I recently had the privilege of sitting through four investigator meetings, two in the United States and two in Europe. 

They comprised speaker after speaker with slide after slide.  Topics included the disease, the drug, the PK, the efficacy and safety, statistical modeling, and then the process by which patients were to be enrolled and cared for throughout the study.

Occasionally, at the end of a presentation, the speaker would ask multiple choice questions about the topic just covered, and the audience could select an answer using a remote control response device.  The percentage of correct answers ranged from a high of 70% to a low of 35%.

One of the key scientific presentations was delivered by a young doctor with a foreign accent, her hair in her face, and a specialty in another disease state.  She was hesitant, focused primarily on her notes, and unsuccessful in creating any excitement or passion for the long and arduous assignment the investigators had in front of them.

Another similar problem occurred with the presentation delivered by the statistician who had devised the null hypothesis and necessary endpoints for the study.  He had a severe foreign accent, spoke extremely quickly, and although he was appealing and expressive, was for the most part unintelligible.  I surveyed about five people after his talk and they all complained that they could not understand a word he said.

Some of the other speakers were quite effective, in that they stated their objective at the start, showed an agenda slide, and then marched the audience through a slide deck with varying degrees of energy, volume, and personality. 

Each meeting lasted two days, even though the investigators themselves only needed to be there for the first day, while their assistants did in fact need to be there for both days.

The sponsor is no doubt obliged to document that a meeting was held, and that thorough and precise instruction was given.  But might the sponsor accomplish more than checking the regulatory “tick box” and actually create real learning, while at the same time creating a strong attachment to their company within a community of influential doctors?

We all know that a process such as the one described above is not optimal for teaching adults how to do something.  Adults actually need to “do” what they are being asked to learn, in addition to listening to instruction and reading slides. 

Adults need to practice active problem solving, engage in role plays and case studies, and participate in debate.  Hands-on learning gets better results and better reviews.

It’s time to get creative with investigator meetings. 

Sims Wyeth is an executive speech coach in Montclair, NJ specializing in presentation skills and public speaking training in order to give accomplished people the knowledge and skill they need to become accomplished speakers. Learn more public speaking tips at www.SimsWyeth.com.

When working on scientific and technical presentations, I am often amazed by the wonders of the science being presented and, at the same time, shocked by the speaker’s lack of awe or appreciation for the mystery and power of his own work.

It seems to me that many scientific and technical speakers take their own work for granted, as if expressing appreciation for the mysteries they’re exploring would be unprofessional. 

I find this tendency to be damaging to the scientific and technical presenter’s ability to create excitement and comprehension in their audiences, especially when they’re speaking to lay audiences, where it is crucial to set up the context and dramatize the strangeness and wonder of the work.

Furthermore, when the scientific or technical speaker is trying to raise money or sell an asset or idea, his ability to generate enthusiasm and curiosity helps predispose an audience to take a second look.

What can be done for scientific and technical presenters who are tasked with getting lay audiences to understand and appreciate the dramatic power of their work?

Strangely enough, the Gettysburg Address has something to teach them.

The Back Story

President Lincoln began his famous speech with the back story—the big picture.  “Four score and seven…”  He reached back 87 years (a score is a quantity of 20) and summarized American history in one sentence. 

Scientific and technical presenters can do this too.  They can summarize the work done in their particular field up until the present, implying that the project under discussion builds on a body of research that is important to humanity.

The Current Problem

President Lincoln then defined the intractable problem the country faced in the present moment.  “Now we are engaged in a great civil war…” he said.

Scientific and technical speakers should do the same.  Having summarized the work of previous experts, they should describe the problem that remains to be solved.  This is important because it helps people take an interest in the topic.

The Question that Needs to be Answered

Then President Lincoln asked a question—not directly, but he implied one—which is, “What can I possibly say here to honor the men who died?” 

He answers the question by saying that no words he can speak will do the job.  Instead, he asks his audience to rededicate their lives to the “proposition that all men are created equal.”

Scientific and technical presenters can also use this technique:  ask the question that needs to be answered, and then offer an answer.

For instance, a biotech firm developing on a new HIV compound might phrase such a question like this:  “Given the long march HART (highly-active anti-retroviral therapy) has taken, and since, in that time, few agents in this class have made it to market, and those that did suffered from food issues and lipid abnormalities, what attributes has this compound demonstrated to justify our confidence in its ability to clear all regulatory hurdles and play a significant role in the treatment of HIV?”

The Answer to the Question

At this point in the talk, the scientific or technical presenter should proceed to make his or her argument for the value and importance of the product, just as President Lincoln made the case for honoring the dead by continuing to prosecute the war.

Delivery

Finally, the scientific and/or technical speaker must make the case with some enthusiasm.  Getting others to appreciate the incredible journey science continues to take requires more than words.  It requires the emotional expression of awe and wonder—an overt appreciation for the mystery of things.

After all, emotions are contagious.  Without emotion, a speaker’s ideas are rarely catching.

Ironically enough, the biggest challenge faced by scientific and technical presenters is their reluctance to follow the scientifically established principles of communication.

What are those rules?  One of them is that the human mind is drawn to problems, puzzles, and mysteries.

Rather than seeking to capture the attention of the audience by making a case for the puzzling mystery of the topic at hand, most scientific and technical speakers simply begin with their objectives, methods and data.

This may be admirable science in some circles, but it is not effective communication because it fails to provide the context for the content.

Effective communication seeks to gather the attention of an audience by igniting curiosity and emotion, and only when it has done so can it pull the many human minds present in the same direction.

For instance, let’s say a locomotive is backing up to hook onto a long train of railroad cars.  If it fails to connect, it cannot pull the train forward.

A speaker who does not connect with an audience has the same problem:  He cannot pull his listeners forward unless he has somehow gotten his hook into them.

To sink the hook, a scientific or technical speaker must leave the narrow realm of his expertise and put it into broader context.  He must make a case for the importance of the problem he is working on, or for the maddening slipperiness of the always- receding solution he seeks.

This is the skill of the storyteller, the weaver of tales, the painter of pictures that draws us in—deeper and deeper.  This is the skill of the dramatist, whose opening scene makes us want to stay tuned, and whose subsequent scenes keep us asking the question, “Where’s this going?  What’s going to happen? “

A doctor, researcher, or engineer can improve her outcomes by applying the scientifically established principles of communication.

Sims Wyeth is a speech coach in Montclair, NJ specializing in presentation skills and public speaking training in order to give accomplished people the knowledge and skill they need to become accomplished speakers. Learn more public speaking tips at www.SimsWyeth.com.