people, and one of the judges of the competition – struggling to hear
each other over the pub quiz in the background. It had started a couple of
hours beforehand, in a reception hall slowly filling up with guests and a rising
swell of echoing conversations. We were ushered in to the lecture hall, and a
few talks later the awards were announced, photos taken, hands shaken, and conversations
had with a bunch of nice people who were in some way linked to the competition.
Someone jokingly described it as the science writing Oscars; the pub trip was,
then, the glamorous after-party.
applicants: we get some sort of pleasure from writing, and like the chance to get
out of the bubble of day to day research while still doing something connected
to science. The articles on offer were in a way typical scientific papers, not
the blockbuster, creating-synthetic-life or finding-the-Higgs-boson type
papers. This is not to denigrate them at all, rather to say that they were more
representative of the incremental nature of much scientific progress. The
upshot was that writing a summary was a little more challenging, as the message
and impact of the work was a bit more nuanced.
I would recommend this sort of competition to other scientists for a
number of reasons. Even if you don’t particularly like writing, it’s a good
skill to practice. You might even get to learn something new – for me, how next
generation sequencing is revolutionizing the way scientists understand drug
resistance in malaria. Finally, it lets you, for a few hours at least, get away
from your own project and use another part of your brain. Perhaps you’ll get a new
perspective on your project when you get back to it.