Audio Transcript

Published: December 18, 2018
APA 7 Citation: Newsome, B. (Host). (2018, December 18). Ep.41 How to nail a 3 minute thesis [Audio podcast transcript]. Fizzics Education.
https://www.fizzicseducation.com.au/podcast/fizzicsed/student-stem-tours-with-latitude-group-travel/

Ben Newsome CF is the recipient of the 2023 UTS Chancellor’s Award for Excellence and a Churchill Fellow. He is a global leader in science communication and the founder of Fizzics Education.

[00:00:00]
Claire Brandenburger: This is like another whole genre, which is fantastic. It gives you a totally different way of thinking. You’ve got a different outlook and it kind of gives you a more rounded experience of giving talks by the end of your PhD.

[00:00:17]
Ben Newsome: That was Claire Brandenburger, a researcher at the University of New South Wales, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, talking about the postgraduate research forum speakers’ programme. I tell you what, this is exactly the sort of thing that gets researchers into the heart of science communication.

[00:00:31]
Announcer: You’re listening to the Fizzics Ed Podcast. For hundreds of ideas, free experiments and more, go to fizzicseducation.com.au. And now, here’s your host, Ben Newsome.

[00:00:47]
Ben Newsome: Yes, welcome again to the Fizzics Ed Podcast. This week, we’re talking about just what it’s like to be a scientist and stand up in front of a general audience and describe your research. Imagine that; you’ve been working on some stuff for years and now you need to distil all your findings into just three minutes. I tell you what, it’s almost like a business pitch in a lot of ways. You’ve got to be able to get your idea out really succinctly, very carefully, and still remain true to the science you’ve been doing.

[00:01:20]
Ben Newsome: That’s exactly what Hayden Schilling and Claire Brandenburger were doing at the postgraduate research forum speakers’ event, which I was lucky enough to be a judge in late last year at the University of New South Wales. So, whilst this is very much about the scientist getting their head together to be able to present to a general audience, it’s not bad to think about this from your own point of view. You might be working at a school or a museum, a zoo, or an aquarium—wherever it is, you have to communicate your ideas very effectively, and these are two people who did exactly that. What they learned is something that’s very important for all of us as professional speakers and teachers.

[00:01:46]
Ben Newsome: Welcome to this podcast. I know you guys have been very heavily involved in research in lots of ways. What I thought we’d do before we even get into what we’re going to be chatting about, Claire, what is it that you research?

[00:02:00]
Claire Brandenburger: I research introduced plants. I look at plants that have been introduced to Australia pretty recently, like a hundred years or so, and I try and work out how they’ve been changing since then. I look at a range of different things and just try to work out if they’ve been adapting to their new life.

[00:02:21]
Ben Newsome: And Hayden, what’s your thing?

[00:02:23]
Hayden Schilling: I work with the New South Wales Fisheries Department looking at a species called Tailor, which is a recreationally important species. I’m looking at how fast they grow, what they eat, where they live, when they reproduce—all the important things that you need to know if you want to make it sustainable in the future.

[00:02:41]
Ben Newsome: Fair enough. Now, we all got to meet at University of New South Wales because you’re involved with the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences. Do you just call that **BEES** for short? Just out of interest.

[00:02:50]
Claire Brandenburger: Yeah, it can be a bit confusing when you tell people you work for **BEES**, but yes, **BEES** is the way we call it.

[00:03:00]
Ben Newsome: So about a month ago or something like that, there was this really cool competition that University of New South Wales puts on, which is the **Three Minute Thesis** competition. Both of you did a fantastic job in trying to distil all this information, all this research you’ve been doing, down to a three-minute pitch effectively to a general audience. I really wanted to get you guys on because I wanted to find out what it was like trying to pull that together, what you thought would work, and clearly, there were some things that generally did work.

[00:03:29]
Ben Newsome: Claire, so you’re working with introduced plant species. Just out of background, I did do a bit of that back in the day doing environmental restoration in bushland areas in Sydney, so I’ve got a bit of affinity for some of the work you did. By the way, Hayden, I did a lot of diving and checking out for fish populations around Botany Bay through my third year of uni, so in a weird way, I kind of know what you guys are doing a little bit, but not to the level you’ve been doing. So, Claire, when you put together your “this is my three minutes,” what was going through your head when you first had to construct it?

[00:04:06]
Claire Brandenburger: I think the main thing was just to make it interesting but simple, but not too simple. You want to get across some level of the amount of effort that you’ve put into your research. I actually spent quite a lot of time making my slides. They said possibly about three slides, so I spent a lot of time making my slides because I wanted them to be very visual. I didn’t want a lot of text. I kind of thought it would be a good idea to have the talk in maybe three parts of one minute each.

[00:04:52]
Claire Brandenburger: You’ve got to kind of balance big picture versus detail. You start with the big picture: why you’re doing this research, what difference it makes in the world. Then the middle bit is the more detailed: this is what I do, these are the results I found, and also to make it personal, to say, “I was interested in finding this out.” People like the facts and the interesting story, but they really like that personal touch. If you say, “I found out this, I was interested in this,” that’s great for the middle. Then the end bit is to go back out, to spend your last third stepping out. I literally said the words, “Why should we care about all of this?” and that’s how I ended.

[00:05:38]
Claire Brandenburger: A lot of talks I’ve been to, you hear the details and they sound interesting, and then the talk ends and you kind of say to yourself, “But why should I care about all of this?” So that was kind of my thing. It was like an hourglass shape: start big, go to the detail, and then go out again. Then, as I said, I spent quite a lot of time on my visuals. Especially the beginning, I think it’s good not to have too much stuff on the screen. I just had one picture of the beach where my plants grow, and my topic, which I also had as a very small heading: The Evolution Revolution, which is a little bit casual. No major terms in there.

[00:06:21]
Claire Brandenburger: And I think for the first minute or so, I just spoke with that in the background. If you get to a talk and immediately there’s a flowchart or something on the back, you’re not actually listening to the person. So I thought that would be a good starter: a very nice picture so they listen to what you’re saying for the first minute. Then my second slide was the more details of my actual results. You’ve kind of got them hooked a little bit and they’re listening. There are some pictures to help them put things into categories, and then out again to a very gentle end with respect to what’s on the screen. I was lucky I could manage to fit in one funny little thing, which also helped for a bit of a laugh in the middle, but that’s quite a challenge for a three-minute talk to try and get that in. But that helps a lot. After I’d done quite a bit of all my different results and you feel like you’re maybe losing some of the audience, to bring them back with something funny, or even just something interesting or an anecdote, helps to bring them back.

[00:07:28]
Ben Newsome: You did a fantastic job with this, especially right at the introduction. It was just talking with just a simple slide behind you, and people got to focus on you. In fact, I’m the same as you. I’ve been to a number of presentations where people have spent a lot of time on this elaborate slide where, to be honest, you’ve got to decipher it. Now you’re not concentrating on the person; now you’re trying to work out what that equation actually means. “Hang on, that’s a thing I don’t really understand, so now I have to think about it even harder. Now I’ve missed what they’ve just said.” Exactly the issue.

[00:08:01]
Ben Newsome: Hayden, you were very straight up and brilliantly totally hooked the audience straight away. Considering you were doing fish populations, just describe what you did that grabbed the audience’s attention straight away.

[00:08:14]
Hayden Schilling: So to start with, I started with one big image of a plate of fish and chips, because everyone loves fish and chips. But then almost straight away, as soon as I got into what exactly I’m doing, I pulled out an actual fish, which is quite a novelty in a university setting.

[00:08:31]
Ben Newsome: Which considering that we’d actually sat through quite a number of presentations by the time we got to yours, everyone had done effectively what I would call a “chalk and talk.” Here’s my slide, here’s my slide, and we finished, and then the next person gets up and they do the same thing. You broke us out of that by going, “Hey, check this thing out.” It was kind of funny just listening to the audience do a collective gasp. Considering that a number of them are biologists, they’re going, “Here’s a fish. Let’s talk about fish.” But it was good. I remember some of the figures that you used; they were used in just a nice, friendly way of conveying your messages with simple bar charts involving fish and chips, if I remember off the top of my head.

[00:09:14]
Hayden Schilling: Yeah, I tried to keep all the… I like to have nice big pictures, but I like to keep it nice and simple. I started with just a big image of fish and chips, and then I think my next diagram was just a growth chart where I had the classic measuring tape that you’d put on a wall next to a small child and then mark how tall they are each year. I just compared a fish with a small child and grew them up together.

[00:09:39]
Ben Newsome: Yeah, it made a lot of sense. Thinking about this, obviously this is science communication at its purest form. Communicating what it is that you do to a general audience is important. At some point, you’ll need to apply for funding to continue the research, etc. Could you see that some of this stuff that you created could be useful for a future presentation, or would you find yourself having to dive into far more detail? Claire, what do you think? Would you adjust what you’ve done in that presentation to be able to, for the next research grant or whatever it is that might be coming up?

[00:10:23]
Claire Brandenburger: Yeah, it’s an interesting thing to think about because for every talk you’ve got a slightly different audience and a slightly different outcome that you’re trying to get at. Nevertheless, I still think in every time you either apply for a grant or give a talk, you should remember that whoever’s listening or reading your work is also still a person and they just want to hear something interesting and they still want to hear a little bit about you. The **Three Minute Thesis** competition has got a semi-casual vibe about it. It’s the last thing of our postgrad session, it’s almost like the end, it can be a little bit of fun.

[00:11:02]
Claire Brandenburger: But I think that even if you are applying for a very serious grant or you’re giving a talk at a conference or even writing a paper, unfortunately, I think a lot of people slip into this extremely over-formal science sort of vibe. They think, “Now I’m writing and trying to get this published or I’m applying for money. I need to be super serious.” There are certain things that you must adhere to and there are a lot of formalities, but at the end of the day, it’s a human being reading your thing or listening to your thing and they just want a little bit of you, or a little bit of—not opinion, but something.

[00:11:44]
Claire Brandenburger: I kind of feel that when we all go to talks and read papers, we don’t want all this dry stuff. Yet, a lot of people when it’s their turn to write or talk, they slip into the same thing. Then when someone does put in a joke or give you a little something about themselves or just something, it’s such a relief, it’s so wonderful. I think that’s the problem; a lot of people love science and love biology, but I know it’s a very rigorous scientific thing that we have to go through to make sure our science is top quality. But I think in the communicating of it, whether it be on something low-key and sort of general public or even all the way up to the other things like the serious things like grants, put in something nice, whether it’s a friendly figure or especially the big picture stuff, the “why should we care?”

[00:12:36]
Claire Brandenburger: Especially the sort of big picture stuff. Anyone who’s dedicating any time to listening to you or reading your stuff is thinking, “But why should I care about this?” You have to show them that you care about it, but also give them reasons why they should, big picture reasons. So yeah, I think the lessons from this three-minute thing can definitely be moved into other areas of communication no matter how formal they may be.

[00:13:00]
Ben Newsome: True. It kind of reminds me of… I’m aware that *Science* magazine runs a Dance Your PhD contest, which is—

[00:13:11]
Claire Brandenburger: I can’t even imagine trying to get my head around how I’d do that with my own research. You’d have a lot of special effects!

[00:13:18]
Ben Newsome: I know, it’d be crazy. Mind you, you’ve got a lot of creative people in the science faculty. I’d love to be in the audience of one of those one day. And actually, that brings up the point, Hayden, did you sit in a **Three Minute Thesis** thing before? Had you seen what to expect?

[00:13:38]
Hayden Schilling: Yeah, so they started doing it last semester or the semester before at uni, so I’d sat through the previous two which were very similar. So I had a little bit of idea what the format was like and how much stuff you could fit into a good talk and how much attention everyone’s paying.

[00:13:58]
Ben Newsome: Fair enough. And how about you, Claire?

[00:14:00]
Claire Brandenburger: Yeah I actually, as Hayden said, it only started one or two semesters ago and I thought it was optional. I thought you could elect to enter this competition or you could elect just to do the normal 12-minute conference presentation. Then a few months ago, I get an email saying, “You are enrolled in the **Three Minute Thesis** competition.” And I just thought, “What?”

[00:14:20]
Ben Newsome: You’ve been press-ganged into it! I didn’t know that.

[00:14:23]
Claire Brandenburger: No, you have to in your final year. So previously, you had to do a 12-minute talk for your first, second, and third year of your PhD. But that’s kind of like the same thing over and over again, and so now they’ve altered it so that in your first year you give a seven-minute talk, which is fair because it’s only your first year and you’re lucky even to have any results or anything. Then your second year, in the meaty bit of your PhD, you should be able to give like a conference-style presentation, which is 12 minutes and three minutes for questions. Then this is like another whole genre, which is fantastic. It totally makes you think in a different way, you’ve got a different outlook. It kind of gives you a more rounded experience of giving talks by the end of your PhD, so you know how to do different styles.

[00:15:16]
Claire Brandenburger: But yeah I had seen them before. For me what was quite useful is knowing which room we actually presented in. I actually practised in that room a few times because you can practise at home all you want, and then suddenly you get to a room and your voice sounds different and you don’t know where the pointer is and you don’t know how big the screen is. In a three-minute talk, you don’t want to be thinking those thoughts while you’re trying to engage with the audience. You want to be fully present for those three minutes engaging with the audience. That was quite useful for me because I knew more or less what kind of room it was going to be like and how big the audience was going to be, so that wasn’t a shock on the day. That was a bit of an advantage.

[00:16:03]
Ben Newsome: Well, talking about the rooms themselves, the room generally does make a difference. I have to go present in places all over the place. One of the ones that usually makes you really think is what I call the horizontal room, which is—think of it like a rectangle, and now you’re presenting out of one of the longest sides, but in the middle. You’ve got this issue where the audience is almost at the corner of your eyes. It’s not a very deep room from your face to the wall at the end, but they’re sideways on both sides. I know of a couple of universities where their main rooms are like that. It’s a nightmare to present to because they’ve got a camera on you and screens either side of the room to try and somehow convey your message to this audience that can barely see you properly. A room does make a difference.

[00:16:55]
Claire Brandenburger: Yeah, it makes a big difference. Especially with something like a three-minute talk where there is a buzzer at the end, it’s really hectic and everyone’s hanging on every word. You can’t afford to be dilly-dallying with the pointer or tripping over something or thinking to yourself, “Should I be on that side of the room or this side of the room?” In a 12-minute talk or even something very informal like a school talk, you could wander around and ad-lib a little bit.

[00:17:30]
Claire Brandenburger: But the three-minute talk, the scariest thing is that if you stumble at all, or if you double-think at all while you’re busy thinking of something else like the room while you’re trying to talk and then you stumble, that’s a recipe for disaster.

[00:17:48]
Claire Brandenburger: So my advice would be, if you know where you’re going to practise or if you’re going somewhere to give a presentation, I always try and ask questions like: Will I be up on a stage? Will I be at the same level? How many people will there be? Will there be a microphone? How big is the screen? All those things make a big difference.

[00:18:08]
Ben Newsome: I often think about if I had to present what we do in the middle of a major arena. How would you reach the person who’s in the nosebleed section right up the very top, at the back of that place, 70 metres away? Some of the best people who do this are the big touring acts, the big musicians. Watching them grapple with and command a space is important to think about.

[00:18:39]
Ben Newsome: Hats off to all the students who did present in the Three Minute Thesis because everyone got through it. They didn’t stumble; they got through it really well. It makes me wonder if, within science faculties as a whole, this is an ongoing thing. Apart from the Carl Sagans of the world 40 or 50 years ago, science communication has sort of been off to one side. We’d just do our research and let it stand for research’s sake. Whereas nowadays, the ability to communicate your science effectively is important. From your point of view, interacting with other faculties, are you seeing that people have to be able to communicate their science more effectively? Are you given support to do this, or are you pretty much left to your own devices? I’m going to throw it to both of you; whoever jumps in first wins.

[00:19:42]
Hayden Schilling: From what I’ve seen, it’s becoming easier to get involved with community science communication. Over the last three years that I’ve been doing my PhD, I didn’t see a lot of opportunity in the first year to do anything. In the second year, there was a little bit. This year, I’ve actually done three or four different things in the last few months, and they’ve all been lots of fun. You can just see people’s eyes light up when they learn something.

[00:20:20]
Claire Brandenburger: I totally agree. There seem to be many more things on offer, much more support from the university to try and get us to do things like this. Even just having the Three Minute Thesis competition is a change in attitude, a change in thought. Our science faculty actually runs a one-minute thesis competition as well every year, which I think has been running a bit longer than the three-minute one, across the whole science faculty. I know in science definitely it’s becoming hugely important. Not just presentations, but especially written stuff, blogs, having a webpage, and tweeting.

[00:21:07]
Ben Newsome: Jumping on podcasts.

[00:21:09]
Claire Brandenburger: Exactly. It can only be a good thing. We all do science or biology because we love it. It feels a bit selfish to keep it all to yourself or bury it in these unreachable papers. It’s important for the higher knowledge of sharing science, but it also has logistical importance. If the public don’t care about science, they’re not going to fund it. It’s a self-perpetuating thing. If you have people who care and are interested, it filters through society and eventually back to science with funding and opportunities. Even with kids, showing them that science is cool is super important. I’ve been to talk at a few schools, and sometimes I think if only one kid out of a hundred suddenly thinks, “Maybe I can be a scientist,” that’s enough. Just that one kid hadn’t considered how important plants are, or that you can be a mum and a scientist. We’ve all had someone along the way who’s inspired us, and you want to be part of that. It’s so satisfying, as Hayden said, to see someone’s eyes light up.

[00:22:51]
Ben Newsome: I completely agree. It is awesome that we have the ability to inspire the next generation of scientists coming through. That is 100% going to happen with talks such as yourselves doing this all over the place. But also what you just said about the science literacy of the public to be able to interpret newspapers, magazines, TV, articles. It’s so important that even if someone doesn’t enter a traditional science field, they at least know why science exists in the first place.

[00:23:22]
Claire Brandenburger: Exactly. And that there are different channels for people to access science. Whether it just be a couple of tweets a week that they watch, a blog, a podcast, or things that fit into their lives. There are many different ways to access it now, which is excellent.

[00:23:47]
Ben Newsome: Not to put you guys on the spot, but I would actually like you to consider—have you heard of **FameLab**?

[00:23:54]
Hayden Schilling: I think I have. Is that the British one?

[00:23:56]
Ben Newsome: That’s the British one. You got it, Hayden. The British Council put on **FameLab** back in 2005, I believe. The idea was to get scientists to communicate what they do. Funnily enough, it’s in three minutes as well. **FameLab** is coming to Australia next year. I reckon you guys should consider having a look at it.

[00:24:20]
Claire Brandenburger: Oh dear. It’s so funny because people said, “You looked so relaxed in your three-minute thing,” and I thought, “You have no idea.” Absolute fear was my motivating factor. I think I rehearsed that thing a thousand times. My dog knows how many introduced plants there are in Australia because I’ve told her a million times. I practised in the room, the whole works. When everyone said I looked relaxed, I thought, “No, absolute fear motivated me.” But as with any of these things, the more you do it, the more you get used to it. I entered that one-minute thesis competition for the science faculty a few years ago. It must have been alphabetical, and my surname starts with a B, so I was one of the first. I strode out into the middle of the stage with a microphone, said my first sentence or two, and then I froze. I went absolutely blank. I managed to get it back after about 10 seconds—the longest 10 seconds of my life. I cut one or two things out and still finished before the one-minute buzzer. But that was probably the worst experience of my whole PhD.

[00:25:35]
Claire Brandenburger: When I heard I had to do the three-minute talk, a cold sweat came over me because I was so worried it was going to happen again. I had this little voice in the back of my head saying, “You’re going to freeze up again.” So it was absolute fear that made me practise and practise. The other thing is not practising it word-perfect. One of the judges gave some advice and said, “Don’t practise it word-perfect; just practise it to a timer.” As long as you’re within the time and saying it in lots of different ways, that’s a good thing. If you practise word-perfect and stumble, you panic. But if you’ve said it a number of different ways and rearranged it, you get used to that. Anyway, thanks for your encouragement for us to consider **FameLab**.

[00:26:16]
Ben Newsome: No, I was genuinely thinking what you’re saying is completely right. We deliberately do not script what we do when we run our science shows and workshops for good reason. If you know your stuff, you’ll say it in different ways anyway. Hayden, did you feel the same thing in the lead-up? Most people would rather jump off a cliff than talk in front of an audience. How did you feel coming into this?

[00:26:54]
Hayden Schilling: I had a similar reaction to Claire’s when I found out I’d been signed up to do a three-minute presentation. I thought, “How am I going to fit anything worthwhile into three minutes?” I’ve already given two longer talks at uni, so they’ve heard a lot of stuff. What am I going to tell them that’s simple enough? Then I realized I just needed to pick one simple aspect, go with that, and make it relatable to everyone. Make it simple and fun. So I wasn’t too nervous. Similar to Claire, I did a practice run in the actual room, which helped. I didn’t practise word for word. I probably only did six or seven practice runs all up, and I changed words all the time. I didn’t memorize it because my memory is not that good; I’d just stumble and get stuck. But on the day, I got really nervous sitting there watching all the other presentations because I was one of the last couple. Watching 10 or 12 people before me stand up and absolutely nail it was really scary.

[00:28:10]
Ben Newsome: Tell you what though, you didn’t show it. It didn’t look like it. But again, what you both did was engage the audience and make it simple and digestible. You didn’t bamboozle us with a whole bunch of tables, figures, graphs, or paragraphs. Sadly, there were a couple of paragraphs from others, and we were trying to read it as quickly as possible. Sometimes the best presentations I’ve ever seen are when the PowerPoint fails. Because at that point, the person just talks. And you know what, that’s probably the most engaging thing that can happen. Obviously, you’ve got to know your stuff. I’ve seen some brilliant presenters where the tech has gone wrong, and they’ve literally just said, “I’m just going to talk to this microphone, ignore my pretty pictures, and tell you what I do.” And it works. Thank you both very much for coming along. Claire, could you give us a quick 30 seconds or a minute on where you think this research you’ve been doing might impact the broader community?

[00:29:30]
Claire Brandenburger: With introduced plants, I’m working on how they’re changing and adapting to their new life in Australia. They’re evolving rapidly, so rapidly that they are possibly not what they were 100 years ago. My question is, are they still this unwanted weed from another country, or are they evolving so far that we now have a unique new Australian species? The bad news is that if introduced plants can evolve so rapidly, even if we try to control them, they’re going to outcompete us. They’ll keep evolving and becoming more successful as time goes on.

[00:30:15]
Claire Brandenburger: The good news is that if plants can evolve so rapidly—100 years and you’re on your way to a new species—then maybe they can adapt to new conditions created by climate change. The climate is changing fast. Mobile species can move, but plants not so much. It’s either adapt or go extinct. If they are evolving so rapidly, it gives us a bit of hope that maybe they can adapt in their place. Finally, if these plants are becoming new species, we might have to change the way we look at introduced species. Most people are against them, but now we could be hosting a unique species found nowhere else in the world. Instead of pulling it out, maybe we should be protecting it. That is quite a switch in feeling about these plants. I love the research, and it has these bigger picture aspects which are really interesting.

[00:31:27]
Ben Newsome: Totally. Whilst a little bit controversial, I know there was a farmer shown on *Australian Story* who completely transformed his arid, desolate property into a small oasis by putting almost noxious weeds into riparian areas. He did exactly what they shouldn’t do, which freaked everyone out. However, by slowing down the water system and creating pooling so he could grow other plants, he was able to transform a barren landscape into something thriving, and then he got rid of the weeds after the fact. I know it can be controversial, and certainly not recommended for those who aren’t prepared to have a fight with local legal departments, but he did actually do it. I totally get what you mean.

[00:32:20]
Claire Brandenburger: Exactly. These plants are here to stay. There are like 3,000 introduced plants already making their homes in Australia. I wouldn’t condone bringing in any more, but the ones here are here to stay. There are a few really bad ones, and there are some that are just doing their thing. They might be evolving into unique new species. It’s all changing, and we can’t undo what we’ve done. We just have to work out how we’re going to adapt to this new world.

[00:32:53]
Ben Newsome: That’s right. And in the nomenclature in Australia, don’t put a W1 weed in your paddock, it’s not a great idea. So Hayden, what direction is your research going to take us?

[00:33:04]
Hayden Schilling: My research is all about fish and the future of our marine environments. Increasingly, there’s demand for more fish to be taken from the oceans or farmed just to supply enough food for people to eat. My research ensures that, for our local stocks at least, there will be enough to continue harvesting at appropriate levels to make it a sustainable industry. The techniques I’m analysing these with are going to be applicable to basically any fish stock in the world. It will make it easier for governments around the world to regulate and ensure there will be the same amount of fish in the future as there is today, and enough food for everyone. It also goes into educating recreational fishermen catching these fish about why it’s good to put the big fish back, or why you need to put the really small ones back. And why you should really only take what you’re going to eat, not just catch them because you can.

[00:34:18]
Ben Newsome: That’s quite interesting because really what you’re balancing is ecological sustainability with food security. Which is a tough ask when you’ve still got to work out what the populations and fish stocks are even in the local fisheries area, especially when things move on you.

[00:34:36]
Hayden Schilling: That’s a very good point. With the **East Australian Current** warming, it’s pushing all the local fish in Sydney a little bit further south. We’re now getting New South Wales fish down in Tasmania, which is really interesting.

[00:34:52]
Ben Newsome: You just reminded me, I love how science communication can be found in mainstream media. Whenever anyone says the **East Australian Current**, I always think of *Finding Nemo*.

[00:35:09]
Hayden Schilling: That’s great. *Finding Nemo* is probably one of the most accurate oceanography movies out there at the moment. It goes straight down from the Great Barrier Reef, straight past Sydney.

[00:35:19]
Ben Newsome: They did a brilliant job. Makes me realise I really should go diving again. If people are wondering what the diving is like in Sydney, seriously, it’s really nice. It’s actually quite clear on the right days. Thank you very much. I know you’ve got research to finish and a year to wrap up, so it’s much appreciated. Just out of interest, I want to make sure people have a chance to contact you. Claire, how do people get in touch with you if they want to know more?

[00:35:50]
Claire Brandenburger: My email address is a good one. It’s quite simple: [email protected]. Or they can look on the University of New South Wales **BEES** webpage and get to me from there. I am currently building my own little webpage, but it’s not quite ready yet. There are not too many Claire Brandenburgers at UNSW, so if you search me up, you’ll find me. I’d love to chat with anyone who has any questions or comments. Thanks, Ben, and thanks so much for the opportunity to have a chat and be on your podcast.

[00:36:27]
Ben Newsome: No worries at all, Claire. Much appreciated for coming on board. And Hayden, how do we get in touch with you, mate?

[00:36:31]
Hayden Schilling: Very similar way to Claire. If you just look me up on Google for Hayden Schilling UNSW, I think I’m the only one there. That should list my contact details, including my email. I’m happy to talk to anyone about anything they want to have a chat about or learn more about.

[00:36:48]
Ben Newsome: No worries. I’ll put that all in the show notes as well so people can find that. Much appreciated, and hopefully, you both consider applying for **FameLab** because I reckon you’d do really well. I will leave you for another time.

[00:37:05]
Hayden Schilling: Thanks, Ben.

[00:37:06]
Claire Brandenburger: Thanks, Ben.

[00:37:07]
Ben Newsome: Take it easy.

[00:37:08]
Ben Newsome: Well there you go, that was Hayden Schilling and Claire Brandenburger from the University of New South Wales. They certainly had a bit to put together to get a presentation out in three minutes. I hope you got a bit out of that; I certainly did. One of the first things that grabbed my attention is you’ve got to engage your audience early. You’ve got to open strong. The best presentations I got to watch instantly grabbed the entire theatre’s attention. It was all about stating the purpose of their study in plain language, no fancy stuff, and then using a vibrant image or a question to make the audience want to know more. In some cases, it was all about breaking out of tradition and bringing along a prop. That is exactly what Hayden did by holding up a fish. It made people sit up and take notice.

[00:37:53]
Ben Newsome: Something else that was important was making sure it’s about emotion, not just the research facts. You’ve got to make a connection with the audience, do it as early as possible, and sustain it. Why are you studying this topic? What makes it so important? How is your research relevant to your audience? The best presentations made this connection. They used simple language, stayed true to the science, but made it highly accessible to a general audience. It was all about being authentic. It’s okay if you’re a little bit quirky. If you want to get a laugh, do so. You’ve only got three minutes. It’s more about being passionate about what you’re researching, so show it. Your job in a three-minute pitch is to be memorable, not beige.

[00:38:40]
Ben Newsome: Another thing that came out was keeping your slides simple and few. This is very much about “less is more.” If you’ve only got three minutes, it’s far better to have a couple of slides with a single image or a photo to talk to, rather than a bunch of slides filled with text and numbers that don’t mean anything. It’s really hard to digest all that information on a slide if it’s way too busy. By having less information, the audience can concentrate on you as the presenter, rather than you as a narrator of text. Keep in mind that very few people are ever remembered for their slides.

[00:39:27]
Ben Newsome: How do you use graphs effectively? It’s tempting to cram in as much data and figures as possible into a PowerPoint slide. However, doing so can detract from your presentation. Think about your audience’s point of view. They’ve only got three minutes to understand your concept, so don’t make them digest tables and figures unless you feel it’s absolutely necessary. If you’re going to, describe what each component of that graph or equation represents. Otherwise, you’re just hoping the audience has the background to understand the information.

[00:40:15]
Ben Newsome: Another useful thing is to engage the audience with the past, the present, and the future. That is exactly what Claire Brandenburger did. She gave them a strong feel about where the world was before the research started, where we are now, and the possibilities for the future. Finally, it’s all about finishing strong. In these pitches, the last 30 seconds are critical. You’ve got to summarise the overall project and ram home the message. Why is your research so critical? How does it impact the audience? Why should they care? If you do that, I guarantee your audience will love you.

[00:40:47]
Announcer: This is the Fizzics Ed Podcast. We’re excited about science. Grab a copy of our new book, Be Amazing: How to teach science the way primary kids love from our website. Just search Be Amazing book. It’s available in hard copy and ebook. Go to fizzicseducation.com.au. That’s physics spelled F I Z Z I C S.

[00:41:08]
Ben Newsome: That brings us to the end of yet another Fizzics Ed Podcast. But we’ve still got more to come. Next week we are speaking with Mark Wallman, who is the founder of Sublime Science and a TEDx speaker. Considering what we’ve just listened to, he knows a bit about presenting science to a massive audience. Until then, I hope you’re making your science lessons awesome and engaging, and I hope you’re having fun doing it at the same time. You’ve been listening to me, Ben Newsome from Fizzics Education, and you’ve been listening to the Fizzics Ed Podcast. I’ll catch you next week.

[00:41:38]
Announcer: You’ve been listening to another Fizzics Ed Podcast. We’re excited about science. Subscribe to us on iTunes to download the next episode as soon as it’s released. And don’t forget, for hundreds of ideas, free experiments, our new Be Amazing book and more, go to fizzicseducation.com.au. That’s physics spelled F I Z Z I C S.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the “hourglass” structure for a 3-minute thesis?
Claire Brandenburger suggests a structure that starts with the “big picture” (the global impact of the research), moves into the specific details and personal results in the middle third, and concludes by stepping back out to address the broader question: “Why should we care?” This ensures the audience understands the context, the science, and the ultimate relevance of the work.

How can visuals be used effectively without distracting the audience?
The speakers recommend keeping slides simple and visual-heavy with minimal text. Claire used high-impact images like a beach to set the scene, while Hayden used relatable comparisons, such as a child’s growth chart, to explain fish development. The goal is to ensure the audience focuses on the speaker’s words rather than trying to decipher complex diagrams or equations on a screen.

Why is science communication considered a vital skill for researchers?
Beyond winning competitions, being able to explain complex science succinctly is essential for securing research grants and funding. Effective communication also improves general science literacy; if the public understands and cares about scientific progress, they are more likely to support it, which eventually leads to better funding and opportunities for the entire scientific community.

What is the best way to practise for a high-pressure, timed presentation?
While practice is essential, Claire advises against practising a speech “word-perfect.” Memorising a script exactly can lead to panic if a speaker stumbles. Instead, practitioners should practise explaining their ideas in several different ways while staying within the time limit. This builds flexibility and ensures the speaker remains natural and present during the talk.

How does the physical environment of a theatre impact a presentation?
Knowing the room is crucial for a three-minute talk where every second counts. Understanding where the pointer is, how the voice carries, and the layout of the audience helps reduce anxiety. Ben notes that “horizontal” rooms can be particularly challenging as they require the speaker to engage with an audience that is spread wide rather than deep, making eye contact and presence more difficult to maintain.

Extra thought ideas to consider

The “Invasive” vs. “Native” Paradox
Claire’s research suggests that introduced plant species are evolving so rapidly that they may eventually be considered unique, new Australian species. This raises a provocative discussion point for conservationists: at what point do we stop trying to eradicate an introduced species and start protecting it as a part of a new, evolving ecosystem? This challenges our traditional definitions of “belonging” in the natural world.

Breaking the “Over-Formal” Scientific Vibe
There is a common tendency for scientists to slip into a dry, overly formal tone when writing papers or applying for grants. However, the guests argue that even the most serious reviewers are still human beings who respond to passion and clear storytelling. Educators and researchers should consider how “unlearning” some academic stiffness might actually lead to more successful funding outcomes and better public engagement.

The Power of the Prop in Science Education
Hayden broke the cycle of standard slide presentations by simply holding up a physical fish. This immediate “hook” shifted the energy of the room. Educators might consider how often they rely on digital substitutes (like photos or videos) when a physical object—no matter how simple—could more effectively bridge the gap between abstract research and reality.