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

To win grants, it’s wise to follow three simple rules: be excellent, create new opportunities to be excellent, and be seen to be excellent. Simple, right?

As already excellent scientists, you’re probably shaking your heads. No, not simple at all. “What is excellence?” you’re asking. “How is excellence defined when I’m trying to win an ARC grant? And what do I have to be excellent at?”

In the ARC Granting Program, research fellowships are awarded when linked to project proposals. To win a grant, both the candidate and project have to be excellent.

This month, we’re looking at how to be the best scientist you can be.

Professor Peter Koopman, a former member of the ARC College of Experts, says the key to excellence as a scientist and success as an ARC Fellowship applicant is publications. They kick start the ‘scientific wheel of life’ – without publications, scientists don’t win grants, and without grants, scientists can’t build a research team. Without a team of researchers, it’s hard to get publications.

“The responsibility falls to you to kick start the wheel,” he says. “You’ve got to take control and eek out every opportunity to publish as many papers as you can.

Up to 90% of the assessment score for ARC Fellowships is based on publication record. Excellent scientists publish widely and prolifically and your publication record allows you to be seen to be excellent.

Professor Koopman’s advice is to put a high priority on publications. He encourages you to look at your timeframe as a student or post-doc, and work out how many papers you want to aim for to allow you to proceed to the next step.

He also emphasises the importance of always working with a paper in mind, and to assess constantly how specific experiments will contribute to specific papers. Without this focus, your competitiveness as a prolific scientist will be reduced.

Ideally, your papers should be highly cited and in high-ranking journals. This is not always possible, however, and Professor Koopman suggests a good fallback strategy is to aim for a mixture of primary papers, reviews and commentaries in a mixture of high and low ranking journals. Reviews, commentaries or even meeting reports will boost your publication record if you’re not having much luck getting primary research papers published.

Also of some importance in assessing ARC Fellowship applicants is a candidate’s track record on winning grants.

“It is crucial you are conscientious about applying for grants”, says the Professor. “When beginning as a researcher, you don’t have to win big grants – start with smaller granting schemes. Consider the granting programs of your university, state government, and any scientific or professional societies to which you belong. Approach your supervising scientist for inclusion on grants and find creative ways of getting a foothold in the granting system.”

After publishing papers and winning grants, the next consideration in becoming an excellent scientist and ARC Fellowship candidate, is creating new opportunities to be excellent: diversify your experiences as much as possible.

Some of Professor Koopman’s suggestions are to participate in committee work, make it known you’re able to give seminars, present yourself well at conferences and networking events, ask your supervisor for opportunities to supervise a student and remind them that it’s part of their job to train you to review papers and grant applications properly.

In Professor Koopman’s lab, junior scientists typically get their paper reviewing licence after co-reviewing papers with the professor three times. In the fourth review, he delegates to the younger scientist, although he still checks their work.

More advanced scientists should consider other opportunities. In previous conversations with Professor Koopman, he emphasised the value of reading and learning from as many grant applications as possible.

“Being an OzReader or ARC College of Experts member puts you in a privileged position of having to read a lot of applications,” he reminds us. “You soon get a very, very keen sense of what works and what doesn’t, and that experience and exposure is invaluable in applying for your own grants.”

Be excellent, create new opportunities to be excellent, and be seen to be excellent: publish, win grants, and get as much experience in the business of being a scientist as you can.

How do you find the time for all this?

As a highly competitive and successful scientist, Professor Koopman says you just have to make the time.

“Everybody knows that you have to work hard to be a successful scientist. You have to go into this career with open eyes and know that it’s going to involve work and dedication. You have to know you’re going to spend time in the evenings reading papers and grant applications and reviewing manuscripts while the rest of the world presumably is watching television.”

He reminds us that Australian scientists have to work to the same rhythm as our international colleagues to be internationally competitive. And while the work is demanding, science is a career with great rewards.

“Being a scientist comes with responsibilities, but the privileges are many. We have a great amount of freedom to pursue questions we feel are important and interesting and to think about what we want to do, each day, each week and each year. That’s not a privilege that comes with every job.”

This article was based on an interview between Science Hub and Professor Peter Koopman in May 2009, and on his seminar, ‘Are we there yet? The long road to grant success’, presented March 2008 in the 2008 Career Development and Grant Writing Seminar Series jointly organised by the postdoctoral associations of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research and Howard Florey Institute.

Related articles:

• Skills – Funding: How ARC grants are reviewed and assessed: part 1
• Skills – Funding: How ARC grants are reviewed and assessed: part 2
• Skills – Funding: Grant Writing Tips
• Skills – Funding: ARC National Competitive Grants Program: an overview
• Spotlight: Professor Peter Koopman and the molecular genetics of mammalian development
• Pavlov’s Epilogue: For students – a Federation Fellow’s advice

“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 Beth Fulton is a senior research fellow at CSIRO and the developer of

Her excellence has encouraged invitations to high-level scientific meetings and has exposed to her different managerial facets of her male-dominated discipline.

It is experience which has allowed her to contribute the female perspective as a valuable alternative in decision-making, and to learn how to manage differences in communication style between men and women.

Here, she has been kind enough to share her observations with us.

“When I’m in a room with ecologists, there’s often as many women as men, but in senior research meetings, or mathematical meetings, or industry meetings, I’m pretty much still the only woman in the room.

“You play it by ear.  Don’t go in and shout the fact that you’re female.  Many times you can get along way by playing down the fact that you’re female.

“Be prepared for aggression.  Men just tend to be more aggressive and loud, so you have to be prepared not to take some of their comments personally.  Just think about what it means for the science, rather than how they may have phrased things differently to how you’d do it.

“But you don’t have to give up being a woman either.  You almost keep it as your trump card.

“When they’ve had their say and you’ve just flown under the radar, it doesn’t hurt occasionally to say, ‘Well, the different perspective on that is …’ – and sometimes that will be because you’re younger, or you’ve had a different background, and if that’s the reason then you’re clear about that.

“But if it’s because you’re a woman that you’ve got a different perspective – particularly when you get to social and economic circumstances – it doesn’t hurt then to say, ‘Well no, that’s not the only perspective’.

“You’re not loud and abrasive, or ultra-feminist from the get-go, but you don’t become the completely, shy-retiring violet type either.  It’s a happy medium and you do as appropriate to the moment. “

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 – Communication: Advocacy, objectivity and talking to your grandmother
• Fiat Lux: Big picture science through a watery lens
• Fiat Lux: Significant women of science series

Investigators: 40%
Each investigator listed on the grant proposal is assessed on their capacity to undertake the proposed research. This judgement is based on the investigator’s track record, as demonstrated by publications, grant winning history and other criteria. Next month, Science Hub will look more closely at how investigators, and Fellowship applicants specifically, are assessed.

ARC College of Experts members review the track records of investigators relative to competing grants. Each member decides independently whether they will use a simple or weighted average of investigator scores. A common technique used to improve an application’s likelihood of success is to enlist renowned senior researchers to boost the investigator score. Conversely, the inclusion of weaker co-applications should be considered carefully, as investigator score may subsequently be skewed downward.

Significance and innovation: 30%
In assessing the significance and innovative aspects of a grant proposals, reviewers will ask ‘How will this research make a difference to Australia?’ and ‘Is this research innovative and novel?’ They will want to be convinced that the ARC’s investment will lead to the establishing platform technologies or advance basic knowledge.

Approach: 20%
In assessing the approach to the research proposed in grant applications, a reasonable and sensible idea of the proposed experiments must be demonstrated. There should be evidence that an integrated, realistic package of work for the next three to five years is planned.

National significance: 10%
Australia’s Federal Government has set National Research Priorities and Goals. To demonstrate the national significance of proposed research, frame your work within the National Research Priorities.

Related articles:

• Skills – Funding: How ARC grants are reviewed and assessed: part 1
• Skills – Funding: Grant Writing Tips
• Skills – Funding: ARC National Competitive Grants Program: an overview
• Spotlight – Molecular & Cell Biology: Professor Peter Koopman and the molecular genetics of mammalian development
• Pavlov’s Epilogue: For students – a Federation Fellow’s advice

Professor Peter Koopman

“My top tip is to pitch the importance of your work to a broad, non-specialist audience. You have to appreciate that the ARC is a very large organisation that provides grants to a very broad range of researchers. You can’t assume that the ARC, or any particular panel member or assessor is going to have a deep understanding of the intimate details of your work.

“The second tip is to have a good knowledge of the funding criteria for ARC grants. If you know what a granting agency is looking for, it is much easier to frame a proposal in terms that are attractive to that agency.

“And thirdly, read the instructions very carefully – there are a lot of them, and your application has to comply with them all. If it doesn’t, it may be ruled ineligible on a relatively minor technicality.

“Tips number two and three are about understanding what the ARC wants to fund, and trying to frame your research proposal appealingly and accurately in terms of the ARC’s priorities and regulations.

“ The fourth tip is to review as many grant applications as you possibly can, so you can familiarise yourself with different styles of applying for grant money, and so put yourself in a position to see what works and what doesn’t work in an application. This type of understanding is very useful when it comes to writing your own proposals.

“And finally, just be persistent. You have to realise that only 20% of grant applications will be funded in any round. For every 100 grant applicants, 20 will be successful, but 80 will just have to take a deep breath and try again the following year. You just have to keep going, and hopefully improving, until you eventually become successful.”

Science Hub: You’ve previously said that you have to be good at writing generally and grant-writing specifically because hundreds of thousands of dollars can often rest on a few pages of well written or poorly written text. Can you give us any advice on improving your writing skills?

“It’s difficult because writing is a very instinctive skill. But there are things you can do if your writing isn’t as good as it could be.

“Firstly, I’d re-iterate that it’s very important to read as many grant applications as you can. This allows you to absorb good elements of style and to learn what sounds trite, unpersuasive, or just plain terrible.

“Secondly, have your applications, or written work in general, read by as many other people as you can. Have your friends, family and neighbours read your proposals and tell you in very direct terms what they don’t understand and what needs to be improved.

“A lot of people get their work colleagues to read grant proposals – which is a good idea – but it’s much more important to have your proposal read by an educated lay person to ensure they can get a gist of the importance of your work, and whether you’re communicating the excitement and value of what you’re proposing to do.”

Science Hub: What part of your grant is the most important in conveying that excitement and value to a lay audience?

“Like many people, I read a grant proposal from the first page forward. Page one has the title on it, and page two has a 100 word summary.

“If you’ve lost the reader by the end of page two, you’ve got a difficult job keeping their interest through the remaining 50 or 100 pages of the proposal.

“I’m a great believer in getting the excitement going right from page one.”

Science Hub: So you shouldn’t be using a dry academic title and summary with which you might choose to submit a journal paper? It should be something more accessible?

“Absolutely. The 100-word summary is like a two minute elevator pitch of your work. You’ve got only a few sentences in which to state your case and make your work sound as meaningful, relevant, interesting and exciting as you possibly can.”

Summary

Professor Koopmans’ top tips for great ARC grant applications:

1. Pitch the importance of your research to a broad, non-specialist audience.
2. Have non-specialist readers review your grants prior to submission: do they understand the importance and value of your work?
3. Ensure your grant title and 100 word summary convey the relevancy and importance of your research. Don’t use a dry, academic title.
4. Learn from example: review other grant applications and determine for yourself what makes a proposal appealing.
5. Give yourself every chance to improve your writing skills.
6. Understand the funding criteria for ARC grants. Try to align your research proposal with what the ARC wants to fund.
7. Follow all the instructions carefully.
8. Be persistent and don’t take rejection personally.

Next month, Professor Koopman gives us more advice on ARC success: how to improve as a scientist and optimise your chances of winning a fellowship.

This article was based on an interview between Science Hub and Professor Peter Koopman in May 2009, and on his seminar, ‘Are we there yet? The long road to grant success’, presented March 2008 in the 2008 Career Development and Grant Writing Seminar Series jointly organised by the postdoctoral associations of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research and Howard Florey Institute.

Related articles:

• Skills – Funding: How ARC grants are reviewed and assessed: part 1
• Skills – Funding: How ARC grants are reviewed and assessed: part 2
• Skills – Funding: ARC National Competitive Grants Program: an overview
• Spotlight – Molecular & Cell Biology: Professor Peter Koopman and the molecular genetics of mammalian development
• Pavlov’s Epilogue: For students – a Federation Fellow’s advice

Six expert panels oversee the peer review of grant applications. Each panel has a different disciplinary focus: biological sciences and biotechnology; engineering and environmental science; humanities and creative arts; mathematics, information and communication sciences; physics, chemistry and geosciences; or social, behavioural and economic sciences.  Each panel has 12 to 15 members, with each member being a part of the ARC’s College of Experts.

ARC College of Experts members serve for one to three years, and on a rotating basis, new members are chosen yearly after an official call for applicants by the ARC.  ARC College of Experts members are selected to fill areas of expertise corresponding to departing panel members and emerging demand.  Potential College members submit an application describing their experience and credentials, and these are compared to the ARC’s needs.

Professor Peter Koopman, head of the Division of Molecular Genetics and Development at the Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland and an ARC Federation Fellow, served as a member of the ARC College of Experts for the Biological Sciences and Biotechnology panel between 2005 and 2008.

“As an ARC College of Experts member, you undertake to read a certain number of grants per year, assess them to the best of your ability and in line with the ARC’s philosophy of funding the best research.  You’ve got to undertake the job in a fair and unbiased fashion,” he says.

“Every year, each panel receives over 700 grant applications.  Panel members each read about 120 grant applications per year, which allows them to develop a fairly clear sense of the importance and quality of any particular proposal against the broad spectrum of research being carried out in Australia.”

Given the large number of grants that panel members are required to read, Professor Koopman says it is important to ensure your grant application impresses reviewers from its first page.  Two ARC College of Experts members read each grant application and the scores and rankings given by both members have an important influence on the success or failure of your proposal.

The second group of reviewers are the so-called OzReaders, who are normally Australian-based researchers.  Two OzReaders will read each proposal.  OzReaders will rank each proposal relative to all the other proposals they read – possibly up to 20 – and these scores and rankings also play an important part in the success of the proposal.

The third group of reviewers are the so-called International Assessors.  Assessors may in fact be Australian, but are excellent researchers of international standing, and have specialist knowledge in the area of the proposal.  Typically, four of these specialist readers will be invited to read each proposal, although not all will accept.  It is the task of these reviewers to comment on the specific strengths and weaknesses of each proposal in some detail.

Specialist reviewers are matched up with your grant proposal based on your specified key words.  It is important, therefore, that you make your application generally appealing.

“It helps to think about descriptors of the type of experts you yourself would like to have reading your grant and to use those expertise descriptors as your key words,” says Professor Koopman.  “It’s also helpful, if your grant has a number of dimensions, to have key words reflecting the spread of expertise present in your proposal.

“Let’s say you’re proposing a grant on the effect of vitamin supplements on athletic performance.  In that particular example, you might want to choose key words that reflect expertise in vitamin biochemistry, muscle physiology and performance measurement. “

At the conclusion of the review process, each of the three groups of reviewers – ARC College of Experts members, OzReaders and International Assessors – provide a score to the review panel and each grant proposal is given an overall ranking of total grants submitted to that panel.

Given the overall success rate of ARC grant applications – approximately 20% – it is clear that researchers would appreciate more support from the Government.

“The most important thing is to impress on the Government that research, and in particular, basic research is a very important pursuit and therefore that it needs to be funded at an appropriate level,” says Professor Koopman.

“If the level of funding is going to be constrained, as it always will be, then the ARC has to make very difficult choices between funding fewer grants at higher levels or more grants at lower levels.  The ARC, I think, does a very good job in trying to straddle that divide.

Some grants are funded well, other grants get cut back, and  much consideration is given to which aspects of a grant’s proposed budget are cut.  Such cuts are discussed at length by the panel.

“It’s almost impossible to fully fund any grant proposal. The ARC doesn’t cut budgets just for fun, but careful consideration is given to whether the revised budget will allow the research to continue at some level, and so the ARC can then fund other applicants who would be otherwise unsuccessful,” says Professor Koopman.

Next month, Science Hub’s series on the ARC granting program continues when Professor Koopman gives us his top tips on great grant writing for the ARC.  We also look again at the ARC assessment process, this time focusing on what reviewers want to see in a grant application.

This article was based on an interview between Science Hub and Professor Peter Koopman in May 2009, and on his seminar, ‘Are we there yet?  The long road to grant success’, presented March 2008 in the 2008 Career Development and Grant Writing Seminar Series jointly organised by the postdoctoral associations of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research and Howard Florey Institute.

Related articles:

• Skills – Funding: ARC National Competitive Grants Program: an overview
• Spotlight – Molecular & Cell Biology: Professor Peter Koopman and the molecular genetics of mammalian development
• Pavlov’s Epilogue: For students – a Federation Fellow’s advice

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