 So I'm going to introduce Simmer first and the session that him and Marie will formally introduce Marie a little later are going to go through will showcase the common concerns that journalists manage when talking about scientific research. So both Simmer and Marie have experience from two different dimensions if you will on this situation. So first Simmer who you've seen his bio it's very impressive. I want to point out that he won the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Award for excellence in science communication from the national academies as a senior undergraduate student at Harvard while majoring in chemistry in the history of science. And so his background is not the traditional one that many of us have either had or come across in our experience. And so he's written as I started to say both medical journals, scientific journals and also in the lay press from the Atlantic Time Guardian Washington Post and also has focused at NPR. So we heard about concerns of issues that we might not cover well. And now we're going to talk about how can we be effective in a communication on various issues. So Simmer I'll turn it over to you now. So thank you very much for that introduction. I'm going to speak a little bit about what's important to making communication effective speaking both as a journalist as a science journalist, but also as just a citizen of the world and someone who is interested in research who has a research background. And I think I want to give you a sense of a little bit of my writing my background. I've written about animal research and let's see if we can get the slide to dance. Great. I read about animal research for the Guardian and Washington Post. I've written about it in Smithsonian Magazine and as well as Slate and really these articles that focus on the pig heart transplant that happened a little bit over a little bit about two years ago at the University of Maryland where they took a heart from a genetically modified pig and then put it into a patient with end stage heart failure. So I've written for a number of outlets on really a similar topic and I think it's taught me one thing. How do you communicate to different audiences? Slate, for example, prefers a more humorous tone, so to say. The Guardian and I was writing a 4,000 word feature. So they really wanted me to get in depth to looking at the science, the history and the ethics of Xeno transplantation as it's called. So what motivated my work was this interest in this this operation, of course, but also just the broader context. I think as a field, as a research field, there's a tendency to hide the contributions of animals. This is true in research where a lot of animal research happens in these underground tunnels in universities. At least that's what I've seen at Stanford where I did some work. But it's also in just the supermarket where you see a crisp packet of bacon right under the self-fane wrap and you don't ever get a sense of what the factory farming was to get it to your supermarket. So we have this notion, both in our society and medical research specifically, where animals are indispensable to our work, yet they're simultaneously rendered invisible. In the previous session, we talked a little bit about that, how we don't get the sense of that basic science that came before the COVID vaccine, for example. The problem is this invisibility is getting harder and harder to sustain. You have this issue where you're having zoonotic diseases like COVID, like Zika, like so many more where viruses and other pathogens from animals are being transmitted to humans. You have the fact that we have biomedical advances like xenotransplantation where the transfer from animals to humans is meant to promote life, to promote well-being. So we're breaking down this animal to human barrier in a very visible way these days. And that was the most clear with the xenotransplantation case. But what I saw was that everyone was talking about David Bennett, who was a patient who received the heart. There's very little discussion of the pig who came behind him, the pig whose heart gave him life. So that sort of motivated my work. And I want to talk a little bit about what my reporting process was like across these several pieces. The first thing that I think it's important to know is who am I talking to? For The Guardian, as I was mentioning, I was writing a 4,000 word feature, a long story. And I wanted to get a variety of different perspectives. I talked to scientists, the scientists at the University of Maryland, who had done this operation. I also talked to social scientists, historians, ethicists who could put this operation within a larger context. I talked to PETA. I got their perspective as an animal rights group. Their different perspective, of course. And also I talked to a heart surgeon who could help me understand what is all this animal research leading to? What are the clinical implications? I think that's something we often forget, is that animal research is part of a continuum. And there is a stakes to it. There's a purpose to it. And I wanted to get that perspective as well. So a wide variety of perspectives, because I had a wide word count. And I think what's important is what was the most difficult part of my research, what was the most difficult part of my storytelling. It was really finding someone to tell me about the pigs. What was their life like? How were they raised? How were they genetically modified? Because it's something that's very sensitive. When I often I talked to people, they shut me down. And as soon as I asked the question about how the pig was raised, these were the scientists who were a part of this. I tried to get in contact with a company who created these pigs. They never responded, returned my call. But it is something where I eventually did get information. I did find out. And I think there's a couple of lessons about that. I mean, in the screenshot on the slide, you see a little bit of what I wrote. But there's the lesson that I think here is that a determined journalist, one way or the other, will get that information. The reality is a lot of this is in people's research articles, in their methods, because you have to offer writing that is reproducible. Your research has to be reproducible. It's going to be among your colleagues who are more willing to talk, more free to talk. And frankly, it's going to be among animal rights activists who, whether they know the full extent or not, they will offer their perspective. They will offer what they think happened. So I think what the point I want to make is that talking with the journalist, speaking about animal research, of course, carries its risks. But it also allows you to set the narrative the way you think it should be set to offer what is the most accurate representation of how the animals are taken care of, of the protections that you are installing. Because if you don't talk, if you shut down, you say, I'm not going to talk about this to the journalist, someone else will. And you don't know how accurate or not they will be. I think also I want to emphasize the importance of respect and empathy. This is, of course, good values for all of us. We should have all learned this in your kids. But it is something where think about both the perspectives. The journalist wants to get answers. They have questions they want to get answers. And sometimes, whether we like it or not, they want to get juicy quotes, so to say. They want to get quotes that stick out in an article that stick with people. The researcher, the scientist, they want to explain something. They want to explain their research, their work. But they also want to avoid saying the wrong thing. I think we all have this natural, probably proper, tendency that we don't want to be misquoted. We don't want to be taken out of context. So these can be conflicting goals. These can be conflicting roles. But there are also opportunities where these meet. For example, metaphors and similes go a long way. There is a way to give the journalist that juicy quote without necessarily compromising your own work, without necessarily being taken out of context. So that's something where you can do some preparation. Thinking how can I compare this for the journalist? How can I help the journalist make sense of what's going on? Is there another way to think about this? Another thing scientists can do is often offer help, suggesting other sources, other people to interview, sending other links. So the links to research papers, links to statistics, be helpful so that the journalist gets it right. Because I want to talk a little bit about my approach. Because I think that shapes a lot of how I try to approach this respect and empathy. Oftentimes, I start off my interviews with more softball questions. I want to seem more human. I don't want to seem like the journalist behind the email. I want to ask questions that are not too difficult that I still want to know the answers of. I still want quotes on. But helps me build trust. I'll often subtly encourage people to tell them, oh, that really makes sense where you're coming from. Oh, I understand what you're saying. Not because I'm trying to take one side or the other, but because I recognize that's important for someone to feel safe, to feel willing to continue to talk to me. And then I will ask tough questions, any good interview, interview needs tough questions. But those will often come in the middle. Because if I start with tough questions, that ultimately shuts down the conversation. So this is my method, of course, every journalist will have something different. But I think it gives you a perspective of when you are being interviewed by a journalist. They're trying to build respect and empathy with you. And hopefully, you are trying to build respect and empathy with them. This is a two-way street. And it's important of just a practical moral sense, but also on a practical sense. Because how you communicate to the journalist, how helpful you are, how willing you are to just be there for them will sometimes shape how you're quoted, shape how you are put into the context. I mean, I've had scientists I've spoken with who've been very brusque, very rude, frankly, not very helpful. And then I might not even quote them in the piece, because I don't get anything helpful. And I'm sure there's some part of my unconscious bias where maybe I don't give them the full benefit of the doubt when I'm quoting them versus someone else. So I think respect and empathy is a moral obligation, but also a practical one. And the reality is that sometimes journalists will get something wrong. It's the reality of the situation. So something people always want to know is what do you do in that case? And for that, I always offer four recommendations. Be kind, private, specific, and factual. The kindness is important because journalists put a lot of work into this. This is their profession. You want to respect and understand that. Private is important because I've had and seen other people blast journalists on social media saying this was totally wrong, totally inaccurate, and that's not productive or conducive to getting the facts straight. Both the journalists and the scientists want to get the facts straight. I think the other part is being specific. I've had emails where people have said, this is a horrible article. You're not followed by any rare shape or form, but they don't tell me what I've done wrong or what I can correct or what I can fix. So that doesn't help me. And after back and forth, sometimes they have nothing to say specifically, which is not helpful either. And I think the last part is being factual. There will always be tension over subjective characterization. Or you use this word instead of that word. It wasn't as extreme as this. But the questions are most impactful and worth making is when I've made a factual mistake. A journalist has made a factual mistake. And you can send a source that say, actually, the number is this. Well, actually, the number you use is from this organization, this industry funded organization. Here's a more objective statistic to put in this place. I want to give an example of this. This is an email I got after the publication of My Peace and the Guardian. It's from the University of Maryland. And essentially, I mean, there's something we can learn from here. They start off very kind. Oh, we appreciate your article. It was a good article. They gave a sense of what specific changes they wanted. They had these two, this sentence. And they very specifically said what it was. But I think there's a couple things we can also learn of why this wasn't the best way or approach to ask for these questions. First off is the questions they were asking. They were questions of verbiage, questions of, oh, I don't like this word. Can you use this word? And the second thing is they didn't offer any evidence or resources or support to say that this is not accurate. This is the other thing is accurate. They sort of said it by fiat that we don't like this. It's not accurate to change it. So I think the point I want to make here is that this is not the kind of mistakes you want to correct. Because in many ways, they're not mistakes. The idea of gruesome, I had gone in from an interview. The doctor had told me that he was slightly betting that it was this part that killed the heart. So first off, I was correct in my way. They weren't offering any specific evidence. And more than that, the person who was sending this email was a PR person from the University of Maryland. If you want to correct something, and you want it to be a scientific correction rather than a public relations correction, it should come from the scientist. Because that adds legitimacy and depth to it. In a way here, where it was very clear this person didn't like how they sounded, how the university sounded, how the research sounded, so they're trying to change it. So that's, I think, a key point. Journalists don't want to make public relations corrections because they're not working for the scientist. They're working for the public in many ways. So I want to now talk a little bit about the relationship between the journalist and the scientist and that interview process. I also want to talk about what the public wants to know. And it's a difficult question to answer because animal research is something that's not been in the public domain for so long. That it's often been hidden and obscured. As we mentioned in the last session, sometimes you'll have a PETA-based or animal rights group-based advocacy campaign or a public relations campaign, but there isn't much scientist openly and willingly talking about this. So what does the public want to know? And all for some of my thoughts, what matters to people, what are they interested in? I think the first thing is that people care about history. They want to know about the past. If not because they actually are history majors or whatnot, but because they're interested in what they've heard. They've interested in all the bad things that have happened in the past. The experimentation, really, that's happened in the past. And I think that's a unique opportunity to acknowledge that, understand that, and then understand why the research of today is different from the experimentation of yesterday. Our past mistakes don't need to be repeated. So I think acknowledging that is important. And my piece is I talked a lot about the experimentation or really with Baby Faye. Baby Faye was this 12-day-year-old infant who received a walnut-sized taboon heart, I think in the 1980s, 1984, if I remember correctly. And it was a widely panned operation after it happened. Baby Faye died shortly thereafter. It was called the Anything Goes School of Human Experimentation. And in many ways, that was something that for many people, that's what xenotransplantation reminds them of. They think about Baby Faye. They think about the baboon who died to give her this heart when it was useless. I mean, it was not going to work in any case. They didn't have effective immune suppression. They hadn't done any gene editing. It was almost this last-ditch attempt with no apparent use. They think about Baby Faye. They think about other histories where you have this scientist, Serge Vorneroth, who took testicles and ovaries from baboons and apes and put into humans, trying to restore people's zest of life. So you see this, I mean, some fantastical, honestly, some silly experimentation in the past. And I think that's what we're doing today. So I think it's important to acknowledge that and help people give people a new memory, help them understand that the present can be different and present is different, right? We have more stringent regulations. We have different expectations and different values that we're enforcing more importantly. So history matters. Other part of it is that animal choice matters. The choices that we use in medical research and animal research, they're not random, right? They're based on economics. They're based on the three Rs. They hold meaning and also limitations. I think explaining that to the public matters because it's not just that the pig was chosen for xenotransplantation just because. In fact, in my reporting, what we explored was why were pigs chosen for xenotransplantation? Why was it not monkeys or lamb or sheep or any other kind of animals? And the reality is there are, of course, aspects of like, oh, the pigs can grow to an appropriate size. They produce large litters quickly. All that is important for practical purposes. And there's also sort of the touchy subject that pigs are also not covered by the animal welfare act. And who knows what is the proper explanation for all these different factors? But the point I want to make is that there is a central tension in animal research where our animal models are expected to be close but not close enough, right? They need to be close so that they are actual models for humans but not close enough that it gives us pause. That's why primate research is so contentious. That's too close. And why rad research and mice research is often disregarded as, oh, that's too far away from humans, right? We want to do small animal research. You have to graduate, so to say, to large animal research in order for scientific discovery, scientific finding to be valid. So the question when you have this close but not close enough paradigm is that you get this sort of model with limitations. It's not gonna be a perfect representation. Not gonna be a perfect expectation. And it's not gonna just solely be chosen by scientific factors. By necessity is gonna be chosen by practical economic social factors. And I think acknowledging that is important because I think the world expects that, the public expects that, they understand that. But it also allows you to begin discussing the limits of animal models. We've seen the statistics that 90 or 95% of drugs tested in animals fail, right? And we need to openly discuss the fact that animal models are not perfect even if they're necessary right now because our other alternatives are not any much better. So I think it's that nuance that I wanna emphasize and it's the nuance that comes with animal choice and why that matters. The final thing I'll mention is that the future matters. Animal research, as I mentioned, is part of a continuum. It is not this single point in time. And I wanted to help the public understand what did it mean that you have this N of one case study at the University of Maryland where this person got a big heart. What does that mean? What's the goal? What's the intention behind this operation? And there are a couple of things we focused on. One of the things I mentioned was this idea of the tyranny of potential. This idea that we risk seeing animals as these replacement parts where we pull from them to extend human life almost this endless pursuit of immortality. So that was something I wanted to consider. What does this philosophically mean? What could it mean? What was that critique? There's also the critique of this idea that we'll need a whole new economy of factory farming. We have one already for pigs but in order to raise them in sterile environments in order to genetically engineer them and have their organs expanded for human use, that would require another economy. So these are things that are important to consider if not only because what is our future looking like? Our future is not all good like sunshine and roses. It also has these slightly darker parts and only by acknowledging them and understanding the trade-offs are we going to actually create a sustainable model for research, sustainable model for translational research. And I think that's the question that people wanna know. It's like, where are we going? What's the point of this? What are the stakes here? And that is something that I wanna emphasize especially that what are the stakes? And this article in my Guardian article, that's what I focused on. I talked about this idea of the tyranny of potential, this idea of factory farming. And then I also said that if my mom or dad, if my parents or loved ones had end-stage heart failure, their lungs slowly filling with fluid, they're likelihood of getting a heart off the donor list unlikely. I would take the pig heart. I think many of us would too. And I think that's the thing that we often don't remember when we're thinking about this work is that animal research has these clinical implications and we can emphasize that. We can make that clear, we can make that tangible, right? And that doesn't forestall our ability to critique methods, seek for a better future, seek for a better methodology and process, but it is sort of helps put things into perspective and that nuance I think goes a long way for the public because the reality is, and I have no data, I'll start this saying I have no data to support this distribution, but it is something we're just in my conversations and in my talking, you get the sense that there are people on these streams, right? You have people that literally a Pita spokesperson who told me pigs are people. And then you have people, a scientist who said, I mean, essentially that pigs are replacement parts, neither of which I think most of the population would endorse, neither of which most of the population thinks is a reasonable thing. But because we've stopped talking about animal research, because we have scientists who when I tried to talk to them, ask them questions, they end the conversation as is because normal people aren't often asked, what do you do by animal research? What would you think about this? How do you want it to proceed forward? We don't have them involved as much as we could, right? In our decision-making processes. You have this end, this polarization of the debate where you have the loudest voice on either side shaping the conversation. And it doesn't make it productive. It doesn't make it effectual. So my goal as a journalist is try to find that middle ground to understand that, understand both sides. And then hopefully this is carve a path forward where you can understand how this xenotransplantation is perhaps not the best model, right? That you have these legitimate concerns, but it is a necessary one for our time being. And I think that's sort of when we're thinking about making communication effective, I really truly want to advocate for scientists to be more open, to be more transparent about this work. Because I think if we don't have that, right, we're going to continue to make these discussions more and more extreme. We're going to continue to struggle to even start these discussions for fear that we will be misquoted, for fear that we will take it in our context. And I think that we just being able to have these genuine conversations goes a long way. And it allows us to have a more public, more understanding, empathetic discussion in the media. So thank you very much for that opportunity to share a little bit of my thoughts. Thank you. Okay, now, okay. Okay. Is it on? Simer and Marie are going to have a creative conversation that we'll watch. So Marie is in her third year of residency at Laboratory Animal Science at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. She was an ASLAP, which is the American Society for Laboratory Animal Practitioners for those who know the acronym, fellow at Emory. And she's worked with many different species also in containment situations. So Marie, over to you. Thank you so much. And I just want to first start off by saying that I have a slight disclaimer that my presentation today is my views and mine alone and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Thank you. All right, so we've talked a lot about that scientists need to talk to people more. And throughout my residency program, what I have gotten to do is talk with a lot of different groups about my role as a veterinarian and in my experiences of lab animal medicine. And what I'd like to share with you today are just some of the elements that I think make my conversations with the public go well. And some of these we've heard from our other speakers, which hopefully reiterates them. But the elements that I think are crucial to these conversations are listening, context, empathy and knowledge. So the first one, listening, that's not new to talking about effective communication. That's what anyone would tell you. But what does that mean in the sense of animals in their use in research? First, I think whenever we start to have a conversation with someone who has questions or concerns or maybe no knowledge of animals in research, take a moment to pause. Don't judge them because you don't want them to judge you. And then really listen to what their concern is. Are they concerned just with animals in research or perhaps their concerns are broader to animals in research, but also animals in the food chain and agriculture? Maybe even animals as pets and animal abuse. If they are just concerned with research, is it all animals in research or just certain species like dogs and primates? Perhaps they've done a little bit of background reading and they're concerned about one particular type of research. Once you've identified what their main concern is, you can target your conversation to be more effective. Maybe you can even decide that what they're really concerned about you're not prepared to discuss. Maybe it's not your area and it's okay to say that, but really take the time to listen to who you want to talk with because you want them to listen to you. The next important element is context. And for me, context is twofold. It's the context of the person or group of people with whom you're discussing and the context of the environment. So what is the context of a person mean to me? So the first thing that I can kind of tell when I'm talking with someone is, is this an open-minded person or a closed-minded person? I think, especially this time of year, we all get to practice this. When you go home for Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner, you sit down with your aunt's uncles and cousins and someone brings up one of those terrible topics of politics, religion, or rhyme from sports. And you can tell pretty quickly how far this conversation is going to go. Is this going to be a good conversation or a bad one? And when I have a topic like the use of animals in research, which can be contentious, it's pretty easy to get a sense of how this conversation is going to go. So take a moment to read the room. The next element of context within a person that I tried to evaluate is what they already know. Do they know anything about animal research? Do they have ideas that are maybe based in media or movies? Are these ideas true or not? Perhaps they worked in an animal facility and maybe theirs is similar to what you do as a scientist or maybe it's really different. So try to get a sense of their background knowledge. The last thing is try to understand if the person has any affiliation. This can be obvious such as if they're with an animal rights organization, maybe it's a student group at a university or perhaps it's just someone you're meeting for the first time and they don't have any affiliation and they're just curious. When I talk to a group of veterinary students, it's very different than how I talk to my cousins at dinner table over Thanksgiving about what I do for my job. I think veterinary students enjoy all the scientific jargon. They find it really invigorating and it convinces them that there's some high level thinking going on in what we do and I'm trying to convince them to come join me. But when I'm talking with my family about this, I change the language because I want it to reach them. Context for me also means the environment and while there are certainly a time and place to have these kinds of discussions, my most important factor in context of the environment is time. I know we've all talked about the attention span that people have but sometimes it really is just the opportunity. An elevator pitch can be just that. You are in an elevator and you only have 30 seconds, a minute, maybe two. Perhaps you have a captive audience and you have a whole hour. For me, I would rather give statements that are perhaps more broad and accurate than risk painting a half-painted picture that leaves them with more questions and answers but I just don't have time to answer them. So for me understanding just how much time I have to explain myself is a good way to set me up for success in these conversations. The next element that I really want scientists to embrace is one that perhaps they're not used to doing, especially in terms of discussing science and that's empathy. We tend to take emotion out of science and certainly not in any of our scientific papers that we're so used to writing. A lot of scientists don't take time or don't think to develop emotional connections with their animals or maybe they don't want to because it means you have to be vulnerable. But I really encourage you to do so and I personally do not believe that we'll compromise your science. It will make your science better and as a veterinarian, it makes my care of these animals better. It helps me to relate to my animal caretakers and help everyone feel as though we are making meaningful, impactful research. Once you develop that empathy, you can then communicate with those who have concerns with the use of animals in research because that empathy gives you common ground. You're concerned with animal welfare and so are they. That common ground will set you up for a productive conversation. The last element that I think can really move our conversations about animals and science forward is knowledge. This is the one that requires the most legwork. Scientists are of course knowledgeable about their own studies and all of the background that goes into it. But I really encourage scientists to educate themselves on all that goes into having animals possible as a model, not just what's the best model but what are the legal requirements that we have to have to be able to do experiments that involve animals? I think that the legal requirements are sort of my favorite argument for talking with people to convince them that welfare and good veterinary care and enrichment are present, not just because I want it or maybe because I work for a good facility. But I know that lots of facilities have all of these elements of good care and welfare for their animals because they're legally required and they get audited. And I think that that can bring a lot of comfort to the public knowing that it's not at the whim of an individual or the kindheartedness of one organization. It's legally required and there are international standards that facilities try to meet or go above and beyond those standards. I think that'll bring a lot of comfort to the public but scientists need to be aware of those. We have our institutional animal care and use committees that review and ask for changes in all protocols but does the public know that there has to be a community member on those committees? Their voice is represented in that individual. That's something that when I talked to people that they are surprised at and I'll tell you that I've had someone join in IACUC because she learned about this and now she gets to be that community member and her voice directly has that impact. Make sure your public knows that. Another thing that I think is really cool within science is that we care about welfare so much that we fund research just to make our own animals more comfortable. We're constantly seeking out better pain medicine, better enrichment, lower stress handling techniques for the animals that we use within experimentation and we care about it so much that we'll fund it, we spend all this time on it, your grad students are pulling their hair out about it and it's valuable to us and we put such a value on it because we care about welfare. Lastly, scientists, please communicate your why to the public. What is your big picture? What has inspired you to do this science? What are the people that you hope to help through your use of animals in research? Talk to them about how you created your protocol. How did you replace, reduce and refine your use of animals and what is your end goal? So in conclusion, talking to the public about the use of animals in research certainly takes patience and it takes preparation but with these elements I think that you'll find that your conversations are productive. Thank you. All right. I believe you two have a set of questions you're gonna go through and then we'll come back. Okay, go ahead. Wonderful. So the situation we're going to be taking today is one that I imagine will be familiar for many people as they're traveling for the holidays. We are in a long TSA line and I just happened to be behind Marie. I'm a member of the public. Marie is in her role as a Veterinary with the CDC and I just wanna know a little bit what she's doing as I have nothing better to do in this long 30 line. So Marie, or I guess I don't know your name at this point but hey there, you there, what do you do? I mean, we're gonna be in this line forever so I'm curious. Yeah, so I'm a veterinarian actually and I work at Great Science University as a veterinarian. Well, that's really interesting. Do you take care of the animals when they get injured you go and help them? You know, although I was trained in vet school to do things like work on cats and dogs and cows and horses. I actually work on animals and research right now. Animals and research. So what, you're doing the research on them? So as a veterinarian, I'm not directly doing the research but I support my scientists and I make sure that the animals on research protocols get adequate care and are as happy and healthy as possible. Happy and healthy. I mean, what I've heard is that these animals die at the end of their research thing so they're euthanized. So how will they be happy and healthy? So a few things. First of all, not all animal studies end in euthanasia. In fact, I love my stories of success where a lot of research animals can get adopted out at the end of studies and I know people that have these animals that they live long happy lives in their homes with but it is true that a lot of studies require all the tissues of an animal to answer all their questions and that does end in euthanasia. This means they're not being wasteful though. They're answering all the questions that they need to by using the whole animal. But I mean, you're a veterinarian and you're supposed to help animals, right? How are you then euthanizing animals and feeling good about yourself? That's a great question and I get that a lot. But for me, I get to be their advocate, their voice. I get to make sure that all their time on study they have the best care possible and that they're as comfortable as possible. And for me, euthanasia, it means good death and I get to make sure their death is as smooth and as painless as possible. But these animals didn't choose to die. They didn't choose to be in this research. So aren't you just making yourself feel better? Well, not only am I, I love my animals first of all but knowing that they're ethically taken care of because they're my research heroes is really important to me. It's also legally required which I think is really important for the community to know that this is a value we all hold in the science field is that these animals should be so protected that we have laws about it. And in the end, I'm trying to protect people too. So as a veterinarian, I wanna make sure that the products like drugs or medical devices that we test in people are safe. What I've heard though is that a lot of these drugs, they just, I mean, the animals just don't work, right? I mean, a rat is not a human. So like you test, you can test your drugs and rats, right? And then you can kill them afterward. But then if it doesn't make the humans aren't you just wasting these animals' lives? I think that you bring up an important point and my favorite analogy is, you know, think about how many tries it took to get to a light bulb is we have all of these scientific queries and a lot of them end in dead ends but when it finally does work, it can change the world. And I certainly wouldn't want to put the risk of a person in harm's way by not knowing what a drug does. I mean, you have also talked about these regulations. I mean, can you tell me a little bit more about like what you're required to do? Yeah, so we're required to do a lot actually. We have internal inspections, external inspections, surprise inspections, reporting. So I spend a lot of my time making sure that we're following all the rules. So you follow the rules just so that you don't fail on inspection? No, I can understand how it would come across that way but I want to make sure that my animals are taken care of because I care for them and everyone on my team does too. But following the regulations also means my science is good because at the end of the day, healthy, happy animals leads to good science too. But I mean, you have these animals in cages, like how are they going to be healthy and happy, right? They're just stuck in a cage, they can't move, they can't go out and be free. So the cages are bigger than you think, first of all. And we certainly have minimum space requirements that we always try to exceed and we try to make their environment as fun as possible. I'll give you an example. I was working with some animals and they had all of these fruits and vegetables that they get every day and I had been looking for fresh figs for weeks to make in a recipe and I couldn't find them in any grocery store and I went into my facility and I found my animals eating them. So they were literally eating better than I could. That's interesting. But I mean, you're at this prestigious university. I mean, I'm sure you can afford these nice figs, big cages, but I mean, think about it, right? Most places are not gonna be like that. I mean, think about like, I mean, Elon Musk's neural links experiments, right? You hear all these bad examples and then you're telling me that you're a good person. Okay, fine, you're a good person, but how about all the bad things that I'm hearing? Well, I can't speak to every facility, but I know that facilities have accreditation and audits from even the government. So these audits make sure that they're following the rules too, but I certainly can't speak to facilities that aren't mine. Yeah, but I mean, I just, I just see these things in the news and I just get so mad, right? I mean, they're killing these animals unnecessarily, right? And then you're telling me, again, I believe you, you're a good person, but how does that help, right? If you're the 1% and the rest of people are just blatantly disregarding the rules, right? I think it's the opposite. I think the rule breakers are the 1%, and what we don't see represented in the media are people who do follow the rules, who are treating their animals with respect and dignity while making good science. I really encourage you to dig further in that because it's a boring media story. No, I mean, this all is interesting, but I still am having trouble squaring away at the idea that you're caring for these animals. They're under all the stress, right? And then you expect it to be good science. Yeah, we try to make it as least stressful as possible and we're constantly making improvements to decrease that stress. We have whole research studies just to see what their stress levels are and how we can improve that. So we're not perfect, but we certainly strive to do better every single day. And then what do you think we should do about these bad actors, right? I mean, that's like, I mean, these neural link studies, these other studies, where I mean, they're just doing these horrible things. I mean, again, like there'll be good people, bad people, but the bad people are giving your field the name. That's what I'm hearing. That's what I'm reading. Well, I certainly can't control how many bad seeds there are in the world, but I think it's important is that we have those regulatory agencies that do those checks to make sure that those bad seeds don't keep doing their work in the way that they're doing. Do you think the regulations should be stronger? I can't really say that. I think that a lot of facilities that I've been in try to go above and beyond that. Wonderful. I think that's might be a good stopping point for this discussion. I gave Maria a hard time, hopefully not too bad. And I think there's some things that we can learn from that discussion. Just to get us started, I think something that Maria did really well is really bringing in the anecdote, bringing in the personal experiences. I mean, the story about the figs, right? I mean, whether that's representative or not is almost irrelevant in some ways because it's something that'll stick with me. It's something that I will remember for, I mean, frankly, many months after this conversation, right? It's evocative. It's something that, I mean, many ways I'd recommend like all scientists have, right? A story that they can pull on an anecdote, right? Because we're creatures of stories and they'll stick in our mind. Yeah, like get to know your animals. I've talked to so many researchers, they absolutely play favorites, just like parents pick a favorite child, don't why. And they have a favorite animal and they have a story about it or they end up adopting that animal after the study or they have those success stories. So please do keep those in your back pocket. I love that idea. The other thing that I think I want to note is really like the questioning that I was asking Marie about like Neuralink and other bad actors, bad apples, as it's sort of say, because the reality is that is what people remember, that is what people paint the field as, right? Because again, it's not a good media story, right? If everything goes well, animals are like probably taking care of all the regulations are followed, right? Nobody covers that because it's just not a story, right? They cover the, I mean, who knows what the prevalence is, but they cover the one out of hundred where things didn't go right, where the regulations were broken. So what does that mean? That means for, I think, for many people, you have to be well-versed in what happened, right? Because people will ask you about it, right? And it's, I mean, you should be saying that, oh, you know, as Marie said, I don't know what happened in that facility, right? I can't speak to that. That's not my expertise. But here's what I do know, right? Because again, a non-answer, right? Shutting down conversation doesn't show empathy. It doesn't show that you're understanding someone's perspective, right? It just makes them frustrated and angry and think you're hiding something. Even if you have no right to know what it is, I think it is important for people to stay abreast of what the field is, what the media is saying, because that's what people are going to respond to. That's what people are going to ask about. Okay, we have a few questions that have come through. So I'll read the first one. And this one, it says for similar, but either of you could comment. In contrast to representatives from animal rights groups, scientists are not hired to advocate for the existence of their work. Instead, they rely on others, such as the university PR professional, to help communicate and advocate for their responsibility, for their work. Well, I'm not entirely absolving scientists of responsibility to learn some basic communication skills. Why do you see the responsibility for communication falling on the shoulders of scientists instead of allowing their institutions to help them navigate and refine these communications? You know what I mean? I think it has to be a partnership, right? I mean, PR officials, I didn't mean to paint them in a wholly negative light in my presentation. They have their place and they are very helpful. For one, for example, helping me facilitate interviews with scientists, helping me answer questions afterward. I think it does have to be a partnership though, because the PR officials for all their merits, they don't know the science like the scientists do, right? They don't have that authority that a journalist seeks and craves, right? For a PR official, right? It's more of a facilitator role rather than a position of authority. So it ends up being where scientists should play a role and they should communicate. I think we all need scientists who are better versus speaking to the media, better versus communicating their research. And PR officials who can help facilitate that, who can help teach them their skills, offer their skills to the scientists, right? And it's this partnership. But what I struggle with is when that ground is entirely seated to PR officials, where the PR officials will do the interview, they'll send resources and all that. And then my only interaction with a scientist is in like that 15-minute Zoom interview. That sort of frustrates me personally, because I want to hear from their mouth. And to add to that, for scientists, you know, your communication isn't going to just be formal. I think that those informal communications when you're talking with students, your family, your friends, you can create a whole culture shift through that. Your communication is not just going to be in a formal university or organization setting. You're going to want to talk about your work to anyone if you're passionate enough about it. Yeah, good points. I just want to remind people as I go through these questions, if you're here and you'd like to ask a question, please raise your hand on the program here. Okay, the next question I have. The person writes, I've seen colleagues struggling with interviews with journalists because they are afraid of saying something that is not scientifically correct. At the same time, I see how the journalist is trying to get some information that may be more interesting for the audience and that is not too technical. I would like to know what would you suggest to do in that situation as a scientist? How can you find a compromise? Yeah, it's the perennial struggle between scientists and journalists, journalists who are trying to make things accessible, make things interesting for the reader and the scientists who are trying to communicate their work in the fullest complexity possible because the nuance is important, the complexity is important. So there is always going to be a balance and I think it takes some negotiation of sorts because for scientists, you cannot expect to have editorial access over the journalist's work, over what is written. That simply goes against the journalistic code of ethics. What you can hope for and ask for is an opportunity to fact check, opportunity to review passages. Oftentimes, this will have to be done verbally. Most many journalists will not send it, send exactly the words they're gonna write over email, but it's something where you should ask for a request and make sure that they try to do and make the time to do because it is that shared interest of getting things right. The words may change, the subjective words might change. You might say gruesome instead of striking, for example. But the point and the message and the facts should be stay the same, right? And I think everyone has a shared goal for that. So it is really asking for that factoring call, right? Offering yourself willing to review any passages if that's desired without an expectation that the journalists will do that. Because again, they're not working for you. Do you want to get anything back? No, I don't have anything to add. I think you covered it. Alice has a question. Thanks, this is for both Marie and Simmer. You both mentioned the importance of empathy and learning that you will not get through to the people you're communicating with if you don't show empathy. So my question is, can you give us examples of what you might have learned from them in your conversations, in your communicating? Because for it to be truly empathetic and truly effective, we need to expect to learn from the people we're communicating with. Yeah, so especially talking with veterinarians, we are incredibly empathetic towards our patients and we want to be their biggest advocates. So some of the people that I find to be most emotional when talking about this are people who see the very worst of animals. And that tends to be shelter veterinarians or people who work in shelters and they do see the worst and they don't want the worst for other animals. So I think that that can be a huge fear for people who see such bad situations that that's happening in some sort of way to other animals. So what I have learned is that I can really take the experience of my colleagues and everyone who works in perhaps animal abuse or abandonment and really learn that this is a high priority for them and that I can strive every day to do the best by my animals. And they really pushed me forward in that as well. I mean, in many ways, journalism is just professional empathy of sorts. You're talking to people from a wide variety of perspectives getting their thoughts and experiences. And I mean, as a journalist, my goal is not to take a specific side, right? That would be counter to my work, counter to my ethics, but to understand where people are coming from. And I think the conversation with the spokesperson from PETA for my work in the Guardian, this idea that pigs are people, right? It's something where like, it's not something I personally agree with, right? But clearly this person did believe it, right? And I think that's something that we often, we don't take for granted, right? That people do really believe what they're saying, right? They do really believe that pigs are people that animals like deserve to have the same moral standing as humans. And whether you agree with that or not, doesn't preclude the fact that you have to have perspective, perspective and understand how that plays into your work. That just because you don't like that, it won't go away, right? Just because you don't like that perspective, it's not gonna be rendered invisible. So I think it really is understanding people's perspective, understanding how they might not be, they might not mesh with yours, but how can you tell the story with nuance? How can you tell the story with balance? Okay, Bill, then I'll go back to this question. So we've been focusing on communications in good times when we're telling a good story, but sometimes we have to tell a story in bad times where you've been challenged, where there has been a citation against the university by the government. Something's gone wrong because things can go wrong. And how does that change the communication strategy? Yeah, that's a great question. I think that when we find things that go wrong, I know that whenever something doesn't go right for me, whether it's professionally or maybe even in sports or something, it's an opportunity to do better next time. And it drives me forward to push and strive to be even better. And I think with citations, there are revisits that inspectors will have. So you miss something on this inspection and you need to do better and we'll be back in a couple of weeks. And it's an opportunity to improve and to learn and to educate your staff and to create an institutional knowledge of this happened once and we're going to make sure it never happens again. And so although unfortunate events do happen, they are truly learning opportunities. And what we need to effectively communicate is what we are doing to improve ourselves and to ensure that it doesn't happen again. And that needs to be the focus of our conversation. Excuse me, we had a help sent out from a communication professional and they say scientists are the best advocates for their own work, which I think everybody agrees with. And professional communications professionals can help you work out what you want to say and how to get it across to a lay audience. And I think you've had experience with this or you maybe want to make a comment on it. Yeah, I mean, I think the reality is that a scientist or anyone for the matter before an interview should prepare for that interview. They should think about what are likely questions to ask. What are the things that I want to make sure to get across? Oftentimes you can ask the journalists what, might not be able to ask them what questions specifically they're going to ask. Many are not going to want to share that per se. But you can ask them what topics do you expect to cover? What arenas do you want to ask about? So you can develop those metaphors in some ways. You can develop like how can I take this super complex topic and distill it down to the most important parts? Most important is key because you're not going to be able to get everything in. So I think it is sort of the working with a communication specialist is important. It's important part of that preparation. If you don't have a communication specialist handy, that's not the end all be all, but it is something where you want to think what is your message? What is your thesis, so to say, right? It's like, it's very much like an essay, right? You're communicating an idea and argument and you have a limited time period to do that, whether it's 15 minutes or 30 minutes. Okay, any questions from the room? Okay, this is a formal question, but I did want to make a comment, Marie, maybe comment on it, just a point of clarification, being the scientists and veterinarians that we are that when pigs are used in medical research, they are covered by the Animal Welfare Act. And so your article had a different, could have gotten a different point across. So for the sake of completeness, I did want to make that comment. I think there's a question or comment coming up from Joe. Since we have the opportunity of such young individuals that are passionate about this topic and communicating in animal research, any advice or programs for educating or communicating to younger generations, even than yourself? So I get to talk to veterinary students all the time and it's such a great opportunity to remind them that it is the coolest part of veterinary medicine and they should come join us. But for me, it gives me an opportunity to talk with my peers and to really listen to their concerns because especially in the last 20 years, we've seen such an acceleration of science and it's faster than ever before we made a vaccine in one and a half plus 45 years. And so for me, I can relate with them in the scientific discoveries that they've seen within that time. And I think that that's really important. I think that talking with students even younger than grad students or even university students, I like to remind them that when I'm working with animals, I care for them so much and I try to make sure that they're taken as good of care as possible and focusing on the things that matter to them, like what would matter to them if they owned cats or dogs. Then I think that that's what sticks with them. Yeah, I mean, I'm a big believer of taking every opportunity you can get to talk to people about your work, about your research, if only because especially like when you're like, for example, let's say you're lecturing in a sixth grade classroom, it's an opportunity to really present your work in all of its nuances, right? Some things that you might not have a chance to do when you're talking to a journalist or on a broadcast television. So it is really an opportunity to share that nuance and speak openly about this because I really do think we need a culture shift in research and in science where we're more open about discussing the promises and pitfalls of our models and we're able to navigate that line where we don't leave the space and the void for the most extreme voices on either side because it is something that's very contentious. That's part of the reason why this workshop is held but there's an opportunity for younger generations specifically who have that open mind, who are more willing to learn to tell them not just the party line, the talking points, right? But really the struggles that you have, right? The struggles and then the balance you strike with your work. I don't have another question but I'm gonna make a comment or a question. So I have two daughters and they're 20s and they're once out of university, once in university. And I also taught veterinary ethics to third year vet students at Penn this past September. And I see the younger people struggling with things that we had different things to struggle about. Okay, I'll just put it that way. So one question that came up is did I think it was ethical for people to go into debt to take care of their pets? And I was sort of stunned by the question because my first response was, well, you shouldn't, I didn't say this but I'm thinking we shouldn't go into debt, take care of your pets. And then I thought, well, is that elitist? So only rich people could have pets because then people who couldn't afford to have pets. And then I thought about my first pet and who got puppy shots and that was it, had him for 16 years and we never went back to the vet. I didn't have the background that you did. I came to veterinary medicine in a different way. So, Joe's question about the different world that we exist in now, both from the polarization to the almost terrible burden, I think, the terrible burden I think a lot of kids are carrying because of the way things are going in the world and the way things are going with social media and what they're seeing and hearing. Any advice would be most welcome. Well, to the finances for your own personal pet, you know, I think that that's a choice that owners make on their own behalf. And they do have that freedom to choose because they are owned privately and that's one of the biggest differences about using animals in research is that my animals are not privately owned that I work with and the choices are made with a whole panel, of a whole IACUC panel and that's another luxury that we have is that it's a collective decision and I think it's easier that way. It's not weighing on the burden of one person and that's what's so great about the use of animals in research is that there are a checks and balances going into it and I hope the public knows that, that we don't make decisions lightly just like an owner trying to decide whether or not to spend 10 grand on a dog because it is that expensive when 10 grand is actually a small amount in terms of science, but we don't take any amount of money lightly and I think that that's something that we should we should recognize. Well, I don't have any other questions from the external audience. Adam? So I was thinking about this concept of empathy and so even if you think you do an experiment on a certain number of animals and you believe that it's ultimately like a really positive thing because it results in this great amount of progress, you might still have from this empathetic perspective, say, well, even if it's good overall, I still feel bad for the animals that are in this experiment and I guess what I'm wondering is to me it seems like there's a little bit of a tension between when you're communicating on the one hand trying to frame things in a way where you minimize the chance of anyone walking away with any negative view, negative thought at all on the one hand and on the other hand, like taking really seriously this empathetic reaction, the fact that, oh, this is like a sad thing, something that I should acknowledge as like something that's worth caring about. And so I guess I'm just curious, do you guys see this as a legitimate tension and how do you navigate that? Do you think there's always some sort of right answer of whether you should be trying to minimize people walking away with a negative impression or taking seriously the suffering or whatever harms might result from it? So yeah. That's a great question and I see compassion fatigue in veterinary medicine all the time and I certainly see compassion fatigue in lab animal medicine because death in euthanasia is a part of our daily work and we're so fortunate to really be coming into a societal culture that recognizes compassion fatigue when so many years we did spend minimizing it and I hope we don't minimize it but we really leave space for that emotion for us to process that and to give ourselves time and space as we needed. I've seen so many different facilities giving compassion fatigue training to their employees and I think that's something everyone should be doing and veterinarians certainly experience that because of the nature of our work but I think anyone who works with animals in research should do that as well. So when people ask me, is it hard? I say yes, it is hard but to me it's worth it and knowing I gave them the best care possible during their life is the most important thing to me. So not minimizing but recognizing and giving space for it I think is the most appropriate course of action. I mean, in many ways this is the age old question between utilitarianism and deontology, so to say. I mean, the idea that, I mean, you can understand the stakes and sort of the purpose of your work, right? The reason why in the end, right? It's worth it. I will still having these doubts or at least these regrets over the process and still see the process necessary. I think those emotions and those feelings are obviously compatible and I think it's important in some ways to communicate that, right? Because I mean, the stereotype of the cold scientist, right? Has come from someplace, right? It's this idea of just communicating about work without emotion, without realization, without sort of that understanding and compassion. And I think there is an opportunity to give people new memories, to explain things in their complexity. You can still leave people on where you've left yourself, right? As if you are doing animal research you obviously come to the conclusion personally that it's worth it, as Marie was saying. And you can leave people with that realization as well, right? That I do, it is unfortunate that animals might have to be euthanized for this purpose, but here's why I do it. Here's why it matters to me. I think bringing it back to the personal is always an effective method because it's something that nobody can negate. Thank you both. Incredible discussion and we're right on time to switch to our next topic. And so thank you.