 I think the conversation is the best invention to come along in academia for the last 15 or 20 years. I think writing for the conversation is the easiest way to get your work out to a broader audience. I really value the conversation for that space it creates, for rational, fact-based, evidence-based conversation that still is accessible enough that even if you don't have a background in nuclear social science, you still can access what we're saying and really engage with it. Normally when we work on our research product and submit it to a journal, a very limited of people will be exposed to it. The reviewers, the editor, and if you're lucky enough, those who will cite you. But it's still very limited exposure. When you write to the conversation, your research gets out there to everybody else, I mean the rest of the world. The partnerships that the conversation has with a whole host of other media outlets, including some very popular ones, increases the span of who will see what you have written. I think the first one that I wrote got picked up by time. And that sort of magnified the audience. Some of my work that I've written for the conversation has been republished in places like The Guardian and Lifehacker and it's exciting to see your work in all these different places. After writing an article for the conversation about terrorism, I was contacted by a group and wound up giving a presentation to policy makers and practitioners in D.C., which was totally unexpected. And what's neat about the conversation is they have an author dashboard in which you can see who's tweeted about your work, where it's been republished. Also you can see just how many people have read your article or clicked on it. And that makes me feel like my work really is having an impact on the world. I'm going to send that to you this afternoon and if you don't see them by tomorrow morning, give me a call. So it starts by just submitting a proposal or a pitch of a story that you would like to write about and why it's important. I was given a deadline by which to prepare a draft. I think we need to go back a bit further in that. The editors are good about providing you with ways to phrase things or to structure your sentences in a way that's going to make them easy to understand. How is your analytic argument related to your normative argument? We don't really learn how to write for the general public, either in graduate school or as part of our professional training. But what I personally experience in working with editors is you learn a lot. You learn how to frame the problem, what question to ask, how to organize your material. You might think you're a good writer and then you're like, wow, I just learned a lot from that. At the World Horse Elk Organization in the UN put out a big report on water and sanitation today. And there are authors who have journal studies coming out and will do something for us when the journal study emerges. The editors who work at the conversation, they're journalists and they can help me refine what I'm writing in a way that you don't have to be an academic to understand what I'm talking about. They set up an online portal for you to work in where you're working in real time editing and you're able to get immediate feedback from them electronically. I think that would be a good way to get more people reading your story. Go to the conversation right now, read it and write for it. If we don't do it as scientists, someone else will fill the void and the public will get information that may be not accurate or is written by people who don't understand the work that you do. My advice to faculty who haven't written for the conversation would be give it a try. You're going to enjoy it. It's fun. This is not about publicity. This is not simply about getting a wider audience. This is about really the future of truth.