Stem cell scientists simplify pitches
Published 4:29 pm, Wednesday, March 20, 2013
The best way to talk about stem cells may be to not talk about stem cells.
Instead, scientists are probably better off glossing over the details and avoiding terms like "embryonic" and "pluripotent" stem cells, and focusing instead on what they're trying to accomplish and who they hope to help someday.
Stem cells, after all, are complicated stuff.
That's one of the lessons gleaned from an exercise Wednesday aimed at helping scientists learn how to sell their research to an unscientific public with a short attention span. The state's stem cell funding agency hosted an informal contest during which nearly 60 scientists gave video "elevator pitches" - super-fast presentations that are supposed to grab a listener's attention in just 30 seconds.
The winner, who will be revealed this week, gets nothing but glory, and maybe a gift certificate. But the contest itself showed that there's a wide range of research being done in stem cell science and potential treatments - and that the scientists could use some help getting that across to the public.
"These are really difficult topics to explain. Stem cells are not an easy thing to communicate," said Dr. Maria Millan, a medical officer with the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine and one of the contest judges.
Skip the boring stuff
When Alan Trounson, president of the stem cell agency, talks about the field, he skips discussing the difference between embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells.
"That language is quite foreign to most people, and they often find it boring," he said. Instead, "finding an interesting anchor is the most important thing."
That may mean pulling on people's heartstrings and talking about devastating diseases like Alzheimer's or Huntington's, neither of which has a cure, and both of which are being heavily studied by stem-cell scientists. Trounson and other stem cells experts draw people into their research by talking about real-life implications first, and the lab work later.
There were a handful of obvious favorites in the elevator-pitch contest, like Dr. Deepak Srivastava, a Gladstone Institutes scientist who is studying how stem cells might be used to reverse the damage done by heart disease. His presentation skipped the shock and awe that sometimes creeps into conversations about stem cells, and focused instead on the basics, using clear, easily understood language.
Dr. Irving Weissman of Stanford lost major points for letting his pitch go long past the 30-second limit. But he clearly had the judges' interest when he talked about "eat me" signals that go awry in cancer cells, preventing the cells from being killed, or "eaten," by the immune system, and how stem cells might be used to correct those signals.
And there were some unexpected darlings in the contest. A young researcher from UC San Diego won laughter and the undivided attention of judges for coughing and panting his way through a pitch about his work in repairing and regenerating lung tissue.
"Even though no one can live forever, everyone deserves to breathe," Dr. Asaf Presente said at the conclusion of his pitch, to applause from the judges.
It's critical that stem cell scientists learn how to talk clearly and engagingly about their work, because their careers - and the field as a whole - depends on public support, Trounson said.
Why short bites?
Being able to make a 30-second pitch probably won't matter when it comes to winning specific grants - investors and public funding agencies want far more information before handing over big checks.
But as the attention span of the average person wanes in the era of Twitter and text-messaging, easily digestible sound bites may be the best, or only, way to get the attention of the public at large, Trounson said.
"That's the way communication works these days. Information is taken in nanobytes," he said. "What you want to do is interest people enough to make them want to get more knowledge. Make them go on Google and learn more."