Today Morgan discusses really really boring scientific talk titles. Giving a great science talk begins with having a great title, that captivates the audience and motivates them to come to your talk. Don’t be afraid of giving your talk an interesting title! You will stand out, because everyone else will continue to use boring dry talk titles. Standing out is good. It gets you noticed. Morgan shares her favorite title for a talk, “Modeling biology with equations is like strapping a …. ” (you’ll have to watch the video to find out).

The other day, after reading a book on copyrighting by Joe Sugarman, I decided to use one technique that he suggests for coming up with a title for an upcoming talk.

The technique is simple: brainstorm. Don’t just write one title. Write 25 or more. Then pick the best one.

So I started brainstorming. I wrote some titles. I wrote some more. I started feeling silly, but I forced myself to write some more.

Towards the end, I got a little loopy. You can see the whole list below.

I then went back and rated them all, 1 (best), 2 (ok) or 3 (bad). I sorted them all in a spreadsheet, and removed the 2’s and 3’s.

I had about 5 left.

One kept beckoning to me. I just could not bring myself to delete it, or pick one of the others above it.

Guess which one?

“Modeling biology with equations is like strapping a V8-engine to a horse drawn buggy”

If I had written this title in my standard way, the most likely outcome would have been:
“Multi scale systems biology modeling with computer agents”

Which one sounds more interesting? I find the former far more compelling, due to the strong visual.

And, it conveys an important subtext that the second, more “safe” title doesn’t – that our tools aren’t necessarily right for the job.

Who knows how the folks at the receiving institution will like it, but it gave people around here a good laugh. They liked the title. I wrote the abstract in a more serious tone – but it did address the point made by the title.

This is an example of “Marketing Your Science” in action. A boring title is less likely to catch someone’s attention. If it doesn’t catch their attention, then they’re unlikely to come to the talk. If they don’t come to the talk, then what is the point of giving it?

Here is the list of possibilities I brainstormed (I’d like to see your vote in the comments for which one you prefer):

Agents are everything

Agents and fractals

Agents and fractals: modeling self similar protein behavior

Modeling self similar protein behavior

Multi scale systems biology modeling with computer agents

Protein behavior as a fractal mirror to nature

How complexity arises from simplicity in biology

Cells are simple, but our models that are complex

Proteins are simple, but our models are complex

Of birds and proteins: how modeling reveals fractal self-similarity

Birds are made of proteins and birds are like proteins

The Birds, the bees, and the proteins: how nature mirrors itself at multiple scales

Taking cues from the birds and the bees to construct realistic cellular models

Can cancer be solved by specialists? Or does it require a generalist.

It’s not the size of your CPU, it’s how you use it

It’s not the size of your equation, it’s how you use it

From equations to agents – boiling the complex down to the simple

Models as tools – it’s all how you use them

Modeling biology with equations is like strapping a V8-engine to a horse drawn buggy
“You have lots of power but won’t get very far”.

Representations of proteins: equations or agents?

From the simple arises the complex: can we mirror this in a computer?

Biological complexity arises from simplicity – can we model it the other way around?

Modeling how biological complexity arises from simple rules

The complexity we see in biology derives from many simple interactions

Forward modeling or reverse modeling: from the top down or from the bottom up?

On the top or on the bottom? Modeling approaches reveal how you like it.

ps – should science really be so boring all the time?  Most talk titles I see convey that sense.  But given that we need to get more people interested in science, not less, how about we make it a little bit interesting from time to time?

pss – I invited well known antibiotic resistance researcher Bruce Levin (from Emory) to give an upcoming seminar in my department.  He obviously “gets” this concept.  His talk title?

“Sex and drugs: the population and evolutionary dynamics of recombination and antibiotic treatment in bacteria”

I know a lot of artists and scientists, and the story is the same for both: be “proud” or be “paid”.

This came up when I was talking to a friend who has a band that plays some music I happen to like, Graveyard Fields.

I recently ran across Mark Joyner’s “Online Music Promotion Course”, and I recommended it to my friend the musician.

Mark Joyner is an “internet mogul” who pioneered many aspects of early online marketing, and now runs a series of courses on managing time, money, and energy. I’ve gotten a lot out of Mark Joyner’s various efforts. For one, I’ve learned how to better promote my own scientific work.

I thought that my musician friend needed some marketing help, so I told him about the course.

A few days later, I asked him, “did you sign up?”

His response distilled down was “it was too much marketing for me.”

I was a bit flabbergasted – but not surprised.

I see this all the time. I used to hold this attitude. In fact, I used to resent some of the well-known scientists who are good at “marketing” themselves (almost all well known scientists are good at marketing themselves, unless they were the 1-2% that got really lucky by being “discovered”).

A month ago, I attended a book writing session at the Science Online conference near Raleigh/Durham NC. I saw the same dynamic play out.

There were three published authors running the session. Guess which one of those was the most successful (in terms of buzz, interest, interviews, and perhaps, money made)? It was the author who had been doing her own marketing for more than a year before the book was published, through Twitter, Facebook, and blogs.

After the authors spoke, questions were asked. There were questions on how to get “discovered”. It seemed clear that at least part of the audience were only interested in practicing “their art” – not in doing their own promotion.

But the odds of being “discovered” without sufficient self-promotion are about the same as the odds of winning a lottery.

Hey, I didn’t make the rules. Sometimes I am not proud to have to “market” my work. But the evidence is all around: if you don’t promote your artistic (or scientific) work, you are very unlikely to get any gravy from it.

I’m not exactly sure why the world has changed to the point where this is so necessary, but I have an idea.

I believe that it is the constant cacophany of other “marketing” messages that are out there, screaming for your attention.

I know plenty of people who hate this. I know one person who changed cell phone providers simply because of their marketing.

But recently I had an interaction that was revelatory to me.

I joined an online copywriting course, focused on marketing copy.

I sent a sample of one of my bits of work to the instructor. He sent it back completely rewritten, and I thought it sounded like a late night infomercial. When I told him that was my response, he wrote back saying: “the reason it sounds that way is because that works – those guys spend millions of dollars on those infomercials, so they tune and tweak them until they pay off”

It is so bizarre to me, sometimes, to write ad copy. But I’ve done some testing myself – and the “late night infomercial” approach is statistically superior to bland and understated in terms of response.

Science is a creative product – just like books and CDs. While one can’t go about writing “late night infomercial” style headlines for manuscripts or grant proposals (I’m sure that would backfire), it is essential to pay attention to how the work is being “marketed”. (aside: most science work is not marketed at all – that’s why most articles get buried in the trashbin of history so rapidly).

Here’s another way I can verify this. My mother was a successful watercolor artist. What do I mean by “successful?” I mean that she paid the bills by selling her art – without ever holding a “side job”.

How did she do that? A majority of her revenue came from marketing notecards and prints with her art on it. Only a fraction of the revenue came from selling the paintings themselves. She figured out early on that she had to “market” her work. She didn’t necessarily love that aspect of the work. But she did get to avoid working as a clerk at Wal Mart.

While I don’t have hard statistical evidence on this, I think the anecdotal evidence is so strong as to be almost irrefutable – if you don’t learn how to market your own creative works effectively, then getting paid reasonable money to do that work is unlikely.

The bottom line for my friend (and many others I know who hate to hear mention of “marketing”): “you can be too proud to market your work, or you can can get paid for your work – but not both”.

Speaking of that, do you want a preview of my upcoming book, code named “Marketing Your Science”? People who sign up for my newsletter list right now get a free copy of Chapter 1 – Why Marketing Your Science Is Important.

It’s that little box in the upper left hand corner that is beckoning to you.

Are you struggling with formulating a great specific aims page?

The specific aims are one of your keys to success.  If a reviewer encounters your aims, and gets confused or lost, then it is likely game over for your grant.  Do not collect $200, do not pass go.

In both my advising and consulting work with my younger colleagues, I focus first and foremost on the specific aims.  I won’t look at the rest of a proposal until the aims are water tight, rock solid, and exciting as well.

It is amazing how much complexity can go into formulating just this single page.  Perhaps that’s why so many people don’t do it very well.

I often see half-cocked aims pages.  But a half-cocked aims page is the start to a half-cocked proposal.  Why bother, if you aren’t going to do it right?

Just say “no” to half cocked aims

I was recently helping a consulting client with an aims page, and there was an aim which was half-cocked.

By that I mean that it was a good thing to do, but the plan for doing it wasn’t well thought out.

I suggested to the client to either firm up the plan, or get rid of the aim.

His response was, “But then I’ll only have 3 aims”.

“So what?” I said.

In my ensuing explanation, I firmed up something that was vague before.

Your aims page is a main “public face” of your proposal.

Think about your first date with someone.  Don’t you usually make sure that you look nice, before you walk out the door?  Your aims should be that same way.  They should put your best foot forward.

Sure, you may have flaws (all of us do), like a little too much flab around the waist (or whatever), but in all likelihood, you’re going to wear clothes that minimize that flaw on the first date.

Your aims should be like the first date.

A half-cocked aim is like letting the flawed parts shine out right away, saying “look at me”.  Some reviewers might overlook that.  Others will not.  All it takes is one reviewer who doesn’t like your proposal to sink its chances.

Your goal is to show strength, confidence, and logical thinking about your research, with each aim well thought out and accomplishing a critical mission within the context of your proposal.

If you put an aim on your aims page, that says, “this is one of the central things that I will focus my time and attention on during this research.”

So, if you list something, then you proceed to have a not so great plan for how you will do that “critical thing”, reviewers will wonder – has this person really thought out this work?  You don’t want reviewers holding any doubts, whatsoever.  When paylines are 1 in 8 or 1 in 10 proposals funded – one doubt can burn your funding chances to the ground.

The bottom line is that for each aim in the proposal, have a well thought out plan.  If you are struggling with figuring that plan out, then it shouldn’t be an aim!  You may still propose to do that work as a part of another aim (within the text of the proposal) – but something that is not solidly formulated should never go on the aims page.

Free specific aims template and example

I provide a free specific aims template, and a specific aims example page to my email list subscribers.  You can subscribe using the “subscribe” box on the blog here, or going to this page.

Previously, I wrote about an upcoming meeting with the chancellor of UNC.

It was audacious of me to just call up and make an appointment with the head of a large, prestigious institution like mine.

But I like to live life on the edge.

My goal was to discuss entrepreneurialism within the university – and how the university bureaucracy squashes entrepreneurial spirt.

The layers of bureaucracy are thick here, layered like a truffle embedded inside a wedding cake….

The chancellor was surprisingly receptive to my visit.  He’s obviously a smart guy, and a scientist.  He wants to do right by the University and its faculty.

He clearly understood the problems of bureaucracy at UNC.  He said it is his number one mission to reduce it.

But every time he tamps down the bureaucracy in one division, it lasts for a little while until he turns his attention to something else.  Then it grows right back, like weeds in a place with plenty of water and sunlight.

Perhaps that is an apt analogy.  Cutting back the weeds never solves the problem.  They just grow back.

The only ways to kill weeds are to cut off their water or sunlight – or to poison them.  Since “poisoning” is not going to be an acceptable solution when it comes to bureaucracy, we have to implement one of the other solutions.

The sunlight and water of bureaucracy are money and rules.

Rules serve a purpose – at least in someone’s mind, at the time they are conceived.

Once they have served for a while, they grow stale, old, and smelly.  Bureaucracy thrives on them – while everyone else chokes.

And money helps support the beast.  One might try to choke off the money, but I guess that the people at the end of the food chain – the scientists – would starve before the bureaucracy does.

Every grant that a researcher brings in comes with “facilities and administration” (F&A) money.  That money is supposed to pay for things that support the research environment.

But it is all sucked up into the voracious beast before it gets to the place where it benefits the researcher.  Various people have pointed out to me various “worthwhile” things that it is used for.

Is 5 levels of bureaucracy to approve a hire, “worthwhile?”

It doesn’t matter whether it is “worthwhile,” even in the rare instance that it is.  It is not benefiting the research.  It is not benefiting the science that the grants are supposed to be supporting.

I work in a 30 year old building that is crawling with cockroaches.  I’m not sure who that benefits, except for the cockroaches.

The way to starve the beast is to bypass it.  The F&A money should go directly to the researcher’s most immediate unit (e.g. department).

The department then could apply it to do things like get the space that we need.

I can hear many people in humanities say, “but wait, that would starve our side of campus.”

I am very much in favor of supporting the humanities and many other non-science departments.  I have a personal fondness for philosophy.

But I am not in favor of supporting those departments with F&A money from grants that are given to me to do specific research.  That is misdirection at best.  The state and tuition should be supporting the teaching mission of the University.

—-

I was thinking about all the hiring problems we seem to have.  It can take (many) months to get a hire completed, because it has to go through so many levels.

Why is that?

My department seems to have an HR person (a “facilitator”) just to navigate the bureaucracy at higher levels of the system.

Instead, why not train her in the rules, and just let her do the work directly?  Then we wouldn’t need 5 levels above her (or however many it is).  It would be faster, cheaper, and would starve the beast.

Don’t get me wrong.  I think that many of the people that work within the beast are very well meaning and trying to do their jobs.  But when one is trying to do their job in a dysfunctional organization, the job is, unfortunately, promoting more dysfunction.

Out of date rules need to be removed.  But there would be massive resistance to that.

Money needs to flow around the bureaucracy, not into it.  There would be massive resistance to that too, but perhaps not quite as much.

Ideally, both would happen.  That would really take care of the problem, once and for all.

I hope the Chancellor is listening

——

Note: I do plan to get back to topics of science careers and grant writing in the next installment.

You can also join my newsletter list if you want to hear more about the career stuff right away.

The Scientist just published an article in which it was argued that the lack of open scientific debate is stifling progress. The article got readers charged up, with some very strong comments condemning science and “corruption” of PI’s at the end.

The notion that biologists can’t have open debate, and that there is such a strong undercurrent of negativity (reflected in the comments) reflects a dire situation, particularly in biological sciences.

The biological research empire grew and grew … and universities grew with it. But this was LEVERAGED growth, meaning that all the growth at the universities is dependent upon an ongoing stream of federal dollars to support it.

All of the new recruits at a university like mine are brought in with the strong expectation that they will be fund raisers. Hence, the leverage is tremendous, and it keeps getting worse.

My department has steadily increased the expectation of the percentage of faculty income that must come from grants.

But what happens when the federal government can’t keep supporting it all?

Will the bubble crash, much like the real estate market crashed?

I would like to hope that that doesn’t happen. But I see no acknowledgement of this at my university. What about at yours?

People here just go ahead with business as usual, building new buildings and expecting to expand more. It is as if the recent economic/funding hardships are but a tiny blip.

But all the growth/building/recruiting is based on a flawed mathematical model: one that contains an exponential function, and as with all exponentials, it is going to blow up someday!

The crisis is that universities like mine are basing their business model on the financial and scientific climate of yesteryear, when instead they should be preparing for the more difficult realities of tomorrow.

To be clear, I’m not meaning to sound like Ms Gloom and Doom. I love science, and I think there will always be room for people doing great science to continue doing so. But that doesn’t mean it is going to be easy, or that the money will flow so readily as it did in the past. And in the meantime, unprepared university administrators may be caught in the crossfire between diminished budgets and angry faculty.

It is going to be interesting times for all!

2009 won’t go down in history as a great year for science funding!  Is 2010 going to be better?

I don’t use my crystal ball much … the last time I tried to publish a paper using predictions from the crystal ball, I got comments back from the reviewers like, “A crystal ball has no place in science, Morgan should be banned from doing science!”  Well, I wasn’t banned but I learned my lesson – to only pull the ball out on really special occasions.  I think the coming of the fabled year 2010 is one of those.

For your sake and mine, I need to find out what is going to happen in 2010!   I polished and polished until my cloth was squeaking on the glass.

I sat down in a quiet place free of screaming kids, and several images flickered in front of my eyes…

First I saw….The National Institutes of Health will realize that after-the-fact cures for disease are too expensive.  Why cure cancer when we could just prevent it by eating our fruits and vegetables?  To save money, it will rename itself the National Institutes of Healthy Habits (NIHH).   “All research grants will be cancelled, and the money will be be spent on big TV commercial campaign for healthy habits, airing during shows like American Idol and Saturday morning cartoons, shows popular amongst the younger crowd,” says Dr. Fritzhoff, head of PR for the NIHH.  He estimates that the money saved will be in the billions.  Skeptics claim that the message will be drowned out.  ”Just imagine a bureaucrat designed Eat Your Fruits and Vegggies commercial sandwiched in between commercials for Cheerios and Fruit loops.  The NIHH commercials won’t stand a chance,” said Norm Clot, head of the group Taxpayers for No Taxes.  ”Let’s just get the government out of health altogether, private companies always do a better job – the statistics on obesity are just fabricated as part of the Big Government Lie.”

Then another vision….Scientists at Duke University implement a groundbreaking idea: the bake sale to end all bake sales. “We aren’t just selling ordinary cookies and muffins, these are the Duke SuperMuffin and SuperCookie!” said Dr. Baker of Duke. Duke biologists and biochemists collaborated to apply their best genetic and tissue engineering knowledge to produce the Duke SuperFoods.  These foods solve many problems at once, by including a leptin that, once eaten, will permanently eliminate all snack cravings. Not only will this make the population healthier and raise money for Duke’s scientists, but it will also prevent their rival university at UNC Chapel Hill from following suit with a bake sale of their own, since nobody will ever want to buy another muffin or cookie.  Consumer protection groups are concerned about this new Duke product, claiming that it may have other side effects.  ”From early tests of the foods, we have observed that subjects changed allegiance from the Carolina Tarheels basketball team to the Duke Blue Devils.”  Don Scaredy of the Consumer Protection Group claims that the Duke researchers manipulated the data to hide the unwanted side effects.  A representative of Duke responded, “We didn’t manipulate any data and there are no side effects.  Our early clinical trials are simply showing the natural tendency of people to wake up and discover that Duke has a superior team.” Duke scientists are ecstatic at the new source of funding, it has been used to promote their research on genetically engineering taller basketball players.

Then another vision…One weather scientist named Dr. Float has a novel idea: to raise publicity for weather scientists, he plans to strap himself into a lawn chair tied to a set of weather balloons, and to go on an around-the-world fundraiser for science on his vessel. His voyage will start in Topeka, Kansas. “I’ve got a six pack of beer, and a big banner that will tail behind my lawnchair-in-the-sky, saying ‘Help the scientists. DonateForScience.com’”  He claims that he will make it to at least Tulsa, OK before having to refuel an re-beer.  ”My only worry is avoiding the wrath of the aviation authorities.  They don’t seem too keen on the idea.  But they should support my efforts on the behalf of science.”  Representatives of the NOAA were indignant about Dr. Float’s plan, “We don’t need gimmicks like this to raise funds for weather science. All our researchers are equipped with modern PC’s made within the last 15 years, and their models are so good that they predict the weather with 99.999% accuracy, except in the cases where the predictions are wrong.”  Dr. Float is undeterred.  ”I’m going to raise the profile of weather scientists, even if it means a tango with a super jet liner.” Fortunately, Dr. Float is single and without kids.

The National Science Foundation will realize that the evolutionary biologists it supports are loosing the battle of words to the creationists, and decide to take a more head-on battle approach inspired by Sun-Tzu’s “Art of War”.  The NSF will rename itself the National Sin Foundation to deflate the words “sin” and “sinner,” often equated with scientists.   The campaign will be modeled after efforts of early gay rights groups that turned terms like “gay” from dirty words into common usage.  ”We want to let all the scientists out there know that it is ok to be labelled a “sinner” for doing science!” says Dr. Dobson, the new section chief for biological sciences at NSF.  The rebranding effort will have a “broader impact” on the battle for evolution over creationism. And, the NSF will not need to change its letterhead, saving taxpayers thousands of dollars in printing costs.

The visions are fading from the crystal ball.  2010 looks like it will be a great year if you are a Duke biochemist or a weather scientist.  For the rest of us, it is back to the grind of writing grant proposals.  That is, unless you heed the final advice I saw on my crystal ball:

“Why don’t those scientists just get a real job in a factory and make something that people really want, like cars?”  said Joe Sixpack to his wife, as he was on his way into Wal Mart, where he bought a Chinese-made toy car for his son’s birthday.

About the author: Morgan Giddings, PhD is normally a bit too serious for her own good, running a big lab at The University of North Carolina, co-owning a bike shop, and running this blog.  She has recently started a free newsletter and a training course for scientists wishing to improve their scientific communication and grant writing skills.