Concise --
- A poster
may be the most important scientific work in a decade, but if the presentation
is not concise, the judges can not evaluate it properly.
- The most
common mistake is to present too much information, too much data, and too many
words. A poster is not a written scientific article. A judge, or a fellow
scientist, does not have an hour or two to read a lengthy dissertation.
- The
message should be delivered in large type. Use pictures, bullets, arrows and
other devices to deliver the message easily.
|
Important --
- Give a
short, very clear statement of the importance of your work
- Examples:
- This is
the first time that this "effect' has been seen
- This
method is ten times faster than the previous method
- This
"effect" shows that consumers are in danger of …
- This
method uses far fewer test animals than…
|
Relevant --
- Show
relevance to FDA's mission.
- Don't
belabor the relevance, but do show it.
- If
appropriate, show usefulness to industry submissions, to field testing, to
standards development, etc.
- Relevance
and importance are closely related, so don't "beat your brains out" trying to
decide the difference between the two criteria.
|
Eye-catching
--
- Yes, the
pretty poster often wins.
- You must
attract the judges. A pretty poster does that.
- Posters
don't have to be hi-tech. A simple, clean, attractive poster can accomplish the
same mission of getting someone's attention.
- The most
important "eye catcher" is the title. If you can get your "bottom line" across
in the title, you're half way toward winning.
- The
second most important "eye catcher" is the conclusion.
- If I've
read the title and the conclusion and I'm still lost, then your poster is in
serious trouble, at least from my perspective as a judge.
|
We developed these
guidelines and every month we display a new, understandable poster in the
prestigious Commissioner's Conference room.
We have also
worked with our fundamental scientists at National Center for Toxicological
Research - and they now submit understandable reports weekly - much improved
from the techno-babble of years past. Recently, I made a concession to our
scientists and call it "clear communication" instead of Plain Language - since
they are still disdainful of the term "Plain Language." As a result, I have
made progress getting clear communication incorporated into the 2003 FDA
Science Forum. |
