Brooke Morriswood (He/Him)
writer, Total Internal Reflection
About Brooke Morriswood
Ex-academia, now in MedComms. I write a blog called Total Internal Reflection about the human side of science. Postings are generally either opinion/commentary (either serious or silly) or "How To" pieces aimed at improving young scientists' soft skills.
A longer biography and manifesto are on the blog here.
Research Interest
FEBS Constituent Society
Other Expertise/Interests
Followed by
Lloyd Mabonga
Postdoctoral Research Scientist, University of Pretoria, Pan African Cancer Research Institute (PACRI)
Popular contributions
Details
-
Website
Online Elsewhere
-
X (Twitter)
Others with similar interests
Recent Comments
Dear Brooke;
Thank you for sharing this valuable guide on asking questions in seminars.
Effective questioning is such an important skill in scientific discourse, yet it's rarely taught formally.
I appreciate how this 'catechism' approach provides a structured framework that can help both early-career researchers gain confidence and established scientists refine their communication.
Thank you for articulating so clearly what many of us have learned only through years of experience!
Ferhan Sağın
Hi Ferhan,
Thank you so much for taking the time to write, and I'm really happy that the posting seems of use! (If you're interested, the blog has a number of other HowTo articles aimed at improving scientists' soft skills: http://totalinternalreflectionblog.com/category/how-to/)
He gave an interesting webinar to the IUBMB Trainee Initiative a while back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMu1anlZyHQ
Aha, super! Thanks for the link.
Wonderful! What started as an innocent romance became a life-time struggle, that is one side of a coin. I'll be interested to read Science's response, the other side of the coin.
Oooh, that's a great idea! Looks like the Valentine's posting for 2022 is already sorted then. :-)
Very true, but indeed difficult to achieve from both sides!
Oh, no arguments there! It's an exquisitely delicate balance, and one that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Couldn't read without thinking my fellow labmates and myself. Also couldn't read without laughing.
Brilliant, delighted that you liked it and thanks for taking the time to say so! There's a few other humorous pieces on the blog if you fancy a trawl through the back catalogue...
An interesting point, Brooke. Thanks!
On possible issue is that many presentations look like written papers. It is not many people that deviate from the standard introduction, methods, results, conclusions, format rather than transmitting an idea and a message in a fresher and more engaging way. Think about posters, which often have the same problem.
Hi Angel, thanks for taking the time to write, much appreciated. You're absolutely right, people often end up in a straitjacket when it comes to format. It's rare and refreshing when someone takes the time - even briefly - to step back and reconnect to the big questions before joining the (publication-focused) specifics.
Once again a brillant reflexion on what's essential for a career in science. Thank you, Brooke.
Great, glad you like it! :-)
I guess competition between two models is described a bit too optimistic. Have you never seen grant or manuscipt reviews downgrading your model favoring another one ultimately leading to rejection of grant money or manuscript publishing?
Hi Andreas! Yes, you're right in that for competition between models to work - in the sense of science being the beneficiary - then there is a certain level of mutual respect between labs that is essential. Without that, then you easily end up in a negative and bad-natured feud. But with that respect, it can be very productive.