StuartABerger.com

Consider a scenario where you have just written a scientific manuscript and have been given an opportunity to present it in a talk. Congratulations! This is a great way to share your discoveries and insights with others. When faced with the task of preparing a talk, it may be tempting to simply open up Powerpoint, copy and paste data figures, provide some background at the beginning and some discussion points at the end and voila, its ready to go.

I would advise against this.

The reality is that manuscripts and talks are very different modes of communication. In the biomedical world, manuscripts commonly take the form of a brief Introduction or Background section followed by Methods, then Results, then Discussion. The language is often technical and the intended audience is usually experts. Typically, the Results section acts as the core of the manuscript and takes up the most amount of space. This format works in a manuscript because the reader can flip from one section to another, re-read parts that they didn’t get the first time, look up supporting information, check out other papers referred to in the manuscript and generally go at their own pace.

In contrast, the content of a talk is presented and absorbed in real time. Trying to present a complex paper in that way rarely works because at best, only true experts will be able to follow along or worse, the speaker will spend so much time explaining the data that the message will be lost in the details. The result? The dreaded Death by Powerpoint.

Another way of looking at the difference between a manuscript and a talk is through the insight of Marshall McLuhan. I previously wrote about Marshall McLuhan as the author of Understanding Media, a book he published 60 years ago in which he sought to define the influence of various forms of media on society and culture. A scientific manuscript would be a classically ‘cool’ medium requiring great effort on the part of the reader to fill in gaps and background information in order to understand the content. A talk – especially a lecture, would be considered ‘hot’ because of the immersive experience and the one way form of communication.

The incompatibilities of a manuscript and a talk can be bridged however by reframing the content of the manuscript in the form of a story.

In an earlier post, I wrote about how the story format becomes an organizing principle in which to link the elements of your work. This makes the communication task much easier to tell and to absorb because as humans, we are all hard wired to see the world in terms of narratives.

Typically, stories start with a Challenge. In the biomedical world, one example of a Challenge can be a disease. Talks that start off discussing a disease, its effects on patients, current models that address its etiology, diagnosis, current best practice in managing or treating the disease and most importantly, the unmet need, can be very effective. Speakers can then present how they are addressing elements of the disease with the goal of improving management and outcome.

Another effective challenge is a BIG Question. Often, Big Questions arise from previous work or the work of others. Big Questions tend to be of the How and Why varieties. How Questions typically involve mechanism, often at the cellular or molecular level. How does a certain cell type develop? How does it carry out its function? How does Protein X effect or regulate a certain process? How does a gene mutation affect an organism? How does a pathogen cause disease? How does a drug cure a disease? If the audience is somewhat familiar with the area, then big How Questions can grab their attention and set the stage for understanding the rest of the talk.

Why Questions can also be effective attention grabbers. Why Questions often arise from unique and unexplained observations. Why are some populations more susceptible to a disease than others? Why does the same mutation cause different manifestations of disease in different patients? Why has the incidence of a certain disease increased (or decreased) over time? For both How and Why, stating the Big Question up front is an effective way of framing the rest of the talk because the presenter can now discuss the approach that they are taking to answer the Question.

Another effective Organizing Challenge is solving a technical problem, either by troubleshooting existing techniques or developing new ones. The presenter can then tell the story of how the problem was addressed.

In all of the scenarios described above, the story starts with the Challenge, proceeds to the strategies that the presenter took to address the challenge, how it turned out, the things learned along the way and upcoming challenges. This Organizing Principle is, in essence, the classic hero’s journey and makes a compelling structure for a talk.

The strategy for converting the contents of a manuscript into a compelling talk now becomes a process of mapping elements of the manuscript to parts of the story which are: old normal > clear goal > obstacles > external allies > struggle > new normal.

And when it comes to science, this structure most simply becomes:
old view of the world > Challenge framed as a scientific hypothesis to test > technical and conceptual challenges > collaborators > experiments > new view of the world.

In mapping these elements, the skill comes in organizing the elements so that the story is relevant, interesting, compelling, exciting and easy to follow.

As with any skill, mastery comes with practice. However it can be very helpful to have a trusted and experienced individual assist as you go through the process. If you think I can help you in preparing a talk, please contact me directly here or on LinkedIn for assistance.