring to publishing research articles and reviews in journals and publications. This is about conveying ideas, research, theories, and facts to a wide audience. This is harder than it seems. On a day-to-day basis, we are so engrossed in our little scientific bubble that we hardly engage with people from outside our labs, departments, and universities. For example, I can prepare to present my work during our weekly group meetings with an accurate understanding of how to introduce my research project to my fellow lab members and what data to present during my talks. Most individuals in my program or department have an understanding of the common scientific language and the several jargons that are overused during the talks and seminars.

I would like to think that being in my research group has given me a better understanding of communicating my work to my fellow peers.  My lab is a “hybrid” wet and dry lab i.e., it is comprised of computer scientists, computational chemists, synthetic chemists, and biologists. Our group meetings are extremely interdisciplinary covering a multitude of topics ranging from machine learning and molecular dynamics to immunology and cancer biology. At this point in my career, I am certain and confident with my ability to convey the scope of my project and the several particular aspects of my current research.

The most challenging audience are individuals who are completely outside the realm of our scientific bubble. These individuals serve critical roles in our society but are overlooked by us all the time. I have interacted with my friends and family from different professions and they’re always intrigued by my work and more specifically about *what* we do in the lab and *how* we do science. These are important questions that not only establishes confidence in the scientific community but also bridges the gap between our worlds. Questions that may seem simple or even silly to us may be important in the large scheme of things. For example, the other day, my friend asked me “How do the lab mice get Alzheimer’s disease?” To answer this, I could have just said that there are several transgenic models of mice with genetic mutants that spontaneously develop Alzheimer’s over time. This is an answer that I would have had for someone in the scientific community. But for my friend who happens to be a business associate, I candidly described genetics of the disease, how mice are bred in laboratories, and how they develop plaques that can be viewed in their brain tissue sections. In order for the public to trust us, first and foremost, they need to be aware and educated on the basic scientific methods and principles. This includes communication about the bases of experimental design, process of gathering significant data, peer reviewing, reproducibility, etcetera.

This brings me to what I consider are “the three tiers of science communication” that scientists should cultivate. We need to learn how to communicate our science to:

  1. Our fellow peers in the field i.e., individuals from our specific area of research
  2. Our scientific colleagues from different areas of research
  3. The general public including individuals from other professions

Tier #1 is a no-brainer. Individuals from this tier read and review our work. They are critical of every aspect of our research and question the scientific methods used. They make signifiant contributions to our work and provide guidance for the growth of our research. Tier #2 is tricky. Why would I, a neurobiologist want to communicate my work to a computer scientist or a meteorologist even? A major aspect of creating new solutions to old problems is to collaborate with scientists from outside our specific focus areas. Drug discovery is not possible without computer scientists teaming up with chemists and biologists. Many of the problems in the areas of neuroscience such as understanding of neural circuits and systems, cognitive and behavioral neuroscience, etcetera would not be solvable without the help of electrical and mechanical engineers.

Individuals from tier #3 are probably one of the most significant yet overlooked in this regard. Science communication to the general public does not happen until there is a problem affecting people from the both worlds. Involving this tier should not be limited to the difficult times but should be an ongoing process. It should be a part and parcel of our work. Much has already been said about this. How do we make science outreach a regular part of our work? Should the burden of outreach not be imposed on scientists at all? We need more science communicators breaking out of our bubble and out into the real world. Furthermore, many grad students and researchers make contributions in their own way. For example, using social media (#scicomm on twitter and instagram) for science outreach is a great way to reach thousands of individuals from your fingertips while working in your lab. No fancy equipment, no travel money, no event organization necessary! Well established senior scientists with the means and resources should strive to connect with and impact a larger audience.

 

Science vs. the scientist

A common thought in the entertainment industry is whether an artist and their art can be held in mutually exclusive standards. Do you like a song because you like the musician or do you like a musician because you like their song? Can the two be separated from one another? People boycott Woody Allen films because they do not want to support his career or his power in the entertainment industry. By watching his movies, do we validate his actions by contributing to his growth as an artist? Same goes with Harvey Weinstein and many others.

Similar parallels can be drawn with scientists and their science. For example, James Watson may have contributed to one of the most significant discoveries in science -the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA- or may have led a great scientific undertaking with the Human Genome Project, but relinquished his reputation when his racist and sexist remarks were made apparent. Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist, cosmologist, famous atheist, and a “liberal crusader“) was recently accused of sexual harassment which was followed by more allegations and expose by female academics on social media. I have thoroughly enjoyed Krauss’ popular science opinions as well as supported his science and public policy advocacy in the past. The recent allegations and accusations have left me transfixed about whether his work deserves my support at this point. Will I (indirectly) validate Krauss’ ghastly actions by supporting his scientific literacy and the skeptic movement? The deep dark spaces on the Internet harbors more stories about prominent scientists. Do scientific contributions become less significant due to the scientists’ reprehensible actions and behavior? One may argue that science is larger than one individual where do we draw the line?

The fact of the matter is that scientific principles, discoveries, and inventions do not stem from one individual. The credibility of scientist is validated by several other scientists in charge of legitimizing the science with a proof of approval. Does continuing to fund and support such researchers mean validation of bad behavior? The forthcoming ripple effect and propagation of a toxic environment will eventually affect others in the community. Science is scrutinized and validated by peer review over and over again. Is it time to scrutinize and peer review scientists as well?

More: Harassment case opens dialogue and When will science get its #metoo moment?