Its time for another listicle! This one is devoted to my love for the field of marine biology and the scientists who study ocean ecosystems. Here are five reasons why I think marine biology is awesome:
It’s like MacGyver meets James Bond.
Pretty much any marine biology field or lab experiment involves the combination of some very complicated and expensive equipment and software (NanoDrop ND‐1000 spectrometer and Illumina GAIIx platform, anyone?) plus a black trash bag, bungee chords, and lots of masking tape. Field biologists are some of the most resourceful individuals I know, combining the skills of an engineer, a magician, and a secret agent to solve problems with minimal resources and time.
I literally heard a scientist say the phrase, “it’s poop that matters” in a recent presentation. Marine biologists get to study some pretty fascinating things, and it turns out that one of those things is poop. In fact, excrement from organisms such as reef fish or whales is a huge and extremely important component of marine food webs and flows of nutrients through ocean ecosystems. Whether its parrot fish poop helping create tropical beaches, or blue whale feces fertilizing entire ocean basins, poop matters, and marine biologists are there to study it.
Oh the places you’ll go.
They say that life is about the journey, not the destination. But if you’re a marine biologist, the destination is usually a pretty big perk. Most people save up precious dollars to honeymoon in Bora Bora or the Caribbean, but marine biologists get to go to these places year after year, snorkeling, diving, exploring beautiful and exotic places that most people only see in glossy magazines. Sure, they’re probably staying in an un-air conditioned mosquito-ridden shack rather than a swank bungalow with a jacuzzi tub—but that just adds to the charm. Let’s not forget those intrepid biologists that explore the sea beneath Antarctic ice or deep in the Mariana trench. Unless your James Cameron, being a marine biologist is one of the surest ways to experience these far-flung regions.
For the love of nudes.
Nudibranchs that is. I love that marine biologists get super excited about the tiniest most obscure organisms—including the colorful little sea slugs knows as nudibranchs. The childish sense of wonder and glee that marine biologists display for their study species, whether it’s sea otters or sea lice, gives me the warm and fuzzies. Of course this tendency isn’t unique to marine biologists, but it seems that studying ocean organisms predisposes you to adorably obsessing over said organism and having it displayed on everything you own, from clothing and jewelry to wall art, kitchen gadgets, and phone cases).
It comes down to one word.
Probably my favorite thing about marine biology is the official word scientists use to describe a tiny chunk of coral: nubbin. It brings me great pleasure to listen to a scientific talk about the genetic sequencing of coral species and listen to the presenter describe how they collected and sampled coral nubbins. There is even a scientific paper titled “Coral nubbins as source material for coral biological research: A prospectus.” I will never not smile when I hear the word nubbin and it warms my heart that there are scientists out there whose research depends on procuring nubbins.
In all seriousness, one of the things I love most about marine biology is that it’s a field of study composed of countless passionate individuals who care deeply about the ocean, the planet, and biodiversity. I’ve met many uber-intelligent marine biologists using innovative approaches to learn more about how our planet works and how we can protect it into the future. These folks are doing what they love, working very long hours (often for not very high pay), and pushing the boundaries of our understanding of life on earth.
A big thanks to all the biologists, all the scientists, all the passionate and curious thinkers and doers out there making a difference!
I have a deep, dark, shameful secret to admit—poster sessions at conferences make me cringe. There, I said it.
It’s not actually the sessions that bother me—I think they provide an opportunity to have one-on-conversations with colleagues and prospective collaborators, all while partaking in (hopefully free) booze and greasy snacks.
No, it’s the posters themselves that make my science communicator heart sad. When did it become the norm for posters to have infinitely small text, ridiculously jargony language, and obscenely dull visuals? Why isn’t anyone making use of the many at-your-fingertips editing and design apps to jazz up their posters these days? Who are those people taking time to actually read any of these wall-mounted journal articles? They must be angels.
I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve walked past a poster that grabbed my attention and reeled me in for a closer read, and one of those times was because the poster was about manatees—my all-time favorite ocean animal. But the other times were posters that used an eye-catching design, graphics, and images, and more importantly didn’t include superfluous text. Most other posters look like they’ve downloaded their template straight from the PowerPoint starter pack:
I think that all conference posters should be, nay deserve to be, eye-catching and creative. I don’t really blame the poster authors for the current state of blandness. Most of us are just following advice, templates, or examples from senior members of our field, assuming that a conference poster has to follow a specific set of poster-design commandments passed down through the ages. Poster sessions have become as standard as talks at scientific conferences, and the ‘poster presentation’ is a rite of passage for most graduate students.
But guess what? There are no poster commandments. And the budding young scientists rejoiced.
There are recommendations and guidelines for conference posters, but almost no conference committee requires that a poster be designed to look exactly like a scientific paper smooshed all onto one page. It’s true! Release the shackles. I looked up poster guidelines for several of the largest science conferences in my field, and not one of them prescribed a strict template. In fact, most stressed that less text and more visuals were preferred, and that posters should be used to spark conversation, not summarize your work in full detail.
Here are three examples of poster guidelines I found on conference websites:
The American Geological Union (AGU) states, “Include the background of your research followed by results and conclusions. A successful poster presentation depends on how well you convey information to an interested audience.”
The International Marine Conservation Congress (IMCC): “Text should be limited to brief statements. Each poster should make a unified, coherent explanation of your work. Materials, both textual and visual, should be of professional quality and clearly legible from a distance.”
Ecological Society of America (ESA): The only specific poster guidelines listed on the ESA website are related to poster size dimensions.
So why aren’t more scientists breaking free from the standard PowerPoint three column poster template? It may be fear of breaking an unwritten norm and losing esteem in the eyes of their colleagues. Or it could be they just don’t realize that they have nearly a blank slate upon which to slather creativity and novelty. Either way, in the hopes of encouraging at least a few future poster presenters out there to consider changing it up, I’ve created a list of five things to avoid when making a conference poster, and what you can do instead. This isn’t an exhaustive list of pointers for designing a good poster—there are plenty of sites out there with that kind of information (like this, this, or this). My list is more about hacking away at the wretched habits of generations of boring posters, and moving into an era free from (okay, at least less dominated by) columns and boxes.
If you consider these four points the next time you are tempted to default to that icky PowerPoint template, your local science communicator will thank you, and may just give you a big grateful hug. And if you need help with a design, don’t be afraid to reach out to the #scicomm community!
Alright, without further ado, here are four conference poster no-no’s according to a scientist turned science communicator:
1. Text, text and more text.
Your poster doesn’t need to describe every detail about your research. That’s what the interaction at poster sessions is for—the talk with other people about your work. Focus on the broader context and importance of your research, rely more on visuals, and provide your contact info so interested folks can contact you if they want to know more. A viewer should “get it” in 30 seconds. You can provide in-depth information in a handout.
A good rule of thumb I’ve seen is that if you removed all the body text from your poster, your visuals should still be able to tell a story. If you’re really feeling bold, do away with paragraphs all together! Just use dot points and key phrases that people can easily follow. Also, try to keep 40% of the poster area empty of text and images. I would also love to see more posters with titles that I can understand without needing five PhDs (one is enough for me, thanks!). Simple language does not mean less scientifically sound.
Here’s some inspiration:
2. Boring boxes in boring columns in boring colors.
While you don’t want your reader to be confused about how to follow the story you present on your poster, there is no law stating you have to use 3 columns with one box for each section and the standard Microsoft color scheme. There just isn’t. You can still organize your points from top to bottom and left to right, or by separating text using boxes in some cases, but you can do this and still make an interesting design. Think infographic instead of scientific poster.
Here are some examples:
3. Low quality images that look like pixelated blobs.
Okay, so you’ve thrown a bunch of images on your poster to take the place of the text, but you failed to consider whether they were high enough resolution, or whether anyone would be able to tell that that pixelated bunch of brown cells is actually a soil sample under a microscope. Instead, make sure to use high quality images (check the file size and resolution), crop as necessary to focus on key parts of the image, and try to use photos that have contrasting colors or clear features that enhance your research story. Do you study wombats or pitcher plants or tardigrades? Use several awesome photos of them on your poster! Even if you study something less glamorous or more abstract, use drawings, cartoons, or photos of the habitat/region you study that draw attention to your topic, like this poster:
4. Complicated figures that make people run away scared.
Similar to using bad images, bad figures negate the point of using visuals in your poster. I know it takes added time and effort, but I beg of you to simplify graphs, charts, or other figures so that they are easily interpreted in under 10 seconds. Again, you want people to ask you questions. While you’re at it, make sure they are high enough resolution to read clearly at full size. Don’t just plop a big graph on your poster to take up space and reduce your need to come up with descriptive text. Instead, highlight just the most important or interesting outcomes of your research, and leave your readers wanting more.
Do you have other suggestions or thoughts about conference poster design and presentation? Leave them in the comments below!
BTW, here’s an Infographic version with the 4 poster No-No’s for those who want a way less wordy version!
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
-Stephen Hawking (1942-2018)
In March, researchers announced the discovery of a ‘super colony’ of Adélie penguins hidden amongst the remote Danger Islands off the northernmost tip of Antarctica. The colony’s existence was confirmed using satellite imagery, and scientists estimated its size using the latest drone technology and neural network software.
Finding roughly 1.5 million penguins thriving in this region—especially since their kin in the western Antarctic Peninsula are suffering population declines—should be a good news story, right?
The discovery certainly received a great deal of media coverage. The news that Adélie penguins as a species are in better shape than researchers previously thought should give us renewed hope and inspire greater support for two planned marine protected areas in the Danger Islands, which would help safeguard this newly found penguin colony from human encroachment.
Yet, although this discovery has raised morale for many wildlife biologists and environmental conservationists, it has also sparked vitriol from science scoffers and professional trolls.
A scroll through the comments section in The Independent’s coverage of the story shows just how wide the gap is between what scientists do, and what people think scientists do. Many of the comments revolved around scientists being incompetent and stubborn, such as this one:
The comment highlights one of the most common ways people misinterpret science. The commenter seems to imply that science is a farce because scientists thought they knew how many penguins existed. This new discovery shows that they did not. Therefore, science cannot be trusted. The thing that haters don’t seem to understand is that science is built on a foundation of continually evolving ideas based on introduction of new evidence. Science is not static, it seeks to hone theories and improve our understanding incrementally as we gather more and more information to support or refute ideas.
Science is not a religion that scientists proselytize (at least, not for most of us); it is a framework for continually improving our understanding of the world. Scientists had a prior estimate of penguins based on evidence at the time. That estimate has now been updated based on the introduction of new evidence. That’s exactly how science is supposed to work. Discovering that the Adélie penguin population is larger than previously thought in no way negates the thousands of lines of evidence documenting climate change impacts. Neither does it imply that Adélie populations elsewhere aren’t suffering declines. It simply increases our baseline knowledge and allows for more accurate population modeling.
Another comment illustrates another common misplaced complaint about science—that because scientists didn’t know about this penguin colony, they obviously don’t know what they are talking about with anything else, including climate change; their research can’t be trusted:
First of all, I don’t think the commenter understands just how remote and rugged the Danger Islands are, located in a turbulent, difficult to reach part of the Southern Ocean. They aren’t called Danger Islands for nothing. Even if researchers had been able to locate the colony via satellite imagery long before now, they would have struggled to estimate the population size without the drone and software technologies that have only recently become widely available (and affordable).
Second, the commenter falls into the all too common trap of false equivalence: slick scientists tell us climate change causes ice to melt, but this penguin colony is surrounded by ice. Therefore, climate change must not be happening, so Ha! This argument fails to acknowledge the many known intricacies of global climate change, including the fact that while some areas of the planet are steadily warming (and ice is melting at worrisome rates), other areas are still fairly stable or even experiencing more extreme cold weather patterns. The point that seems to get buried beneath layers of ideology is that climate change is creating a more volatile climate system across the planet, and this is well documented.
The equipment to measure greenhouse gas quantities and origins has existed for decades, and climate models are becoming more and more accurate every year. We know, for example, that the Arctic sea ice minimum, which occurs around September each year, is declining at a rate of about 13% per decade. Arctic winters are also warming steadily at an alarming rate—just last month researchers documented an unprecedented heat wave in the region. As this heat invades the Arctic (due to rising ocean temperatures and sea rise), cool air is pushed south causing extreme cold-snaps in northern temperate latitudes.
And it’s not just the Arctic. A NASA study using innovative data analysis techniques to interpret satellite data has provided the clearest picture yet of changes in Antarctic ice flow. The study found that ice loss is accelerating on the West Antarctic ice sheet, while remaining steady in the east. This evidence actually helps explain why ice-dependent Adélie penguins seem to be doing so much better in the Danger Islands than their Western Peninsula counterparts.
Where all the rich climate scientists at?
Of course, one could argue that all of these thousands of climate scientists (who are a completely different group of people than the marine biologists that discovered the penguin colony, by the way) are just in cahoots to keep the grant money flowing in and their pockets overflowing. Except that they aren’t. But the argument keeps getting made, often with the implication that academic researchers are all part of one big conspiracy to ruin the world for everyone else:
I hate to break it to you, but neither I nor any of the scientists I know sought an academic research career because of the promise of dollar signs or job security (less than one third of faculty at public universities are tenured, e.g.). Most climate scientists work at academic institutions, government agencies, or NGOs and earn less (sometimes a lot less) than $100,000 per year. Even U.S. college professors only earn on average $75,000 per year. Sure, that’s nothing to scoff at. But it’s hardly even worth comparing to the millions of dollars these folks would be pocketing each year if they had opted to work for, say, a multinational oil company instead of a government agency or university.
Besides, when you add in the average combined undergraduate and graduate student loan debt of around $70,000, and the six to ten years of courses and research it takes to earn a PhD, it becomes harder and harder to argue that climate scientists are in it for the money. And it doesn’t get much better once you graduate—nearly half of U.S. PhD recipients don’t have a job lined up at graduation. Those that do often accept post-doc positions that pay an average annual salary of $40,000. The number of tenure-track positions is shrinking every year, and competition is painstakingly stiff for those that remain (one of my good friends recently applied for an academic position and learned that nearly ONE THOUSAND other similarly qualified people also applied).
What’s more, U.S. grant money for climate change research has remained relatively flat for the last twenty years, hovering around a total of about $2 billion coming from 13 different agencies and spread out among thousands of individual research grants. Compare that to the annual budget of the NIH at more than $30 billion, or the yearly profit of Exxon at $16 billion. Research science is not a career you choose to be rich and famous. It’s a career you choose because you are innately curious or passionate about solving problems (or maybe you have a masochistic bent). For more on what really happens to grant money awarded to climate scientists, check out this video by climate scientist and Evangelical Christian Kathryn Hayhoe.
Climate scientists may have deep pockets, but they’re filled with crumbled sticky notes and candy wrappers, not hundred-dollar bills.
How do we build a bridge between science and society?
Russian trolls and paid nay-sayers aside, scientists obviously have some work to do to more clearly communicate how they do science, what processes they use, and why their work is relevant to society. The field of science communication is rapidly growing and maturing to help on this front, but we still have a long way to go. It’s not just about doing away with jargon and simplifying complex concepts. It’s about connecting with people who have different values and worldviews. As Lisa Saffran writes in Scientific American:
“No matter how clear the findings and how scientifically literate the audience, if the information poses a threat to one’s identity then the scientist might as well be speaking, well, Greek.”
Scientists and science communicators must therefore hone their ability not only to translate scientific language, but also to listen to others and hear their concerns, and to engage them in discussions about what matters to all of us—such as the health of our families and communities.
As tKatharine Hayhoe puts it, “We live in a situation now where the fear of solutions is greater than the fear of impacts.” People are driven by fear, particularly the fear of losing their freedom of choice, and respond negatively to issues that might best be addressed at large government scales.
Fortunately, science storytelling is becoming recognized as an important way for scientists to connect with non-scientists and lay bare their own fears, hopes, and motivations. Dozens of training workshops, such as Story Collider, help train scientists to tell stories about their work that are accessible and interesting to public audiences.
Science education also needs to become a greater priority in schools and universities, with a particular focus on engaging students from diverse backgrounds and reducing barriers to obtaining a STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) education. As important will be teaching students to ‘think’ scientifically—i.e., to train people to “be their own science referees—that is, to understand how science works, and to identify baloney when it’s slung at them,” as Mike Klymkowskly writes in a blog about science education.
Klymkowskly argues that a lot of the public misunderstanding around science comes down to the way that science is taught and popularized. Teachers, books, shows, and movies about science tend to de-emphasize the process and instead focus on schnazzy facts and outcomes. I don’t think programs like Nova or Planet Earth are doing a disservice to science just because they focus on ‘wow’ factors, as Klymkowskly seems to imply. But I do think we have a responsibility to de-mystify scientific processes (because there are many), teach the history of science, and emphasize the importance of critical thinking in all fields of learning.
The Moral of the Science Story
What can we take away from all this? One, there are way more penguins in Antarctica than we previously thought (yay!). Two, climate change is still happening (Boo!). Three, scientists need to do a better job of communicating to non-scientists not only about scientific research, but about how the scientific process itself works.
We are all born curious, with a desire to understand the world around us and find our place in it. Most of us are also driven by an innate desire to make the world (or at least our immediate surroundings) a positive, safe space for ourselves and loved ones. Science is one framework through which we can gather evidence and refine ideas to do both of these things, but it must be made more accessible to diverse groups. We as scientists (and communicators) must work to depoliticize and clarify issues like climate change so that we can work with society to find common solutions, as well as common ground.