Our Voice of Young Science members come from all over the UK; read what some of them have been up, what they are working on, and their reactions to our VoYS workshops.
Taylor & Francis
Taylor & Francis Author Services spoke to early career researchers at our Standing up for Science workshop. They captured responses from some of the early career researchers who attended:
“I was really interested in a comment made by the panel about keeping in mind two or three points you want to make when being interviewed. When I spoke on the radio I had perhaps 45 seconds of airtime and trying to get across four years of research in that timeframe was a challenge! I was also interested to hear from the journalist panel and how they are keen for researchers to come to them rather than the other way, that was definitely encouraging.” – Stephanie Wright
Hilary J Anderson
Hilary is a PhD student at the University of Glasgow and attended our Glasgow media workshop:
It has been my experience that journalists are portrayed as only interested in making headlines rather than to invest in your work. However, after this panel discussion, thankfully my attitude has been changed!
Read Hilary’s blog on the Centre for Cell Engineering website. (5 December 2016)
Dr Federica Giordani
Federica is a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Glasgow and attended our Glasgow peer review workshop. She writes for the Wellcome Trust Centre for Molecular Parasitology on the good and bad of the peer review system:
Peer review is the process by which the contribution of a piece of research is assessed by independent experts in the field before being published in an academic journal. It is a practice of quality-control that aims to make sure that only the most rigorous research is published.
Read Federica’s article: Behind the research: What is the peer review system? (15 November 2016)
Kate, British Institute of Radiology (BIR) member attended our London media workshop:
I often get annoyed at the coverage of science in the media and the misuse of statistics and results. Recently, the Brexit “debate” has left me ranting at friends, and I often find myself defending junior doctors on social media. When I received the email from BIR advertising the media workshop, it struck me as an opportunity to learn what I could do to positively influence the public perception of science, and to hear first-hand from journalists about their involvement.
Olivia, visiting Research Fellow at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine writes about how science communication can save lives:
As an epidemiologist, the way I communicate with communities impacts my ability to assess risk, understand trends and set up control measures. These skills are integral to my personal development and to public safety. After witnessing the societal impact of misinformation during the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa firsthand, I quickly recognized the necessity to develop these skills further. Therefore, when I heard the charity Sense about Science was running a Standing up for Science media workshop, I didn’t hesitate to get involved, and went along to learn techniques to address scientific misconceptions and better communicate evidence to a wider audience.
Read Olivia’s article in Elsevier on why science communication matters. (13 October 2016)
Haafizah, Society for Applied Microbiology (SfAM) member writes about challenging bad science in them media:
So, here’s a question… What do you do when you see science based headlines in the news? Do you accept the story because it’s filled with facts and figured? Do you totally disregard it because no doubt it’s been sensationalised? Or are you somewhere in the middle of that spectrum? Can you spot bad science – what do you do about it?