Hi! As we breeze through the second semester of Master’s Program in Biomedicine, we have finished yet another course – Applied communication in Biomedicine 2 (ACB 2). What did we learn this time? How different was it from ACB 1? Here’s all you need to know:
This course was relatively short spanning 3 weeks. The structure of the course was similar to ACB 1, wherein we had certain lectures and presentations that prepped us for the assignments and had ample time allotted in the schedule to complete our assignments. It was time to put to use all the training we obtained during ACB 1.
The course had two major assignments that had to be done individually and they tested our communication skills in all aspects.
The first one was an oral presentation wherein we had to present a scientific article allocated to us within a stipulated time. The challenge was to weave in a story by highlighting certain results and not deviating too much from the main focus of the article. We had discussion sessions with researchers. This helped us understand the technical aspects of the article since not all of us were completely aware of the background of the articles assigned to us. On the day of the final presentation, Peter Lind was back 🙂 He had trained us in ACB 1 on an individual level and we adored him. Previously, he had suggested what we had to work on. He kept track of that and pointed to the progress we had made in regard to oral presentation.
The second assignment was to write a manuscript with limited number of words using existing data from an already published article. Well, that’s not it. We even had to write a critical review about the article! I felt this was extremely challenging since we had to present the data as our own and on the other hand also be critical about it. It was also tough to be able to write coherently providing sufficient background and evidences within the given word limit. This has definitely got me thinking about the challenges of writing real manuscripts for journals. It was made very clear to us that our academic writing skills are as important as our scientific thinking abilities.
The part I liked the most about the course was that it involved Science. We were examined not only for the rhetoric and writing skills but also for our precision and scientific knowledge. Before assignment submission, there was a peer review that allowed us to get insights from our classmates and see their way of work. Researchers were present at all times to help us understand the articles and they were also present on the day of examination to assess how good our understanding is and if we were scientifically correct.
An extra perk in the course was to be able to get in touch with more researchers who had positions available in their laboratories for projects (we have to soon start working on a project and all of us are actively looking for positions all the time).
One of the most important thing as a researcher is to be able to use the given time and space to deliver the scientific message clearly and correctly. This course has definitely helped us proceed a step further in this direction.