#EB2012 #apsACE: My First Storify

Apr 22 2012 Published by under EB2012 Meeting, [Biology&Environment]

I attended an excellent session on the need to increase transparency and public outreach in animal experimentation. I tweeted throughout the session, and I have assembled the highlights using Storify. I had hoped to include original observations from others in the room, but most of the other tweets were retweets of me (or the others tweeting forgot to use the hashtag).

I am reminded of the following facts:

  • People are programmed to want the world to make sense
  • Nature abhors a vacuum
  • If there is no story to make sense of something, people will supply their own
  • If you want the truth to be known, you should supply the story

Until scientists supply the stories to justify their research on both scientific and ethical grounds, people will remain suspicious of our intentions. We must reach out to the public and let them see and feel and hear our stories; not hide in a vivarium-bunker.



Comments are off for this post

#EB2012 #apsComm: Using New Communication Tools

Apr 22 2012 Published by under EB2012 Meeting, [Information&Communication]

Yesterday, April 21, I had the pleasure of serving on a panel at Experimental Biology discussing the use of blogs and other social media to do public outreach. Yes, I got to be the old lady on the stage with Dr. Isis, Danielle Lee, and Jason Goldman at the session moderated by James Hicks. A good time was had by all (although Isis got a bit sweaty in her headdress replete with golden cobra) as we pontificated on our own uses of the brave new world of the internet. By unanimous request of the audience (OK, more like there were no objections) we have each agreed to share our slides on a number of platforms. I am also placing mine here.

Thus far many other sessions have addressed the use of these relatively new tools for communication. At their heart, Facebook, Twitter, and Blogs merely provide the latest pigment to spread on cave walls. Since the dawn of time humans have desired to tell their stories; these new media let us do it more widely and permanently than ever before.

The Animal Care and Experimentation Committee provided a Toolkit for Public Outreach (#apsACE) that addressed the need for transparency and engagement, rather than the bunker mentality that has prevailed at most institutions. Even this morning in accepting the Claude Bernard award, William Galey mentioned all the education resources available online. For today's students, access to information is not a problem. However, we must make sure that they learn to evaluate the reliability of information and sources before they use them in critical applications like patient care.

I ended my slides with a still from the movie Meet Me in Saint Louis. In its early scenes, a suitor calls the eldest sister, Rose, on that new-fangled invention, the telephone. A prolonged discussion ensues over whether or not a respectable girl should accept a proposal via an "invention". Similar attitudes toward the phone can be seen in the first season of Downton Abbey. All of the technology we use today was once considered radical, experimental, and unnecessary (I can remember when email elicited similar reactions to those about the phone). Social media will soon be just how we communicate, and we will move onto sessions on other cutting-edge topics, like flying cars or Star Trek transporter physiology.


2 responses so far

Meeting & Greeting

Apr 09 2012 Published by under [Education&Careers]

An interesting post at Science News addresses the costs of conferences. All sorts of issues arise, including shrinking travel budgets, environmental costs of all that air travel, preliminary work that becomes "permanent", and even the number of trees used to generate program books. Having been in the biomedical science biz for 20+ years now, I have survived several waves of "let's quit meeting and just do this online." Conferences will never go away for one reason: we like them.

Bumping into new contacts in the Exhibit Hall

Oh, I hear people complaining about taking time away from their work and family. We all gripe about time spent in airports. Yet we all keep submitting and accepting and going because nothing replaces face-to-face interactions for us human beings.

There is value in meeting potential colleagues and reviewers. Some of the best ideas and collaborations get built around informal conversations when you toss a group of people with something in common together. Big keynote addresses could just as easily be done via the net, but those do not keep me on the road. No, it's the chance to meet new people who will help me think about things in a new way. I always consider a meeting successful if I get one new idea to explore.

Last month my department had a panel discussion about working a meeting, directed at our trainees and junior faculty. Those of us on the panel all agreed that networking (there's that word again) was why we paid for attendance. You never know who may be important in reviewing your work or getting you hired sometime down the line. Even if you really only connect with other trainees, you will learn more stuff about what other programs are like (you may be in nirvana and not know it). You may meet someone who will be hiring when you are ready for a second job. You may meet someone who will be reviewing you on their first study-section assignment. You will learn something from everyone you meet. Think of it as being mentored by a hive of "E-Bees".

There are some tips we gave our n00bs to make their networking easier. First, get a professional non-university email. You do not want all your job offers and conversations going through your university accounts. You also do not want to use an address that is too personal; "lovesbeer@yahoo.com" or "partygirl@gmail.com" will not impress potential colleagues. If it does, you probably do not want that job. Figure out some permutation of your name and/or science and get that gmail account set up now. As someone who recently changed jobs, it was wonderful to have a "permanent" email to use as my university account went dead.

Next we suggested business cards. Even in the age of the electronic frontier, the humble piece of dead tree remains the most accepted method of exchanging contact information. You're a trainee and they don't make cards for you? Do it yourself! Anyone with a computer and printer can buy a pack at the office store and have reasonable cards in less than an hour. Yes, some people will exchange cards and then throw yours out in the airport. Some new acquaintances will put you in their contacts. That's the way it works. You will do the same.

Finally, consider starting an online presence. If you aren't up to a full-fledged website, at least start on LinkedIn (this link takes you to my public profile as an example). The networking site for professionals essentially puts your resume into your profile. Upload a nice photo of your face, and you're in business. Eventually, you will make connections on the site. Some of us even get the odd job offer via LinkedIn (wrong place, wrong time, but otherwise something I would have jumped at). It will not yet replace emailing your CV, but it does give you an online presence that should not provide any embarrassing personal details. Eventually you will find useful information here via interest groups and discussions.

Finally, remember that the real meeting takes place away from the microphone. Casual discussions in hallways and restaurants and bars are more important than plenary sessions (unless you are on the platform, and even then...).


2 responses so far

Countdown to EB: 14 Days

Apr 06 2012 Published by under [Education&Careers]

Two weeks from today I board a plane and fly to San Diego for Experimental Biology. As one of the official bloggers for the American Physiological Society I find myself doing more prep work than any other year. The Online Itinerary Builder is now live, allowing attendees to search the program by track, presenter, society, keywords...or any combination of the above.

I have identified a few sessions, and some suggestions have been made by you, my loyal readers.

I will not be "live" blogging. I attempted that a couple of times, and I just do not have that skill set. Watch my twitter feed in the right column (or follow me on twitter; you really should, you know) for real-time updates on what I am attending. Some sessions will get full coverage a bit later; others may not.

Some sessions will be covered with twitter feeds via Storify. This web-based service will let me collect tweets, facebook updates, photos, videos, and other thoughts on various sessions to tell a more completes version. The first session I will use for this technique is on Saturday, April 21, at 3 pm in Room 25C of the San Diego Convention Center. The APS Communications Committee has convened a discussion about the use of social media to communicate about physiology. James Hicks will chair the symposium, while the panel is staffed by Dr. Isis, Jason Goldman, Danielle Lee, and yours truly. Since I am on the platform participating, I will look to the audience for thoughts and impressions.

So how can I track down your thoughts and impressions? Hashtags. On twitter, thoughts can be mapped to topics via #keyword. We can use those same hashtag/keywords on other platforms to mark relevant content. Here are the ones I will be following for Saturday events:

  • #apsACE          Animal Research: A Toolkit for Investigators (Sat, Apr 21, 1pm, 25B)
  • #apsComm    Using Social Media to Communicate About Physiology and You (Sat, Apr 21, 3pm, 25C)
  • #Navar              Physiology in Perspective: The Walter B. Cannon Memorial Award Lecture (Sat, Apr 21, 5:45pm, Ballroom 20A)
  • #apsParty       APS Beach Party (Sat, Apr 21, 7pm, North Embarcadero)

Since I cannot be everywhere at once, some sessions will not get my blog treatment. If anyone wants to see a session immortalized online, just let me know what hashtag you and your colleagues are using; I will be glad to assemble coverage here!

For photos and video, you can also add your stuff to a Flickr group (http://www.flickr.com/groups/eb2012/).

Don't be shy; consider this your scientific outreach!


Comments are off for this post

Back in the Saddle

Mar 19 2012 Published by under [Etc]

After a glorious week of spring training baseball in Florida, I am back at the office proving that no trip goes unpunished. Slowly but surely I am slogging though piles of email, snail mail, and other little chores that found their way to one of my many inboxes.

Today I briefly share my thoughts on the app that took South by Southwest by storm, if the twitteratti are to be believed: Highlight. The app sounds simple enough; you install it on your mobile device. When it encounters nearby people also using Highlight, it shows you their profiles and, in turn, shows them yours. Sounds like a cool way to find people you might want to meet, right?

I love the idea of using this at large gatherings, such as conferences. I would love to see professional profiles of others nearby.

Unfortunately, Highlight only links via Facebook.

I have used Facebook as a personal service. My friends there are really people I know with whom I want to share social stuff (like photos from the recent vacation in which I am sitting in the sun, sipping beer). That's not the stuff I want readily available to the general public or potential medical/scientific/professional colleagues when I am out and about.

I hope that the app eventually allows professionals to mingle via LinkedIn. I would love to turn that on during Experimental Biology.

For now I will skip the Highlight. And (sigh) get back to work.


4 responses so far

42 Days and Counting

In just over a month thousands of life scientists will gather in San Diego for Experimental Biology, the meeting formerly known as FASEB. In addition to being the annual gathering of the American Physiological Society, this year also celebrates the 125th anniversary of the APS.

Yes, I am proud to be a physiologist!

Of course, I am also honored to be one of the APS's official meeting bloggers! I have access to the press room (I don't suppose that includes a hot tub and wet bar?). This status means I am looking at the meeting in a whole new light. Instead of focusing on my own interests (and using the down-time to relax at the Marriott's poolside bar), I want to communicate things that my audience will appreciate as well.

What things will I definitely cover?

  • APS Communications Committee Symposium: Using Social Media to Communicate About Physiology and You (I'm on the panel, so I have to be there)
  • Physiology in Perspective: The Walter B. Cannon Memorial Award Lecture (Gabriel Navar, a renal physiologist, is the speaker at this opening event)
  • Renal Section Awards Banquet (Another I-have-to-be-there)

I will also likely attend and blog some of the teaching of physiology sessions. As I transition from physician-scientist to physician-educator-administrator (with physiology research as more of a hobby), these sessions have become important for me.

What would you, my loyal readers, like to hear about? I cannot guarantee that I will cover it, but you never know...

Use the links to the meeting sites above to explore the program and exhibits and activities. Provide suggestions in the comments, and I will see how it all fits together.

If you have a student presenting, let me know. I may want to blog their science!



One response so far

A Solution for the Twitterverse!

Feb 20 2012 Published by under [Information&Communication]

Click for source

Last summer I succumbed to the buzz and got on Google+. Hey, all the cool kids were doing it; why not me?

I must admit I still prefer Twitter to the other social media services. If you cannot say it in 140 characters, get a blog! However, I am not alone on the internet, and I have friends that prefer Facebook and other sites (although I have not yet knowingly met a person who prefers G+).  I keep hoping someone will explain what makes Google's site "the one."

The bottom line is that any person or group that wants to communicate broadly must have a presence on all of the social media sites. Otherwise you will always be missing someone who prefers doing it another way. Solutions exist to connect Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Foursquare, and others. Software became available within a few weeks of the G+ debut to allow your posts there to go out to Twitter et al.

I love Twitter. Was there no solution to let my tweets feed into my G+ stream? Otherwise, I only think to post there about once a month.

Today I found a solution via Quora (posted on 14 January 2012), the internet Q&A site. I am giving you a direct link to the instructions. You will want to keep them open in a separate window, on another device, or (gasp) print them out.

Google+ allows you to post via SMS. That’s the trick.

Who exposed this method online? A whippersnapper the same age as my son (Timmer, you're slacking). His bio follows:

My name is Salavat Khanov. I'm 19-years-old blogger & developer based in Ufa, Russia. I'm currently studying at Ufa State Aviation Technical University (Software Engineering student) and working on my own projects.

I take keen interest in programming and development of Mac and iOSapplications, also Web development. Currently I am very much interested in the process of learning and making Mac OS X applications and working on websites.

Since 2009 I have been actively working in the web industry. I have worked with many different people on various projects and as a result I gained some unique and strong experience in the IT, English language and generally - life.

It took 15-20 minutes for me to set up the system, and it works great! Thank you, Salavat - you made my day!


Comments are off for this post

These Social Networks: Personality and Preference

Feb 15 2012 Published by under Uncategorized, [Information&Communication]

Click for Source

On Valentine's Day, an online friend tweeted a link to a Wall Street Journal article about a study of personality and social media network usage. The article consisted of 118 words, but I had to know more. I pulled the paper for detail:

A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Hughes et al. Computers in Human Behavior 28:561-69, 2012

The authors want to know if users of Twitter and Facebook differ in their personalities. First, what aspects of personality do they want to consider? They study the

  • Neuroticism: Measure of affect and emotional control. Low levels suggest emotional stability, and higher levels reflect sensitivity and nervousness (Drama Queens, if you please).
  • Extraversion: Measure of engagement with others. Extraverts tend to be outgoing and talkative. Intraverts get their energy from within themselves.
  • Openness-to-Experience: Measure of desire for novelty. High scores indicate broad interests for new experiences, with low scorers preferring familiarity.
  • Agreeableness: Measure of "friendliness." High scores general found for people who are kind, warm, and sympathetic.
  • Conscientiousness: Measure of work ethic, orderliness, and thoroughness. High scores belong to those who get it done on time. Low scores can indicate proscratination tendencies.

In addition they also assessed two personality facets that may also influence online interactions:

  • Sociability: Measure of need to belong. No distinction between this score and that for extraversion/intraversion is presented.
  • Need for Cognition: Measure of disposition toward novel cognitive stimulation.

They combined validated survey instruments for each of these factors, along with some questions about Twitter and Facebook use and basic demographics, and made a single online instrument to test the following hypotheses:

  1. Neuroticism will be positively correlated with social use of both Facebook and Twitter
  2. Extraversion will be positively correlated with use of Facebook
  3. Extraversion will be negatively related to use of Twitter
  4. Openness will be correlated with both social and informational use of both Facebook and Twitter
  5. Agreeableness will be unrelated to social network use
  6. Conscientiousness will be negatively correlated with social use of both Facebook and Twitter
  7. Conscientiousness will be positively correlated with informational use of social network services
  8. Need for cognition will be positively correlated with informational use of Facebook and Twitter, but will be unrelated to social use
  9. Sociability will positively correlate with the social use of Facebook and Twitter, but will be unrelated to informational use

The investigators recruited participants through ads on both Twitter and Facebook; informed consent was obtained and a small donation made to charity on behalf of each person. No report is made on how many participants came from ads on which service. A total of 300 people (97 males, 207 females) completed the survey. Ages ranged from 18 to 63 (mean 27). Europeans accounted for 70%, 18% were from North America, 9% from Asia, and the remaining 3% from other continents. 55% of participants were employed, 41% were students, and only 4% had no job.

The first analysis classified participants by social network usage. Four factors generated included Twitter Information, Facebook Social, Twitter Social, and Facebook Information. The strongest correlation identified was Sociability with both Twitter Information and Facebook Information, completely refuting hypothesis #9. The pattern of correlations with Twitter Information and Facebook information were diametrically opposed; they conclude that personality may help determine which service one uses to consume or deliver information. The strongest correlation with Twitter Social was Conscientiousness, while Sociability showed the strongest relationship to Facebook Social.

The investigators also asked each participant which network they preferred, with 197 picking Facebook. Users with this preference rated higher in Sociability, Extraversion, and Neuroticism than those preferring Twitter. The latter group scored higher in Need for Cognition.

The authors discuss a boatload of correlations in these data, for what they are worth. Correlations do not  prove causation, and this study population was small, self-selected, and not generalizable. Their findings provide support and lack-thereof for all nine of their hypotheses.

The bottom line for me is that most people who use social media have a preference for one site or another. For my personal interactions, I need to be where "my people" are. If I want to get the word out about a product or service or event or other news item, I need to be everywhere; otherwise I will miss people. Diversity issues also present themselves, not through the traditional race-gender-ethnicity lens but through a personality lens. When I restrict myself to one network, I may be preaching to a choir even more like myself than I imagined.


3 responses so far

Value Added

Feb 13 2012 Published by under [Science in Society]

A few years back I decided I needed some business training to pursue my administrative goals. A big piece of this education included financial materials. One problem involved valuing a business.  Sure, you have the building and supplies and widgets, and usually some cash is on hand as well. However, businesses come with intangible assets. What is the name "Disney" worth, for example? How about "Enron," now versus 1998?

The only way to really find out the value of a business or other entity is to sell it. Like houses, they are worth whatever someone will pay.

In scientific publishing, someone has paid for the data before submission to the journal. What value does the journal add?

  • Peer-review - Yes, I realize most of this is done by volunteers, but there is infrastructure to maintain.
  • Editing - Do you put spaces on one or both sides of the "<" sign? Thanks to hired punctuation police, scientists do not have to think about this. Of course, most of us can get the message from the unedited manuscript (regardless of the quality of the grammar and kerning), so this function can be perceived as beautification with little true value.
  • Distribution - Costs are lower via the internet, but not yet zero. Even publishers have to buy servers and pay electric bills. We also expect the information to be maintained in perpetuity, no matter how few people access it.
  • Reputation - Each journal adds intangible value to the articles within, a value most difficult to quantify.

These are the things we pay for with subscriptions, page fees, and download prices. How do we judge what is fair? We can look to Open Access publications for an idea of the overall costs for the first three items. What we cannot learn as easily is the price of reputation. A publication in Nature may be worth $35 per download in perpetuity. Is a 5-year-old article in Pathophysiology (Impact Factor not available) really worth $22?

I am not certain what the solution will be. The internet has clearly disrupted publishing of all sorts, and scientific journals will not be exempt. Until that magical reputation factor drops lower in value, I doubt that the glamor rags will suffer.


2 responses so far

Female Blogging Manifesto: #Scio12 In Action

Jan 25 2012 Published by under [Information&Communication]

The Science Online 2012 session on the perils of blogging female generated discussion, both at the conference and on the internet.  Comments to female bloggers are not merely sexist. Many are viscious, some are threatening, and some cross the line into criminal intent. If you don't believe me, search the #mencallmethings hashtag on twitter for examples. Kate Clancy blogged about the need for a posse, a group that gets it and can fight off these, well, douchecanoes when they materialize.

A number of us gathered later that evening, expressing our frustration that the session continues to remain necessary. We cannot believe that we have not moved beyond these blatant displays of sexism and misogyny and hate. We are ready to move forward; why isn't the discussion?

Yup, it's pink.

The answer came at the banquet Friday evening, when Janet Stemwedel took to the stage in The Monti Storytelling event. (This story will eventually be available as a podcast here). In the fall of 2011 the blogosphere exploded with a discussion of "gendered" science kits - you know, pink girl kits for bubble bath and cosmetics, while the boys get microscopes and chemistry sets that look like something an actual scientist might have in the lab. These kits reinforce the overwhelming value of girls' femininity while supposedly encouraging scientific endeavors. Dr. Free-ride, her "nom de blog", related how she heard about this topic and thought, "Not again." She felt tired; she wanted to let someone else fight the battle this time.

Eventually, she sucked it up and posted.

Then, a miracle occurred. Someone at this scientific toy company saw the virtual shitstorm on the internet. Multiple blogs, opinions on Facebook, updates on Google+, and a flood from the Twitterverse were not ignored. The company announced that they would no longer sell gendered science kits. They would simply sell science kits.


Now, I cannot say that without Janet's post that this would not have occurred. Was she the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back? We will never know what the minimal unit of rant is for any given change.

As I look back on our musings in the bar that evening, I realize that we must continue having these same sessions. The conversation and complaints must continue until the appropriate parties notice and act. Yes, we get tired of it. Yes, it is repetitive. Yes, it sucks. But it must be done. If not for us, for our daughters. The real daughters, whether they be tomboys or pretty-pink-princesses, and our daughters in society, those younger than us who want to inquire and write and express their thoughts on an equal footing with the menfolk.

So we will continue to complain and rant and fight and whine and even bitch. Get over it, boys - only then will it stop.

I am in this battle for the long haul. And so is my posse.


5 responses so far

« Newer posts Older posts »