Category Archives: Musings about Science Videography

I occasionally muse about various aspects of science videography, including random thoughts about why scientists should learn to make science videos, what makes a great science video, and how science videos can have a broader impact on how the public views science and scientists.

Can Video Improve Reproducibility of Experiments?

Posted on by

Most of us who are research scientists have had the experience of trying to reproduce studentcoring_klmckeeanother investigator’s experiment and failing. And if we admit it, we also sometimes have difficulty reproducing our own experiments (but rarely report it). In the biological sciences and especially in my field, ecology, reproducing the results of a study is difficult, if not impossible, due to the fact that we can rarely duplicate the precise conditions of the original experiment. Such is especially true of field experiments and even experiments conducted in a “controlled environment” such as a greenhouse. At least that’s always been my explanation for this non-reproducibility phenomenon.

Recently, there have been several news articles and blog posts about reproducibility of published scientific experiments. For example, two studies run by the pharmaceutical companies, Amgen and Bayer, showed that 70 to 90% of cancer studies published by academic scientists in reputable journals were not readily reproduced by other scientists assigned to repeat the experiments (see Reuters story for a summary and links). Those numbers are hard to believe, but such observations have prompted investigations into why so few studies are readily reproduced.

A recent paper proposed that one reason for the lack of reproducibility is weak statistical tests. Using a new method, Valen Johnson (Texas A & M) compared the strength of two types of statistical tests (read about the details in Nature News) and concluded that 17 to 25% of studies that use the common P-value of 0.05 may yield false results. Johnson suggests that the 0.05 cutoff, leading to false positive conclusions, may be the main reason for why subsequent experiments fail to reproduce the findings of the original study. In contrast, studies that use a P-value of 0.005 rarely fail to replicate. I’ve not read that paper but imagine that the news about the P-value of 0.05 will throw a lot of researchers into a tizzy.

example of methods video k.l.mckeeAnother hypothesis for non-reproducibility is offered by Moshe Pritsker (CEO of JoVE, the Journal of Visualized Experiments): lack of sufficiently detailed methods. His solution is for researchers to use video to publish scientific results (see his opinion piece in The Scientist). That is what JoVE publishes: peer-reviewed videos that are created from text-based research papers. The idea is that by showing experimental procedures and results in video rather than in (or in addition to) a written description, other scientists can more readily duplicate an experiment and confirm its findings.

Although JoVE is the only journal of its type, several other journals accept video as supplemental material, and such visual depictions of methods and experimental protocols should help to standardize techniques. My own experience is that even very detailed written descriptions of methods are not sufficient to allow someone else to replicate the study. Many important details are left out of the written description but that are readily visible in a video. How did the researcher position the sampling instrument? How hard or gently did they apply it? What did the field study site actually look like?

I’m obviously a big fan of video and its use in science. However, I don’t think video will necessarily eliminate the problem of non-reproducibility or that it can substitute for a well-written description. If you watch some of the free-access videos at JoVE, you see that the videos are really video abstracts (audio-visual summaries of the work) and that the text-based paper containing all the usual details and extended discussion of the results is published alongside the video. Both are necessary, in other words, for a full understanding of what was done, how it was done, what was found, and what it means.

My view is that video can be a critical element in research publications, but should be complimentary to the text in the same way graphs, diagrams, conceptual models, photographs, and other visualizations are in a more traditional article. That’s not to say that research cannot be reported entirely through the medium of video. Some types of research may lend themselves well to a video-type publication: new methods/standard protocols, descriptions of new species (or observed behaviors), and physical or biological phenomena that cannot be completely described in words.

Reading about how a heron uses bread as bait to catch fish is just not the same as seeing it (and some people will want visual evidence of a new or unusual phenomenon to accept it):

Whether video will affect reproducibility of studies must await further data. In the meantime, I think a better reason to use video is to more clearly depict methods and results and provide visual evidence of observed phenomena. In the past, video was usually out of the question for the average researcher because of the expense and skills required. Today, with inexpensive digital recording devices and simple but powerful editing software, anyone can create a reasonably good video to illustrate a method or other aspect of a research project.

In the next post, I’ll describe my own experience with respect to video and scientific methods.

Don’t Let Perfectionism Stop You

Posted on by

DSCN0357Many of us in science tend to be perfectionists. This characteristic can be a double-edged sword, however. On the one hand, it drives us to produce outstanding work. On the other, it can paralyze us and prevent us from even embarking on a project because we anticipate that our efforts will not be perfect.

Perfectionism is what underlies writer’s block and other artistic blocks. Novice writers think that each sentence has to be written perfectly the first time and that all the content must immediately flow together just so and make sense right from the start. I know of few successful authors who write this way. It is an impossible standard. Moreover, such thinking stifles spontaneity and creativity and causes people to freeze up. Some become so paralyzed that they never put pen to paper. I know a lot about writer’s block because I’ve suffered from it and have overcome it. I’ve also helped perfectionist students trying to write their first paper or thesis overcome it.

What does perfectionism have to do with science videography? Well, I imagine that a number of you are hesitating to even try to make a science video because you think it has to be of Hollywood quality (or at least as good as those slick science videos published by media professionals). That standard is the wrong one to be comparing your work to, as I’ll get to in a minute.

First, I’ll let you in on a secret. Your videos (and any other information product) will NEVER be 100% perfect. You can strive for perfection, but you’ll never get there. No matter how hard you try, there will be mistakes and parts of your video that might be improved by reshooting, or reorganizing, or by making some other change. Also, you will never produce a video that everyone absolutely likes and finds no fault with. There always will be someone who will take issue with some part of your video.

The point is:  if you believe your video must be perfect (or meet some over-the-top standard) to be any good, you’ll never finish a video. You’ll either never get started, or you will start something but never finish. You’ll continue to revise and tweak and agonize….and eventually will shelve the project.

How do you break such a block? It’s simple. Silence the censor in your head. The one that looks over your shoulder and scrutinizes everything that you try to do. How do you do that? I teach students how to overcome writer’s block by having them practice something called “spontaneous writing”. I give them a topic and tell them to write about it for five minutes as fast as they can, without stopping to correct punctuation or grammar. Their goal is to get their ideas down quickly and without stopping to think (which does not give their censor time to disapprove). If the student follows through, the result is usually a revelation to them. They discover that their spontaneous output is creative, interesting, and surprisingly compelling…despite not being technically perfect. I then have them revise their work by correcting grammar and punctuation and reorganizing to improve the flow. This exercise usually breaks through their paralysis and allows them to begin writing; the writing practice leads to improvement; each piece they complete gives them the confidence to write more.

For video, the solution is also to ignore your internal censor. Pick a simple topic and just shoot some footage. You might ask fellow students a single question and film their responses. “What do you like best/least about graduate school?” Shoot some B-roll around campus and in your department. Cut out the really bad parts and assemble the various clips in random order. You’ll likely be surprised at how interesting your video turns out to be. And, most importantly, you will have improved your videography skills and gained some confidence.

The block may manifest as a difficulty in selecting a video topic or getting started on a project that seems overwhelming. The problem with selecting a topic is often due to too many choices. When there are too many options, we have difficulty making choices because we are afraid that we will regret our selection later. The anticipated regret is greater with many choices compared to few choices. The solution is to set restrictions, e.g., on the topic, the style, or the length of the video. You might limit yourself by making a video that is one minute in length, for example. That restriction automatically removes a lot of options. You could also restrict yourself to a particular format such as the interview example above. If the job still seems overwhelming, then breaking it down into smaller jobs often helps.

You are probably still thinking about those great science videos with slick animations and soaring music and that this is the standard you need to meet. You are quite wrong there. All you need do is watch a few viral videos on YouTube to see that video popularity is not determined by technical or artistic quality. Many viral videos are poorly shot and appear to be unedited. To be successful, your videos need only be good enough, i.e., good enough to satisfy most of your viewers. That standard is still fairly low because most video online is not anywhere near Hollywood quality. Your video need only exceed a certain threshold to be acceptable to most viewers. And that threshold is nowhere near the Hollywood or Discovery Channel standard. That may change in the future as more people become better skilled at shooting video, and expectations rise. But for now, the bar is pretty low.

Let me hasten to add that this advice is not meant to be an excuse for sloppiness. You should still strive to make the best video possible. If you can reach that Hollywood standard, then great…as long as you don’t let it stop you from finishing your project in a reasonable amount of time. However, if you are feeling blocked, perhaps you need to dial back your goal from Discovery Channel-worthy to something more achievable (at least in the short-term).

In summary, You will find that your less-than-perfect videos will be quite successful….if they meet or exceed the quality of most videos out there. So, get your less-than-perfect videos finished and online. I guarantee that you will learn something with each project, and the next one will be better than the previous one.

Who Has the Scallop Balls?

Posted on by

Here’s an amusing video about a scientist who studies reproductive success in sea scallops. I’m not suggesting this as a model for all science videos, but it does offer an example of how to use humor to tell a story about science (it helps to have a narrator with a voice like this one). Thanks to Mark B. for the link.

How Not To Make A Science Video

Posted on by

As we know, explaining complicated science concepts and implications of research findings in a way that is understandable, interesting, and entertaining to diverse audiences is not easy. One of the important science issues of the day, which decision-makers and the general public need to understand, is climate change. Several organizations, such as RealClimate, have attempted to communicate climate science via their websites, blogs, and other media.

This past spring (2012), the World Resources Institute (WRI), supported by google.org, ran a survey to find out which type of video format (“webcam”, “conversation”, and “whiteboard”) worked best for scientists to get across some complex information about climate change. Three scientists, Paul Higgins (American Meteorological Society), Brian Helmuth (University of South Carolina), and Andy Dessler (Texas A&M), were recruited for the project. For the “webcam” version, all three scientists filmed their own videos. The “conversation” version was composed of a slideshow with the scientists’ voiceover. The “whiteboard” videos were filmed at the WRI’s offices, where each scientist conducted their talk using a whiteboard to illustrate their points.

You can see all the videos here, but I’ve inserted three below (by Paul Higgins) so you can see how well (or not) they worked. Then, about 1500 people voted on which ones that most effectively communicated the science topic.

As you can see, none is very effective at communicating the science of climate change. And that’s not just my opinion. If you read the review comments, you see that a number of viewers thought the videos failed to engage. One commenter suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that the bad videos were a ploy to get donations to make more professional videos about climate change (give us money or we’ll use these videos to communicate climate science to the public!). I actually had similar thoughts upon viewing these awkward and very dull presentations.

Also like the above commenter, I am not trying to disparage the scientists who participated in this project. They were given poor options of bad, bad, and worse, so no wonder they did not do well. Few of us could do better, given these three choices. The videos done by Dr. Helmuth were marginally better because he seems to be a bit less “stuck in his head” than Dr. Higgins; also, his topic (climate change effects on sea stars) is a bit more accessible to the average person than the carbon cycle. If you are a scientist and your topic deals with more abstract concepts, then you will have to work harder than someone who studies charismatic organisms or ecosystems, e.g., the Giant Panda or coral reefs.

Much better videos about climate change have been produced by Peter Sinclair (Climate Crock of the Week), which are usually well-done, include data from peer-reviewed publications as well as interviews with real scientists explaining their work and clips from the media and movies that add some humor and entertainment to the topic. Even the ones he’s done that are mostly composed of interviews with scientists are more engaging than the WRI videos. The most recent such video shot at the 2012 American Geophysical Union conference, even features one of the WRI scientists, Dr. Andrew Dressler, who comes across much better in this off-the-cuff interview than in the WRI videos.

Note how Sinclair inter-cuts footage, images, and graphics to supplement and support what the interviewees are saying. Not as well done as some of his other videos but the video has a spontaneous, unrehearsed feel to it, and most of the scientists sound sincere and natural in their comments.

I was additionally annoyed by the fact that the scientists selected for the WRI exercise were all older white males. I mean, really, couldn’t they find one female or minority to record a set of videos? If you are trying to reach a diverse audience, you need to show scientists to whom viewers can relate. A perfect example is the video of Katharine Hayhoe (a real climate scientist) answering 10 questions about her work and her religious beliefs:

Now, Dr. Hayhoe’s video was not designed to explain climate science or research findings and is not directly comparable to the WRI videos in that aspect. My point in showing it, however, is to emphasize how important it is for the scientist to be engaging and believable (as opposed to being preachy or appearing to have an agenda)….if you are going to do a “talking heads” type of video. Also, having a scientist with whom your target audience can relate (young or religious people, for example) is key to effectively communicating your message.

The intended audience of Dr. Hayhoe’s video was clearly people with strong religious beliefs and who’ve been targeted by the climate science misinformation campaign. The WRI videos are less clear about their target audience and appear to suffer from the common problem of the scientist failing to understand their audience (or expecting the audience to educate themselves so that they can understand the video topic). Most scientists think that facts, facts, and more facts are what is convincing to non-scientists, when the reverse is more often the case. Note how the video with Dr. Hayhoe focused on her beliefs, emotions, and humor….all effective in reaching the viewer at more than just an intellectual level. The scientists in the WRI videos appear to be robotic by comparison. Only after the viewer has come to “know” and “like” Dr. Hayhoe does the video ask and have her answer the key question: Is climate change real and are humans causing it?

If you must have a senior scientist explaining the main points, then have segments showing younger scientists or students working in the lab or field or, better yet, explaining their interest in the topic and why they’ve chosen to work on it. This approach will at least have some person with whom the younger or non-scientist viewer can relate. Unless you’re a TED-worthy speaker, capable of entrancing an audience by talking about incredible ideas or innovations, then you can’t do a video with just you talking.

The WRI videos followed few of the guidelines we’ve been discussing on this site, whereas the one with Katharine Hayhoe did, especially in terms of reaching an audience at an emotional level. In future posts, I’ll do a more in-depth assessment of these videos and why they did or did not work well.

Finally, it seemed that the idea for the WRI videos was to survey formats that scientists, with their apparent lack of videography skills, might use. Well, if these are the only options, scientists just shouldn’t bother and leave the filmmaking to professionals. However, as I’ve tried to demonstrate with this blog, most scientists can learn enough basics about filming and editing to create very effective videos.

Clearing Land Mines

Posted on by

Although not technically a science video, this film about Massoud Hassani, a designer who developed a low cost method to clear land mines, is a great example of telling a dramatic story (see earlier post about the dramatic question).  It is a finalist in Focus Forward’s $200,000 Filmmaker Competition.  See the film here: