Science

Category Archives

Crowdfunding tips – the perspective of a donor behaviour researcher

We were sent the below insights from a dutch researcher who has an interest in the drivers of donor behaviour for crowdfunding, below are her insights…

Keep it simple

I noticed that the titles of the projects are really specific and scientific, which is fine for publishing articles, but it might be less effective in terms of attracting donors. Maybe simplify them a bit? Even if your target crowd is the scientific community ( is it?), research shows that individuals are more likely to donate if the process is as easy as possible: so keep it simple. You can always give the specifics in the text, but I would keep everything really simple and argue from a practical viewpoint.

Also, it is always helpful and important to know your crowd: who is it I’m aiming for? For example, scientists are not particularly wealthy, so it would make sense to go beyond this group and reach out to ‘the crowd’ (i.e. general public). Are you aiming for a specific crowd?

Getting a project started

In general, the first 33% of the donors consist mainly out of friends and family of the project initiator. This group is especially important, since they provide you with the first couple of donations and show others that they support this project. Donors are more likely to make a donation if others have done so as well (i.e. follow the crowd). Thus, family and friends are essential to get a project going. If the project creator has a limited network, maybe they can donate the first 100euros? I know of several crowdfunding platforms who use this approach.

After the group of family and friends has been exhausted many projects struggle to assemble the remaining amount as it requires serious networking. Now is the time to really crowdfund: use social media (e.g. provide regular project updates, inform them about new donations etc.), ask previous donors to become ambassadors of the project (e.g. ask them to reach out to their family and friends), reach out as much as possible (solicitation: in order to make a donation, individuals have to be informed there is a project). In terms of the project updates, informing them about the behavior of other donors (i.e. tweeting: ‘wow today someone donated 50euros, will you join the crowd?’) is more effective than throwing around numbers (i.e. tweeting: ‘cheetahs are in trouble!, less than … exist in the wild’).

Another thing that might help is to give the crowd some control: crowdfunding is about democracy, donors no longer just want to make a donation they want to be included. So, they want (and need) to be informed through regular project updates (not asking for money, but informing them). Also, more than ever donors want to make a difference. Ask them for advice, ideas anything. Make them feel included and part of something special. You could also implement this into your rewards.

After you have assembled about 66% of the amount, family and friends are again likely to make a donation: they invested in the beginning of the campaign, others are donating, let’s bring in the money and make sure the project is successful. It would make sense to inform the group of family and friends that the project is getting their but not quite safe yet and that they could make it happen (thus giving them a sense of importance).

Rewards

Donors these days are more critical and perceive their donation more as an investment than a moral responsibility. Thus, sensible rewards are important. We would advise a simple reward structure of: 10, 20, 35, 50, 75, 100 and a couple of numbers above 100. The rewards connected to these amounts have to make sense. For example, you are currently hosting a project researching the impact of yoga on the wellbeing of women with infertility treatment-led pregnancy (really interesting project btw!!), could give coupons for free yoga lessons or yoga mats. The project leader could contact a yoga company, inform them about their research and ask if the company wants to collaborate with them. I know this is a lot of work, but crowdfunding is time invasive.

Also, maybe mention that if you want to make a donation without receiving a reward you can. There are still donors who donate from an altruistic viewpoint and forcing them to pick a reward might result in them not donating. Crowd.Science facilitates donating any amount.  

WWF found that a personal message was a particularly popular reward. What they did: the park ranger protecting elephants would thank donors personally (i.e. by name) through a video message. This works not just because it is fun to hear the ranger pronounce your name (in the WWF case Dutch names), but also because it makes donors feel specia and appreciatedl. This kind of rewards could be used by the wildlife projects at you platform.

Motives/incentives

Here is a link to a literature review of Bekkers and Wiepking, 2011. This article is a really good overview of the eight basic motives behind donating:

Awareness of need: use understandable words to describe why this project is important

Solicitation: donors have to know there is a project

Cost and benefits: this mainly applies to the rewards, they have to be in line with the cost (i.e. donation amount)

Altruism: those who donate purely to help the project

Reputation: for example appearing generous or wealthy, so publishing the donation amounts could help.

Psychological benefits: a feeling of warm flow, which means that people feel good about themselves after donating.

Values: personal values. We know little about this, because personal values can only be measured and not manipulated.

Efficacy: this one is really important for crowdfunders: they want to feel as if they make a difference. Thus, donating to a project that is unlikely to assemble the money in time is not in line with this reasoning. Again showing the importance of using your family and friends to fund the first part of the project. Also, specify what their amount can do: e.g. ‘if you donate 50£ you can enable me to test one more subject on how yoga can help with anxiety during pregnancy!’.  ‘if you donate 5 euros we can pay for …’. So, telling donors specifically what is done with their money is a real strength of crowdfunding (but keep the description simple).

It’s great to find ways to focus on social motives: thus informing individuals about the donation behaviour of other donors. I argue some individuals donate because they want to belong to a certain group, attain a specific reputation or simply like to follow (i.e. conforming). This would mean that it is important to target the right group: the cheetah project is most likely to attract donors who care about animals and identify as animal lovers. Thus, reach out to a group of animal lovers, maybe contact a local zoo and ask if they can help out to reach the right crowd. From a reputation perspective, I am less likely to donate if others are reframing from giving to a specific project: ‘if they are not making a donation, me donating might be perceived as foolish’ or ‘if they are not donating, me not donating won’t damage my reputation because others are also reframing’. From a conforming viewpoint, we use information to help those who are uncertain ‘should I make donation?, is this a good project?’, by informing them that others think this is a good project: ‘if others are donating to this project, it is probably a good investment (i.e. my money won’t be wasted).

Key in all these motives is that in order to attract ‘the crowd’, the project has to have at least a couple of donations. We talked about this before: a project initiator should ask their friends and family to make the first donations and therefore signal that they think this is a good project.

In sum, know your crowd, keep it simple, connect connect connect, specify what the amount donated can do in your reward system, provide regular updates (not asking for money, this could exhaust your crowd).

Visit the Crowd.Science home page to browse projects to support.

Fraudulent Websites targeting scientists and patients – Be wary out there!

It still continues to surprise me the way in which crowdfunding ventures are successful. Complete strangers supporting each other with a big leap of faith. The importance is not lost on me, I am eternally grateful that I jumped in the deep end and took on the adventure of funding my own research in this way – and even more so for the support that I received. But I thought I’d write this blogpost with a sense of warning about the possible dangers than one can come across in this age of the internet of things.

Since publishing in easily accessible open access journals online (which is highly encouraged nowadays to enable the visibility and sharing of research), I have been bombarded with a plethora of emails from editors of journals requesting that I publish with them because of my ‘esteemed knowledge and expertise’ on such-and-such a topic. There have been many instances of fraud and dodgy journals acting in despicable manners on the interwebs, and whilst I haven’t fallen victim to any (as yet), I think it’s important to point out the possibility and the variety of ways they can act with a few examples.

I was recently requested to participate as a speaker in a conference in the US. While this is an enormous honour for an early stage researcher, I was a little wary because of almost falling for an earlier trap to write a comment article on our recently published works that turned out to be a predatory journal (they take your paper, make you pay for it to be published, then don’t submit it to peer-review, and sometimes don’t even publish it! The catch being that you cannot then re-publish it anywhere else). So I did a bit of background research – they had a legitimate website set up, with a couple of well-known speakers, and it in all honesty looked pretty sound. But one last check I thought I’d try. I noticed a highly esteemed Professor listed as a speaker on the website. So I emailed him and asked whether he was due to talk at this conference. He responded that he was not at all involved (alarmingly he didn’t respond when I said that this website has him listed as a speaker and is probably using his name on some level of fraud to convince others to join). So the whole thing was a ruse to get researchers to sign up, pay registration fees (usually quite large sums), and probably hotel fees through the site’s own hotel booking system. A scam.

A more lighthearted experience I had was when I was requested to write a paper for a journal called the “Annals of Surgery and Perioperative Care”. Due to my experience in the field, I was requested to write a manuscript to submit for a “Special Issue on Autopsy” dealing with “recent advancements and challenges in treating Autopsy.” Yes, you read that right, apparently there’s treatments for death out there…

But there are more sinister acting individuals out there. I can’t remember how I came across this one, but surfing the web one day I came across a site for Memory Repair Protocol. Considering I walk in the field of Alzheimer’s and dementia, to suddenly come across a site claiming cures for these diseases, my alarm bells were clanging already before I was quarter of the way down the page (it’s a very long page). But I read on, because I thought perhaps they had some solid arguments for their theories. I will admit I used about half an hour to read through the site and do a little hunting further to determine the legitimacy of their supposed cure of dementia. What worried me was that many, many people had not. Reading through the comments on their website and also reviews on other websites, I was alarmed at the number of people that bought (paid actual money!) for something that they didn’t really know much about, save the legit-looking website. Only a few people (presumably the site moderators had deleted the majority of these ‘questionable’ messages) commented that in their hunt for actual published articles from the supposed professional attached to the studies they had found none! Another scam, but a much more serious one considering they prey on those in desperate need of a cure from a horrible disease.

So a word of warning to all out there – be wary of the danger of internet scams no matter how legit they may seem! Until next time!

New research: Just how common are Human Herpes Viruses?

Some of you may have read about my previous research into the Herpes simplex virus and its possible involvement in Alzheimer’s disease. Further from this, my collaborators in Umeå Sweden and I recently had our latest paper published, so I thought I’d share our findings with you.

It is important to know the incidence, or numbers of infected individuals, of any infection-causing agent (bacteria, viruses etc.) for the purpose of understanding whether certain behaviours or actions increase or decrease numbers, and how these infections can be prevented or treated.

For viruses such as the Herpes simplex virus (HSV), which is relatively harmless, generally causing only blisters on the face, usually around the lips, this might seem rather unnecessary. But HSV can also cause genital herpes (usually HSV type 2, but not unheard of for type 1), be harmful to immune-compromised individuals such as the very young or old, and may sometimes result in a severe disease known as Herpesviral encephalitis, which can be fatal. Most surprising about this virus is that fairly often people may not even know they are infected, showing no symptoms at all, but still capable of passing on the disease.

We chose to look at the group of Human Herpes Viruses (HHV) that follow a cycle of primary infection, then a latency period, which is interrupted by reactivation periods. This group of viruses include Herpes simplex viruses type 1 (cold sores) and 2 (genital herpes), Varicella zoster virus (VZV, which causes chicken pox), Cytomegalovirus (CMV), and Human herpesvirus 6 (HHV6, which causes sixth disease – named so because it is the sixth of a number of rash-causing diseases usually developing in childhood). It is not known what causes the reactivation of these diseases, although certain immune system stressors can cause these. I myself had a reactivated case of Varicella (Shingles) during pregnancy with my second child.

So what did we find? If you read the results section of the abstract, you’ll find we found the following: 79.4% had antibodies (proving infection had occurred at some time) against HSV1, 12.9% for HSV2, 97.9% for VZV, 83.2% against CMV, and 97.5% had antibodies against HHV6 in the studied population (which were Swedes from Umeå). This means that generally the results were in line with similar population studies around the world. There was a higher chance of women having had infections than men, and the occurrence of HSV has dropped compared to earlier, possibly by reduced risks of contracting the disease, through awareness or effective treatments reducing exposure of contaminated bodily fluids (think of all the cold sore drugs on the market nowadays).

Whilst our paper doesn’t offer any radical new theories or propose new treatment methods or therapies, it is important to investigate and share this data of numbers of infected individuals of various diseases. Whether the Herpes simplex virus and Alzheimer’s disease connection is a real one is still under debate, however it is interesting to note that the incidence of both have been declining.

The paper has been published as an open access article, which means you can download and read it for free (see the link above). Enjoy!

Working to Reverse an Alarming Trend on Landmines

_75893603_022443108-1

We need to clear more landmines every year, not fewer. 

So the latest report from the Landmine Monitor makes for depressing reading: deaths from landmines are at a 10-year high, while funding for clearing landmines is at a 10-year low, and there was a decrease in the amount of land being cleared every year – from 210 km2 in 2014 to 171 km2 in 2015 [1].

With the USA being the single largest financial supporter of humanitarian mine action [2], the latest developments on the political scene there may indicate that funding will continue to decline, perhaps at an accelerated rate [3] with who-knows what impact on clearance rates.

So, we have to do more with less; and that means we need to speed up the process of clearing landmines itself.

As part of this global effort [4], a team of engineers in the Department of Informatics at King’s College London are developing an explosives detector that will help speed up the process of clearing landmines by reducing the number of false alarms.  This is the problem with metal detectors: most modern landmines are what’s called “minimum metal landmines” – their casings aren’t metal, but plastic or wood; so in order to be able to detect the small amount of metal they contain, the sensitivity of the metal detector has to be turned up to the point where it detects not just landmines, but also any other metal that might be present in or on the ground – discarded nails, cans, broken-off bits of machinery or vehicle parts etc.  These are “false alarms” and make the process of clearing landmines very slow indeed, as every one of them has to be investigated as if it is a landmine.  That’s what makes an explosives detector such an attractive prospect, especially one sensitive to the presence of bulk, rather than just traces of, explosive; it will definitively say if a metal-detection response is due to the presence of a landmine or not.

The KCL explosives detection technology uses pulses of radio-waves to excite responses in explosives at characteristic frequencies.  That’s what gives the technology its discrimination: as the frequency of the response and the way it evolves in time are characteristic of a given chemical compound, the system never confuses an explosive for anything else (or indeed one explosive for another).

So what’s the catch?  The signals are weak, the system needs several tens of seconds to accumulate enough signal to make a decision as to whether there is anything there or not.   That’s why this technology has never found an application in military circles, where speed of operation is a key factor.  This is much less of an issue in the humanitarian (post-conflict) environment, where the over-riding requirement is to find every landmine – it’s still quicker than digging up every bit of metal the metal detector alarms on.  But this creates an additional complication: with no military market, there’s no rush of companies willing to invest in the technology’s development as they could never hope to recoup their development costs through big-ticket, high-volume sales.  So funding for development needs to come from other sources – governments, NGOs and the public.  Finding that funding is a challenge in the current climate, but it’s a challenge the King’s team are ready to meet.

Jamie Barras is leading a crowdfunding campaign to raise funds to test the explosives detector. You can find out more here: https://crowd.science/campaigns/landmines/

If you have questions about the detector email jamie.barras@kcl.ac.uk

[1] http://www.the-monitor.org/en-gb/reports/2016/landmine-monitor-2016.aspx
[2] http://www.state.gov/t/pm/wra/
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/nov/13/will-trump-presidency-honour-pledge-stop-sending-foreign-aid-to-countries-that-hate-us-usaid
[4] http://www.findabetterway.org.uk/project/

 

 

 

Sussex cliffs erosion rates are ten-fold in the past 200 years

 

maxresdefault

Coastal erosion study could hold valuable lessons for climate change mitigation.  New research on how the Sussex coast has eroded over the last seven millennia could help provide an insight into how climate change might affect UK cliffs in the future.

In a new paper published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers from the Universities of Glasgow and Colorado, Imperial College London, the British Geological Survey and the Environment Agency describe how they have used a process known as cosmogenic dating to learn how the chalk cliffs at Beachy Head and Seaford Head have eroded.

Cosmogenic dating allows scientists to use the build-up of a specific isotope of beryllium found in rocks at the surface as a kind of rock clock.

As rocks are uncovered on shore platforms by natural processes such as erosion and landslides, these beryllium isotopes begin to accumulate due to exposure to cosmic radiation (the same radiation that causes the Aurora).

Since the rates of accumulation are relatively constant, scientists can measure the rocks, current levels of beryllium to estimate how long they have been exposed near the surface. Measuring rock samples from across the shore platforms allows them to build a record of how coastal erosion has proceeded over the last 7000 years or so.

Their results show that, after thousands of years of relatively steady erosion of between two and six centimetres per year, the rate has increased dramatically over the last 200-600 years to between 22 and 32 centimetres each year.

The researchers speculate in the paper that the increase in erosion could be down to the beaches being gradually thinned out over the last few hundred years at both sites. While sandy beaches can act as a protective barrier between the sea and cliffsides, when they are thinned by alongshore transport, protection is lost and the remaining loose beach material can wear away the cliffs faster, increasing the rate of erosion.

Dr Martin Hurst of the University of Glasgow’s School of Geographical and Earth Sciences said: “One of the challenges of monitoring coastal erosion is that useful historical record only stretches back 150 years or so. Cosmogenic dating gives us the opportunity to roll back the clock much further to make more informed observations about the past.

“What we’ve seen in this case is that the rate of erosion has taken a big leap in the last few hundred years, which we think could well be due to the thinning of beaches.

“As the effects of climate change are increasingly felt through rising sea levels and increasingly regular severe storms, it’s likely that similar thinning could well take place elsewhere in the UK and abroad, quickening the pace of coastal erosion.

“What we’re hoping to do now is use our observations to help underpin a more accurate model of how climate change will affect coastal erosion in the future, which could help authorities make more informed decisions about coastal management.”

Dr. Dylan Rood, co-author from the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London, states:

“The coast is clearly eroding, and Britain has retreated fast. Our study on British coasts leaves no question that coastal cliff retreat accelerated in the recent past. A nearly ten-fold increase in retreat rates over a very short timescale, in geological terms, is remarkable. The UK cannot leave the issue of cliff erosion unresolved in the face of a warming world and rising sea levels.”

“Cosmogenic isotopes are advancing the science of retreating coastlines in Great Britain and worldwide. These new tools provide a rare insight into how dramatically environmental change and human impact are affecting sensitive coastal landscapes. We still need to better understand how other rocky coastlines have responded to similar changes in the past.”

The team’s paper, titled Recent acceleration in coastal cliff retreat rates on the south coast of Great Britain”, is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and is available online.

Could getting a cold sore increase risk of Alzheimer’s?

close up. beautiful lips virus infected herpes

Herpes in the brain?

On the back of a very successful (at least on the scientific side of things) year in research, I’ve recently had another article published. Not as fanciful as beer staving off Alzheimer’s disease, but something that has been popping up on news sites all over the world over the past couple of years. That is, an infectious agent causing Alzheimer’s disease – namely the Herpes simplex virus (HSV). HSV1 (type 1) generally causes the common coldsore that appears on your face, most often your lips. Another type of the same virus (HSV2) is known to cause genital herpes. Approximately 80-90% of the population are affected with HSV1, and once you get it, it doesn’t go away (it just hides in your nerve cells).

I got interested in this topic a few years back when I came across a paper that showed amyloid beta (Aβ) aggregations (the sticky clumps of protein known as senile plaques that are thought to be a major cause of Alzheimer’s disease) were clumped together at the same location in brain tissue as HSV. Now this doesn’t really answer the question of cause or effect, so I thought I could look at this virus in my brain tissue samples and perhaps be able to see what would come first – virus or brain lesions.

After teaming up with some researchers at Umeå University in Sweden, who have a good detection system set up for analysing HSV, we moved ahead and analysed whether we could find HSV in the TASTY series (one of the brain collections I use). We had 584 individuals’ brain tissue for analysis and found 11 (1.9%) that were positive for HSV in the brain. Of those 11, 6 had Aβ aggregations (~55%). There were also a large proportion of individuals that didn’t have HSV in the brain, but did have brain lesions (160 cases, ~30%).

HSV first infection is usually in childhood, and the youngest age of the cases with HSV in the brain was 43, so this suggests that it happens later on. At least it’s after the initial plaques that appear in the brain (around 30 years). It doesn’t completely discredit the idea that HSV could cause AD, but the fact that so many individuals (160) had brain lesions but no HSV in the brain, suggests something else causes the brain lesions. Although HSV could potentially make things worse. Because we had so few cases with HSV in brain, we can’t really make any assessments on when it is likely to enter the brain – that’s something for our future research! Of course our previous work has shown that the brain lesions already appear around age 30, suggesting that if these are the cause of the disease, it’s starting quite a lot earlier than previously thought. This then strongly suggests that the development of brain lesions is caused by something else, not HSV.

The most significant finding of our study was that there were individuals that had HSV in their brains. That they weren’t suffering from the rare deadly brain infection known as Herpes simplex encephalitis (HSE). They had no symptoms that would suggest HSV was present in their brain tissue. This study was the largest of its kind showing HSV can get into the brain without showing symptoms. Our next step will be to identify exactly which brain region it is found in, and map the potential route for entrance by HSV. It will also be important to identify what triggers the ability of HSV to gain access to the brain of some people, but not others?

f2-large

As age increases, you can see a decrease in the percentage of those without brain lesions (No neuropathology, clear bars), and a corresponding increase in those with senile plaques (Aβ aggregations, light grey shaded bars), tangles (NFT, darker grey shaded bars), both combined brain lesions (Aβ & NFT, darker patterned grey bars), Alzheimer’s disease (AD, solid line) and HSV in the brain (HSV DNA positivity, dashed line).

Compared to other studies investigating Alzheimer’s disease patients and controls, which numbered generally under 50 individuals, our study found a very low incidence of HSV in brain tissue. Other studies suggest anywhere from 20 up to 100% of controls (that is non-demented people) have HSV in the brain. It might be that our study criteria was too strict, but even if we included all slightly positive cases, that only equates to a 6% incidence. It is perhaps more likely that our samples are quite old, and were not ‘fresh frozen’ tissues, so we will also perform a similar study on a newer autopsy cohort collected here at the University of Tampere.

So at least for now, you can rest easy that HSV probably isn’t going to cause you to get Alzheimer’s disease. At least that makes me feel better considering during the study and preparation of this manuscript I had about 6 outbreaks of coldsores!!! The paper was published as open access, meaning you can read the whole pdf of the article here: http://dmm.biologists.org/content/9/11/1349

Enjoy!

Painful Science – getting published is tough!

jdborjon

Eloise tweets @DrEllaOfScience

I thought it would be important to point out a few of the struggles related to being a researcher, and how exhausting some aspects can be. I’m pretty sure many have written about the pains of writing grant applications and how the majority of your submissions are rejected (the national Academy of Finland had just 11% funded from last year’s postdoctoral researcher call). It’s a sad state in reality, but that’s not even the worst of it.

If you are successfully funded, or still trying to publish without funding, there’s an aspect behind it all that is unknown to most of the general population. Publishing your work. It’s not simply a matter of finalising the experiments, analysing the results, writing up your work and bam! New publication added to your list. Noooooooo. Far from it. At least in my experience anyway. I’ve had 7 publications in total. That’s not really a lot compared to many, but 5 of them I’ve been the corresponding author, which means I have the responsibility of checking everything before sending it off to the editors of various journals.

It all starts with thinking about where you want to publish. Go for a high impact factor journal? Impressive on the CV, but can be a lot of work. Open access? Can cost THOUSANDS of euros (at least in the realm of €2000-€3000). Then there’s the topic and scope of the article and journal itself to consider. Lots of things to think about. This is followed by formatting the manuscript text to the chosen journal’s guidelines and then filling in all the forms in the online submission regarding what the article encompasses, and topics covered, suggested reviewers (and reviewers you don’t want to see your work – for various reasons such as they are competitors or you know they have a disagreement with your work), as well as mundane things such as word count and picture files (which need to be of a certain high quality, but not too high initially that they take forever for the reviewers to download).

Submit! And….wait. Reviewers can take anywhere between a couple of weeks and months. Depending on the journal, and the prestige behind reviewers who are well known in particular fields and chosen for their expertise, you can be waiting a long time. Or, as usually happens to me, you get a response from the editors a couple of days later announcing they aren’t interested in your work, or it isn’t broad/specific enough for their journal scope, or “we have so many submissions we can only accept a few,” bla bla bla.

Then, it starts again. Choose a new journal, reformat the entire thing for the new guidelines, which can involve redoing images, reformatting reference lists, reordering parts of the manuscript and different requirements for what should be included in the materials and methods etc… and then submit again. Phew! This can happen multiple times. At least it has for me. On average I send a paper through to about 4 journals before it gets reviewed. And even after being reviewed, it can still be rejected or require a heap of additional experiments before being accepted for publication. It can take in the least months to get a paper accepted for publication, or even years.

Talk about painful. But without sharing our work, we don’t get recognition, can’t develop collaborations, can’t get further funding… So, we persist and hopefully, eventually, we’ll succeed and receive the recognition that we deserve. Just thought you all should know it’s not that simple and get as excited as some of us early stage researchers do when we get things published! J

Good luck to all the other researchers getting their work published out there!

Insights from Animal Behaviour Researcher, Lauren Brent

Dr Lauren Brent from University of Exeter is a biologist interested in the evolution of sociality. Her research asks why social relationships are formed and how they are maintained. Lauren tweets @ljnbrent

lauren_brent

We asked Lauren about her research…

What made you decide to become an academic?

I became an academic because I love the process of independent thought and inquisition. As a young student, I was especially fascinated by the natural world and the behaviour of animals and so could think of nothing better than to spend my time asking questions about how and why the things we observe in nature came to be.

How does your currently research fit into your further research ambitions? 

My main research ambition is to gain a greater understanding of the evolution of social relationships. In particular, I am interested in why social bonds (“friendships”) evolved – i.e. what function do these relationships serve? – and why some individuals are more or less socially integrated than others. I am currently working on a few different but related projects; one on the evolutionary mechanisms that underpin cooperation, and the other on the consequences of social relationships for survival and reproductive success.

Both projects take place at the long-running rhesus macaque field site in Puerto Rico where I do much of my research, and fit nicely into my research ambitious by addressing some of the key unanswered questions in my field.

4925182_orig

This is a picture of two rhesus macaques relaxing at the field site in Puerto Rico where I do a lot of my research

If you had unlimited funding what would you do with it?

With unlimited funding I would initiate a series of field-based projects in species whose social lives are little understood. A key to understanding how and why friendship evolved is the ability to compare what “friends” look like in a range of different types of animals. But since the biology of friendship is a relatively recent area of research outside of humans and other primates, we are currently unable to ask this question.

Animals where data on friendship are missing and would be most useful include many types of mammal, such as the social carnivores, whales, rodents and ungulates, as well as many non-mammals such as schooling fish and colony-living birds.

8516854_orig

Friendships in whales is little understood, this is something that I would like to explore more about if I had unlimited funding.

Have you had any experiments that have been a bit disastrous?

I typically observe the naturally occurring behaviours in animals rather than running experiments. However, things can go very wrong doing this since wild animals almost never do what you want or expect them to do! Working with monkeys can be especially frustrating since they often live up to the cliché that monkeys are mischievous. While attempting to collect data I’ve been pooped on, peed on, shoved, hit, and had many pieces of equipment stolen and chewed beyond recognition.

What are your thoughts on crowdfunding research?

Crowdfunding of research is incredibly important. Research like mine often doesn’t require huge amounts of funding – just a bit of money for flights to field sites and for the few pieces of equipment needed to collect the data. Yet while low-cost research sounds ideal, it can be paradoxically excluded from traditional funding streams precisely because it is low-cost. Crowdfunding is therefore critical for this type of research.

Below is a TED talk by Lauren Brent…

Notes from Walacea:

Walacea’s first successful project was with Dr Andy Radford from University of Bristol, his research investigated friendships in dwarf mongooses, if you are interested in this area of research you can sign up to our newsletter on friendship. We also have a crowdfunding tips newsletter for scientists thinking about crowdfunding and a general newsletter where we share our favourite blogs about research and new projects raising funds that you can support.

Should scientists learn to pitch?

Liikutu-tiedosta_Eloise-Mikkonen-600x318

Innovation and Research Communication Competition

At the beginning of June 2016, I was selected as a finalist in a competition about innovation in scientific research communication. The reason for my nomination was specifically related to my crowdfunding campaign on Walacea and the supposedly novel way I communicated my Alzheimer’s research to the public. The campaign involved a short video which I did in the lab, some written text and offering a few perks to people who supported my work from seminars to a simple postcard. As a result of the campaign I found that people were actually quite curious about my work and interested in what I had to say about it.  Before the campaign I’d assumed that talking about my research with any level of details was likely to be a conversation killer!

The competition  was a fun and enjoyable experience and the winner took home €3000 (which would have been nice). The run up culminated in an online voting system, which I’ll admit I wasn’t prepared for – it involved background work and lots of marketing to my network.  As the only single individual of the 6 finalists (the rest were organisations or collective groups), I was largely doing it on my own which was tough, but I was proud of my efforts and really want to thank my friend Iita for nominating me, the organisers for selecting me, and of course everyone who has supported me throughout the whole (crowdfunding) ordeal! I came runner up out of the 6 finalists which is a a great achievement for me.

This whole event and the social and research aspects of the concept of research communication were very new to me. I took on crowdfunding as a means to acquire financial support and continue the research I enjoy, and learnt the basics as I went. The further on in my campaign, the more I realised what was at stake,  what was required and that more effort lead to more financial support.  In addition good communication was vital! The campaign also gave me a broader view on things that go wrong in science and how engaging the public is a useful and important part of being a scientist.

So, should scientists pitch for funding?

Startup @ Reeperbahnfestival

During the Competition day, I took part in a workshop on the ABC in Pitching. In science, this is not a particularly strong point of interest. People give presentations on their work at conferences and seminars, and some also lecture to students or teach laboratory groups. They usually involve one topic and range in time from 20 minutes up to an hour or more. Plenty of time to get around to what you want to say, and also on the odd occasion to bore people’s pants off.

Pitching is what I imagined entrepreneurs do to get funding to support their business idea and get it off the ground. Wait. Those essential elements are what we as scientists are trying to do. Once you get the ball rolling with support and publications, then things usually take on (to some degree) a life of their own. But in the beginning, you have to put in the hard work.

I now realise more than ever that pitching should be an integral part of a scientist’s every day means. ‘Elevator pitches’ should be the correct way to grab the attention of funding agencies as well as members of the public through crowdfunding and make them interested enough to read on, ask questions and hopefully potentially fund you.  Entrepreneurs would never send a full business plan to a potential investor from the gecko, they send pitch decks, executive summaries and arrange meetings and events…this system works for business so just maybe it could work for science and save everyone lots of time in terms of writing and reading grant proposals?! And infact, this is the system that crowdfunding is using where scientists can create a 5 minute video pitch about their work than a more detailed explanation of what they plan to do.  It worked for my campaign and perhaps with even more pitch practice next time it could work out even better!

Are women taking the helm in Science Communication? 

On a side note, at the competition one thing that struck me about the whole event was the gender difference. The majority of the people there either representing the finalists, or listening and at work promoting science, were female. There was a massive majority of women participants – almost to the realm of 90%!

I was surprised and commented on a number of occasions to different individuals, both male and female, and there was a general consensus that others were surprised too. One comment from a fellow (male) contestant was that if women are going to be the face of science, then that would be okay by him. Is it the age where we start making science sexy too, I wonder? Although that thought shocks me a bit and some of the kit we wear may need a bit of design work…

298FBBDF00000578-0-image-m-63_1434100784218

I wondered whether this was just a product of the fact this competition was held in Finland with primarily Finnish participants, or whether science communication is primarily undertaken by women throughout the world. A quick google of the topic seems to suggest that “women are more suited to communicating due to their natural style of communication,” thus indicating that perhaps it is not a phenomenon known only to Finland.

In any case, I must admit that I myself have found a fair amount of satisfaction and pleasure in sharing my research and also my experiences through my crowdfunding campaign, radio, magazine, newspaper and tv interviews, as well as this blog, and the continual contact I keep with my supporters and followers. I hope that I continue to be as well received! Thanks for tuning in again!

 

Surprising findings for beer and Alzheimer’s related brain lesions

Could beer have some positive effects on the brain and memory? Eloise, who recently crowdfunded on Walacea has just had a manuscript accepted for publication and she explains about her journey to get there and gives us a few insights into her recent taste of the media limelight in Finland

beer-intro

Image: Thinkstock

Can scientists be media personalities?

In keeping with the idea that scientists can also be media personalities, I’ve just received an email to be interviewed for a women’s magazine here in Finland. Yes, it’s true. I’m not really sure of the positive fluffy role model image that I could provide, but they are interested in hearing about my crowdfunding adventure. As a colleague earlier said to me “It’s not bad if a scientist is in the news in a positive light”. Well….ok, I’ll go with it.

But I should backtrack a little. I had my manuscript accepted for publication a while back and this week was the early view publication release. Now, that’s nothing to rejoice at in the world of science – although let’s be fair, I haven’t had an article published in four years, so I’m pretty ecstatic about the whole thing – but I believed the concept would appeal to the general population, so thought I’d jump on the bandwagon of press release accompanying research method.

beerandlesionsmanuscript

Well…it certainly has appealed to the public. An article on the University’s website (coupled with an English version – these guys are really getting to know me now!), plus an article in the local paper. Not to sound too arrogant or anything, but that’s kinda THE DREAM….for a scientist. To get your research read by every day people thinking you’re on the way to a cure for such and such a disease. Because let’s be honest, as scientists we all believe our research is finding the ultimate answer to this or that.

I do know however, how the media take your results and rewrite them the way that makes it seem like you HAVE found the cure. Boy have they done that. How many times do we have to read about the next ‘cure for cancer’ or something? Well that’s kind of what they did with my research. But I’m still excited about it, and if you’re interested in actually hearing more about it from my perspective rather than the media’s, I’ll attempt to explain the research itself and the implications.

I was given an older autopsy series to work with on this topic, (compared to the one I usually work with) which had brain lesion data (information about whether the individual had amyloid beta aggregations or plaques) and alcohol consumption data. Amyloid beta aggregations are thought to be the cause behind Alzheimer’s disease. The protein accumulates in clumps and is believed to cause the death of neutrons, which leads to the associated memory loss. The alcohol consumption information involved types of alcohol drunk and an estimate of how much (note this is retrospective data, which is less strong than data collected in real time). The alcohol data came from relatives of the deceased, so to be fair, it’s not entirely rock-solid info. However, it’s interesting enough to show some insight into how these people lived. You’d be amazed at how much you can divulge on a person’s habits when you really think about it.

One final point is that the cohort is a non-demented cohort, meaning that none of them are cognitively impaired, although some had the brain lesions. This could mean that they would have developed dementia if they had lived longer, or may alternatively suggest that these lesions can occur without dementia and there is something else required to cause Alzheimer’s disease.

beerandlesions

Fig 2 shows that beer drinkers had less than half the amount of amyloid beta-immunoreactivity compared with non-beer drinkers. Amyloid-beta aggregations are strongly associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

I’ll focus on our most interesting results to keep it simple. We measured the amyloid beta aggregations as a dichotomous variable (present or not) and had a look whether any alcohol amounts or types were statistically associated with the brain lesions. In one of those beautiful eureka moments, the statistical program I use (SPSS, in case you’re wondering) spat out a nice significant result. Beer drinkers were less likely to have amyloid beta aggregations in their brains than drinkers of other types of alcohol.

So does that mean beer is good for you?

Yes, it is possible that beer could be good for you! But before we go jumping to extravagant conclusions, let me bring you back down to the ground. This was quite a small study (125 males – which means the results cannot be assumed to apply automatically to women – sorry ladies!) and when we investigated further it seemed that age had a large part to do with the effect. But this isn’t the end of the story. I have another larger cohort with similar information (with both males and females) where I will look to see if I can find similar results.

Of course it will also be nice to back up our results with a substantial theory as to how and why we found this result. Our thinking is that beer has a number of nutrients that are involved in important mechanisms in keeping cells functioning well. So another step will be to see if we can measure certain metabolites to corroborate our story, of which I’ve made a new collaboration to tackle this topic, through the sharing of my research!

So yeah, beer could potentially be good for your brain. But as I should point out all things should be enjoyed in moderation and a full healthy diet with exercise should be paramount to living a healthy long life!

Read the full article here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acer.13102/abstract

Terms of Agreement

Member usage

Definitions

Crowd.Science’s Service

Crowd.Science has limited liability

How Campaigns Work

Campaign Owner and Campaign Funder Obligation

Campaign Rewards

Fees Payable to Crowd.Science

Stripe Payment Gateway

Refunds

Communications with Crowd.Science

Tax and legal compliance

Dispute Resolution

Governing Law and Jurisdiction

Third Party Site

Prohibited Use Of Crowd.Science

General Overview