I have to be honest: things haven’t been going swimmingly.

We’re getting close to my 1-year anniversary of finishing my PhD (defending my thesis). This should be a time of celebration, except this represents a full year of not having a real science job. Yes, I’m working on getting my Freelance business off the ground, but keep in mind my original plan was to still work in a lab so I had some income, was still ingrained the STEM community, and be part of a lab while I got my freelance business up and running. But after a year of being on so many job sites, paying-to-play on LinkedIn, and applying to job after job, I still haven’t gotten an interview. Ouch.

So, we’re changing things up. I did managed to pause my tutoring job so I can focus on upcoming classes. I’m currently working through a few online blender classes so I can add 3D animation and rendering to my resume (it’s a lot of fun, but the keystrokes are killing me!). Later this month, I begin two writing classes: “Writing for the Masses,” and “Editing: Continuing Education.”

May was also the month I got sick enough to go the urgent care. My students left me with one last gift before I paused tutoring.

Needless to say, May was…A month.

QUICK NOTE BEFORE WE CONTINUE: If you haven’t seen the news about ICE’s Delaney Hall, I encourage you to find your trusted news source and get caught up on it. I’m behind on my news and am still trying to get caught up on what’s happening, but what I am seeing is horrifying me nearly as much as what I saw in Minnesota. I apologize for not having any links to donate to at the moment; I’m very behind on a lot of IRL issues (see below).

The reason why I’m behind on a lot of news is because I’ve been caught up in the recent attack on science. Long story short, the Trump Administration is trying to make it so that political appointees, not scientists, have final approval on grants.

Hey, I’ll be the first to say that the grant process is not perfect, that it’s riddled with more flaws than holes in Swiss cheese. But it’s not whatever this proposed change is. The whole point of the system (despite it’s flaws), is to have scientists— experts in their fields— fund projects that will further a given field. Politicians have no idea what’ll make good science. And as we’ve seen with the administration’s current handling of grants with their whole “anti-DEI” stance, we know that they’ll use this new shift in power to abuse and dismantle the STEM community.

(I’m oversimplifying it here in my newsletter: Please watch Stand Up For Science’s Emergency Meeting video for more in-depth info)

Currently, we have until July 13 to provide public comments on this change. The more more voices we can add to the public comments, the better.

Stand Up for Science’s Emergency Meeting/Video: https://youtu.be/T6rq5lVZHWo?si=J5hmZVqmQABhoMq4

Stand Up For Science’s OMB Public Comment: https://fight2win.standupforscience.net/campaign/163675/?utm_source=ANactives&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=OMB_f2w1

Okay, now that you’ve posted your comments, let’s continue onto my usual newsletter content!

Technically, I posted this self-indulgent blog post early on June 1st and not May 31st like I had planned, but we’ll pretend I got this out on time :)

Link: https://gettingthesciencewrite.com/Amaze-Amaze-Project-Hail-Mary/

I had way too much fun geeking out about a feel-good science movie.

I’m still working on new science journal article videos. I used my ISHAS video editing project to learn a new video editing program, so I’m eager to get back to my planned scicomm videos. Now that I’m pausing tutoring and nearly finished with my ISHAS commission (I’m still writing summaries), I can start picking away at these videos.

I’m currently heavily editing my novel. I don’t know if I’ll go for developmental editing, which is a dangerous thing to say for a debut indie novel. That doesn’t mean I’m avoiding editing; I’m of course preparing for line editing/copyright editing, and proofreading! And I’m not foolish enough to think that my plot/character arcs are perfect; my current editing process is proving it right now (I’ve been cutting and adding scenes, completely changing character arcs, etc).

Firstly, Developmental editing is a big-picture kind of editing: does the plot make sense? Do . Line or copyright editing looks at each line of your novel and pick it apart (“does the character sound like themselves,” or “does the flow of this line work"?). Proofreading is fixing all those grammar mistakes. Plot and characters are generally my strength as a writing/storyteller; my issues are a lot of unfinished sentences, overwriting, comma rules… pretty much everything else.

Secondly, and more importantly, each round of editing is going to be about $3,500 each (Look, editors need to make a living too). So I’m for sure going to be paying 7-8k for editing. Adding on the developmental edits means I’m in the 11k range.

…Yeah, that very expensive. I saved up a significant amount of money from my tutoring this year, but not 11k.

This is also a good place to mention that I have had 3 alpha/beta readers read through the piece, and while there’s certainly a great deal to critique (like one character’s character arc) and a few minor plot holes, none of them have flagged the overall plot. So I am getting developmental feedback, just not from a professional editor.

I dunno. That’s just the state of where I’m at right now with the book.

I have too many WIP’s right now, but I did bust this illustration out last night!

Another Seattle Aquarium art piece!

Have you ever noticed that a great deal of classic stories have things come in 3’s? Three gorgons? The three billy goats gruff? The three musketeers? This is called The Rule of 3’s. We humans love to list things in 3 for impact in every genre out there. Once was chance, twice is an intriquing repeat, and thrice is a pattern.

We also use the Rule of 3’s in Table Top Role Playing Games. When we, the game master, want the players to remember a plot point or a very specific item, we can fall back on mentioning that “thing” three times. Occasionally, players will pick up on the “thing” immediately, but you generally need to mention the “thing” three times in the game (be it by a guard dropping it in conversation, a line about it in a letter, a sketch in a random notebook about it, etc) before the players catch on. This isn’t because the players are oblivious, it’s because people like to find patterns; if there’s no pattern, we generally disregard the onetime occurrence as chance.

So 3’s the magic number. How does this relate to science communication?

Well my friends, we can use it to sneak in our science jargon.

Graduate students aiming to finish their and also practice science communication face a frustrating issue: we know that science jargon should be used to a minimum, but our peers and mentors expect us to use that jargon extensively in lab meetings. This was a topic that came up at the Association of Science Communicators; we know lower jargon use improves communication, but mentors expected us to use our jargon like every other scientist to show that we had mastered our shared vocabulary.

It was something that I struggled with extensively throughout my entire PhD. Initially, my problem was that I had to use platelet specific jargon for my peers, but most immunologists aren’t familiar with platelets or the terms in my field. Essentially, I was speaking a completely different dialect in an already difficult language. I got away with taking out a lot of my platelet jargon in my presentations (I was very sneaky about it), but there were some pieces of intense platelet jargon that I couldn’t remove or simplify.

When I spent time to define the new jargon, people would forget two slides later and get lost.

I started using the “rule of 3” to sneak in my definitions. If you listen to my recorded talks, you’ll hear me introduce a new vocab word three times. For example, when I discuss aiibB3 receptor:

(first slide): “aiibB3 is a receptor that, when platelets are activated, shifts into an active form that

(Next slide): “…Which activates aiibB3, which if you remember is the receptor for fibrinogen and changes form when platelets are activated…”

(Two slides later): “…We’re measuring active aiibB3, which again, changes form when platelets are activated…”

After that, I can just refer to aiibB3 throughout the rest of the talk without redefining it for the audience. I get to flex my vocab skills to my peers and mentors, AND I can make the science accessible to folks outside of my field. Works every time (or 90% of the time).

It’s a very simple trick, but it’s one that I think students (and even other presenting scientists) need to be aware of when they’re practicing their talks. You also need to do this trick for each of your intense jargon words, which can be very tricky to slip in during a presentation.

Remember: 3’s a magic number.

Again, if you like what I do and want to support me while keeping my material free to access, you can join my Patreon or make a one-time tip on KoFi!