Begin at the end
By Mary O’Callaghan

When scientists write for their peers, say, in a classic science report, they position their conclusion (or proposition, recommendations) at the end of the document. This is known as the inductive pattern. The structure usually goes something like this:

· introduction

· background

· methods

· results

· discussion

· conclusion

We choose this pattern if our reader will benefit from being introduced to the topic and led through the details before being confronted with our conclusion. Scientists will generally expect this pattern. They are just as interested in how we came to our conclusion as they are in what that conclusion is.

When we are writing for a decision-maker (or, indeed, a journalist or a lay person), we need to turn this on its head and write in the deductive pattern i.e. announce our proposition or conclusion at the start of the document.

Decision-makers are short on time and want to know the conclusion before deciding whether to go through the supporting material.

They want to know how the research benefits them. They are more interested in a solution to a problem, or information to help them make a decision, than in how you have gone about your research.

So, give the decision-maker all the supporting evidence they need, but get to the point early and clearly.

How to brief a minister

By Kathy Grube

If you are briefing a minister, it’s probably for one of two reasons: they have asked for your advice, or you have an idea you want to tell them about.

Either way, consider these rules of thumb:

1. Ministers are time poor, so make your minutes count. Be prepared to get your message across in 60 seconds in case the meeting is cut short.

2. Be apolitical but politically aware. In other words, present the facts as you see them, but don’t be naive about the political difficulties that might be involved.

3. Ministers will always need to know about two things – time and money. How much will it cost and how long will it take to do? Have those facts to hand.

4. Don’t forget to listen. It’s a conversation, not a public lecture.

5. Ministers face a barrage of information every day. Less is more. Three key points well expressed can achieve more than thirty minutes of heavy detail.

Writing for policymakers

By Toss Gascoigne

[Toss Gascoigne is co-presenter of Ecoconnect's workshops on Talking Science with the media, Presenting science and Communication planning.]

How can you maximise the chance of research playing a key role in guiding policy and resource-allocation decisions, instead of gathering dust on a bookshelf?

First you need a clear appreciation of the needs of your audience, the policymaker. What do they want, when do they want it, and what’s the best format?

A policy paper must quickly identify problems or concerns faced by the reader and lead them to a solution.

People who read policy briefs are likely to be time poor, and will appreciate short documents with:

· a clear statement of the problem

· an outline of possible solutions

· a clear recommendation

Try to imagine that you have been commissioned to filter reams of information on behalf of a busy, sleep-deprived person. The length will depend on the audience, but short is good.

If you don’t grab the reader’s attention in the first paragraph, you will not achieve your objectives.

Here are 7 questions to answer before you write your policy paper, taking into account the policymaking process that you are involved in and the research that you are writing about:

1. Which stage(s) in the policymaking process are you trying to influence?

2. Who are the people involved at each stage of the policymaking process?

3. Have you identified a clear problem to address? Can you summarise it in 2 sentences?

4. Do you have enough evidence to support your claim that a problem exists?

5. Have you outlined and evaluated the possible policy options that could solve this problem? What evaluation criteria did you use?

6. Have you decided on a preferred option?

7. Do you have enough evidence to argue effectively for your preferred option over the others?

A US initiative has tried to find ways to improve communication between scientists and the public, especially about issues that worry people deeply.

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences project considered how scientists engage with the public, and how their mutual understanding could be improved.

It brought together more than 50 scientists, engineers, public policy experts, lawyers, ethicists and journalists for workshops on four areas of public concern.

Read the full article at University World News.

Fresh news!  Beth is the winner of a Pew Fellowship for Marine Conservation in 2010.  Read more.

Dr Beth Fulton is a senior research fellow at CSIRO and the developer of Atlantis, an ecosystem-modelling program evaluated as world’s best by the FAO.  In 2007, Dr Fulton won the Science Minister’s Prize for Life Scientist of the Year.  Since her award, her profile in the public eye has heightened considerably. Her experience in dealing with media has broadened, and here, she offers her opinion on communicating science effectively, as well as the responsibilities of scientists in communication.

General tips

“There’s a different kind of language that you use in science compared to the general domain and you have to be cautious of not being misunderstood. Words that have a very specific and very neutral meaning in science may have a weighted meaning in general use.

“Your audience will get much more if you’re clear, use a language they can understand and if you’ve thought through what you’re saying. It has no impact if they haven’t understood you.

“Try to step back and communicate as if you were talking to your grandmother – people aren’t impressed by big strings of big words.”

“While being cautious and being clear about what you’re saying, don’t assume that the media’s out to get you. You can watch the news and see politicians get trapped by Kerry O’Brien, but it’s not what the media’s out to do necessarily.

“Sometimes they try to steer you to a particular answer. If that’s not appropriate then you just say, ‘I can’t answer that question’”.

Objectivity versus activism

“I think [scientists] need to be fair brokers. There’s a danger in becoming an advocate for one side or the other… [If asked], I think they need to simply state, ‘This is what the information is’”.

“In other cases, it does pay to speak up, but at those times it’s important to put your science to the side, step back and then say ‘As a citizen, I’m going to participate in this cause for the betterment of society’”.

“But in my personal opinion, you don’t blur the two. When you blur the two, you actually do a disservice to both – it becomes too easy for other people to attack the science based on your personal opinions and what you’re expressing as a view.

“Keep the two clearly separate, so your science is always in its best light. If you want to put forward your personal opinion, that’s your right, but keeping the two separate actually gets them both further along.

“If I had jumped on any one particular band-wagon in the past, I don’t think my science would have had as much impact as it has currently, simply being seen by all sides as an honest representation of the way the world works, with as little bias as is humanly possible.

“Through engaging with the media, and being fair brokers, scientists can show people the importance of science, so society can see the value of maintaining it.

“If the bottom line [for science] gets smaller and smaller, then society’s made a judgement that we’re not doing enough for them. To turn that around, some of that is just educating people, and that’s probably where we do have to be clear about what we’re contributing and how we’re supporting society.”

Related articles:

• Skills – Supervision: Dr Beth Fulton on being a mentor
• Pavlov’s Epilogue: Dr Beth Fulton and her advice to young scientists
• Ex situ – Balance: Dr Beth Fulton – “Try to find a happy life-balance”
• Skills – Negotiating the workplace: Dr Beth Fulton: on being a female scientist of international renown
• Fiat Lux: Big picture science through a watery lens
• Fiat Lux: Significant women of science series

“Sometimes in newspapers you see things said about animal production or agriculture that aren’t quite right.

“Writing for the Weekly Times is a chance to put out some high quality information, based on science, which is presented in a way that’s readable and understandable.

“If I can educate people with sound information, which will help them improve the lives of their animals, as well as their whole management system, or if I can achieve at least part of that, I’m very happy.”

Since 2005, Dr Barber has been writing a monthly column on animal welfare and health for the Farm Magazine of the Herald and Weekly Times. As a qualified vet with five years experience in a regional Victorian clinic, Dr Barber’s columns feature advice for pet owners, farmers and those considering hobby-farms. With a PhD award for his work on anti-parasitic drugs for veterinary species, Dr Barber also brings a scientific focus to his articles.

“The most important thing in writing for the public, which is also something I need to think about when teaching, is that whatever I’m communicating, it’s appropriate for the audience I’m talking to.”

Teaching and writing for the public are two experiences that have focused Dr Barber on his audience, and on the importance of choosing language, examples and teaching methods that will best help his target group learn.

“If I’m talking to a farmers’ group, compared to university staff or students, but all about the same thing, then my writing or presentation would be entirely different for each group.

“No group is more or less intelligent, but their knowledge about a certain area might mean you need to phrase things a certain way so they can apply that knowledge.

“With students, for example, you might have more time to talk about an idea and you can use more scientific language, because they generally have more background knowledge. Having said that, it’s also necessary to explain to those students that as a practising vet, they will need to explain what’s happening to somebody’s dog or cat or cow or sheep so that person understands what’s being said.

“The main thing is that what I’m writing is at a level where everyone can understand what’s being said, and to make sure that nobody feels left out of it.”

Related articles:

• Skills – academia: Classroom to farm and back again: academic life in veterinary science
• Spotlight: boom & bust in agricultural science
• Spotlight: Keeping young people in agricultural science

Dr John Long is Head of Sciences at Museum Victoria.  He oversees the scientific programs of the museum and researches the fossil fishes of Gogo, Western Australia.  His team recently reported the first ever example of live birth, demonstrated in a 380 million year-old fossil fish with young in utero.

In 2001, he was the winner of the Eureka Prize for the public promotion of science.  He is a prolific writer with 24 books and over 100 primary research papers and book chapters to his credit.  His newest book for children, The Short but Tragic Life of Leo the Marsupial Lion, comes out in August.

We talk to Dr Long about his writing experience.

Science Hub: What motivates you to write for the public?

Dr Long: I started writing a book when I was a curator at the museum in WA, simply because I had many inquiries about dinosaurs from Australia, and there wasn’t a book out there on them.

I just compiled all the scientific literature and wrote a little book called the Dinosaurs of Australia, which came out in 1990.

I realised it was relatively easy to write non-fiction books and began working on some others.  My next big book after that was The Rises of Fishes.

I also had three children who grew up in Western Australia, they’re all in their twenties now, but while they were little, I started writing some children’s books, using them as characters, to answer the questions [they were asking me].

I’ve got another two new children’s books coming out in August.  One is The Big Picture Book of Human Civilisation, which deals with the big questions of science and the origins of mathematics and science concepts.

The second book, coming out through the Western Australian museum next month, is the Short but Tragic Life of Leo the Marsupial Lion.  That’s all about how animals like marsupial lions and the megafauna lived in Australia, how they died and became fossils, and what they tell us about the past.

Science Hub: What advice can you give to other scientists wanting to write books for the public?

Dr Long: The first thing I can advise is that you don’t need to do any writing courses.  The more you write, the better you get.

Stephen King said exactly the same thing on writing, he had no training whatsoever, yet he became one of the world’s greatest novelists.

You can do writing courses if you want to specifically go towards the high-end of literature, but just to communicate, it’s really a matter of practising, getting advice, reading information and books on improving your writing, but it’s really just a matter of the more you do it, the better you become.

Coming soon – Dr John Long on museum careers for scientists.

Fresh news! Dr John Long has been appointed Vice President of Research and Collections at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, USA. Congratulations John!

Related articles:

• Spotlight – Go-Go girl: the world’s oldest mother
• Careers – Museums: Museum careers for scientists

Since 2005, Dr Barber has been writing a monthly column on animal welfare and health for the Farm Magazine of the Herald and Weekly Times.  As a qualified vet with five years experience in a regional Victorian clinic, Dr Barber’s columns feature advice for pet owners, farmers and those considering hobby-farms.

This article will be available in full in coming months.  Visit again soon to read about writing science for the public.

Related articles:

• Careers – University: classroom to farm and back again: academic careers in veterinary science
• Spotlight – Dr Stuart Barber: boom and bust in agricultural science

Since her award, her profile in the public eye has heightened considerably.  Her experience in dealing with media has broadened, and here, she offers her opinion on communicating science effectively, as well as the responsibilities of scientists in speaking publicly.

General tips

“There’s a different kind of language that you use in science compared to the general domain and you have to be cautious of not being misunderstood. Words that have a very specific and very neutral meaning in science may have a weighted meaning in general use.

“Your audience will get much more if you’re clear, use a language they can understand and if you’ve thought through what you’re saying. It has no impact if they haven’t understood you.

“Try to step back and communicate as if you were talking to your grandmother – people aren’t impressed by big strings of big words.”

“While being cautious and being clear about what you’re saying, don’t assume that the media’s out to get you. You can watch the news and see politicians get trapped by Kerry O’Brien, but it’s not what the media’s out to do necessarily.

“Sometimes they try to steer you to a particular answer. If that’s not appropriate then you just say, ‘I can’t answer that question’”.

Objectivity versus activism

“I think [scientists] need to be fair brokers. There’s a danger in becoming an advocate for one side or the other… [If asked], I think they need to simply state, ‘This is what the information is’”.

“In other cases, it does pay to speak up, but at those times it’s important to put your science to the side, step back and then say ‘As a citizen, I’m going to participate in this cause for the betterment of society’”.

“But in my personal opinion, you don’t blur the two. When you blur the two, you actually do a disservice to both – it becomes too easy for other people to attack the science based on your personal opinions and what you’re expressing as a view.

“Keep the two clearly separate, so your science is always in its best light. If you want to put forward your personal opinion, that’s your right, but keeping the two separate actually gets them both further along.

“If I had jumped on any one particular band-wagon in the past, I don’t think my science would have had as much impact as it has currently, simply being seen by all sides as an honest representation of the way the world works, with as little bias as is humanly possible.

“Through engaging with the media, and being fair brokers, scientists can show people the importance of science, so society can see the value of maintaining it.

“If the bottom line [for science] gets smaller and smaller, then society’s made a judgement that we’re not doing enough for them. To turn that around, some of that is just educating people, and that’s probably where we do have to be clear about what we’re contributing and how we’re supporting society.”

Related articles:

• Skills – Supervision: Dr Beth Fulton on being a mentor
• Pavlov’s Epilogue: Dr Beth Fulton and her advice to young scientists
• Ex situ – Balance: Dr Beth Fulton – “Try to find a happy life-balance”
• Skills – Negotiating the Workplace: Dr Beth Fulton on being a female scientist of international renown
• Fiat Lux – Big picture science through a watery lens
• Fiat Lux – Significant women of science series