What I'm after in the interview are things that help put the story in context, give it a human dimension, and make it relatable to non-scientists. If it's a story focused on a single study a sweeping comment about the significance of the work makes a great first quote. In the press release from the Women's Health Initiative they stated that the risk of breast cancer was increased from 30 cases per 100,000 per year to 38 per 10,000.

And then the second thing I did was, right before the interview, I made a one-page document or bullet points that I wanted to get across on what are the take home messages, what we did, and then some additional details in case they asked about those. I met with my senior author and together we, as well as with the press office, developed our kind of key bullet points that we want to convey succinctly and that was really useful to have. I would say the other thing I didn't expect is on the morning talk radio show I was on, they asked me to really speculate on my findings and the implications for health care reform.

We report the design and demonstration of a device based on a porous metal organic framework that captures water from the atmosphere at ambient conditions by using low-grade heat from natural sunlight at a flux of less than 1 sun. This device is capable of harvesting 2.8 liters of water per kilogram of MOF daily at relative humidity levels as low as 20% and requires no additional input of energy. Water-harvesting devices have been built before, but they were impractical for everyday use because they only worked on extremely moist air or required high amounts of energy to run.

In 2010, scientists revealed that sporadic couplings between our ancestors and the Neanderthals as well as a related group the Denisovans left many of us with traces of their DNA in our genomes. Now a team of scientists led by Peter Parham, professor of structural biology and of microbiology and immunology has shown that these genetic exchanges significantly strengthened modern human immune systems. "This is really the first evidence that there was something functional that was contributed from this admixture that was useful for modern humans, " says Laurent Abi-Rached, a research associate in Parham's lab and first author on the report in science.

And you can help convey that sense of excitement, and of real people carrying out important work by quoting the scientist in your story. That helps the scientist take a step back, and begin thinking kind of big picture. Because this is where the person your interviewing takes a minute to think about interesting, or important, or kind of side comments about the research that maybe didn't fit in the paper.

So you can follow a wide variety of conversations, and hashtags, and different handles, and you're kind of invisible, which is, I point out, not to encourage spying, but to say that when you are tweeting, you don't necessarily know how many people are seeing your content. Okay, Stanford Bio-X tweeted Carolyn Bertozzi created a chemical lawn mower as a novel method for cancer, immunotherapy. So I want to talk more quickly about Facebook because, I think, its a less effective way of reaching a general audience.

As a scientist, you have a responsibility to communicate your science clearly and effectively and to as broad an audience as possible. As scientists, we have to do a better job of communicating science in a clear, accessible and engaging way. Please spread the word and pass on the skills you've learned in this class to other scientists to help them become better communicators.

So actually, I'm going to rearrange the order of those two things because the berries themselves not receiving enough sunlight are bursting inside, seems to be the more direct route of reduced quality, and then the pest are a second mechanism. Also this sentence about reducing crop yield in wine quality and dropping economic profits, I think we can infer that if pests and molds are growing there, that all those things will happen and that the reader doesn't need to be explicitly told that. But I think we can remove this mention of genetics, and then there's a great sentence lower thus the lack of a globally accepted criterion and the subjectivity linked to a visual system makes it difficult to compare results between different studies.