 So, hello, my name is Simon Clark. I am the EEGU's Programs Coordinator, and welcome to this webinar, Look Who's Talking, Decoding Science for a Non-Science Audience. This webinar will inform scientists on how to engage with the media and communicate science and research findings to an audience they may not have the same scientific background. The webinar will last approximately 45 minutes, with time after for questions. If you have a question, please type it in your Q&A box at the bottom of your screen, where you can also upload questions you think should be answered. So, to take us on our journey today is Cheryl Travasso, who is a scientist by academic training, a communications expert, and who has over a decade's worth of experience in science communications. So, welcome Cheryl, would you like to begin? Sure, thank you. I'm just going to share my screen. All right, so thank you everyone. It's such a joy for me to be here to talk about a subject that I have to say is very, very close to my heart. Before we get into anything, I want to relate to you a very common scenario that I would come across frequently during my research days. Maybe some of you will be able to identify with it. You know, whenever you go to a party or some sort of social gathering or a dinner where people who are not from your lab are, right, non-academicians, people with different backgrounds, and you're talking to them and they say, so what do you do for a living? And I say, well, I'm currently doing research and people are automatically very interested and they'd say, oh, really? So what is it that you do? And I don't know about you, but I think for many researchers, I think for many researchers that it's so whenever we're asked about our research, I think something inside us lights up like a Christmas tree. And we're so excited to talk and I would go into great detail about the protein that I was working on and how it was linked in cancer research and talk about the virus and the HPV virus and Eastern bacterial systems and the challenges that I was facing and what was working and what wasn't and lots of details, lots of details. And if I was talking to someone that I knew, you know, I could see it in their eyes. They were really trying to understand what I was saying and they put their heart into it, but you could see it in their face. They were trying to understand. And if I was speaking to someone who I didn't know very often, their eyes would at some point in time just glaze over and I knew that I had lost them already in the conversation. And the responses that I would usually get when I finished this entire spiel, however long it took me was, you know, what? It sounds really exciting. I'm happy for you. I'm not quite sure what you said, but good luck. Or, you know, this sounds very high five for me, but sure, it sounds fabulous and I can see you're passionate about it. And I think I remember my sibling one saying to me, well, the only word I understood in all that you said was virus and that's about it. And, you know, like, I don't know if some of you have seen this book. This is a book by Alan Alda. He is a well known Hollywood celebrity and then he moved into science communication. And I love the title of his book, right? And he says, if I understood you, would I have this look on my face? And this is the look that we see on a lot of people's faces when scientists begin to talk about science without realizing that the people that they are talking to have an entirely different vocabulary from that. So do not understand anything that is being said. Now, the point here that's important to note is that particularly in the sciences and even in some other fields, what happens is that we develop, we have this lexicon, we have this dictionary of words that we use when we're talking about our work that is so different. It doesn't matter what your main language is, it's so different. The words mean so many different things. And even if a biologist is talking to a geologist or a geologist is talking to a chemist, sometimes no one understands what the other person is doing. So before I even, before I get into my slides and before we talk about what we will talk about shortly, professionally, I have worked in public relations. I've been in health communications and science communications for 10 years. Public relations for six. And what I do at the team that I work with does is we work with pharmaceutical companies, we work with doctors and other professionals. And the main thing that we're supposed to do is to understand the research, understand the science, understand what they're saying. And then we go out to media and to journalists and say to them, you know what, there's this really interesting person here and they would like to talk to you about this product of this new research. Would you like to speak to them? So a lot of what I get to do is to understand the science behind a drug or a disease and then to convert that into plain speak, that anyone irrespective of background and irrespective of vocabulary or lexicon would be able to understand. So it's really exciting for me to be here. And I think on the agenda, what we're going to talk about in the next half an hour to 45 minutes is talk about how geoscientists can better engage with media and how can we better communicate our research to people who do not have the same expertise as we do. I mean, the experts in other subjects, but they just don't have the background in the scientific training that we do. Now, if you look at the world that we're living in today, it's a very interesting one. There is no shortage of information. If anything, we are inundated with news and new information all the time, whether we're in social media, whether we're scrolling through Instagram, whether you open Google to search for something, whether you see the news on TV, print media, no matter what it is, people are inundated with information. Scientific content as well has become far easier to access. Okay, I mean, there are news stories, there are people talking, there's writing of blogs, there's all of this. So content is easy to access. But if the scientific content is scientifically dense, or it does not have clear content, clear messaging, and it doesn't have a good, the right context, instead of leading to more information and actually just leads to further confusion and a lack of clarity. So that is something that we can address as scientists to a certain extent just by seeing what we say and by seeing how we say it. So this is a very simple flow chart of the process of speaking to media. And listen, I had to use images that were free to use. So if this is not thoroughly representative of the field, well, I'm sorry, but we're going to have to make do with it. Imagine that there's you. Now, perhaps there's a piece of research, there's a new paper that you've published, a reporter has seen it, and they're very interested to know more about the subject. So they write to you and they say that they would like to have an interview with you. Sometimes the way this happens is that the media center or the press office in your university or in your college goes out and informs media about new research that's done and says, this is a scientist perhaps you'd like to speak to them. Sometimes the reporter or the journalist themselves have heard about something that you've done and they're very interested to talk to. So they come to you, you have the opportunity to speak to them, to share a message, create a message, deliver it. Then the reporter, the editor, they will work together and they will write up the story and then it's put out in the public. Now, once you have finished speaking to a reporter, there's not a lot that you can do to control how the story is written. It's very rare that the reporter will cross check it with you after the story has been written before publication, which means that as a scientist, what you can do is control or prepare the what, the message that you are speaking, prepare the how, the delivery and how you speak to media and there are two important stakeholders that you need to know about. You need to know about the reporter and you need to know about the audience that you're finally speaking to. So let's work backwards. Let's first talk about the audience. You know, sometimes, and I've heard this very often, there are words like, we're speaking to the general audience, we're speaking to the public, the general public. And the problem with those phrases like that is it may make us seem as if the entire general public is like this homogeneous group of people. And in fact, and I hope that this picture does a little bit to say that they're far more diverse than we can think. And what do I mean by that? There is no such thing as a general audience. Your general audience is a very diverse heterogeneous group of people who differ in ages. It could be that you're speaking to a younger audience, people who are out from college or university, you could be speaking to people who are in the corporate world, people be speaking to parents, you could be speaking to older people. So there's great heterogeneity in age. In background, as well, perhaps some of them have done science when they were in school, maybe some of them have kept themselves aware of what is happening so they know what's going on to other people. There's not much of a background there. You also have in your audience, people who are directly related with your subject. For example, other scientists also read papers, right? You could have government stakeholders who are reading the papers. You could have policy makers, decision makers, people who, you know, especially when there is scientific material that you need to share to influence policy. These are all people who are in your general audience. Now, in addition to all of this diversity that there is, perhaps you're aware of the Simpsons. I know that they're a pretty famous lot all over the world. But if not, think of your favorite sitcom. Okay. And now putting up Simpsons is a case in point. You may be speaking to someone who's just naturally very studious like Aliza. You could be speaking to someone who's got a fair amount of curiosity like a March, but you will also have people who are very easily distracted or completely disinterested like Homer and Bart, which means that your group is diverse, interest levels are diverse. And as a scientist, you want to do your level best to try and make sure that there is something for everyone. You may not be able to interest everyone and that's completely okay. But try and make sure that there is something for everyone. Another thing that's very important is before you even get to the step of crafting your message and figuring out how to deliver it, try to know, try to further define who this target audience is. And I will come to that in just a moment. Yeah, there's this quote that's often attributed to Albert Einstein, and it says, you know, the definition of genius is to take the complex and to make it simple. And if I were to add another layer to that, I would say that, you know, the better you know your subject, the easier it is to make it simple. And as scientists, we're so well placed to take something that is inherently or something that's complicated or complex, and make it simple for anyone to understand because we know the subject that we're talking about. Now, just as we said that the audience that we're talking to is a diverse and heterogeneous and we need to know and define who we're speaking to, we also need to know the reporter. And the reason is well, like we said for the public, there's nothing general here as well. The reporters also are a very diverse group of people. Now, for example, a reporter who is interested in your work could be a city reporter, which means that they normally look at different things that are affecting the city and it could be anything, it could be politics, it could be science, maybe even a little bit of sports, maybe the fact that your university is in the city and you've done such fantastic research, that's the reason why they're interested. You could also have a reporter reach out to you that does a lot of technical and scientific reporting. So this could be a journalist that has covered geology or covered science, covered biology for many years, and they see something that you've written about that's interesting. There could be reporters who are also very different in experience, and it can go from one to years, it can go 20 years. There are reporters who have very high scientific degrees themselves, while others who by sheer experience understand the subject. Now, who the reporter is is also linked to what publication that they are writing for. Publications can also be different. Okay, it could be that the reporter is writing for a feature story which comes on weekends, which means that they are looking for something that's a little lighter from you. It could be that the journalist writes for a science magazine, a geology magazine, which means that they want something that's simple, but they want the details as well. They want to include the technical details, but in a way that people can understand. They could, it could be in a print format. It could be in a digital format, which means that there is a greater possibility of including maybe infographics or some fun images that you have to explain the science. The reason all of these matter is because what you say depends on the journalist that you're speaking to, the type of publication that they work for, and the audience that their publication is targeted. So whenever you set out to do an interview, the moment you know who the journalist is, you can either ask the media center to help you with this or you can use our good friend Google, but the idea would be look up the last five to six stories that the journalist has written. Look at how they write about science. I think even if you read four, five, six stories, you'll have a fair idea of how technical are they, what's their kind of style, what is their own level of expertise. Do they like to include a third party opinion? What is the kind of audience that they are addressing? And if you don't know that, just ask them. I'm sure they will be happy to help you with that. If you spot, well, I called it a red flag, if you spot a certain line of questioning that you think you would not be comfortable with, make sure you tell your media center or the person who's helping you liaise with media just in cases. Usually this would be vetted, but in case that happens, just inform them and see how you want to take this ahead. All right, so coming to the main section, which is really talking about crafting the message and how we speak science to an audience. Now, I've got 10 points. They've been taken from a bunch of different places, a bunch of different sources, also a lot of my personal experience over the year. So I've kept all the references at the end and you can always have a look at it. But we look at 10 points to keep in mind when it comes to actually preparing what we're going to say to media during an interview. And I think I know that this is, we would know this, but I feel like it must be reiterated. We must prepare ahead of time. Now, I grant you that for most of us scientists, if you were to wake us up at 3 a.m. in the morning when we were fast asleep and ask us a question about our research, I think most people would be able to give you a very accurate and a very articulate answer, just because we live and breathe the science that we do it. But if you are speaking to media and this is a new space for you, don't do it off the cuff. Don't try and wing it at the last minute because it is a little, it is a slightly different style and there are details that you need to think through beforehand. So prepare, plan ahead of time what you will say. Now, another very important question is to ask yourself why should people care about what you're saying? Okay, why, what makes your research newsworthy? What makes it relevant to the target audience that you are addressing? Now, why am I even saying this? Well, who your target audience is will determine what they are interested in. So that is why we go back to who's the journalist, who's the publication and who's the target audience. Now, there are different reasons to communicate science. Sometimes you want to share with people exciting findings that you just had. You want to increase their own appreciation and excitement about science. You want to increase public knowledge about it. You want to make sure that when decisions are taken, all perspectives are taken into account. And as we saw repeatedly during the last two years of the pandemic, you know, there was so much research that was happening, for example, on COVID, on the vaccines, on the drugs, on the medicines, on what needed to be used, when would people need to be hospitalized, when was quarantining necessary to wear a mask, not wear a mask, what type of mask. Now, all of these decisions, all of this public policy, all of this behavior, depended on the science and the research being done and how that was communicated to people. So there are a ton of different reasons to communicate science, but you must ask yourself what makes your research relevant to the audience that you're speaking to. Now, once that is done, it becomes very important to identify three to four key messages. Now, I know that sometimes I can feel a little overwhelming because there's so much that you can talk about as a researcher. There are so many things about your research and everything feels interesting to you, right? Again, ask yourself, who is the audience? What do you want to, what do you think they would be interested in? For example, maybe there are three results that you want to share with them. Maybe there are three implications of your result that you would want to share with them. Maybe there are three focus areas, three reasons why your work is important. So there are small nuances that would change, but again, this would depend on who you are speaking to and what level of technical information they need to know. Another question to ask yourself is, what in your research is something that people need to know versus what would be nice for them to know? So the moment you are able to sort that out, the need to know becomes your core messaging and everything fits around it. Now, these three to four key messages must become the heart of what you are saying to people, right? Now, here's one where I think a scientist, sometimes we dig a bit of a hole for ourselves because we're so used to speaking to other scientists. We're so used to speaking with what would be considered scientific jargon for people who don't speak the same way with us, that this is the part where we really need to figure out how to speak, how to remove all of the jargon from the communication and just stick to the main messages. Now, I'm going to read this for you. If you spot a geological error in this, forgive me, I'm a biologist. This is a fairly famous piece of work, but let me read it. Try and guess what I'm saying before I tell you what it is. A research team proceeded towards the apex of a natural geologic protuberance. The purpose of their expedition being the procurement of a sample of fluid hydride of oxygen in a large vessel, the exact size of which was unspecified. Now, one member of the team precipitantly descended, sustaining severe fractural damage to the upper cranial portion of his anatomical structure. Subsequently, the second member of the team performed a self-rotational translation oriented in the direction taken by the first member. Do you know what I'm talking about? I'm talking about Jack and Jill who went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after. Now, maybe you guessed that, but the reason I've even put this here is it's actually it's something it's taken from a site called what would happen if scientists wrote nursery rhymes. I don't know who the original writer is. If I ever find that out, I will credit this, find out who it was, I would credit it to them. The idea of putting this is that the simplest things can be said with a ton of jargon and make it completely go out of the realm of most people who want to hear it. So you have the option of making something very complex, but you also have the option of making the complex simple. There is another one, but I think I will keep that for you to see later if you check this website out. Okay, so at the heart, when we are figuring out, once we figure out what are those three main messages that we want to talk about and we're crafting those messages, it's very important to remove jargon or even niche words. For example, a word like let's say when a chemist uses the word solution. People don't know whether solution is necessarily in the chemistry sense of the word or solution is in the sense of the word answer unless you have context. Words like hygroscopy, absorbing water. You can explain the technical details with words that everyone can understand. As I said before, because you are knee deep in this research, you live and breathe it because you know it so well, you are very well placed to do this. Be prepared to explain all and any technical details that you have in everyday language. And I really believe there is everyday language for everything that there is to be said. But at the same time, it's important not to and this was a phrase that used to be thrown around very frequently earlier. Don't dumb down what you are saying. Okay, it's a horrible phrase. I think it needs to be removed completely. You are not speaking to a child. You are not trying to oversimplify something. You are not trying to lecture anyone. You are speaking to peers who merely have a different set of vocabulary when you're speaking to them. So remove all the jargon, remove all the niche words, remove words like you know, things like dynamics and words that have could have different meanings in different contexts. Make sure you explain what you are referring to when you use words like that. Now, this can feel like a bit of a tightrope, I admit, because on the one hand, we're saying simplify, don't get into too many complex details, stick to the main messages. And at the same time, we're saying, don't talk down, do not lecture, don't sound like you're talking to a child, because that's really not the case. How do you find that balance? I have to admit it's easier once you start doing it. Once you just set your mind to do it, you will find the words and you will know exactly what to say. Another thing, another aid to help you is just imagine that you're out for a cup of coffee with a friend, with a peer who doesn't come from the same geology background as you do or does not have the same academic expertise that you have. How would you speak to them if they were really interested in understanding about the work that you do? How would you speak to them? And just keep that in mind and craft your messages. Now, another very important thing is provide a context for what you're saying, okay? Especially if this is something, especially if this is research that is still in the early stages, particularly if this is research that still needs further validation, needs further verification, you need to do more experiments to be able to say whether it holds true. Make sure you communicate that clearly, okay? Don't be afraid if it sounds a little uncertain, just make sure you communicate that clearly. I'll give you an example of someone, it's a Twitter handle called, I believe it's just says in mice, okay? Again, I've got a reference at the back of it so you can check it out. Very often in biology, there are certain experiments that are first done in cells and you do them in animals and then you start doing it in patients and it takes a long time, it takes multiple rounds of clinical trials before you know whether it holds true or not. Sometimes, a headline is written in such a way that an experiment that was actually done with mice is made to sound like it is the absolute truth until you read the article and maybe reach the fourth paragraph and you realize, oh, this was just done in mice. So, there is a Twitter handle called just says in mice and whenever that person finds any such headline, they retweeted just says in mice and so you remember like, oh, okay, this seems interesting but let's hold on for a bit and see whether those results really carry through. So, remember to provide a context because not everyone who's listening to you understands the complexities of the subject that you're talking about the way you understand it. This is interesting, flip the order. Now, when scientists stop to scientists, we ramble a little bit, let's be fair, okay, we might start with a bit of an introduction and say that this was the hypothesis and these were the materials, this was the experimental design, this is what we did, these were the results that we got, this led us to this particular conclusion and this is a discussion around that. Now, that's a great approach when you're talking to scientists because I think all of us are trained to think that way. When you're speaking to media, you need to flip that around. You must start with the results and the conclusion, tell the person why your results were significant, what is in it for other people and then go to how it's done and this is very, very crucial when you're talking to media, when you're talking to the public, people want to know so what was it, give me that one line, that two lines and whenever you read stories, whenever you read science stories that are written for a wider group of people, for example, I think Science Daily, the website does that, some well-known news stories will also do it. The first paragraph encapsulates the main reason you need to be reading the rest of it. It will tell you what the results were, why it's significant, you read that and think, oh, this is interesting and that's the reason why people will read the rest of the paper. So just remember, flip the order in which you speak. This is important. Use stories. Now, stories in no way are a substitute for data at all and nor should they distort the truth that's not their point. But when you use stories, it helps people to connect with what you are saying. It's very compelling. I think I watched this show on Netflix and there were scientists that were talking about coddles and coddles bleaching and climate change and all of that and what they did and it was a very powerful moment. They were addressing a room full of people. They had two images, the image of the before and the image of the after, of the coddles and they just showed that before it went on. Now, that was so powerful because in one image, you realized the intensity of the problem and that made you want to listen to them even more. Okay. And sometimes scientists, unfortunately, people think that we can be a very cold bunch of people because we like talking data and to us, data is not cold. Data is full of life. That's true. But when we're talking to the general public, not general, but when we're talking to the public, it's very important to use stories to make a point. I've also heard of some other client change problems where people spoke about it from a firefighters point of view, a firefighter that was fighting the wildfires that was such a problem and from his point of view and then you move into the bulk of the story that you want to say. Now, again, that makes for a compelling reason because people are able to connect with what you are saying. Linked to stories is the use of analogies. Analogies just help people understand immediately. And I think this is like, for example, when you're talking about space, when you're talking about that kind of size is a lot of people don't quite get the magnitude of things. When it comes to the planets, like, for example, if you were talking about the red spot on Jupiter, and you nearly said how large it was in terms of kilometers, I don't think a lot of people would get it. But I've seen this analogy on the NASA website where they said three Earths could fit into the ancient stone that was there. Now suddenly, it becomes very relatable. You understand what to say. I have read there are stories, for example, on volcanoes and on magma, which explained the dynamics of the lava to the squeezing of toothpaste out of a tube. They were also talking about seismic activity and they linked that to the sound that cutlery or a fork makes when you tap it against a glass and how the amount of volume, the volume of the water, the kind of liquid that's in it will change the sound that's produced and they related it to seismic details. I'm sorry, I don't remember all of that. But it sticks when you read something like that, when you read an analogy like that, something that's commonplace, you understand it a lot better. I've heard, for example, that the international space station, instead of just saying that it is 360 feet across, they described it as the length of a football field. Now all of a sudden, it's relatable. So use analogies, use analogies to make a point. Use statistics that add to the narrative. Now, again, I think I've heard a lot of scientists love to talk numbers and love to talk incidence rates, prevalence rates, and everyone gets it, right? But when you're talking to the public, make sure that you're using numbers, not just as fillers, not just to act as supporting material, but your stats must add to the story. It should not distract. I think, again, there was a story that I read and the headlines spoke about how I think 57% of structures in the US were at risk because of potential natural disasters. Now, that's one example where, and don't quote me on these numbers, okay, I can give you the exact references. I'm using it to make an example. I'm using it to make point. Use statistics in a way in which they add to the story and they don't take away from it. And the last thing that I would say is think of quotes. Now, when you're speaking to media, they're going to try and pick up sentences from you that immediately will connect with people. So if there is, if you can think of what would be the headline that I would like to see, and you craft that, try and insert things like that. Now, that's not an, you don't have to do it. But if you can do it and headlines and tweets are just a good tool to remember, think of ways to make the words that you're saying stick to the reporter and hopefully to the audience that you're speaking to ultimately. Now, just a few slides on how to deliver your message. Remember, it's really important to rehearse, okay, especially if this is the first or the second time you are doing this. Talk to someone who maybe does not have the same background that you do. Talk to someone, you know, speak to them, see what makes their eyes light up, see what makes their eyes glaze over, and that will give you some kind of inkling about what messaging is working and what messaging needs to be tweaked a little bit. Also, anticipate what kind of questions you will be asked in advance. Now, again, that little bit of reading that you have done on the journalist and to see the kind of stories that they do will help you figure, okay, will they ask about the impact of research? What's the next steps? What kind of things will you do? When will, what you are doing finally impact people? When will they see the benefits of your research, of your research? Keep these things in mind and prepare in advance. Sorry, there you go. Be confident when you're speaking, okay. You are someone who's living and breathing this, trust me, you have every reason to be confident when you're speaking. If you are faced with a question that's a little difficult or something that you don't think you can answer, it's completely okay to say, listen, I'm not in a position to be able to respond to this, but, and you can link back to what your key messages are. Another thing to remember is, you know, sometimes the word yes is also used as a filler. So someone talks to you and maybe you nod your head and you're like, yeah, I mean, you know, we, we don't realize sometimes that we use the word yes without meaning that it is an answer. Okay. So be careful of saying yes when you're in an interview. Only say it if you really mean a response in the affirmative. Another thing to do is yes, always think of yourself being on the record at all times, okay, whether you are being recorded at that point of time or not. If you are in an interview, if an interview is going on, always presume that you are always on record. What to avoid? Well, I use the word ramble, but what I mean is, you know, when we go away from key messages and we're talking like I spoke about my spiel right at the start, when people would ask me about my research and I take an entire tour around the lab to do it. Don't do that. Stick to your key messages, stick to the main things that you want people to understand as a result of your work. Try to avoid saying no comment. Like I said previously, it's okay to say I'm not in a position to be able to respond to that. Don't say no comment because unfortunately that answer is presumed to be a very cagey response and you don't want to be perceived like that. Don't guess anything. It's okay to sometimes tell the journalist, you know what, I will look up the answer. I will get back to you and you can always email them or get in touch with them soon after the interview and share a response. That's also all right. Yeah, I think, I think we have a few minutes so we can just very quickly do a recap. Yeah, starting with know your audience. Remember they are a very, very diverse group of people. So as far as possible, know who you are speaking to and understand what they would be interested in. Also find out about the reporter beforehand, do your research, understand their background, what kind of stories they usually do, what the publication is, who their target audience is as well. When it comes to the message that you are saying, prepare ahead of time, ask yourself, why should people care? Think about those three or four key messages that you want to stick with people, remove all the jargon, be ready to answer in a way that's clear and regular, everyday coffee shop language. Provide the context, flip the order in which you're saying, so explain the significance and the main result first and then go into other details, use stories, use analogies, use statistics as long as they are adding to the narrative and try and craft quotes that are quotable. As far as delivery is concerned, and keep in mind those basics about what to do and what to avoid doing when you're speaking to media. Now, I have a bunch of references and papers that I refer to, articles that I refer to, and if anyone's interested, please shout out and I would love to send this to you, as well as a recap sheet. You can contact me on LinkedIn, Insta or email, whatever you'd like. Yeah, I think we could take a couple of questions. Excellent. Thank you so much, Cheryl. It made me laugh when you mentioned removing jargon, any specified dynamics, just because as a fluid scientist, I use that word all the time, so it'll be quite painful, I think, to remove that from my lexicon. Yeah, we have time for some questions. There's a few in the Q&A box. Are they going through? Just to start off with, is there a key mistake or, I suppose, stomping block that you see scientists make regularly when communicating with the media? I think the biggest one is the use of jargon, quite honestly, Simon. Because that is what is and I've seen this happen so often. If you speak in very technical words that the journalist cannot understand, the journalist then does either a very superficial story or they lose interest in what you're saying, which is sad, because what you're saying might be really, really interesting, except that they've just not understood anything that you're saying. So I think one of the biggest issues that we make is really the use of scientific language instead of non-technical language. Sure. Thanks for that answer. So let's get to you, go into a few of the ones we've received in the Q&A box. The first one is, is it acceptable to reach out to journalists or media outlets directly without them waiting to approach you if you think your research is relevant? It's a good question. And again, I think there are a couple of things to keep in mind. One is would the principal investigator, for example, if the lab be completely okay with you talking directly to journalists, they need to be on board with that. And they need to make sure that, you know, for example, is the research published already? Or is it not published? Because you ideally want to wait for something that was already in the public domain before you presented to them, before you speak to media. If something has been recently published and you think that media would be interested, usually most journalists would be would be open to hearing from you. It's great if you have a press center, for example, or a media center at the university, because what happens is in that case, the journalist is aware of those email IDs, they know that the information coming through the media center is credible and information that they can rely on. So it works both ways. AI would say just check with the PI, make sure it's something that's already in the public domain because the last thing you want to do is for it to be quoted and then to say still unpublished. Now, I have to say during COVID, that would happen a lot. And I think that was okay at the time because things were in preprint servers, you know, people wanted the message to get out. And that was also one of the reasons why there was a lot of information. But if you just keep those, usually you can reach out to journalists on their own. If you do it through the media center, it might just be a little bit more formal and a little better that way. So it's fine to take the initiative, but just make sure any collaborators are happy with that, that the researchers out there for the reporters click into and also make sure you get support from any media institutions at your place of work. Okay. The next question is what if research findings aren't significant all the reports and policies in this question? How do you, I suppose, address a situation where someone might want to diminish your findings? Yeah, and so this is a hard one. Okay, because sometimes, for example, you are talking to a journalist who just does not find what you're saying interesting. And we all know that science can be like that. It is a little subjective. All of us naturally gravitate towards some fields and are not really interested in others. So that is unfortunate if it happens. But journalists are fair. And I think if you can explain to them the implications of your research, if there is a great story that you have to say, if you can tell them, though, the second point, why should people care, although what's in it for me as an audience who's listening to, if you can communicate that, then at least what you've done is presented your work in the best way possible. And then beyond that, unfortunately, there's not a lot that you can do. Sure. So really going back to those key points we made before about crafting that key message, making sure you come bound to bring back to that almost critical statement about what that significance is and keeping on that point. We have another question this time regarding social media usage. And do you have any advice for researchers who promote their research outcomes via social media? And this could be, for example, an intern otherwise. Yeah. And, you know, it again comes to the points that we mentioned earlier. Just make sure, particularly if you're a researcher who's interning in another person's lab, that the researchers that you're working with and the main investigator is okay with you sharing that. Because sometimes it could be part of someone else's work. And they may not want to go out to the media until all of that is done. Once it is out there, once it is in the public domain, I mean, there's so much fun stuff that you can do with research. I think y'all had a session at the recent ETO conference about poetry. I think of a Sam Illingworth who said who uses poetry. I've seen dance competitions, believe it or not, where researchers present their finding in dance or music. I personally, during the pandemic, because there were so many questions on the vaccines, I made these little clay models and Lego and stuff like that to explain the vaccines or antimicrobial research. So if you have all of those permissions and everything's in place for you to speak, you can take so many interesting creative ways. I've also seen well-known doctors, for example, just do a Twitter thread. And recently, there was something that was in the media and a well-known cancer researcher in India just did about nine or 10 just regular Twitter tweets in a thread. But because he was saying he was making points that were very interesting, you just you read through it. So lots of fun, interesting, exciting ways to present your information. So I suppose one way to approach it would be not one single way, but multiple ways. One would be, for example, if there's a paper published, do a thread summary, and then another way is too well people like me, for example, might have a very short attention span. So another way you can engage him is using images, is using videos, etc. So use creativity on multiple angles and social media. Yes. Thank you. We have time for a couple more questions. One I have is, how very should scientists be when discussing sensitive subjects, such as, for example, climate change with the media? I suppose, is there precaution should they take? Should we be worried about this? I guess this kind of comes back to what you said about making sure we don't know the parts of the forehand. Yeah. Yeah. And absolutely. I think what's very important is to know who the journalist that you're talking to is also to understand the media, the publication that they're working for. So there are sometimes, and you can see it in the previous story is sometimes journalists will take a very negative or investigative edge and perhaps not do justice the way you would like your work to be dealt with. So make sure you've vetted the, not just the journalist, but also the publication, because sometimes the journalist may be fine, you may have worked with them when they were at a different publication. But they moved to a place where the publication itself takes a very certain tone and has a certain edge to the story. So be careful and make sure both the journalist and the publication that you're talking to matches the way you would like to see your story. So if you get the opportunity to talk to media, you should also be selective yourself. Yeah. Do your research on who you're talking to and publication, but also expect part of journalists to freedom is that people might take a negative spin. And unfortunately that goes with the territory of communicating media. Yeah. I think that also leads into another question I was thinking, which is really kind of triggered when you mentioned storytelling and it's how emotive or evocative can scientists be in the communication with the media? Storytelling would suggest you can be playful with your words, but I suppose you're also to balance it out with being honest with your data. So is there a level which scientists can be too evocative or emotive with the language? And now there's a second aspect to that is a lot of scientists are also very passionate about the politics around that work. For example, climate change or ocean pacification and the reef dive you were talking about. Do you think scientists should also inject a political angle or leave that up to journalists who are discussing the subject with? That's valid. And you know, Simon, it comes back to would the scientists do speaking and people have convictions and some people are very happy for everyone to know about that. Right. So would the scientists be completely okay with their courts becoming courts directly as they said and following them for all eternity? You know, I mean, that's that's one filter. And if you're okay with that, if you're okay with your colleagues and people you work with and potentially future places that you work with to know where you stand on issues to know how you feel about certain subjects, then that's fine. If you're not sure about that, then maybe talking to media is not the best way to get that out. Maybe do that on your own social media, your own social channel where you have complete control over what you're saying and how it's being edited and how it's being being put out there. You know, so it's a very subjective thing. Scientists can be as vocal as they'd like to about certain issues because, of course, they're speaking from a place of expertise as well as well as they are very passionate about the subject. But just make sure that you're saying it in a in the right forum or just do it on your own social media platform, do it on a LinkedIn, do it on Facebook, whatever, whatever your choice is. So you have ultimate control over that. Sure, I guess that's again what the key and certainties of communicating in the media is you're on full in control of your own messaging. So if you want to make a strong or perhaps political point with your research, perhaps do so for your own channels first of control. And also, so when journalists approach you, they also know what angle they could approach your research from. I guess the other takeaway from what you said is make sure you're confident in what you're saying, that you have support from your media centres if you have them. And that you're just very confident and acknowledge the legacy that would come with making strong points for your science. And I suppose also, just when you approach journalists, they're aware that you have that stance, so you're not necessarily hijacking what they're trying to communicate themselves. And they also have the choice of editing things out. And that's always the case. And the fact is that their story would probably have a far wider reach than your social media channel would. So there is that reason why you would be very tempted to say it to them because it reaches a wider audience. But you really need to wait. And I think it would be a case by case evaluation of what we needed. Sure. So our time here is almost up. I have one more question, if none more pop in your Q&A box. And that is, is there like a key role people or scientists should keep in mind when approaching the media? Of course, you mentioned a good framework here for people to follow, but if all else fails, is there one key thing you need to be aware of? I think of content, think of context. So when you're speaking, make sure it's free of jargon, but also make sure that you have not sensationalized the news. You have done your best to give it in the framework in which it is true and accurate. And then hopefully the person that you're speaking to is able to translate that then for the general. So it would come down. I think if I had to crystallize it into clear content and correct context. Sure. So be honest, be clear, don't be tempted to sensationalize what you're saying. Yeah. Excellent. Great. I think that's all our time for today. So I'd like to thank everyone who joined us on this webinar today. I'd also like to thank Cheryl. If you want to use this webinar for you later, it will be uploaded to our EU Geosciences channel on YouTube in a week's time. Over now, I'd like to say goodbye. So thank you everyone for attending. Bye. Bye.