In today’s episode we are joined by Richard Clarke, a PhD researcher at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine! Richard is a member of the the Vaccine Confidence Project, an initiative that monitors public confidence in immunisation for the purpose of detecting public concerns around vaccines. These concerns can have massive implications for the effectiveness of vaccine programmes and as such researchers must address them as early as possible.
In this episode we explore what researchers can do to effectively communicate science on-and-off-line (it turns out caps lock, insults, and twitter mobs aren’t very convincing…), and the results of his research that suggests that on the whole people are less vulnerable to online pseudoscience than we might think. We also chat about his involvement in the Skeptic community, and the role that public trust in authority plays in vaccine hesitancy.
Richard’s PhD focusses on the information seeking behaviours of mothers as they make a vaccine decision during pregnancy. In his studies Richard applies research from the psychology of decision making, trust and the field of information science to quantitatively investigate how mothers engage in information gathering to aid decision making with respect to the pertussis vaccine currently offered during pregnancy.
We’ve had a crazy summer of travel, work, moving and all sort of other life events but we’ve finally gotten back into the groove of things. And that means new episodes!
This week we’ve got a conversation with science writer Abby Olena. She talks about her Ph.D. in Developmental Biology, zebrafish and how, for her, the pen is mightier than the microscope.
Take a listen and get inspired about science and how important science communication is!
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Beyond the Microscope – A podcast featuring women in STEM, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Sue Black left home and school when she was 16. Aged 25, she attended an access course to get the qualifications she needed to go to university to study computer science. It was a bit lonely being the only student in a mini- skirt surrounded by a sea of suits, but she came top of the class nonetheless. She signed up to do a PhD (not really knowing what a PhD was) and worked on the ripple effect in software. What happens when you change one bit of code? Does it mess up everything else? A lot of new software is created by building on and adapting existing programmes so these are important questions to ask. In 2003 she embarked on a three year campaign to save Bletchley Park where ten thousand people built some of the first computers and cracked the Enigma code used by the Nazis during World War Two. More than half of the people who worked there were women. No-one had any previous experience of computers. And more than half a century on, there are fewer women working in tech than there were in the 1960s. Sue is determined to change this backwards step. Perhaps another Bletchley Park recruitment drive is needed to encourage more people, women in particular, to engage with tech and help to build our future?
Producer: Anna Buckley
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from BBC Radio 4, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Part 1: A power outage on campus leads physics student Zoya Vallari to take a stand against her university’s female-only curfew.
Part 2: Firefighter Nick Baskerville is eager to prove himself when he arrives on the scene of his first fire.
Zoya Vallari is a postdoctoral scholar at Caltech where she studies fundamental particles called neutrinos. She received a PhD in particle physics from Stony Brook University in December 2018. She’s the winner of Three Minute Thesis competition at her graduate school and was awarded the International fellowship by American Association of University Women. Physics and dance are the two most important ways in which she relates to the world, though books come a close third. She loves mangoes, wine and sunshine. She is proud of her ability to lucid dream.
Nick has had the honor of serving in the United States Air Force for a total of 14 years. He has 19 years of fire service time, with 16 years of that being in a career department in Northern Virginia. Nick is a state certified instructor for the fire service in Virginia where he teaches classes ranging from basic fire fighter skills to Cancer awareness for the Firefighter Cancer Support Network (FCSN). Nick is also a member of Better Said Than Done, a storytelling organization in Northern VA. His stories have been featured there, The Moth, Storyfest Short Slam, Secretly, Ya’ll and Perfect Liars Club. Nick has started a blog, Story Telling On Purpose (www.stop365.blog), as a way to connect the storytelling community with the rest of the DC, MD, VA area.
On this episode, Katie is joined by Dr. Keith Leavitt, an Associate Professor in the College of Business and the Betty S. Henry Admundson Faculty scholar in Ethics at Oregon State University. His research interests include behavioral ethics, identity and situated judgment, and research methods. His work has been featured in over 200 major media outlets, and prominently on the front of his mother’s refrigerator. In his spare time, he enjoys mountain biking, fly fishing, skiing, the occasional existential crisis, and trying to sneak inappropriately-placed messages in to his faculty profile.
If you listen to the podcast via iTunes, please consider leaving us a review.
The views expressed by guests on the Research in Action podcast do not necessarily represent the views of Oregon State University Ecampus or Oregon State University.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Dr. Katie Linder, Director of the Oregon State University Ecampus Research Unit, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.
Publishing your research in a peer-reviewed academic journal is an exercise in patience. You write and edit, wait for feedback from your PI, wrangle the figures into some esoteric format, and then submit. That’s when the real patience begins.
From submission to publication, the peer review process can take more than a year. Meanwhile, you’re moving on to other work, and hoping a competing lab doesn’t scoop the science you showed at the last conference.
Enter the preprint. Though it sounds unassuming, it’s a source of real controversy in the biomedical sciences.
Like Reprints, But Way Earlier
Essentially, a preprint is just a manuscript submitted to an online repository before it has gone through peer review.
The benefits are perhaps unexpected: preprints enable anyone to access your research, regardless of their budget for journal subscriptions. Peers can comment on the work, and offer suggestions for follow-up experiments that may speed your research through the traditional review process. And preprinting can establish your lab’s primacy when another researcher tries to scoop your work.
But preprints offer hazards as well. Will the quality of research decline if experiments are not reviewed first? What if no one shows up to comment or collaborate?
Launched in 2013, bioRxiv.org intends to answer these questions empirically. Based on the longstanding ArXiv.org, a preprint server for physics and mathematics, bioRxiv “is a free online archive and distribution service for unpublished preprints in the life sciences.”
In this week’s episode we talk with Jessica Polka, PhD. She’s the Director of ASAPbio where she works to promote the productive use of preprints in the life sciences. She explores the common concerns she hears from biomedical scientists, and how she believes preprints could revolutionize discovery and collaboration.
The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Joshua Hall and Daniel Arneman, PhDz, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.