Not all products labelled “probiotic” are true probiotics. ISAPP just released a new infographic focused on helping consumers make smart selections when examining probiotic products. The infographic addresses identifying products backed by science, effective dosing, and more.
See and download the full infographic here.
See all ISAPP infographics here.
By Dr. Colin Hill
See what I did there? I used a title which I hope will attract the attention (or wrath) of science communicators but then put a question mark which allows me to disagree with the hypothesis posed – a good science communication bit of ‘click-baiting’.
But now that I have hopefully got your attention, let me expand on my views of how science is communicated. By way of disclosure, I am involved in a research centre, APC Microbiome Ireland, which has a mandate from Science Foundation Ireland for each scientist to actively participate in public engagement. This is something I initially resented, on the premise that anything mandatory should be resisted, but I have begun to appreciate that it is an important obligation for active scientists to support science communication – hence this blog and sporadic attempts to tweet and engage with the outside world. We are very lucky to have dedicated and talented science communicators in the APC, with an extraordinarily wide brief of engaging with schoolkids, students, clinicians, industry and the general public. To argue against my provocative title, let me make it clear our APC communicators are highly qualified and talented scientists who could easily have ‘made it’ in scientific research in academia or industry, but chose to develop their skills in science communication.
My main issue is the widespread attempts to portray science as ‘fun’ to young people. Most science communicators dealing with adults do a great job, albeit unfortunately the message is sometimes coloured by the need to make the story interesting by linking it to a headline proclaiming a ‘new cure for cancer’ or a ‘breakthrough on superbugs’. But it is mainly the manner of communicating to younger people that worries me. Scientists are largely perceived as nerds by the general public, and certainly by print and online media, even more so again by film and TV, but perhaps the most by scientists themselves. Is this why we feel a need to persuade people that scientists are actually fun-loving and cool? Perhaps the only sure way of not appearing cool is for adults to try to explain to a young person just how cool they are. Obviously, using the word ‘cool’ so often makes it abundantly clear that I am certainly NOT cool. ‘Serious’ professions like medicine, law, or business do not try to persuade people that their careers are fun. If you don’t believe me then try a simple exercise. Do a Google Image search for ‘science’, and then for ‘law’ or ‘business’ or ‘medicine’. As a hint, one set of images is dominated by cartoons, the other three are not.
I also cringe when I see science programmes on TV aimed at younger people, often with ‘zany’ presenters showing how science can be so much fun. Let me quote from a 2015 Sunday Times TV review of an Irish science programme. ‘Silliness in the name of science was a recurring feature of [programme name omitted], a series that veered wildly between the youthfully exuberant and the childishly skittish…. Science TV (presenters) have been supplanted by giddy MCs who seem capable of speaking only in a cheerleading register’. As a contrast, David Attenborough is the ultimate science presenter, never talking down to his audience, never dumbing down difficult ecological concepts, but retaining a genuine enthusiasm and deep knowledge of his subject. He is never fun, but his message is clear and engaging.
Surely it is more important to communicate just how important science is to modern life and invite the next generation to join in, rather than to emphasise science as a fun career. How could you get up every morning to a fun job? You would go mad within a few weeks. I have never found science to be fun. I have found it to be challenging, frustrating, exciting, exacting, rewarding and infuriating in equal measures. If you regard being the first person in human history to learn something new about our universe as ‘fun’, then so be it. I would rather characterise it as a humbling and thrilling experience. We should be clear in our messaging. Scientists conceived and created the world we live in. We (the computer scientists and physicists) made possible the smartphone or laptop upon which you are almost certainly reading this. You may well only be alive because of medical interventions such as antibiotics provided by us (the chemists and biologists) and you can only be fed in such large numbers as a result of our efforts (animal and plant scientists, food scientists). Why then do we feel a need to claim ‘science is fun’ in order to attract the brightest and best young people into science?
This blog is aimed both at science communicators and scientists alike. We work in the most important career of all, in the only profession that can ensure a future for our race and our planet. We have the most important roles in all of human activity – discovering and understanding our universe. So let’s try again with a new message to attract the brightest and the best – “Science is hard, but that is exactly what makes it worth doing”.
by Dr. Colin Hill, APC Microbiome Ireland & School of Microbiology, University College Cork, Ireland
Many scientists have reservations about working with industry. While characterising it as going over to the dark side might be an overstatement, there is a certain wariness that principles may have to be compromised (in terms of the ambition of the work and the freedom to follow your nose that is the supposed hallmark of ‘pure’ research), dull routine work may have to be performed, and publication in the best journals will be unlikely. There may also be concerns that students or post-docs working on ‘industry’ projects may suffer from these constraints, which will restrict their career development. There can also be a perception that the ‘best’ scientists work on fundamental problems, unfettered by the demands of industrial partners or short-term commercial goals. Some of you reading this opening paragraph may be amused at the simplicity of this stereotyping – “no one really thinks like that” – but I can assure you that some do, including a younger version of myself.
I have only really worked closely with industry in the last decade. Before that, I wrote grants which assured potential funding agencies that what I wanted to investigate was incredibly relevant and important, would represent good value for the taxpayers’ investment, but was just a ‘little bit too early’ for industry to take on. I genuinely believed this for the most part, although part of getting older is learning that fooling myself has always been a much easier task than fooling anyone else. Nonetheless, I managed to forge a career in science. I had a reasonable success rate of about one in four or five applications, which still seemed a poor return for the effort involved. I would take my hard-earned funding and do my best to deliver on the promises I had made. On occasion, the grants were successful, and we ended up filing a patent or developing a prototype or a process and essentially delivering on the promises made in the grant application. But all too often I discovered that what we had achieved, or the problem we had solved, was not really the burning issue I had thought it to be, or at least could not be translated for the benefit of society without suitable industry partners. In essence, we had self-tasked ourselves to solve a problem that no one really needed to be solved (or, at least not yet, or not in the precise manner we had solved it).
Of course, on occasion I was successful in getting truly ‘fundamental’ or ‘basic’ grants which were simply aimed at generating knowledge, and these were absolutely vital in developing new skills and opening up new research areas and possibilities. However, over the past decade or more, I have begun to work closely with industry partners. At first, this was driven by changes in funding policy in Ireland which linked scientific excellence to industry relevance – grants had to pass rigorous peer-reviewed scientific assessment, but also had to be validated by an industry partner willing to put skin in the game in the form of co-funding. This necessitated finding industry partners and identifying a research problem together, before developing a solution. I hope that now I have a perspective on both aspects of scientific research – often simplistically referred to as basic versus applied research – and I have good news. Working with industry can be just as scientifically rewarding as not working with industry.
As I have experienced it, working with industry has several obvious advantages.
Are there negatives? Well, honestly, not all industry sponsored research involves cutting edge science. But if you are completely uninterested in the outcomes then don’t take it on. What about bias? Does industry funding create a bias towards positive outcomes? I genuinely have not found this to be the case. Reputable industry partners have no interest in biased results, since the company’s reputation is at stake and of course, no one is more invested in the scientific validity of their product than the industry partner. And given that science is ultimately self-correcting no reputable scientist wants to be associated with misleading outcomes. Individuals on either side can make mistakes or display bias, but that is no less true in the basic sciences.
The ideal academic-industry relationship recognises that there have to be rewards for both partners. For both it is really important that the experiments be conducted to the highest possible standards with appropriate controls. For the academic the right to publish the results in a timely fashion is particularly important when junior scientists are involved and a clear understanding of how results will be disseminated must be reached before the collaboration gets underway. For the industry partner, it is important that the work stay focused on the agreed goals of the project and not veer off into the ‘nice to know’ rather than ‘need to know’ areas of the research problem. As in most things, problems can be avoided by having a clear agreement on the goals, methods and publication strategy and having transparent reporting structures. Further, both sides must put effort into maintaining a good working relationship.
Finally, it is not a binary choice – working with industry obviously does not close off any other type of research you may want to perform. You can still write grants and get funding from other sources. In fact, I would propose that the ideal research mix requires an element of exploratory science to keep the laboratory fresh and industry-funded science to ensure relevance. And when in doubt always defer to the great Louis Pasteur, who said “There are no such things as applied sciences, only applications of science”.
By Christopher Cifelli, PhD, VP of Nutrition Research, National Dairy Council.
Communicating with others is an essential part of everyday life. We are constantly sharing information about a variety of topics with friends, family, and even strangers. Most of the time the interaction is easy and natural – and sometimes even fun. But, have you ever talked to a scientist or asked a scientist a question?
Scientists love to talk about their research. And, other scientists want other to know about their research. They enjoy expounding on the minute details of their work and can spend hours on the littlest detail. That is one trait that makes a scientist effective – the attention to detail needed to posit hypotheses and then experimentally test them in controlled, thought-out manners. Scientists can talk to other scientists easily – but, ask some of them to explain their work to the average person and it doesn’t always go so well.
ISAPP is composed of scientists that are world-renowned experts on probiotics, prebiotics, and fermented foods. And, like other scientists, ISAPP wants others to know and understand these complex topics so that they can make informed decisions that may benefit their health. The question was – how does ISAPP do that? The answer: focusing on effectively translating the science. I offered ISAPP my leadership of a new committee to take on this task. ISAPP formed the Science Translation Committee nearly 3 years ago with a goal of taking complex scientific topics and making them easy to understand for consumers and health professionals. The result of this effort has been the development of numerous infographics, blog posts, and informational videos that translate years of research into easily digestible nuggets of information that people can use. The most recent infographic focused on dispelling some common myths about probiotics – because, who doesn’t like some myth busting!
Effective science communication is essential – essential because it can help people understand the complex and enable them to make choices that can benefit their overall health. ISAPP – which is grounded in science – will continue to be the voice of probiotic and prebiotic science and work to help people understand these fun and interesting topics. So, check out our website and our resources and start learning!
