Etymology. (Not to be confused with entomology.)

It's time I explained where the name of the blog, "q-bingo", comes from.

It started last year at the q-bio conference, which is a conference focused on quantum quixotic quantitative biology. Like all fields, quantitative biology involves a certain amount of jargon and buzzwords, and certain words crop up more often than they would in everyday conversation.

And where would you hear those words most often? Conferences, of course. In fact, you might start keeping track of how many times certain words come up, and wonder if anyone else is keeping track too...

And thus, q-bingo was born. Simply cover a square whenever you hear a word used in a talk, and when you fill a straight line shout "q-bingo" straight away. Yes,  right there during the talk. [Disclaimer #1: I made this suggestion fully aware that my own talk would be punctuated by a few "bingo"s. Disclaimer #2: There are other examples of such games.] Conference organizers and attendees seemed to love the idea. Sadly, the game didn't quite get off the ground due to the issue of having to print 200+ of these things for everyone at the conference. 

On the other hand... At an immunology meeting, I wouldn't necessarily find it noteworthy or funny that people use specialized words like "clonotype" and "Fab fragment". So why did these words jump out at me?

• I think part of the reason is that some of these words are used to create a certain impression rather than to communicate information. For example, the word "complexity" is often to used to throw a veil of sophistication over something, without explaining what makes the topic complex. Same with "network" and "circuit", to some extent. 
• Other words, like "incoherent" (as in incoherent feed-forward, which is a simple pattern of interactions/influences) can mean vastly different things to other scientists and to the general public. 
• A few words aren't actually objectionable or amusing - they capture ideas that people are excited about at a particular time. There were several talks about the importance of "single-cell" measurements because of cellular "heterogeneity". 

I want to hear your feedback. Are these just buzzwords, and should we try to use them less? Or are they signs of a young-ish field finding its own language? And of course... if you have ideas for q-bingo words, let me know in the comments because we might need them again this year. 

How to make yourself understood across field boundaries

It seems like everyone these days is excited about "interdisciplinary science", which is much like regular science but with a longer list of affiliations. Working together means talking together, which includes making presentations that appeal to people in different fields. Is there anything to keep in mind beyond generic advice about giving a talk (develop an outline, make eye contact, don't mumble, etc)?

Here are two pitfalls that I've noticed when people speak for "interdisciplinary" groups:

• Tunnel vision. A speaker ignores the diverse backgrounds of audience members and assumes they all share his or her knowledge and interests. As a result, the speaker doesn't provide enough basic information for audience members to understand the talk, or to appreciate why the talk matters. 
• Self-effacement. A speaker goes too far in catering to an audience and loses their own point of view as a result. I once heard a talk from a bioinformatics researcher. They seemed to think their audience contained only chemists and, furthermore, that no one would want to learn anything about biology. As a result, the speaker tried to avoid touching any biological details. The result? A deluge of vagueness and abstraction. 

What can we do to avoid these extremes so that speakers and audiences can meet in the middle? 

1. Scope out the audience beforehand. Learn about your potential listeners. Think about what they're likely to know or not know, what they might feel strongly about, and why your talk is relevant to them. They might have more in common with you than you think. People are usually eager to latch onto something that connects to their interests, even tangentially. It's usually a good thing, but beware... 
2. Stay in the driver's seat.  A handful of times, "I know about what the speaker is talking about" can devolve into "I need to prove that I know more about it than she does, especially since I consider myself more of a specialist".  As a speaker, it's your job to address questions/comments thoughtfully. However, if someone tries to derail you - and you'll know it when you see it! - it's also your job to stay on track and remind them that you're the one giving a talk, which is different from a one-on-one meeting. 
3. Make good use of pictures and examples, which can help make ideas more concrete. A well-made diagram will make descriptions/equations/algorithms more approachable, especially to someone new to the subject. 
4. Appeal to shared problem-solving tendencies. If you're talking to scientists - or to humans, generally* - it's likely that even if you have different backgrounds, you share an instinct for solving problems. Try to give your audience the basic information needed to answer a question. Then give them a chance to work out an answer before showing them your results. No need to demand a verbal response (which can get awkward), but you want their brains to work while they listen. It'll keep their attention and make your research process more relatable. 
*If you're talking to non-humans, I would love to hear about that.
5. Have some faith in your listeners. I've come across many blanket statements, like that biologists always quail at the sight of equations, or that one must never utter gene names in the presence of a physicist. Although these statements may allude to general preferences, we need to remember that people aren't defined by what subject their degree is in and, related to point #4, people like to learn. Try to gently and non-patronizingly lead people out from their comfort zone. If you can show them that something they thought was incomprehensible is actually not so bad, you'll help them feel smarter rather than dumber, which is a big step towards bringing together people with diverse backgrounds. 

What are your thoughts? Have you had any interesting experiences when presenting your work to others?