Over the last few years I've begun to notice that there is one thing that seems to be the cause of and solution to all life's problems.

​And unlike what the Simpson's say, its not alcohol.

​It's lasers.

I am no leader.

I think I would be alright as one. My future goals hint at becoming one. However, no matter what I do, I still don't feel like a person that others can get behind.

But to get ready for the day when I will hopefully become a leader, I've started to dabble at a few things.

• I started a wilderness running group (Team Humanzee). 
• I became a father of two daughters.
• I became a college professor. 
• I mentor students. 
• I hire summer interns. 
• I am chair of an advisory council.
• I'm on three conference planning committees.
• I coach and play on a softball team.
• I am a commissioner of a fantasy football league.
• I run a D&D roll-playing group as dungeon master. 
• I oversee an outreach and communication group at my office. 
• I organized a brownbag seminar series for two years.
• I wrote a book.
• I started a company as a public speaking coach (Your Next BIG Speech).

Hopefully someday I'll be ready to be a leader.

I mention all this because of an exchange I had with a friend the other day that helped put my life back in perspective. This person reminded me of the story of the drowning man who asked God to save him.

In that story, if you are unfamiliar, there is a big flood and a religious man asks God to save him. He ignores a bunch of attempts from other people who come along to rescue him expecting God to reach down from the heavens and pluck him to safety.

He finally dies.
 
When in Heaven, the man stood before God and asked, “I put all of my faith in You. Why didn’t You come and save me?”

And God said, “Son, I sent you a warning. I sent you a car. I sent you a canoe. I sent you a motorboat. I sent you a helicopter. What more were you looking for?”

I feel like there may be a moral there...maybe even one I can learn from.

Being a leader is not just about the end result. It's about making the choices and doing what is right as you move forward. As they say, it's more about the journey not the destination.

As insecure as I feel or as confused as I sometimes get, as long as I keep making the effort and providing others some form of benefit, entertainment, or affection then I must be doing alright.

The fancy titles and company prestige may never come, but that doesn't mean I'm not a good leader. Maybe I should start to reconsider my stance.

Maybe I am a leader.

​And if I can be one, so can you.

I'm a different kind of scientist. Or, at least, I feel different.

I'm as passionate about doing my research as I am about sharing what I learn.  See, I have a simple guiding principle that defines how I do science. It's my "50/50 Rule."

​50% doing. 50% sharing.*

* I need to give some credit to Bill Nye "the science guy" and Randy Olson, "Don't be such a scientist" for the inspiration growing up. Making science interesting and accessible is always a part of sharing it.

​I consciously spend half of my time and effort investigating, researching, and completing my work. Then, I spend an equal amount of time sharing it. This could be through reports, posts, presentations, web sites, meetings, conferences, or lunch parties. Any time I have a chance to talk science with someone, I do my best to take advantage of it. And when I talk with "them," I make sure my tone, descriptions, and effort match their level of knowledge on the subject. It's important that they understand what I'm sharing.

It's also worth noting, that I don't mean spend your first 50% of time doing and then your second 50% sharing. These efforts should be synchronous. Keep people abreast of what you are working on so that when you have results your audience is already anticipating and primed.  

Now, I've shared this rule with other scientists for years. I often get the same response: "I don't have the time or funding to do those things."

My solution is pretty simple - scale your research expectations and approach.

In science there is a thing called "scope creep." We are an inquisitive lot. We want to look for answers and we usually have a limited pot of money to find them. One problem with looking for answers is it often leads to more questions. What I've discovered through my combination of communication and research is that its best to keep it simple stupid (KISS).

Answer the question ahead of you, promote, market, highlight, share, etc. Then that will lead to more resources for you to continue to answer those other questions. Seeking money for research is hard and time consuming, but good communication and clear results help justify your worth. The more people are exposed to your research the more options you will have for continued funding. Don't just grab a pot of money, hide for three years doing as much work as you can squeeze out of it, then struggle to find more. Aim your research to be small, cheap, smart and clear. Then market the hell out of it.

It's often hard to justify or monetize the value of outreach. But I've seen it time and again. Those who show the most tend to keep getting the most work to do.

Part of the way to separate yourself from the rest is to stand out and do some things differently. Promoting and sharing more is a good start.

​Testify.

Communication is very much like marketing, where how you say something depends entirely on who you are talking to. For example, this blog is for casual readers with various types of education and background. I prefer to write content here in a very causal and conversational tone. I'm okay starting a sentence with a conjugation and ending one with a preposition. Grammar rules be damned. That is a conscious style choice that I think works best for my targeted audience.​

When it comes to writing about science, especially from a scientist's point-of-view, rewriting something for different audiences may seem like a waste of time. There is an ego involved that scientists' believe others should try harder and learn more so that they can be on the same level with them, the scientist. Otherwise, "its too complicated."

I call bullshit.

​I'm a scientist. You can see that by looking through my publications. But I'm also a communicator. I care about people knowing why things matter. I'm willing to put in the effort to help others understand what I'm talking about and why it is important. Apparently, so are YOU. That is why you are reading this post.

So, let's begin. How do you write your research for different audiences?

First, I want to clarify what I mean by different audiences? I usually try to keep it simple. I tend to clump audiences into three distinct groups: public, policymakers, and peers. The public are the average Joes who lack the same level of education, interest, or background as you. But if they see something cool or something affects them personally, then you have their attention.

You need to answer this question first (Public):
Why should they care?

Next, is the policymaker. These are your politicians, regulators, funders, administrators, etc. These are the people who allow you to do your research, they have a passing knowledge of the content, but mainly they need to decide if what you're doing is worthwhile enough to keep you doing it.

You need to answer this question first (Policymaker):
What can they do about it?

Lastly, there are your peers. These are people like you. Fellow researchers, instructors, teachers. Those who are well-informed and passionate. These are the folks you, as a scientist, are probably most familiar and comfortable writing for. In fact, 95% of what you've ever written probably has been targeted at this audience.

You need to answer this question first (Peer):
Where do we go from here?

But it is time to expand your horizon and grow as a writer. Time to be more than just a scientist.

Let's go through an actual example of translating science content for the three different audiences. Here is a study I published a couple of years ago in the Journal of Hydrology:

I'll start with the easy stuff. This is how you would write professionally for other scientists.

I'll copy my abstract from the article since I've already got this "writing for peers" shit covered. The wording and style should look and sound very familiar to you if you are a scientist.

Title
Estimating annual foliar biomass for a deciduous-dominant urban riparian corridor

Writing Example
For this study, we explored the amount, type, and distribution of foliar biomass that is deposited annually as leaf litter to Fanno Creek and its floodplain in Portland, Oregon, USA. Organic matter is a significant contributor to the decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations observed in Fanno Creek each year and leaf litter is amongst the largest sources of organic matter to the stream channel and floodplain. Using a combination of field measurements and light detection and ranging (lidar) point cloud data, the annual foliar biomass was estimated for 13 stream reaches along the creek. Biomass estimates were divided into two sets: (1) the annual foliage available from the entire floodplain overstory canopy, and (2) the annual foliage overhanging the stream, which likely contributes leaf litter directly to the creek each year. Based on these computations, an estimated 991 (±22%) metric tons (tonnes, t) of foliar biomass is produced annually above the floodplain, with about 136 t (±24%) of that foliage falling directly into Fanno Creek. The distribution of foliar biomass varies by reach, with between 150 and 640 t/km2 produced along the floodplain and between 400 and 1100 t/km2 available over the channel. Biomass estimates vary by reach based primarily on the density of tree cover, with forest-dominant reaches containing more mature deciduous trees with broader tree canopies than either wetland or urban-dominant reaches, thus supplying more organic material to the creek. By quantifying the foliar biomass along Fanno Creek we have provided a reach-scale assessment of terrestrial organic matter loading, thereby providing land managers useful information for planning future restoration efforts.

Evaluation
Looks similar to what you write, eh? Good. Hopefully, that should hopefully give me a bit of street cred.

Now, let's aim to translate that same material into one a policymaker could appreciate.

Tips for “Peer” Presentations (www.yournextbigspeech.com)

Title
Measuring the contribution and effect of leaf litter on water quality in an urban stream

Writing Example
For this study, we wanted to identify and measure the source, type, and quantity of leaf litter entering Fanno Creek each year. Water-quality issues seen in Fanno Creek, including low dissolved oxygen, high stream temperature, and high turbidity, are tied directly to the availability or contribution of leaves from the overhanging tree canopy. Estimates of the leaf litter vary along the creek, based primarily on the density of tree cover. As expected, densely forested reaches with more mature trees supply more leaves than either sparsely vegetated wetland or urban-dominant reaches. However, the slow moving or stagnant water in the wetland reaches are much more active at breaking down the leaf litter, thus exacerbating instream water-quality concerns. Therefore, its not necessarily the leaf production that is concerning, but rather the slow transport of the leaf litter through the creek. By mapping the sources of leaves, as well as highlighting areas where instream processes break down and alter the leaf composition, we have provided a reach-scale assessment that land managers can use for planning future restoration efforts.

Evaluation
​A little bit easier to understand, right? Notice how there is less need for actual data values. What is more important is the consequence and purpose of the study. The study was about tracking how trees contributed to instream issues. Not only that, but where and what the results meant to those who made decisions. I could have said we measured 991 metric tons, but what does that mean? Is that a lot? Is that more than you would expect? Less? Should that be changed? For policymakers, it about "why something matters" and "what can they do with this information."

​Policymakers make decisions. Help them come to the correct one.

Tips for “Policymaker” Presentations (www.yournextbigspeech.com)

Title
Do leaves really affect water quality in a stream?

Writing Example
For this study, we looked at how trees along a city stream can affect water quality. Trees provide many benefits, such as shading to keep a stream cool, or bank stability to keep a stream from eroding away nearby houses. However, there are some potential issues, as well. For example, if too many leaves fall into a stream and stay long enough that microbes break them down, then the decomposing leaves may adversely effect of the stream quality. Tiny organisms pull oxygen from the stream as they break down the leaves. If the amount of air in the water decreases, it begins to affect the ability of fish to breath.

Trees are needed to produce food, but like most meals, too much food (or keeping the food around for too long) is not good. Therefore, figuring out where, how big, and what type of trees live along Fanno Creek is the first step toward answering the question of "what effect do trees have on water quality?"

For our study, we were able to discover that although certain parts of stream supplied a lot of leaf litter, it was actually the wetland areas with few trees and slower water that allowed for the upstream leaf material to break down.

Managing this stream means trying to address whether you want to reduce the available leaves entering the stream or speed up the flow through the wetland areas. Either solution poses additional problems, but at least there is now evidence showing the way leaves affect the water quality of the stream.

BONUS:
Twitter post (example)
New Study: Scientists count how many leaves fall into stream...wait? what? Seriously?!? [bitly.link] #biomass

Tips for Presenting to a General Audience (www.yournextbigspeech.com)

Evaluation
And there you have it. Three stories, one study. It all has to do with context and meeting your audience's needs. There is no data provided in the public description, because "who cares." It is more important to explain what is happening at the broadest level so that they can understand why it's important.

Policymakers need to know about consequences with enough data to justify your and their decisions.

Peers want to know methods and values. How certain are you that the information is correct? It doesn't really matter if someone can use it properly, it's about advancing the science and providing a tool that someone else may be able to replicate if they need to answer a similar question.

That's all I have for this post. Please let me know what you think with comments below. Share, like, or subscribe and I'll make sure you continue to receive my future posts.

​Thanks for reading.

I've been playing around online a lot lately. I have some new things I've been working on that require a bit of time googling myself. I have discovered a few negative user comments that I wasn't aware of, but then I came across this little ditty, too. This made me smile.

Very appropriate word to describe me during my younger days. However, as an adult, I now enjoy a cocktail. But for those first 21 years of my life, this shit was spot on. Good job internet. And Karma. Oh. And coincidence. Bit of that, too.

Sobie
A person who enjoys the company of drunken or high people, and the atmosphere of parties where people are drunk or high, but neither drinks nor does drugs.

Any feeling of moral or ethical superiority on the part of the non-user disqualifies them from being called a sobie.

Also Sob, pronounced Soab, can be used for short.
He's a sobie, so he can drive us home, because the rest of us are in no condition.
#sob #soby #sober #teatotaller #drunk

I recently gave a presentation on how to talk science to normal people. After I finished there was the usual question and answer. One of the audience asked me a fairly simple question, which I sadly fumbled. "How do you explain scientific consensus to someone who doesn't agree?" I don't remember the rambling answer I gave at the time, but the question has been stuck with me ever since. I finally came up with what I think is a pretty decent answer and it involves cake.

The first thing a scientist needs to decide  when explaining scientific consensus is whether it is truly "science" or "scientific consensus" that is being questioned. If a person doesn't believe in science because it conflicts with their faith...no amount of explanation is going to persuade that individual. Faith is the belief in something without evidence. Science is knowledge gained through studying evidence. They are diametrically opposed. Antonyms, if you will. No single conversation will cause someone to lose their faith. But if the question is genuinely, "how do you explain scientific consensus?" then that can be described thusly...

Time to talk cake.