Scientific Writing and Presentation

Slide 1 of 20

H01 electron microscopy with object segmentation and original 2 µm scale bar

Nanoscale · Module 22

Scientific Writing and Presentation

Teaching Deck

Human cortex · H01
Object segmentation over electron microscopy

H01 release · Lichtman Lab / Harvard & Connectomics at Google · CC BY 4.0
Shapson-Coe et al. (2024) · doi:10.1126/science.adk4858

Slide 2 of 20

Learning Objectives

Design a coherent scientific talk from connectomics evidence
Adapt explanation depth for expert and non-expert audiences
Handle audience questions without overclaiming
Make hidden presentation norms explicit for trainees

Slide 3 of 20

Capability Target

Deliver a 10-minute connectomics talk with evidence-linked claims, explicit uncertainty, and audience-appropriate language, then respond to questions without overclaiming. Operationally: every slide carries one claim and names the dataset version behind it, you can write down in advance the two questions you are most likely to be asked, and you have a rehearsed answer to each that ends in a next test rather than a defense.

Slide 4 of 20

Concept Focus

1) Evidence-first narrative

Technical: each major slide maps to one core claim and one evidence source: a named figure panel, a metric with an effect size, and the dataset version it came from.
Plain language: do not ask the audience to infer your logic. A listener reconstructing why slide 5 follows slide 4 is not listening to slide 6.
Misconception guardrail: a compelling narrative arc can carry a claim the evidence does not support.

Figure description and teaching notes

Further teaching detail from the module:
**Technical:** each major slide maps to one core claim and one evidence source: a named figure panel, a metric with an effect size, and the dataset version it came from. Build the claim tree before opening slide software. A claim with no evidence node is background and belongs in a sentence, not a slide.

Slide 5 of 20

Core Workflow

Build the claim tree on paper: question at the root, two or three claims, one evidence item and one caveat under each, deleting any claim you cannot attach evidence to.
Write the time budget for your slot, then select the minimal slide set that preserves the inferential logic; every surviving slide must answer "which node of the claim tree is this?"

Slide 6 of 20

Core Workflow (continued)

Draft the one-line provenance statement for the data slide: species and region, imaging modality and resolution, segmentation pipeline, proofreading or materialization version, and any exclusion criterion.

Slide 7 of 20

Core Workflow (continued)

Rehearse against a timer with no audience and cut to the budget, then rehearse again with transitions spoken aloud, because the sentence carrying slide 4 into slide 5 is the one people improvise badly.
Run peer critique with one narrow brief: mark every sentence where the spoken claim is stronger than the slide's evidence.
Write the two most likely questions and a three-sentence answer to each, choosing the answer shape from the question-type taxonomy.

Slide 8 of 20

Core Workflow (continued)

Revise with explicit uncertainty statements, checking the rung is identical in slide, speech, and prepared answer.

Slide 9 of 20

Run of Show (60 min)

00:00-08:00 | Framing and exemplar
08:00-18:00 | Claim tree workshop
18:00-30:00 | Slide drafting sprint
30:00-42:00 | Peer critique round

Slide 10 of 20

Run of Show (60 min) (continued)

42:00-54:00 | Q&A simulation
54:00-60:00 | Debrief and competency check

Slide 11 of 20

Misconceptions to Watch

Misconception guardrail: a compelling narrative arc can carry a claim the evidence does not support.
Misconception guardrail: caveats can be dropped for a general audience because they would not understand them anyway.
Misconception guardrail: answering confidently is what makes an answer credible.
Misconception guardrail: speaking faster is a legitimate way to fit more material into a fixed slot.

Slide 12 of 20

Misconceptions to Watch (continued)

Misconception guardrail: hedging weakens a talk and should be minimized.
Misconception guardrail: every question in Q&A is an attack that must be rebutted.

Slide 13 of 20

Studio Activity

Scenario: You are presenting one connectomics result to mixed audience members (domain experts + trainees). Use your own result if you have one. Otherwise: in a cortical EM volume, layer 4 excitatory neurons form 3.2x more synapses onto PV+ interneurons than a degree-preserving null model predicts, from 847 connections at a specific materialization version, with roughly a third of the relevant arbors proofread. Two people in the room work on segmentation; one is a physiologist who has never opened an EM volume.

Slide 14 of 20

Activity Output Checklist

Evidence-linked artifact submitted.
At least one limitation or uncertainty stated.
Revision point captured from feedback.

Slide 15 of 20

Assessment Rubric

Minimum pass: claims are evidence-linked and caveats visible; language is audience-appropriate without technical distortion; Q&A responses include limits and follow-up tests; the deck names dataset and version.
Strong performance: anticipates likely critiques and addresses them proactively; balances accessibility with methodological precision; concedes the valid part of a challenge while defending the rest; keeps the same uncertainty rung in slide, speech, and answer.

Figure description and teaching notes

Further teaching detail from the module:
**Common failure to flag:** overcompressed methods leading to overclaiming, jargon-heavy explanation with missing context, and defensive Q&A that asserts authority instead of citing evidence. Flag over-conceding too: abandoning a supported result under mild challenge is a calibration failure, not modesty.

Slide 16 of 20

Assessment Rubric (continued)

Common failure to flag: overcompressed methods leading to overclaiming, jargon-heavy explanation with missing context, and defensive Q&A that asserts authority instead of citing evidence.

Slide 17 of 20

Exit Ticket

Write your 60-second talk opener with the core question, one evidence-backed finding, one explicit caveat, and one sentence pre-empting the challenge you most expect. Read it aloud against a timer; if it runs past 60 seconds, cut the background sentence first.

Scientific Writing and Presentation