Conference Talks, Great Success!

'Tis the Season for stitching up the last year of your life, making a few key graphics, and tossing them into a (presumably) 30-minute talk to inform and entertain your colleagues. That's right, Summer Seminar Vacation!

But wait - will your message come through? Will I, as an informed audience member, walk out of the auditorium singing your praises, or desperately fighting off Morpheus?

I'd rather watch this grow all day than listen to certain speakers again...

Without further ado, I'd like to capture some honest feedback, both given and received, that I'll call the "Summer Talk Axioms." Certainly, nothing is new under the sun: I tread in tracks left by Derek, Chemjobber, Fabian, ChemBark, and many other sage counselors. I question only that, given these many posts (and more sure to come), how has the message has not percolated into the community faster? 

Anyway, to the meat of it:

• Help me learn: What are the big takeaways? Why did you do them, and how? If you were forced to deliver this same talk in 2 minutes, could you do it, while maintaining understanding in your listener? That's a tough benchmark!

• Timing: For the love of all that is holy, please do not attempt to deliver a 50-minute "pre-fab" slide deck inside of 30 minutes. Ditto a 30-minute deck inside a 15-minute lightning talk. If you are switching slides every 20 seconds, it's nigh impossible for your poor audience to keep up...

• Engagement: Stop every few minutes to look someone in the eye. Tell a joke. Modulate your voice. Take a drink of water to let a point sink in. Presentation skills belong to that witches' brew of soft skills and social norms blended with (some) content. Often, we listeners engage more with the person and their body language in place of the content.

• Tell a story. One. Not multiple vignettes of seemingly unrelated threads. Present a logical whole.

• Don't repeat "this is exciting!" If you have to reinforce this, your content almost surely isn't.

• Know your time, and practice delivery. As a hint, you're probably over time when the audience begins to check their phones. Or mutters. Leaves for cigarette and bathroom breaks. A good talk has a clear beginning, middle, and end, and has distinct landmarks for major points and applause / recognition. Know yours.

• Proofread. Ask someone who loves you to proofread. Ask someone who hates you to proofread. Proofread. Proofread. Especially embarrassing - misspelled titles!

• The four "Thank-Yous" - Thank your host for introducing you. Thank the organizers / school / company for the opportunity to visit. Thank your group, coworkers, or boss for their collegiality. And thank the audience for listening. This goes a very, very long way.

• Answer questions succinctly. Two or three sentences, and a promise to follow up after the talk, should be sufficient. Anything more holds the other 99% of your audience captive, while you dig through back-up slides and comment about long-departed group members. 

Your talk was nice. Very nice. Great success!

Readers, I'm sure I've missed some, and welcome any input in the comments. 

Happy Summer!

2013 State of the (Scientific) Union

(Adapted from last year's post, with updated data for 2013)

Did you watch President Barack Obama present the 2013 State of the Union address?

Source: Whitehouse.gov

Once again, I downloaded the text to the 2013 S.o.T.U. (Unfinished Tasks / Next Chapter), and compared it against the text from 2011 (Winning the Future) and 2012 (An America Built to Last). Now, I’m not a political pundit or a news analyst - I’m a scientist. So let's see how certain scientific themes grew or shrunk over the past 366 days (leap year!).

Breakdown (# of each word in full text):

Energy – 2011: 9, 2012: 23, 2013: 18

Oil – 2011: 2, 2012: 10, 2013: 5

Gas - 2011: 1, 2012: 9, 2013: 7

Wind / Solar - 2011: 4, 2012: 3, 2013: 4

Nuclear – 2011: 5, 2012: 3, 2013: 3

Batteries - 2011: 0, 2012: 2, 2013: 1

-----

Biotech / Biomed / Biofuel – 2011: 3, 2012: 0, 2013: 0

Chemical – 2011: 0, 2012: 1, 2013: 0

Tech / technology – 2011: 12, 2012: 9, 2013: 8

Science / scientist – 2011: 7, 2012: 2, 2013: 4

Engineering – 2011: 3, 2012: 1, 2013: 3

Research – 2011: 9, 2012: 4, 2013: 4

Development – 2011: 1, 2012: 2, 2013: 1

-----

College / Universities– 2011: 12, 2012: 15, 2013: 8

Math – 2011: 3, 2012: 0, 2013: 2

Health – 2011: 8, 2012: 5, 2013: 5

Internet - 2011: 6, 2012: 1, 2013: 1

Cyber - 2011: 0, 2012: 1, 2013: 2

Jobs: 2011: 25, 2012: 33, 2013: 32

Exciting 2013 "one-offs" - Human Genome, drug development, battery materials, 'Space Race',  human brain, IBM, networks, climate change, NASA 'Mohawk Guy' (guest of the First Lady)

Is there a take-home message here? Does word count relate to the overall direction of the country? Probably not. Each speech is different: 2013 spent serious time on fiscal reform, job creation, foreign affairs, and domestic mass shooting incidents, while 2011 focused on education, business, and terrorism, and 2012 dealt with global politics, Congressional reform, and taxes.

Still, science and scientific policy seem to be waning in recent Presidential politics. Ironically, energy production and storage now garner increased mentions while R&D, education, and biofuel fall away.

Readers: Did I miss anything? How'd you react to the speech? Let me know in the comments.

Don't You Want a 3-D Model of Meth?

Respectfully stolen from E.P.

I know I do! But that's not the only reason I'm donating $25 to Prof. Ethan Perlstein's Crowdsourcing Discovery project. In the States, today usually marks the start of the fevered Christmas shopping season - 'Black Friday' - so if you can afford to drop $200 on a laptop, or $500 on a flat screen TV...why not $25 to support science?

I know the arguments:

"Others will give, so I don't need to"
"I don't like the idea of supporting research into illegal drugs"
"So little money ($25K) can't possibly make a dent into real science"
"I already give to other charities"

OK, I hear you, but let me try to convince you. When's the last time you spent $25 on a single purchase? I'd guess that you bought an article of clothing, maybe some DVDs, or perhaps a lunch out? So...why not science? This money goes directly to research. No middlemen, no agencies, just scientists, equipment, and radioactive amphetamines!

What's not to like?

Christmas Cactus, Nov. 2012

Take the long view: As scientific funding becomes tighter for early-career academics and Fellows alike, this funding mechanism will play an ever-increasing role in supporting risk-takers and entrepreneurs. Look at the winners thus far on Indiegogo, Kickstarter, or RocketHub. Watches? Albums? Clothes? I say it could just as easily be Microscopes, Cells, and Chemicals.

Just in case your thumb locks up from excessive scrolling, I've pasted the project link here one more time. And I'll give Ethan's group the final word:

"Short-term rewards: the thrill of discovery, for us and for you. 

Long-term rewards: the increased certainty of new, more effective mental health drugs and more accurate diagnoses for everyone."

**P.S. Even Derek's into this! Again, what's not to like?

Interview: Prof. Eric Schelter, University of Pennsylvania

(A few weeks back, I posted about rare earth chemistry, and how insufficient domestic supply may hurt new-tech industries in the US.  Prof. Eric Schelter, a Professor of Inorganic and Materials Chemistry, graciously spoke with me about his research) 

SAO: How did you become interested in inorganic / organometallic chemistry, and rare earth / actinide chemistry specifically?

ES: I became interested in inorganic chemistry through interaction with my excellent undergrad mentor, Prof. Rudy Luck at Michigan Tech. Rudy set me up with a synthetic project on a dihydrogen complex of rhenium. This experience was quite formative as Rudy also got me interested in Texas A&M for grad school (he was a postdoc at TAMU). Also, the exposure to dihydrogen complexes introduced me to Los Alamos National Laboratory through the work of Greg Kubas.



In grad school at TAMU I did more synthesis and worked on electronic structure with Kim Dunbar. Working with Kim and her group was a great experience to learn X-ray crystallography, magnetism and electrochemistry. I had an interest in working with actinides so I pursued the LANL postdoc where I learned some uranium and thorium chemistry with Jackie Kiplinger and lanthanide chemistry with Kevin John. My interests in magnetism and f-block chemistry dovetailed nicely for starting my independent career in rare earths and energy science at Penn.







Prof. Eric Schelter (credit: UPenn)



SAO: We've read in National Geographic and Discover about rare earth usage in smartphones, hybrid cars, and military applications.  Can you give examples of other industries that rely heavily on these metals? 





ES: In general, rare earth magnetic materials are very important in many industries. Rare earth (RE) permanent magnets, primarily NdFeB, are used in the wind energy industry in large capacity turbine generators. The permanent magnets are also used in hard drives. Fluorescent lighting depends on phosphor materials that contain REs, especially europium and terbium. Neodymium is also used is lasers. Lanthanum and cerium are important catalysts in FCC [Fluid catalytic cracking] petroleum refining. Erbium is used in amplifiers for fiber optic communication. Yttrium is a critical component of high temperature superconducting materials. Gadolinium has an important use in medicine as a contrast agent in magnetic resonance imaging. This is by no means an exhaustive list.



SAO: Given the supply problem (the US currently does not produce enough rare earths for domestic industry), what is our long-term strategy to obtain more? Do we have a reserve, like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, that we can operate from?  Or will new mining and separation techniques be the answer?

ES: There is currently no comprehensive long term strategy to address the US supply crisis and no strategic reserve of REs. A single supplier (Molycorp) of REs exists in the US, but rare earths are not rare - there are reserves of light and heavy rare earths in many places in the lower 48 [states] and in Alaska. There is a great opportunity here for scientists to help meet an important need by improving methods of obtaining pure RE materials.

SAO: How does your research address the rare earth supply problem?

ES: Much of the cost, time, and energy in obtaining rare earths is concentrated at the separations stage. We're working on new separations chemistry from several angles. In work sponsored by the DOE we're developing a new extractant strategy for use in liquid-liquid separations. We expect to contribute to a renewed domestic supply chain by targeting certain high value REs and improving the efficiency and reducing the environmental impact of their separations. We are also exploring fundamental redox chemistry of REs for application to separations.

SAO: Tell me something fun about yourself, your research, or your group.

ES: I am a complete /Lord of the Rings /enthusiast (freak) and am anxiously awaiting the film release of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (SAO: Me too!)



Wow, much thanks to Prof. Eric Schelter for his preparation and willingness to be interviewed. Readers, if you (or someone you know) on the cutting-edge of chemistry would like to be interviewed, simply leave a comment here or contact me at seearroh_at_gmail.com

Update (8/11, 8:45AM): Carmen & CEN YouTube Channel recently covered Eric's chemistry