Dissemination: Get Out There and Strut Your Stuff!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Subscribe to Healthcare Triage! bit.ly/2GlEYWG
Let's say you're in the habit of doing scientific research. Or maybe you're an expert in a field who can concisely and coherently discuss research. Disseminate! There are more avenues than ever before to make your voice heard, and share the knowledge you worked hard to obtain. Aaron has all the details.
Aaron has a book out now! It’s called The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully. You can order a copy now!!!
Amazon - amzn.to/2hGvhKw
Barnes & Noble - www.barnesandn...
Indiebound - www.indiebound....
iBooks - itunes.apple.co...
Google - books.google.co...
Kobo - www.kobobooks.c...
Any local bookstore you might frequent. You can ask for the book by name or ISBN 978-0544952560
John Green -- Executive Producer
Stan Muller -- Director, Producer
Aaron Carroll -- Writer
Mark Olsen - Graphics
Meredith Danko - Social Media
/ aaronecarroll
/ crashcoursestan
/ johngreen
/ olsenvideo
And the housekeeping:
1) You can support Healthcare Triage on Patreon: vid.io/xqXr Every little bit helps make the show better!
2) Check out our Facebook page: goo.gl/LnOq5z
3) We still have merchandise available at www.hctmerch.com
Yes!!! I went into Science Communucation after Grad School, and none of my peers or faculty advisors seemed to think I was doing 'valuable work'. Thank you for talking about the importance of sharing what we know!
Your outro (at least for me) was blasting, loud music, with Dr. Carroll nearly inaudible. Sound editor!
Carl Fink +
Ditto
One concern I have regarding news outlets is that they do a consistently terrible job communicating science. Almost whenever I look into a paper behind some science news article, the article was effectively completely wrong, especially for general audience news outlets. They might not have read the paper, or they might not have understood it, or they might have intentionally misrepresented it to get more clicks, but it's not a bit off, it's just plain not representative of what the paper was about, even if they include out-of-context quotes from an author.
I think it would help if more scientist developed relationships with reporters, so that the reporters felt responsible to their source?
And of course scientists learning/inventing how to communicate relevantly to the lay-public could be very powerful in correcting this.
@@ssatva reporters are only responsible to their ad agency. Real science has never and will never bring as many eyes to advertisers as salacious ones and it would be bad form for a reporter to put relationships before work requirements. It's the same reason why the relationship between government staffers and reporters has broken down or why the relationship between celebrities and reporters is so toxic. They're selling ads, you're selling ideas... They don't care about you.
@@VirgilOvid gee, that's a helpful thought. Maybe if they have a relationship with science and researchers, they'll be more inclined to represent it honestly.
@Virgil Hawkins I have to admit I agree about the toxic effect of capitalism on reporting, I also find that the practice of forming human bonds and making the effort can overcome this in specific cases, which was all I was promoting.
You are dead on about the bigger problem, but it's going to take solving outside of the scope of this discussion!
Not to be negative, but in the current climate of skepticism on science, if any one starts going about how their work is revolutionary, if any of it is shown to not be so, the public will be even more skeptical about science and scientists... And although I concur with the need for scientists and science to be more open to the public, we need novel approaches and mass media is not be the appropriate one for this task.
Great work Dr Carroll for helping disseminate good medical and scientific content
i think that some vloggers in the fitness community are doing a good job at discussing new research in the field of fitness by staying away from the sensationalism the mainstream media uses to grab someones attention. the skepticism for many, including me, comes from so many failed attempts to use science to predict the future.
It is vital for scientists to discuss findings with each other. You can present your work in a way that is accurate to the found results. It is not claiming to be revolutionary but simply analyzing variable relations.
It is also vital to end up wrong sometimes. Experiments and papers are designed to be replicated and challenged. It's how growth happens. :)
Great video, if any of you shy scientists are out there and have an interesting topic you would like to discuss, I would be very happy to talk to you and make a video out of it as I am constantly looking for new interesting ideas.
Or even if it is just for fun (and not with me), it is important to step out of our comfort zone from time to time and keep pushing forward so our work is appreciated before we are dead :)
Additionally, if you don't get the word out, bad science will fill the void.
So also relevant for anyone who's trying to make something that's worth more, the more people know about it, like Art and Ideas!
Right down to the 'wait I'm an introvert, I'm supposed to *talk* to people?!' XD
Thanks for the encouragement, and may you inspire many others to share their passions, so we can learn from what they discover and create.
I enjoyed this video! Motivating on how to keep up in a fast-paced world
All your videos - content and delivery - absolutely amazing.
You know when you stumble upon something, and your brain just goes: "you really need to hear this, listen up."
the only video that kept me engaged. and i didnt die from boredom.
Absolutely love this! I am in the field of behavioral psychology and have been on a journey to understand how to create content in video form that disseminates the possibilities of the sceince. This resonates so much! I sent it off to the email list and our Patron as well. Thanks :)
Also signed up as a Triple thanks - keep it up folks!
For once, I have to (broadly) disagree with Dr. Carroll. Consider the statistics quoted 650 000 articles in 11 years, let's say 60 000 articles per year. OF COURSE only 0.34% make it into mass media, most of these are not intended for, and hold zero interest for, the general public - and that's OK!
I've repeatedly heard the call for scientists to do more to talk to the public, but that will never eliminate the pressing need for scientists in obscure sub-fields to talk to each other, in ways that are impenetrable to others. Most research, frankly, is not Mendel... and that's still OK! Nobody has the time to read 164 articles a day - particularly critical or momentous work can and does get highlighted, and there can be improvement there, but take this article for example - from the most recent Nature, the Research - Letters section (the largest section of that journal): "Perovskite light-emitting diodes with external quantum efficiency exceeding 20 per cent". This might be very important to some people - and those people will seek out the information, and find it because it is indexed and searchable. But does anybody here care? This is not a slam against the authors - I know nothing about this field, and I fully believe this is worthwhile research. But... it would be absurd to call a press conference about it. It's not newsworthy except to a small cadre of experts... and they ARE reading it.
Medical research tends to be much more "sexy" and more people want to read about it ... fine ... but this also means that medical research is plagued by press-release-driven hype, the very thing Dr. Carroll has to expend numerous vlogs counteracting. I'm sure the Perovskite diode field is better off without that. The messy nature of blue-sky research also runs the risk of increasing public apathy and distrust - watching the sausage get made takes a little preparation. Just generally saying "disseminate more" is unrealistic, ill-advised if not done judiciously, and even comes with potential harms. I doubt there's a hidden Mendel out there right now languishing in obscurity because nobody is reading his or her truly seminal papers - the system is better now, I think, in bringing the cream to the top more quickly. But only the cream needs further dissemination... 0.34% (~200 articles per year) is probably enough cream for most appetites, it just needs better-QUALITY dissemination (and this channel IS an example of high quality), not more company.
I see what you are saying, and agree with it to an extent, but Dr Caroll didn't say "call a press release every time you publish a paper", he said that scientist should do a better job of talking about their research.
Most of this new content will probably be ignored to be honest, but there is no downside to improving your communication skills.
I believe science should be more approachable to the people who aren't actively participating in its creation, and it does take scientists being more approachable to make that happen. :)
Mmm, well we're surely more in agreement than not, but I disagree there's no downside - lifetime is finite, and time spent doing one thing (say, writing a blog about one's crystallographic research to a readership of 6 or 7 curious hobbyists) is time not spent cooking a meal with one's family.
On listening to this piece again, I really like the idea of scientists making themselves more available for background and support of science journalists and others... but if anything I'm even more in disagreement with the premise that more dissemination of most work is necessarily a good thing. In particular, Dr. Carroll makes a very unsupported assertion that work that never gets into the mainstream media "didn't happen" (see 5:09, and similarly, 4:53). Science doesn't advance by press conference - and especially in the ordinary trenches as opposed to high-profile megaprojects, scientists advance their fields by talking to each other, not by talking to the media. It's good when the later, more consumer-ready work does get presented broadly... but that happens already. Of course there's room for improvement.
What we don't need, and what is IMHO worse than useless, are scientists prematurely trumpeting the value and implications of their work... because of course most scientists do have a somewhat burnished view of their own work, and it's only natural and proper that they do. But letting that work percolate through the journals (even the minor ones), mature and be developed by conversations and collaborations with other experts, that leads to dissemination-worthy findings - with zero risk that experts will ignore it, because people in fields do talk to each other, even if they ignore "the public". Self-promotion is a necessary evil for some, but Dr. Carroll's call to action would lead to even more "Arsenic-based life" flaps, cold fusion flops, microbes from Mars, and other sexy, news-grabbing stories that hurt the credibility of science and scientists, in a world already drowning in mediocre information and unreliable sources. The public is being anaesthetized by excess content already... and science is working pretty well as-is.
I need to be able to up vote this like 100+ times!
Interesting ideas. As a scientist, I used to publish whenever things were ready. But nowadays I'm a bit more aware of timing and self-promotion bits... it's all for science! (I just hope that the bad science results are not getting more benefit than the good science results)
I could see this leading to more videos about the importance of flu shots and proportionally fewer about how lemon water cures cancer. And then where would RUclips be?
Very nice video. Everyone watch it all!!
Awesome idea for a video!
Thank you, you gave me some great ideas for promoting my own research. I work with Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Life.
Thank you so much! This is really inspiring!
Great advice ！
Interesting video! Fascinating to hear about the issues and concerns for researchers like this, even as a layperson. Keep doing great stuff!
Love this channel.
💙
Mendel was primarily a monk not a scientist.
Wow! This looks interesting
Do women and minorities get more hate or does the hate just land harder because they're a disadvantaged group already fighting society for acceptance? I tend to think that people just look at a target and aim for whatever weakness they can find.
Speaking for the introverts: This should not be part of a researcher's job! No researcher works outside of an institution; let that institution hire extrovert public relations people who live to shout things from the hilltops. Then the researchers could be sure to keep themselves available to these PR people, but introverts just can't do this kind of thing themselves. If they manage to get on a mass media forum, viewers change the channel because they're not engaging. PS Dr. Aaron: *You*, sir, are not an introvert. Trust me. Not even close.
Thanks for the tips, but I'm in this because I want to know the answers to the questions I'm working on, not to try and change/save the world; that (if it ever happens) would be complete happenstance. Besides, I'd ultimately prefer to spend my time working on the next question I have than trying to find an "audience" for what I've found.
I'll publish my work the same as always; if the world notices but doesn't understand, they can come ask me and I'll do my best to explain the parts they don't get as well as I can. I'll get it wrong because I'm not good at explaining things in simple terms, but I'll certainly try if they ask. If the world ignores the findings entirely, that's their decision and they'll find it again when the world's ready for it. Or someone else will replicate my work, which only increases the statistical probability that I was correct, which is something to celebrate anyway.
I just realized that the thing behind you is an anatomical model of a gummy bear.
Also let’s not forget how biting the peer review process is already. When you’ve already put in countless hours just to appease reviewers who all tell you that your work sucks just to get published, spending even MORE time on the same research to explain it further to varying levels of lay audiences that all want to express their opinions at me prevents me from moving forward. Unless you already are set up with a supportive infrastructure, there is almost zero benefit to dissemination built into the system currently.
But... What if I am wrong?
It's better to try and be wrong than not to try at all! Scientists are wrong all the time
But, what if they go with it, and, let's say, lobotomize someone? Not literally, but the same sort of situation.
Then others speak up to refute it! Just like in the 30's when genetic purity was a "popular" thing leading to a lot of segregation and stigmatization, other scholars catch on, refute and change the destructive findings.
I think of the things that could be changed in the world currently, could get their start from any type of conversation ('good and bad')
@el kudos another thought- when scientists review what a person discovers they often ask ethical and moral questions to see if the study holds biases or flaws in development. Having radical opinions without sound evidence is usually dismissed
I hope the pseudo-scientists out there don't see this video.
But Dr Carroll, what if my research ISN'T groundbreaking. I've worked a lot on it, but it just isn't that great. Zebrafish have "olfactory" cells on their fins which regenerate after a fin amputation. Wooptidoo!
they can smell with their fins? if that's true, that's awesome.
That’s very interesting
No need to be groundbreakning. People are bored with their life, that's why we are looking at stupid TV shows (do you realise the vast business it is). Offer us something to have fun and learn.
How would you present your work to a kid, make it fun or unusual? You have an easy project to present science as fun and interesting for the next generation. Can it help to further design a cure for olfactory loss (Try to have appetite when it taste all the same)?...can apetite of fish be control per perfume :is shrimp pee better than algae smoothie?...is it to expensive to add one silly odor test in your sample to have a fun 30sec video?
kids will be so astonish to read about it in national geographic kids...
Maybe you can support a teenager in a science fair testing odors best attracting on zebra fish?
Write something short one page maximum, fun to read for a 10 year old, include a colorfull picture, 1h job.
What i'm hearing is, i should do a CHOCOLATE CURES CANCER study and p hack my way into the media!