Earlier this month, I was honored to be hosted by the Yale Law School to discuss my 2018 feature story, Are Happy Lab Animals Better for Science? The basic question: Does enriching the lives of mice, rabbits, and other lab animals–with toys, companions, and more stimulating environments–not only improve their welfare, but improve the research itself? Some argue that the more we treat lab animals like people, the more likely we are to develop therapies that actually work on people. But others worry about the cost and utility of such an approach.

For the discussion, I was joined by some of the top thinkers in this field, including Yale University Professor of Comparative Medicine Caroline Zeiss, Purdue University Professor of Animal Welfare Brianna Gaskill, and Oregon Health & Science University Professor of Behavioral Neuroscience Garet Lahvis. We had a great conversation, and had some great questions from the audience.

Here’s the video from the event:

Are Happy Lab Animals Better for Science? from Yale Law School on Vimeo.

Me and Jasper, circa 2005.

Today, I published an op-ed in the New York Times about the need to let our cats outdoors. Cats “have not evolved to slumber in living our living rooms,” I write. “Today’s indoor cat is a tiger robbed of his dominion, a Lamborghini left idling in the garage.” (Here’s me on Cheddar TV talking more about it.)

Yet taking your cat outdoors is a risk for your cat and for wildlife as well. My compromise: Let’s walk our cats like we walk our dogs. Not on leashes, necessarily, (though I’ve certainly done that), but in a responsible way that protects both them and the world around them. As I write, “We don’t let our dogs wander unsupervised or destroy whatever they want. We should exercise the same responsibility with our cats.”

If you’re ready to give it a try, here’s what you’ll need:

A collar/harness: When you bring a cat outside, there’s always the small chance he’s going to get lost. Your cat should at least have a microchip and a collar or harness that contains a name tag and phone number. We’ve been using harnesses with Jasper and Jezebel for the entire thirteen years we’ve been walking them, because we used to walk them on leashes, and it’s much easier to control a cat with a leash attached to a harness than to a collar. A harness also allows you to add other accoutrements like a tracker and a light (more on those below). They sell walking harnesses for cats, though we still use harnesses made for small dogs. We use this type of Lupine harness for Jasper and Jezebel.

A leash: Chances are you won’t be walking your cat on a leash. Cats don’t walk like dogs, and if yours decides to dive into a bush or slink under a car, you’re going to end up twisting yourself into a pretzel to unhook him. Still, I try to have a leash on hand–we use an older version of this Flexi model–in case I want to bring one of our cats home without picking them up, or if I’m trying to find a safe way to extricate one of them from a catfight. For some reason, Jasper goes on autopilot as soon as I connect his leash, and almost immediately starts making his way home. (Jezebel needs a bit more convincing.) If your cat is uncooperative with the leash, don’t drag him. I find that a few soft yanks typically gets them going in the right direction.

Continue Reading →

Lab animal research is one of the most contentious topics in science. A recent Gallup poll found that 44% of Americans find animal testing “morally wrong”, compared to just 26% in 2001. Animal rights groups are constantly launching campaigns against researchers who use animals, especially dogs, cats, and primates. And  even scientists themselves are divided on the topic, with a 2011 poll of biomedical researchers revealing that 33 percent have ethical concerns about the work.

All of this makes animal research tricky to cover for journalists.  What level of detail should reporters go into when describing animal studies? What responsibility do journalists have to consider the safety of scientists? And what constitutes a balanced story on animal research?

I recently spoke on this topic at a session I co-organized at the World Conference of Science Journalists in San Francisco. You can view a video of the entire session above.

From left: David Jiang, Tony Liu, Kellen Bean, Professor Tom Near, David Grimm, Chunyang Ding, and Sonia Wang

One of the most stressful and important times in a scientist’s career isn’t always awaiting the results of a new experiment—it’s a call from a journalist. Should you agree to the interview? What should you say? And how can you possibly distill months—or years—of research into a few minutes on the phone?

And for journalists just starting out as science writers, the challenges are equally great. How do you write about a scientist’s work so that average readers can understand it, while still being accurate?

In September, I was honored to give a Poynter talk at Yale University on these very topics. The presentation was culled from my years of experience as a journalist at Science Magazine and my role as a professor of science communication at Johns Hopkins University. But it also drew from my own time as a scientist, earning a PhD at the very university I was speaking at. I hope the following tips will be useful for scientists and science writers—not just for news stories, but for grants, cover letters, and even conversations at parties.

First, take (or make) that phone call

In a world where scientific facts are disputed, mangled, and politicized, it’s important that scientists and journalists talk to each other. Scientists, you owe it to the public to explain the importance of your research, especially if it’s supported by tax dollars. And journalists, you owe it to your readers to communicate this research clearly and accurately. So how do you do this?

Speak simply and clearly

This may seem like obvious advice, but even when given it, scientists tend to fall back on the way they’re used to talking. They say “olfaction” instead of “smell”. They write that an object “experienced difficulty maintaining a vertical orientation” instead of “it fell down”. And they generally use words and phrases that sound like they came from a textbook—not a human being. Journalists fall into these traps too, especially if they trained as a scientist.

The solution? Envision a friend or relative with an interest in science, but no scientific background. I like to think of my grandmother. She’s interested in new discoveries, but it’s been decades since she learned any science in school. How would I explain a complex scientific concept to her without losing her in jargon and academic speak? If I can communicate clearly and effectively to her, I can communicate with anyone.

Continue Reading →