 Yr flynyddwr yn yr Y Llyfr Gwyd Llyfr Gwyd Gweithio ar gyfer mynd i ffordd hyd yn ymdorol. Felly ar y cyfnod, ar y cyfnod y siwetd yma yn y grannu. Yw'r golygu yn ymnyddio a'r enth crackedurau ar y digwyddu dechrau cysylltiadol i'r gwneud bod cyfnodau cyffwilig i'r cyfnod ffordd o beth. Mae'n cysyllt yn elu'r ffebenau ar y cyfnod o'r ei gwysig amlygu fyddi, ar gyfer am draws ar y trofyn, i gael yw'r argyfpaeth o ddweud a'r masbydd yn cael atig. Os ydych yn amlwg pan oedd y cwmpethau ullwerthiaethau ar gyfer amddangos~! Fy hoi wedi rhoi gyrgyddwyr y pethau i'r atig ar gyrraedd o hynny'r cyfrwb sydd arnyn nhw'n arwade. Ond os ydych yn cefnod fei wneud â'r gyrraedd holl o'r gwneud â'r awrraedd, sy'na ei loed yn ôl gofyn yn gweithio'r gweithgwyr yng Nghymru. Mae'r cyfnodd i gwybod y cwmpetysyn yn gweithio fy gafol a gwnaeth i'r ddweudio'r cyfan, i'r cyfnodd i'r ddechrau'r cyfnodd i gael eu hwn yng ngynghyd a bydd yn gyffredig iawn i'r cyfnodd. Mae'n gweithio'r cyffredig i'r Siamelon Nabrojani, y ddau'r panel gyda'r gyfer hynny. Siar e'r gweithio'r cyfeithio'r gweithio'r gyfan yma o'r rhaglen iawn i'r cyfnoddau'r gyfer hynny. I'm so pleased that she agreed to chair our judges for a second year. It's been a pleasure to work with her. Thank you, Sean. So, the first thing to say is the competition entrance selected a research article from ten pre-selected scientific articles. It's a really, really important skill this, writing jargon-free but authentic science for the lay, not the stupid consumer but the lay consumer. So that's a really important thought to have in your head. Really, there was no hiding place for poor science and I think that's a tribute to this competition really, that we are really seeking people that can write engagingly but not to muddy the science. It's really got to be authentically true. Let me tell you why just being serious for a moment but only a brief moment why this is important. It's really important for researchers, for early stage career researchers to learn this skill. Not only because it's just an important skill but how else can you talk about the impact of your research and it's important if you can't translate the science that you're doing and land it in its concept, context, essentially answer that so what question. So it's really, really important for researchers. It's important for funders. Many of the members that I represent at the AMRC are research funders funded by the public and patients. Every time someone puts a ffiver in the BHFT and outside Tesco's they are funding research. They are interested in what scientists do with that project and crucially they are interested in the outcome, whether that's positive or negative. So again this conversation is really, really important to research funders to have a meaningful engagement with the public about the science that's being funded. I also think it's important for society and I don't want this to sound up its own ass if you'll excuse that expression but it is very, very important. We live in a world of democratised information. Everything is available to everybody everywhere. So content very, very important. Context also very, very important. Many of the best articles use their 800 word count not just to talk content but to answer the context. Why was this important? Almost the so what. It wasn't necessarily in the article, it was extrapolated by the author but it was very, very important to make it understandable for the reader and for the reader to form a view about what was important and what wasn't. So content and context. My final third point was about voice and that's a difficult thing to describe but you know it when you see it. The best writers had really clearly thought what a lay audience needed not just slavishly summarising the science and did that with a voice that was both authoritative but engaging. I would like now to introduce Samart Warport, the government's chief science adviser and former director of the Wellcome Trust to not only offer his keynote speech but also to present these awards. You could actually describe my entire job as being access to understanding. That's what I'm supposed to do. And of course one of the challenges for me is that in order to provide access to understanding to the very many topics that they didn't actually teach me about medical school I have to have people explain things clearly to me as well. So clarity is incredibly important. I feel quite passionately about this topic and so I'm very pleased and honoured to be asked to present the awards this evening. And I just want to congratulate your PubMed Central and the science team at the British Library because I think this is a really good and important competition. And I must say one of the visions when European, initially UK PubMed Central but then European PMC was set up was that this now provides a very rich environment in which all sorts of added value can be provided for the 2.7 million articles out there. So there's a lot of access to understanding to be provided. And the bottom line is that the more people are able to see and read and interact with the results of research, the more impact it's going to have. My sort of simple take on this is that there is no single messenger. Everyone connected with science needs to communicate. So the scientists themselves, we need to communicate and we need to communicate to different audiences and recognise that the seminar that we give to our colleagues needs to be varied if it's going to be made available to general scientists and needs to be varied even more if you're going to give it in terms of lay audiences, schools, whatever. And so you really have got to be able to adjust not the core message but explain it in ways that are appropriate to the audience. I think we should never forget that there are multiple audiences for science and what is suitable for one audience may not be suitable for other audiences. And it's not the ones changing the message because the message of science is a core message. It's actually communicating it in a form that actually acts as communication with the different audiences. And so I have to communicate through the door of number 10. But I also have to talk to publics. And there is no single public either. We tend to talk about the public. There is no public. We're public in here. There are all sorts of different publics. We have to communicate to other scientists. And very, very important. We have to communicate to the next generations through education. Science is something that is for everyone. It's not just to be shared within a small, close community. And we are in the middle of a revolution which has been made possible by open access and electronic publications. And I must say plain English abstracts, the sorts of things that you have written as part of this competition are the way of the future. And so for that reason I'm really honoured and delighted to be able to support these awards. And now I think it's the gold envelope time. So the winner of the third place position is Aidan Martens. In second place is Elizabeth McCannum. The moment you've all been waiting for. The gold envelope of gold envelopes. Elizabeth Kirkham. I think this is a good opportunity to show people what science is actually doing. So I suppose I'm hoping that this was cognitive neuroscience and I'm hoping that by writing it in an accessible way it will save some of the future psychologists from having to answer that question of time. There is still one more prize and it's my pleasure to invite Simon Denegri who is the National Director of Public Participation and Engagement in Research at NIHR and who is also the Chair of Involve, which is a national advisory group for promotion and support of public involvement in research. When I go around the country and speak to patient groups and public meetings in my two roles it's quite clear that good quality information and communication comes quite near to the top of their priority list of things that would help them if not at the very top. A well-written lay summary can help patients, carers and family members understand research which their treatment is being based on. It can also help them to make the decision about whether or not a study might be something they would be interested in participating in. But it can also just help them learn more about what's happening to them and be able to manage and control that. So it was with that in mind the access to understanding competition decided to innovate this year and introduce the People's Choice Award. It's an important initiative intended for what we thought because we thought it right that the intended audience for these lay summaries should get a vote. Of the winning entry, voters said this summary made this article more exciting and interesting to read. And I really like the style of writing very much. Very appealing and easy to understand. So without further delay, I'm delighted to announce a big build-up drum roll that this year's People's Choice Award goes to and I hope I get your name right, Lucia Oronica. The public is our... the ultimate target of this competition for me a special prize. What we see today and what I have seen already in running up for this competition is that people translate our findings into articles that are accessible basically for everyone who's interested. That helps to translate what we do in the lab and it helps people interested in the research to understand what we find, which basically is trying to understand how disease occurs and trying to find treatments. Research we fund can be read by anyone and understood by everyone. Particularly the article that was written on my research has given me an interpretation of how the public can now understand my science and how I can help to translate that to them. Empowering these patients by understanding their disease and understanding the research that's going on in the background is crucially important. For everybody to have a good non-technical explanation of the research, open access to us means that anybody can access the research. It's all free, it's all available on the internet. I think the competitions are really a great thing for encouraging young scientists to communicate science in a lay way. Just taking as many opportunities as I can to expand my knowledge and to pass on that love to other people through words that make more sense outside of the scientific community.