by Abby Stitgen
Want to skip right to the survey? Click here! (Must be at least 18 years old and have graduated or be close to graduation from a US academic institution in chemistry or a closely related field.)
Every time I go back to Wisconsin to visit my family, I get asked the same questions: “So, how is your research going?” “Why do your experiments never seem to work?” “When are you going to graduate?”
“Wait, explain to me what you even do again?”
Have I explained my research to them hundreds of times at this point? Perhaps. But they’re not chemists; my parents are accountants (and not the fun kind), my brothers are computer geeks, and I am the sole scientist. So every time they ask, I try and explain my research to them in a way that makes sense: I say that I am making glow-in-the-dark particles called carbon dots that will change colors when they touch bad bacteria like Salmonella or Listeria.
They don’t need to know that my materials are technically not glow-in-the-dark because they’re fluorescent, not phosphorescent, and the timescale of fluorescence is much shorter than it is for phosphorescence. They also don’t need to know that I am being completely delusional when I say it will change colors when interacting with bacteria; at best, it will glow less bright, and the suppression of the fluorescence is what will help me to detect and quantify the amount of bacteria present. They also don’t need to know that it’s unlikely I’m going to be able to detect both Salmonella and Listeria because one is Gram positive and one is Gram negative and their surface chemistries are very different, necessitating very different glow-y nanoparticles to detect them. They don’t need these details to get excited about what I am doing, and that excitement is what is important to convey. As long as their eyes are not glazing over with boredom and confusion, I am doing my job of effectively communicating my science. And sometimes they might even ask follow-up questions about some of those details!
Frequently, people view scientists as ineffective communicators who are only concerned with being viewed as the smartest person in the room. In fact, a 2024 Pew Research study found that more people view scientists as having a superiority complex than as being good communicators (woof).
Not to say those haughty scientists don’t exist, but the world of science communication extends so much further than confusing and frankly eyeroll-worthy presentations that only a small sliver of the population could possibly understand. It’s also present in BBC nature documentaries, in your local aquariums, in butterfly museums, and in YouTube video essays about the history of life on earth (check out Lindsay Nikole, by the way; her videos are my latest hyperfixation because she’s a very effective science communicator!). It’s present in the blog post I wrote about how you can use crochet to model nanotechnology. And yes, it is present in conversations with my parents about my graduate studies.
Now more than ever, it is important for scientists to put value on engaging with non-scientists and talking about science effectively. Despite science communication and outreach work helping to further research institutions’ goals for community engagement, some researchers still see it as a distraction from academic progress. Support for students to learn about and engage in science communication with the public can vary a lot across different graduate programs – and even among research groups within each program. But we don’t really know how those differences can shape a graduate journey, and lately I’ve been really invested in this issue. For example, do people who care about science communication learn how to do it on their own regardless of programmatic support? Does having support to explore science communication and outreach during graduate school influence how scientists approach public communication after they get their PhD?
To help explore these questions, I have created a study looking at how participation in science communication and outreach during graduate school affects post-graduate outlooks. One of the hypotheses being explored is about how employers versus academic institutions value science communication skills. Results from this survey could be used to support decisions about investment in developing these skills throughout graduate school.
If you are interested in participating in this study, you can use this link or scan the QR code below. Participants must be at least 18 years old and have graduated (or intend to graduate within the next year) from a US academic institution in chemistry or a closely related field. All survey submissions are anonymous, and there are no foreseen risks associated with this study.
Thank you for considering participating in this study!
REFERENCES
- Juhasz-Dora, T.; Lindberg, S.-K.; Karlsen, A.; Ortega, S. Biofluorescent Response in Lumpfish Cyclopterus Lumpus to a Therapeutic Stressor as Assessed by Hyperspectral Imaging. Sci Rep 2024, 14 (1), 2982. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-53562-7
- Tyson, A. & Kennedy, B. Report: Public Trust in Scientists and Views on Their Role in Policymaking. Pew Research Center 2024. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/11/14/public-trust-in-scientists-and-views-on-their-role-in-policymaking/