SciComm Summer #22: Alex Dainis on Producing Online Videos

Alex Dainis is a freelance science communicator and video producer. She's been making science videos on YouTube for years, including recent work for the American Chemical Society. In 2024, she was received an Award for Excellence in Science Communications from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and the Schmidt Foundation.

We talk about how she started down this road and decided to make it her full-time work after graduate school, including the challenges of freelancing while staying committed to high-quality content.

"Science is About How You Know" prints available here.

You can find the rest of this summer's science communication podcast series here.

For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/

Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Episode Transcript

Andy Luttrell (00:09):
Hey everyone, welcome back to Hot SciComm
Summer.
This week we get to hear fromAlex Danis.
Alex came on my radar years agowhen I started dabbling in
making social psychology YouTubevideos.
She was pretty early on thescene using YouTube to get
science to the people.
She got her PhD in chemistryfrom Stanford in 2018 and now is
a freelance sciencecommunicator and video producer.

(00:32):
She makes her own work, helpsproduce videos for others, and
makes videos for the AmericanChemical Society.
Alex Thanks for having me.
challenges of doing good workin a crowded media ecosystem.

(01:13):
So let's get into it with AlexDanis.
Like, what is your story?
Like, how did you get here?
And it's probably a longer roadthan we need to, like, truly
unpack everything.
But like, what got you intoscience?
And then what made this versionof working in science appealing

(01:36):
to you?

Alex Dainis (01:38):
Absolutely.
So I'm trying to think of whereto start that isn't the very
beginning.
But I've always really lovedscience.
I've been someone who asks alot of questions.
And so, you know, high school,college, science was something
that I thought was reallyinteresting as a way to ask
questions of the world.
But I...
could not be confined byscience.

(01:59):
And I double majored as anundergrad in both biology and
film and worked in film for acouple of years after getting my
degree and loved it, reallyenjoyed what I was doing.
I was working at a small mediaproduction company but missed
talking about science so Istarted a science YouTube
channel truly as a hobby and Ialmost didn't start it because

(02:22):
SciShow had started the yearbefore and I was like oh two
science YouTube channels that'sone science YouTube channel too
many like it doesn't need thatand now we know that that's
absolutely incorrect there's awhole ecosystem of them but I
started a science YouTubechannel truly as a hobby in
2012-2013 before I went to gradschool and then went to grad
school and was working inscience and missed doing film

(02:42):
and so kept the Science YouTubechannel is sort of a side hobby.
And long story short, thoughtfor a very long time that I was
going to have to decide betweenscience and film.
And it wasn't until really latein my graduate school career
that Somebody reached out to me,a small company called MiniPCR,
and asked if I made freelancevideos.

(03:03):
They had seen a video that Ihad made just for my own YouTube
channel.
They really liked it.
They asked if I would make avideo for them.
And I had never done freelancework like this before, but I
said, sure, of course I can makeyou a science video.
And so started freelancing sortof late in grad school as a
science video producer and lovedit and really enjoyed it.
And it was the first time thatI heard of science communication

(03:25):
as a field.
I had certainly known beforethat that people People worked
for places like Nat Geo orDiscovery, but I didn't know it
was something you could do sortof freelancing on your own.
And so when I graduated in 2018from grad school, I had a
couple of freelance clients andI said, OK, I'm going to give
myself one year.
And if I can still eat and paymy rent in one year, then I'll

(03:47):
keep doing it for another year.
And about six months in, Iwasn't sure that I was going to
make that.
But it's been six years nowthat I've been incredibly
grateful that I haven't had tochoose between science or film
and I'm able to So you made yourfirst video, you said, before

(04:07):
grad school?
Yes.

Andy Luttrell (04:11):
Is that right?
Yeah.
So

Alex Dainis (04:17):
it was, it was...
I believe the summer of 2012was when I first released a
science YouTube video.
I had made a couple, hadn'treleased them.
But the very true answer tothis story is that I had a
slightly viral lip syncing videothat wound up on the front page
of the Huffington Post and thatwas not supposed to go anywhere

(04:39):
beyond just my friends.
But somehow suddenly I hadthousands of subscribers and I
thought, OK, well, you're here.
You want lip syncing, but I'mgoing to tell you about science.
And so it was just just thissort of luck and happenstance
that I had these videos I'd beenthinking about making and
suddenly I had subscribers.
And so I started just talkingto people on the internet about

(05:01):
science.
And again, really, it was justa hobby.
I think now people look atsocial media and they look at
YouTube and they understand thatthat can be a career.
They understand that that canbe something that can make a
difference.
But At the time, it was just afun way for me to talk about the
thing that I loved.
And it wasn't until many yearslater that I realized how

(05:22):
powerful it could be as aneducation tool and as something
that could get the cool stuffthat I loved and knew about
science out to more people inthe world.
So I'm glad I've still beenable to do it, but it was not an
intention or design that I hadat the beginning.

Andy Luttrell (05:39):
And you were interested in film.
Had you already, like, you weresort of familiar with the tools
that it took to do that, right?
So you've sort of, you'd doneyour training.
So you were prepared, like akind of the luck, opportunity
favors those who are preparedkind of a situation.
Is that the case?

Alex Dainis (05:55):
Yeah, absolutely.
So I had gotten a film degree.
And it was small at the time.
So I did my undergrad atBrandeis.
And it was the first year thatthey had actually opened it up
to be a major again.
So it was a new program.
And I thought they did a greatjob but I was really excited
that after my undergraduatedegree, I was able to actually

(06:17):
go and work at a smallproduction company and get a lot
more of that hands-onopportunity.
I was an associate producer,which meant that I was doing
everything from getting coffeeto helping conduct interviews to
doing the editing.
So I really got the full rangeof what you can do in film and
in media production.
So that was, I think, veryhelpful that, as you said, I was

(06:38):
able to cultivate those skillsand able to sort of grow those
and then was ready with themwhen the opportunity struck to
actually merge the two intoscience film production.

Andy Luttrell (06:47):
Did you have to rent a camera?
What were you actually using?
Because this 2012, it's adifferent technology world.
It

Alex Dainis (06:57):
was.
It was.
I was very grateful and luckythat when I graduated from
college, my parents had boughtme a Nikon DSLR.
So it's actually still sittingon the shelf behind me.
I have not turned it on inforever, but there's a little
camera sitting behind me thatwas my very first camera.
And it was, I mean, now, mygosh, it was incredible at the

(07:20):
time that it filmed in 1080.
Like, that was huge, that itwas 1080p.
It could do, like, 24 framesper second.
And it was, like, But it wasthat, and I had a little
microphone, and then I startedmaking them.
Truly, I was just filming themin my bedroom, and I was...
again, sort of very lucky thatmaybe six to nine months in

(07:44):
YouTube selected me as one oftheir next EDU gurus, which was
very kind and very exciting.
And I got to go to YouTubeheadquarters in California and
they gave us, I think it was$800 to spend at B&H.
And so I bought my first lightsand that was really exciting
that like, okay, now I had acamera and a microphone and

(08:06):
lights.
And so just slowly slowly overthe years I built those out and
I've changed the bulbs multipletimes but those are still the
soft boxes that I used to filmtoday or from that initial
little grant from YouTube whichI'm so appreciative for so yeah
it was it was not like todaywhere I didn't even have a
camera I mean I had a cameraphone technically but it was an

(08:28):
old little flip phone that tookthe grainiest 8 pixel photo
you've ever seen it was not liketoday where everyone has a
beautiful 4k camera on theirphone um And I remember, too, I
was, you know, I love makingvideos, but I know that I am not
a Hollywood level creator.

(08:49):
DP.
I'm not an amazing director ofphotography, but gosh, was I
stretching that little Nikon toits limits.
I was playing with everysetting it had and trying to do
all kinds of crazy lightingthings and just really having
fun with it in a way that Ithink was super valuable at a
time, again, where it was just ahobby.
It was just a thing I did forfun as a way to have another

(09:10):
outlet for babbling aboutscience to people beyond just,
you know, the four people I sawevery day who were like, OK,
we've heard all your penguinfacts, Alex.
Like, you gotta you gotta getsome new material.

Andy Luttrell (09:22):
Is that what it was in the beginning?
It was like Penguin Facts kindsof videos?
Yes.

Alex Dainis (09:26):
Yeah, absolutely.
They were two to four minutelong videos.
My very first one was on abrain freeze.
So why do you get brainfreezes?
And it's your trigeminal nervegetting confused.
They were very little quirkyquestions about the world around
you.
Think, why is the sky blue typeof things?
There was not...
a lot of thought because Ididn't really know at the time

(09:50):
anything about sciencecommunication or have a real
agenda behind them.
It was just, here's a fun thingI learned, let me tell you
about it.
And I loved that and I still dosome of that today, but it was
a style that I think was quitepopular then of just here's a
cute fun fact whereas now Ithink as a field we think a lot

(10:10):
more about like we want to teachyou the process of science we
want to humanize science and allthese kinds of things I was
just out here doing dishes in myapartment being like let me
tell you how soap works whichwas fun which was very fun but
very they started off as verysimple videos

Andy Luttrell (10:25):
So, yeah.
So how have they evolved?
Like, what is different abouthow you approach something now?
I think one of the things isthat, like, you have other
voices that are involved, as Iunderstand it.
And so, like, maybe you couldsketch out that part of the
story, too, of, like, how whatyou're doing now is sustained
or, like, who you're producingstuff for now that's different
than before.
And then whether that's changedthe kind of stuff that you

(10:47):
make.

Alex Dainis (10:48):
Absolutely.
So when I started, it wasreally just...
me alone in my apartment makingvideos just for myself.
And they were very sort ofsimple.
And as I progressed throughgraduate school and kept making
videos and kept doing morecommunication work and more
education work, I started torealize that the vocabulary that

(11:09):
I had to move through theworld, thinking about genetics
and thinking about biology, hadnot always been translated to
everybody else.
You know, there were somepeople in my life who were very
well educated and very smart,but didn't have the truly the
same vocabulary to be able totackle questions about GMOs or
genetic tests in medicine orCRISPR editing or any of that

(11:31):
kind of thing.
So I started to seecommunication as more of a tool
to be able to educate and sharethe stuff that I really loved
with other people.
And I was very lucky thataround the time that I was
starting to understand the powerof this and starting to
understand more of the ways thatwe could use online video to
educate and make science moreaccessible, I started to work

(11:51):
with other people and otherorganizations.
And so some of the work that Ido now, I'm still in.
So for example, with theAmerican Chemical Society, with
the Boston Museum of Science, Iwrite, host, and produce videos
for them.
And work with teams of varyingsizes.
So for example, at the AmericanChemical Society, there's a

(12:11):
team of maybe five or sixpeople.
And so I'm very lucky that it'san incredibly collaborative
team where I come with a pitchfor an idea.
And then as a team, we sort ofshape that pitch into a story.
People are helping with theediting of the story.
And then I deliver finalfootage.
And thank goodness somebodyelse edits and animates them
together into the final videonow.
Versus some place like theMuseum of Science, which also I

(12:35):
have to pitch ideas to and theyhave feedback on, but I end up
doing the majority of theediting and the producing and
all of that.
So there's some chunk of myclients where I'm very much
still on camera, writing thestories, doing the production
work.
But there's another portion ofmy clients now.
For example, I work with aseries called Chemistry Shorts

(12:55):
for the Camille and HenryDreyfus Foundation, where I am
completely behind the camera.
I am helping connect thefilmmakers with scientists.
I'm helping drive thenarratives.
I'm much more an executiveproducer role there and get to
do more of the idea generation,the thinking, the logistics of
running a program.

(13:15):
And then there's sort of anin-between where last year I
produced a series for PBSDigital Studios where it was an
idea that I had been pitchingfor five years and nobody wanted
until PBS and they were excitedto help me produce it.
And I was directing and writingand doing research for that
story, but there was anotherhost and we were able to bring

(13:36):
in It was a show talking aboutfood science and how we're going
to keep feeding people for thenext hundred generations.
So it was really fun that wegot to bring in both scientists
and members of differentcommunities who have long ties
to food and let them speak andlet them put their ideas out
there about what theircommunities need and how they're
trying to keep theircommunities fed and healthy and

(13:58):
happy for a long time to come.
So I do a variety of things inthe film production world, from
being on camera to behind thecamera.
And I think I'm really luckythat I've been able to work with
great teams.
You know, that PBS show that Imade last year, I was so, so
lucky I got to work with anotherproduction company called

(14:20):
Stemmedia, and we co-producedit.
And I think they helped bringin an awesome animator and an
editor and, you know, filmproduction teams.
And that, I think, is what'sreally fun now is that I've
moved from just being myselfmaking videos alone in my
bedroom to getting to work withother people who are really

(14:40):
passionate about the audio andthe science and the film and
sort of building out thiscommunity, a little bit of
science communicators.
So again, a long answer to ashort question, but all to say
that I'm very grateful that nowI get to do bigger things and
work with more passionatepeople.
That's the most fun part.

Andy Luttrell (15:00):
One of the things you didn't mention it in the
team, but like, I'm curious, arethere people who help with the,
like just getting the stuff outthere and finding people?
Cause I find that that's one ofthe things, like if you're
totally independent, that's thepart that sucks up a lot of time
that for me is like just themost annoying part of like, I
want to make the stuff and Iwant to like get excited about

(15:22):
the stuff.
And like, but I also don't wantto do it if nobody's going to
be there for it.
And so like, I hate that it hasto be me, but it comes down to
me.
So I'm curious, like, I waswondering how you'd built
something of a following or aviewership and also how that's
changed over time as people seekout this kind of stuff for
different reasons.

Alex Dainis (15:43):
When I first started, I was super resistant
to marketing.
I was very much of the, if youbuild it, they will come and I'm
just make it good.
And that's not how the internetworks, right?
Like you can be making the mostincredible product, but if
nobody knows it's there,nobody's going to be able to
find it.
So I, for a long time, reallyresisted spending any time, for
example, on YouTube, onthumbnails and titles.

(16:04):
I was like, I'm just going toput it out and it's going to be
good and people will find it.
And I've had to admit that thatis just not how those platforms
are built.
you have to think about, youhave to spend a lot of time on a
really good thumbnail and areally good title.
And I'm terrible at thosethings.
So again, I'm very lucky,especially for the work I do
with the American ChemicalSociety, that we have whole

(16:25):
threads on Slack aboutthumbnails, about titles, about
how are we going to tell peoplereally quickly what this is and
why they should care about it inthe half a second it takes them
to scroll.
So there's definitely teamworkthat goes into there.
But It's hard.
It's really, really hard to dothat marketing.
And, you know, I have been on,for example, Instagram for 10

(16:50):
years now, maybe.
And I'm at like 30,000Instagram followers.
That is a slow, slow slope forsocial media.
But it grows and it builds andyou get a few new people and you
have a video that goes viraland a couple more people come in
kind of thing.
And I...
think for me, I have found thatpartnering with other

(17:14):
organizations is the best way todo that.
So, you know, if I ampartnering with the American
Chemical Society, we both haveour own audiences, we cross
promote, and then we each getsome more people, you know, I
cross promote almost everythingI do with the Boston Museum of
Science.
And that way, you know, some oftheir followers see me and my
followers see them.
And it doesn't necessarily haveto be transactional in that a

(17:37):
lot of those people are clientswho I'm making the videos for.
But even just I try so hard nowto repost whenever my friends
do something great because I'mlike, hey, I have a little
audience like I think they wouldlike this.
Let me repost it for you.
And I I actually have and thisis a little behind the scenes.
There's a group of us who alltry and like help promote each

(17:58):
other.
And so like if I know that, youknow, one of my friends has
done something really cool, I'lllike even if they're not
there's not like a formalizedgroup, but like there's a group
of people who know that if Isending them a video yes it's
because I like that video butit's also because I want the
algorithm to know that I reallylike this video so like my
friend Molly like I'll send myfriend Molly videos that like

(18:21):
sure she might be interested inthis video about science but she
also knows that like I'msending it to her to tell the
platform that like I like thisand so like I can't I can only
like it once and I can onlycomment on it once but then I
can also send it to five peopleand that tells the platform that
I like it so I it's it's hardto do it as the person and I
know that because I've beendoing it for so long so this is

(18:42):
like the flip side of that thatwhenever I see somebody doing
something cool I will like shareit to five friends I know and
comment on it and like it andall of those kinds of things
because it's so hard right it'sso hard to promote your own
stuff online because there are Iforget what the number is but
it is something like you know20,000 hours of content being
uploaded to YouTube every houror something like it's an

(19:05):
overwhelming number and sowhenever I see something good I
try as the viewer to be like Ilike it I I share it.
I comment on it.
Like, I'll subscribe to yourchannel.
I'll watch it through.
Sometimes, too, if a friendputs up a video I really like,
I'll just let it run in thebackground.
Like, even if I've alreadywatched it, I'm like, ooh, it
came up on my feed again.
I'm going to click on it toshow the algorithm that it's

(19:26):
worth clicking on and then,well, I've already watched it,
so I'm just going to let it playand mute in the background.
So, I think this is also mystrategy is karma.
It's just like, I try and sharethings I really like and I hope
that happens back to me becauseit is It is a tough, tough
problem.

Andy Luttrell (19:45):
It seems especially tricky in science.
I feel like people who aredrawn to science, almost by
their nature, are not...
the folks who want to be doingthis kind of promotional stuff.
And when you see someone who isdoing a lot of it, you go,
well, what's going on there?
The concern, though, is thepeople who are really good and

(20:06):
all they want is views are notthe people I'm the most stoked
about being the voice of sciencefor the public.
And so it's this push and pullthat I have not cracked the code
of, what do we do about it?
How can we get...
on good science being promotedby good actors while also not

(20:27):
like undermining the kind ofjust like do good work ethos
that good science really thriveson?

Alex Dainis (20:34):
Yeah, I think it's super hard because all of these
platforms that I work on arevery algorithm driven and they
are not driven to supportwell-researched and long-term
production time pieces, right?
They are built to supportsomeone who can put up a snappy

(20:56):
60-second video once a day.
And that's not how I think isthe best strategy for making
science content.
Sometimes you need a lot ofresearch.
Sometimes it takes a long, longtime to put together a good
science video.
And I absolutely agree withyou.
I think that I have seen anumber of platforms that have

(21:18):
clearly started focusing on justget bigger and bigger and
bigger and bigger.
And you can see the quality godown over time.
And there is a platform that Isaw recently where I've just
been so curious Mm-hmm.

(22:05):
One of my fears when I seethese platforms growing is what,
you know, I can't prove thatall these scripts are now
AI-written, but I think I havepretty good evidence that this

(22:28):
was not a well-researched videoand that if a human had seen
this, they would have realizedthat this was a poor translation
moment happening.
But I...
I do think that sometimespeople fall into that trap of, I
have to get bigger.
I have to use tips and tricksand all these kinds of things to
feed the algorithm, to grow theplatform, to get bigger.

(22:49):
And I personally would ratherhave 100 science communicators
who all have 50,000 followers,but we're all sort of putting
out slower, better researchedcontent than having one science
influencer who has 5 millionfollowers.
Mm-hmm.

(23:11):
I don't think I want 5 millionfollowers.
I don't think I want to be thatgiant platform.
I would much rather have abunch of us who are all smaller

(23:35):
and doing good work and addingto this collectively and helping
each other and building thiscommunity of trusted scientists
that the audience can look atversus just the one or two giant
platform people who love thatpromotion and love those numbers
and...
I just don't know how yousustain quality without a huge

(23:55):
team at those sizes.
And maybe, you know, somepeople do then build out a huge
team and that's great.
But I think it's hard.

Andy Luttrell (24:04):
That's what I was thinking.
SciShow is actually a goodexample of this, or Veritasium,
who are huge, but also I feelpretty good that they're doing
the work, but they've assembleda team of people.
I wonder if there's room forsomething like a network kind of
a thing, where it's like youassemble people, so there's no

(24:26):
pressure to produce every day,but a channel is producing very
frequently, and And so like thatbrings in the revenue that can
get disseminated to the creatorsand give everyone space to
actually like hunker down andlike do good work.
Because yeah, I don't see anyway that you could do that as an
individual.
No,

Alex Dainis (24:45):
no, it's hard.
And that's why, I mean, I thinkthere are some platforms like
that.
So Nebula is one that comes tomind that I am not a part of,
but I know a number of peoplewho are, which is sort of a
creator driven educationalplatform that's, I believe I
believe they help withsponsorships.
I think there might be or havebeen at some point in time, like

(25:07):
a revenue sharing kind ofmodel.
But it is sort of that thingwhere they've assembled a bunch
of education broadly, I don'tthink it's specifically science,
people together who are allsort of under this one network
and trying to produce.
But even that, I mean, I thinkthey all do great work, but it's
not...
nobody's flipping on like youknow we're flipping from Fox and

(25:28):
ABC and NBC you know channelsfour five and six or whatever up
to seven which is then like thescience content creators
channel like I think it's Ithink it's tough

Andy Luttrell (25:39):
and it's also a reason why maybe network is not
quite the way to put it likethere's yeah what's I show in
and others have done is like itis its own brand like I know
what I'm getting even thoughit's like a big team doing it
right and the only way you kindof sustain quality is to have
that team so something likethat.
We need to do more of that.
Yes, yes.
I just am willing it to theworld to happen.

(26:00):
I was curious, too, about theAmerican Chemical Society.
Is that what it is that you dostuff for?
They seem to be particularlyclued in to the importance of
public outreach, and I'm curiousto know a little bit more about
them and sort of how theysupport folks like you, because
it seems like something thatmore professional societies
should consider doing.
They seem like a very goodexample of how to do this in a

(26:22):
good way.

Alex Dainis (26:23):
Yeah, so I can only speak to the YouTube channel.
So they have a number ofdifferent sort of communication
platforms.
They have the C&EN magazine.
They have their own sort ofbranded American Chemical
Society sort of headline newschannel.
But I work on the Reactionschannel, which started 10, 12,

(26:46):
15 years ago now at this point.
And I've been working with themfor the past four years.
And it really is...
a cool group of people who arejust thinking about what are
interesting science stories wecan bring to the public.
And often, how can we talk alittle bit about the process of
science in there too?
And I am just an independentcontractor for them.

(27:09):
So I don't get a lot of thebehind the scenes intricacies of
how it works within ACS proper.
But I'm a contractor, the otherhost is a contractor, and we
get to come in and work with theemployees of the ACS to make
these videos.
And again, it's a verycollaborative sort of pitching

(27:30):
process of we bring in ideas,there's a back and forth of not
just what is the actual sciencebehind the idea but what can we
show and how can we show theprocess of science in doing this
and we do think really deeplyand I think especially over the
past couple years have thoughtreally deeply about that
secondary level of not justcommunicating the science but

(27:52):
specifically communicating thehow the why all of those other
parts of science that I think weintrinsically know as people
working in this space but thatis not always translated because
so much of science media justtalks about the end end point,
right?
This study came out and foundX.
We do have a focus more on howdid we get here?

(28:15):
And what is the history of thisliterature?
And these two scientistsabsolutely disagree on the back
and forth of this topic.
So it is interesting.
And I again, the channel hasbeen around for much longer than
I've been a part of it.
So I don't have a lot ofspecifics on the background of
it.
But I've been really pleased tobe a part of a team that Thank

(28:37):
you.
They have allowed this team togrow something that's over half
a million subscribers now thatare dedicated fans that want to

(28:58):
watch this content they'reputting out.
So I do think it has been areally valuable thing that they
have developed.
But yeah, I do wish I knew alittle bit more about its
founding because I just got tocome along when it was really
rolling and get to contribute toit.
But it is an interesting thingfor them to have been like, hey,
we're going to make 10 yearsago A YouTube channel.
Like, why would you do that?

(29:18):
I'm so glad they did.
And I think they've been verysuccessful with it.
But yeah, why?
Why would you do that?
And now I just come in at thepoint.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
And I've just luckily been ableto come in at the point where
they're like, yes, this is agood idea.
And we have data to show it andlike, cool, awesome.
But I do wonder if that was ahard sell at the beginning.

Andy Luttrell (29:37):
Probably.
Well, and it probably grewnaturally.
And thank goodness for thepeople who just sort of like
didn't give up on it.
Yes.
Yes.
Yeah.
So you mentioned there are twodirections I want to go.
One, I think I'll run with,which is to stick with the
audience part of it.
And I wonder, you know, likeit's kind of remarkable that an

(29:57):
institution like that hasgarnered a following like that
on YouTube.
And it just kind of raises thisquestion of like, who is this
content for?
Like, who are we trying toreach?
Who are we actually reachingthat maybe is not everyone that
we're trying to reach?
And I'm just curious, how doyou think about when you're
creating stuff, who is it for?
And when you're trying to findviewers, who are you trying to

(30:21):
find?

Alex Dainis (30:21):
Yeah, that is very different project to project.
So there are some projects Iwork on that are very...
easy to figure out who theaudience is.
So, for example, I do a lot ofwork with still my very first
freelance client, a companycalled Mini PCR Bio.
They make educationalcurriculum and supplies for

(30:42):
classrooms.
And so that is great.
It's like, who is our audience?
Our audience is teachers.
They are probably high schoolbiology or AP bio teachers.
We know exactly what they needin their content.
And so it makes it so easy tobe like, you want these three
things?
We can give you these threethings.
Like, here's how much it goingto, you know, cost you in your

(31:02):
time of prep setup.
We're going to tell you alittle bit about what your
students will learn.
Like, it makes crafting thevideos so easy.
But then there are otherprojects I work on, for example,
the Museum of Science inBoston, that is much more broad,
right?
They are trying to spark aweand wonder in an audience that
could include anybody, right?
Could include anybody scrollingthrough your feed.

(31:25):
And that is a much harderaudience to create content for.
Because when I think aboutaudience, I think a lot about
what I can assume that they arebringing to that conversation
and what I cannot assume thatthey're bringing to that
conversation.
So in the example of highschool biology teachers, I can
assume they're bringing abackground in biology.

(31:46):
I can assume they're bringingneeds that are, how are we going
to translate these topics toour students?
I can talk directly to that.
But for a more public generalaudience, I can't assume that
they know what DNA is.
I can't assume that they knowwhat a cell is.
So I'm going to have to taketime to explain all those things
so that they can come along Sothinking about that audience for

(32:09):
– and those are really sort oftwo extremes of a very narrow
specific audience and a verybroad audience.
But as much as I can at thebeginning of a project, talk to
the client, talk to the teamabout who that audience is, I
think the better the product canbe.
Yeah.
And sometimes that changes overthe course of a project.
So for example, for theseChemistry Shorts videos, we

(32:31):
really started off thinking alot about teachers and students
as our audience.
And we do have an audience thatincludes teachers and students.
But as these videos started toget bigger and they started to
go more broad, we started to seethat actually we were getting a
little bit more of the publicthan we thought we might have at
the beginning.
So, okay, now we have to makedifferent assumptions of the
information they're bringing.

(32:51):
We have to give differentbackground.
We have to really think alittle bit more Yeah.
And then, for example, for theAmerican Chemical Society, we

(33:13):
know that we have an audiencethat thinks really deeply about
chemistry.
And they are going to have 25different papers that were their
favorite papers that we didn'tcover in the study.
And we play with that a littlebit, right?
We dive really, really deep andwe try and find those things.
But then even at the end of arecent video, I was like, look,

(33:34):
I didn't get to your favoritepaper.
Leave it down below, right?
Because I know that you arethat super excited chemistry
person.
who has thought about this sodeeply and you are on this
journey with me.
So I probably don't need todescribe to you what an amino
acid is, but I do need torespond to the fact that you're
right.
I did not talk about yourfavorite paper on the quantum
theory of this.
But I think that that sort ofplay with our audience

(33:58):
specifically on that channel hasdone really well that they feel
challenged talked to.
They feel in conversation withus.
Our producers do a great job ofresponding to a lot of the
comments, so it does feel like aconversation.
And there was a video that Itwasn't one of my videos.
It was one of the videos thatthe other host, George, took

(34:18):
that was a direct response to aviewer email that the viewer
wrote in and was like, hey, mycoworker says this thing that
trees are actually worse for theenvironment in cities than it
would be if we had no trees.
And so George did this entiredeep dive on this and started
off the video with like, hi,viewer, Andrew, like you brought
this to us.
So we dove deep into it kind ofthing.

(34:40):
So I think it is just aworthwhile conversation at the
beginning of any piece of mediato really, really think about
for this specific piece ofmedia, who is your audience?
What do they already bring tothis conversation?
What are you gonna have toprovide to them?

(35:00):
And why are you talking tothem?
I think a lot too about thegoal of every piece of media.
And I think that ties indirectly to the audience that
your goal could be to teach, orit could be to challenge an
assumption, or it could be toask a question, or it could be
to make an advertisement.
Like your goal for every pieceof media you're creating is very
different.
But I think it's so importantto think of that goal in the

(35:22):
context of your audience upfrontbefore you ever put pen to
paper.
Because it just makes theprocess easier and so much more
streamlined.

Andy Luttrell (35:31):
Yeah.
So I think all of that, as wellas sort of the kind of focus
that you started to take isrelevant to sort of the other
direction I was going to go asecond ago, which is the
fluoride video, which, you know,I asked you to nominate
something that we could talkabout more concretely.
But I truly, you know, speakingof your SciComm Illuminati

(35:53):
trying to lift everybody up onthese platforms, I saw that
video and like I was twodistractions away from doing
exactly what you talked aboutbecause I was like so excited
about this fluoride video.
I thought there were so manythings that you did Yeah, so...

Alex Dainis (36:36):
This is a video I made for the American Chemical
Society that came out inJanuary.
And it came about because acouple months before that, sort
of October, November, Decemberof last year, community water
fluoridation was coming up moreand more in the media, partially
because of RFK Jr.' 'spotential nomination and also

(36:58):
partially because there were acouple of communities who were
gaining some notoriety abouthaving community town halls
around whether or not theywanted to keep water.
water fluoridation in theircities.
And I, at first, just looked atthese and was like, oh, yeah,
well, fluoride is great.
We should just keep fluoride,whatever.
And I realized that I had thatresponse and thought, well,

(37:20):
okay, but I haven't actuallythought about fluoride deeply
ever.
You know, I've seen a couplenews articles here and there.
I know my dentist says it'sgood for me.
General scientific consensus isit's good.
But I have absolutely justtaken that at the sort of, well,
science thinks it's fine, andso I'm just going to believe

(37:41):
that, which certainly I think isgood for a number of things.
But I thought, OK, well, I'm ascience communicator.
It is my job to dig into thesekinds of things.
What if I take one of theseassumptions, truly an assumption
that I have, that this is goodand it seems like the science
holds that up?
But a lot of people disagreeabout this.

(38:03):
A lot of people really...
think that for one reason oranother, we shouldn't be doing
community water fluoridation.
And why?
And why don't I give them thesame respect that i ask people
who disagree with me to give mewhen i try and argue my case and
so i wanted to and i pitchedthis to the american chemical

(38:24):
society that i was like okay i'mgonna tell you my bias up front
that i think water fluoridationis good but i want to deep dive
into both sides of the researchand try and put my biases aside
as any good scientist shouldand really really consider if i
still hold this position Andincredibly, the American
Chemical Society was like, yeah,go for it.

(38:46):
And they let me for almost twomonths just read everything I
could and interview scientistsand dive into these news stories
and just try and get as muchinformation as I could about
fluoride and chronicle thatprocess.
And use it as a way to showpeople of, hey, this is a topic

(39:11):
that I want to be informedabout.
And I want to know when I sitat a dinner party and say, I
think that this is a good thing,why I hold that and be able to
really understand both sides ofthe conversation and come out of
it.
And I really was open tochanging my mind.
I really tried to put myselfinto a mindset where I was like,
you know, if I read all thisresearch and I come out on the

(39:31):
other side and think communitywater fluoridation isn't good, I
want to be able to say that.
I And be open to changing thatopinion.
feels like the right thing tocontinue doing.

(39:56):
But there are places where Ithink we should consider that
have really high levels offluoride from the groundwater.
Maybe we should considerpulling it back to the
recommended levels.
We should do deeper studiesabout this in the US because
most of the data is not comingfrom here, is not coming from
our communities and relevantwater conditions.

(40:17):
And so it was...
Truly a process of me exploringthis literature, trying to, for
myself...
understand where i really saton this research but also use
that as a demonstration to otherpeople of what we mean in
science when we say we're doingour own research and we are

(40:39):
diving deep into this it is notjust doing a google search it is
spending weeks and weeks youknow thinking about this and
reading so much and doing allthis and i did also try and make
a point at the end that like Idon't expect everybody to do
this.
Not everybody has a job whereyou get paid to do this.
And this is one topic.
I can't possibly do this forevery topic out there.

(41:01):
And so trying again to instilla little bit of trust in experts
as well of like, I'm not goingto be the expert on everything.
You shouldn't look at me oneverything.
But like, if somebody issaying, hey, I have spent two
decades of my life studyingfluoride, and this is where I
stand.
giving them a little bit ofcredence that they might know a

(41:22):
bit more than the 30-secondGoogle search.
But I'd also love to hear ifyou think I did that.

Andy Luttrell (41:31):
No, that was what was so exciting, right?
It was like, uh-huh.
it was just like anillustration of what it means to
chase a question throughscience, right?
And kind of modeling that.
And like you have particularskills that allow you to parse
all of those papers, right?
And so it's not like a how-to,but it is just sort of like a

(41:52):
demonstration.
I think sort of in thinkingabout it, even again right now,
it was sort of an opportunity toshow like, what do we mean when
we say we don't know, right?
Like it doesn't mean we haven'ttried.
It doesn't mean that like, it'stwo sides that are awash.
It just means that like, it'sreally complicated and maybe
it's not even complicated, butwe just don't have the right

(42:14):
kind of data to answer yourspecific question, right?
You shouldn't think of scienceas like, oh, we have this book
about how the whole universeworks perfectly.
It's on page 53.
We don't.
We don't have that.
So the best you can do is sortof go with what you have and
open up new questions.
That's also what you'remodeling.
It's like doing science is notanswering questions.

(42:36):
It's finding out what yourquestion actually is.

Alex Dainis (42:39):
It's funny, I think there's a print that might go
up on my wall soon that talksabout just that concept that
science is how we know, not whatwe know.

Andy Luttrell (42:48):
Yeah, you're speaking right to my heart.
So I will say one thing thatwhen I rewatched the video the
other day, there was a choicethat I saw that you could have
made but didn't.
And I don't know if it wasdeliberate or just it didn't
come up.
There was a lot.
You did a lot for this video.
But what I didn't see were...
I didn't hear voices other thanyour own, like literally voices

(43:13):
other than your own.
And I thought like one of theways you could have done a story
like this would actually belike talking to people and sort
of getting their sense of likethis or that, right?
Like you were very much showinglike your journey through a
pile of papers.
And so I'm curious, like, Isthat just sort of like the train
you ended up boarding andthat's why you ended up there?

(43:34):
Or was there like a real momentwhere you thought, no, this is
a video about me trying to learnbased on what's already out
there?

Alex Dainis (43:41):
We did talk about that.
So I did conduct a couple ofinterviews with people sort of
on both sides of this debate.
So researchers who have spent alot of time thinking about
fluoride and water.
And those were recordedinterviews.
We did not include themhonestly, mostly for time.

(44:02):
So the original cut of thisvideo without those interviews
included was 22 minutes long.
And so we knew it would bereally hard to sustain an
audience on this topic for 22minutes.
And that was before we addedthose people in.
So we ended up then cuttingthat video down to 14 minutes.

(44:24):
So of the original script,which was Thousands of words.
We cut that.
Then I filmed it.
It was 22 minutes.
And then we cut a third, awhole third of the video to get
it down to something that feltlike it would be in the
watchable range.
So it was truly a...
a decision of how do we keepthis story streamlined in a way

(44:49):
that is going to keep peoplewatching.
Because one of the things thatwe, I'm going to peel back
again, the door a little bithere, peel back the curtain.
We think a lot about theanalytics on the videos for that
channel.
We have specific meetings whereone of our producers does an
analysis based on some of thedata from YouTube of exactly

(45:10):
where people are leaving.
And so we're able to see thekinds of things that cause
people to leave a video.
and it's a little dishearteningsometimes that just like
transition words if you tellsomeone like i just told you a
so now i'm gonna tell you bpeople are like oh i'm watching
a video i could be foldinglaundry and they leave right
like little things like that andso we do i think it's important

(45:32):
you know if we want to get amessage across people have to
watch it and so sometimesthere's stuff like that that
there were so many other thingsi wanted to put in this video
and so many other so many otheravenues that not only i wanted
to go down i recorded um Andjust in the end, they got cut in
service of, we want people toget to the end message.
We want people to sort offollow this journey.

(45:53):
And sometimes you got to shrinkthat journey to make it
palatable is the wrong word, butI think accessible and
watchable.

Andy Luttrell (46:02):
Was this one that you yourself didn't edit?
Someone else?
Yes, I did not

Alex Dainis (46:07):
edit this.

Andy Luttrell (46:08):
This is a...
Like, there's a lot of rawmaterial here.
And so I'm curious, like, howdid you work with someone so
that the final product was trueto, like, your experience of
discovery, but that, like, youwere not actually...
Getting out your razor andcutting the tape together.

Alex Dainis (46:25):
Yeah.
So this was a reallyinteresting one for that.
So I worked with, again, aproducer, Elaine, at the
American Chemical Society, whoI've worked with for a number of
years now.
So I think there's a lot oftrust there in the whole team.
But I think especially becausewe work together a lot where I
sent her hours, maybe, offootage.

(46:45):
Yeah.
between multiple takes anddifferent angles.
And I shot a bunch of stuff onmy phone as I was going through
this.
There's a piece where I'm inthe car and I just heard a news
story.
And that was really, I justparked the car and got out my
phone and talked for fiveminutes about this news story I
had just heard.
So there was a lot of stufflike that in this video that I

(47:06):
sent to her.
And I had written a scriptslash outline beforehand for
this.
So That, I think, helped keepme in line a little bit as I was
recording and helped sort ofguide her in editing.
And we have an iterativeediting process.
So she sent me that 22 minutelong cut and it was sent out to

(47:26):
the rest of the team, too.
We all sort of made suggestionsof places we want to edit and
then she sent it back.
And I think that was one whereI think the edit she sent back
was like 10 minutes.
And I was like, wow.
I actually think there's stuffwe need to put back in for the
story.
So then it went through anotherround.
And there were a number ofthings that I was like, no, this
is really important to me thatwe leave XYZ point in.

(47:49):
So then she went back and sheput those things in.
So it's, it's a lot of trust inthe team, especially I think,
for something like this, where Iwill say, I have gotten some
emails about this video that arelong and passionate.
And so, you know, I knew that Iwas putting out sort of a
personal take on this.
And I I'm, again, incrediblygrateful that I'm able to work

(48:10):
with people I trust that if Isay like, You know, absolutely.
I understand as a verboseperson, as I'm sure you can
tell, I got a lot to say.
And sometimes people have tocut me off and cut me down.
And that's fine.
And I get that.
But I'm lucky that I work witha team I can trust where if I
say no, no, like this is a pointthat's really important to me.
They hear that and we cancollaboratively work to put

(48:32):
those back in.
So trust, trust in the team isthe answer to that question.
Yeah.

Andy Luttrell (48:40):
I'm also getting the sense, one of my questions
on my planning document waslike, what does a typical week
look like?
And I'm getting the sense thatthere isn't one, right?
There are too many things andthey all work too differently.
But in a more general way, I'mcurious about the life of
someone who is doing this astheir primary job.

(49:03):
And you're sort of, my sense islike kind of cobbling together
and living and dying one person.
What is it like?
How have you approached livingas an independent science
communicator?

Alex Dainis (49:25):
One of the things about being freelance is that
there are waves of times wherethere's a lot of work and times
when there isn't a lot of work.
And I, six years in, feel verylucky that now I have a couple
steady clients that I know I'mgoing to work with every month
that are going to sort of bethere and then I can add things
on to that.
But I am a person who...

(49:46):
A little bit of it was sort ofthat scarcity mentality at the
beginning.
I came straight out of gradschool into freelancing.
I thankfully had about a yearof freelancing under my belt
that I had just squirreled awayall that money to have a little
bit of cushion when I came outof grad school.
But I...
Mm-hmm.

(50:09):
Yeah.
$25.

(50:42):
And I was like making Instagramposts for $25.
And I said that to somebodyelse.
And they were like, you got toadd some zeros to that.
Like, what are you doing?

Andy Luttrell (50:51):
They cashed out on you.

Alex Dainis (50:53):
They did because I just had no idea.
I don't know what an Instagrampost is worth.
Right.
And there's no, where do youfind that out?
What do you do?
And so for a long time, I was,I mean, I was really burning the
candle at both ends.
Um, And then I, again, was sortof thankful that I got these
sort of steady clients that Iwas like, OK, like, I know I'm
going to have these number ofprojects this month.

(51:15):
I can add this kind of thingon.
But my other problem is that Iam very excitable and I want to
work on all the things all thetime.
And so I also just love sayingyes to stuff because I love
doing this work.
And whenever somebody comes tome with a cool idea, I'm like,
yeah, of course I want it.
Like, of course.
And so then I got myself into aposition where I think it was

(51:37):
twenty twenty I was on the road136 days out of the year between
filming and going on locationfor shoots and interviewing
people, and that was not good.
That really, really burnt meout.
But it's a Constant struggle.

(52:14):
And it is something that I haveworked on with my therapist.
I have a planner that I try andkeep myself in and really
strongly think about work-lifebalance because I think it is so
easy in this profession to...
want to do everything and wantto say yes to all the cool

(52:37):
projects because I love it.
But then also at the end of theday, be like, what happened to
this entire year of my life thatI just worked myself into the
ground?
So I am still figuring out howto do this because you're right.
There is no one week that makessense.
And there is no...
I'm my own boss.

(52:58):
And so I think as someonewho...
I don't know, I want to makegood stuff and I feel really
passionate that this stuff isgood for the world.
There's no standard work day.
There's no beginning and end.
And I'm a morning person, soI'm up early working.
And so it is a constantstruggle to try and think about

(53:19):
how do I how do I value my time,both Monetarily, when I'm
saying to a client, you know,this is going to take me 20
hours, how do I put a price onthat?
And then also, how do I valuemy time of I am a human who
needs other experiences in mylife other than just working?
And how do I make time forthat?

(53:40):
So Yeah, there's no singularweek.
You know, this week I spentMonday and Tuesday at a
conference in Boston on trust inscience communication.
And then I came back Wednesdayand was filming ice freezing all
day for the American ChemicalSociety.
And yesterday I was taking abunch of meetings and today I'm
on a podcast.
So it's all over the place.

(54:01):
But I love that.
I am the kind of person that Ilove.
I love bouncing back and forthbetween different projects.
So it works for me, but it's...
I have thought a lot recentlyabout how do I scale up and how
do I bring on help?
How do I grow?
How do I hire an employee?
And the number one thing that Ihave been thinking about is how

(54:22):
do I manage my own time andwork in a way that I can bring
someone on in a responsible wayas a manager?
Because you can't ask someoneto join this chaos.
Like, I got to reign in thechaos a little bit before I have
somebody join it.

Andy Luttrell (54:38):
It's why I think about this like deans of
colleges.
No one goes to school to becomea dean, right?
No, no.
So you're selecting from peoplewho are trained in a wildly
different set of skills.
Yes.
And it's the same thing here,right?
Like you have developed as acreator and like it's a whole
different ballgame to then thinkof yourself as a manager.

(55:00):
Yes.
It seems like that's where likethe big– chasm here is that
like you're either going to makethat jump or you're not.

Alex Dainis (55:09):
Yeah.
And it's one of those thingswhere I've been thinking a lot
about Truly, do I takemanagement classes?
Like, how do I figure out, youknow, do I go to the Small
Business Development Center andtake, you know, small business
owner classes?
Because I, I want to make surethat when I do that, it's really
important to me that anybody Iwork with feels both well paid,

(55:31):
because that's not somethingthat happens all the time in the
film industry.
Or in science, you know, I wantto make sure that everyone is
appropriately compensated fortheir time.
But also, I've worked with somescattered And it's not fun.
And so absolutely, I think Ithink it's a problem that
plagues science, too, that thepeople who become even just PIs

(55:52):
of labs sometimes become PIs oflabs because they're great at
science, not because they'regreat at managing a group of 20
people.
And so as strongly as I thinkwe need science communication
training for all scientists.
For my own selfish benefit aswell, I'm like, we also needed
management training.
We also are expecting people,whether they're coming into a

(56:14):
sort of right turn career likeme or staying in academia, to
become good managers.
And so we got to get thattraining somewhere.
But I think it's only when weare confronted with the wall of
having to use it that I think weare then forced to go out and
get it.

Andy Luttrell (56:29):
Yeah.
For sure.
So I think you've addressed allthe things that I had in mind
that I was hoping that we wouldtalk about.
So that only leaves us at, whatis your favorite thing about
blimps?

Alex Dainis (56:42):
Oh, that's such a hard question, because my
favorite thing about blimps isjust how weird they are.
So I...
I have this weird side hobby oftracking blimps and trying to
create the most complete list ofall the blimps in the world.
And it is something that shouldbe measurable but is...

(57:04):
inexplicably very hard tomeasure, but I just think they
are so weird.
If you see a blimp, it is likea bobbing fish in the sky that
is somehow advertising me tiresand is just magical and weird
and slow-moving and were onceused as warships and were

(57:25):
terrible at that.
Just no matter what they'redoing, they're weird and strange
animals Yeah.
And so I just think they aresuch a strange and weird tool.

(57:52):
And also, with some smallexceptions, owned by strange and
weird people.
And so I also just love thestory of like, how do you become
a kind of person who owns ablimp?
And can I be that person oneday?

Andy Luttrell (58:05):
That's exactly the answer I was looking for.
So thank you for that and foreverything else.
And yeah, kudos on all the workthat you've done in this area.

Alex Dainis (58:14):
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
I hope that was good.
I love these kinds of chats,but sometimes I worry I get a
little too excited and a littletoo verbose and babbly.
So I hope that was helpful.

Andy Luttrell (58:37):
Alrighty, thank you to Alex Danis for taking the
time to talk about her work.
As always, check out theepisode webpage for a link to
her website where you can findvideos that she's made and how
to follow her for more.
By the way, at one point, Alexmentioned a print that she had
just gotten.
That was from me.
That was the reference she wasmaking.
I made a run of wood typeprints that say, science is

(58:58):
about how we know, not what weknow.
If you're looking for some nerdart made with old timey
printing methods, I'll leave alink to that print in the show
notes.
if you want.
This series on sciencecommunication is a special
presentation of my podcast,Opinion Science, a show about
the science of our opinions,where they come from, and how we
talk about them.
You can subscribe any old placewhere they have podcasts.

(59:20):
And be sure to check outopinionsciencepodcast.com for
links to things that come up inthis episode and ways to support
the show.
And whoever you are, I hopeyou're enjoying the show.
And I'm hoping this summerseries will reach folks with a
keen interest in sciencecommunication.
So please tell people about it.
post online, email a friend,make a poster and stick it to a

(59:40):
wall.
These are wild times, and Ithink it's more important than
ever to help the worldunderstand good science and
champion its value.
So let's all make an effort toget better at doing that.
Okie doke.
Thank you so much forlistening, and I'll see you next
week for more SciComm Summer.

Alison Fragale (59:58):
To me, having an opening hook or story or
something that is interesting isreally, really important.
Getting into it, it's likewriting the first page of your
book is the hardest.
What's the entry point?
So for me, that'll either be areally entertaining study, an
anecdote of mine or someoneelse's that supports the point.
So opening hook, science,practical strategies.

(01:00:22):
To me, the things that make thetalk work are the stories.
and the practical advice andonce you have some of those
that's why i'm very veryreluctant to ever change them up
i don't change them up all thatoften because once you know
they work those are the onesthat are that make the talk feel
feel fun i'm allison forgalei'm an organizational

(01:00:44):
psychologist and i'm the authorof the book likable badass how
women get the success theydeserve