Evaluation of an 8-week high school science communication course designed to read, write, and present scientific research

Abstract

The development of science writing and presentation skills is necessary for a successful science career. Too often these skills are not included in pre- or postsecondary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, leading to a disconnect between high schoolers’ expectations for college preparedness and the skills needed to succeed in college. The Young Scientist Program Summer Focus recruits high school students from historically marginalized backgrounds to participate in 8-week summer internships at Washington University in St. Louis. Students conduct hands-on biomedical research projects under the mentorship of Washington University scientists (graduate students, postdoctorates, lab staff). Here, we present the curriculum for a science communication course that accompanies this early research experience. The course is designed to strengthen students’ communication skills (critical reading, writing, presenting, and peer review) through a combination of weekly lectures and active learning methods. It prepares students for the capstone of their summer internship: writing a scientific paper and presenting their results at a closing symposium. We administered pre- and postprogram surveys to four Summer Focus cohorts to determine whether the course met its learning objectives. We found significant improvements in students’ self-confidence in reading, interpreting, and communicating scientific data. Thus, this course provides a successful model for introducing science literacy and communication skills that are necessary for any career in STEM. We provide a detailed outline of the course structure and content so that this training can be incorporated into any undergraduate and graduate research programs.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY Strong communication skills are necessary for a successful scientific career. Here, we describe the curriculum for a science communication course designed to accompany high school students participating in a summer biomedical research program. The course aims to improve their scientific literacy and communication skills. Students learn to read and understand scientific literature, write a paper about their summer research project, present their results, and provide feedback to peers. We found significant improvements in students’ self-confidence in reading, interpreting, and communicating scientific data after completing the course. This successful model serves as a guide for students participating in their first research experience and provides the skills for success in future science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education and careers. The curriculum presented here can be easily adapted for any research program, including undergraduate summer research experiences and graduate student laboratory rotations.

INTRODUCTION

Interventions during precollege education (even as early as kindergarten) can be effective at maintaining student interest and promoting confidence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields through undergraduate education (1). For example, high school students who participate in Project Lead the Way programs are more prepared for college and >16% more likely to choose a STEM major (2). Similarly, alumni of the high school program Project SEED (Summer Experiences for the Economically Disadvantaged) report that the program was influential in their decision to pursue a STEM major in college (3). Despite increased precollege STEM programming, there remains a disconnect between the expectations of high school students and the skills needed to succeed in college, such as critical thinking, communication, and time management (4–7). High school students are also underprepared for college from a curriculum standpoint, as their secondary education is focused on both what teachers/administrators deem important and what is assessed in standardized testing (8). As such, inadequate high school preparation is one of the main factors associated with students switching out of a STEM major (9).

Academic confidence, a student’s belief in their ability to perform well on academic tasks, is an important predictor of student retention in STEM majors (10, 11). Students from historically marginalized backgrounds are especially affected, as they leave STEM majors at substantially higher rates than their non-marginalized peers (12). Writing-intensive biology undergraduate coursework has been shown to improve student confidence (13, 14) and critical thinking (15). We posit that providing high school students with the tools to understand and present complex scientific ideas, via an organized science communication curriculum, may help to bridge the gap between high school and college education, enhance confidence, and improve retention in STEM majors.

Here, we present a course designed to improve scientific literacy and communication skills. It was designed as a companion course for a high school summer research program carried out by the Young Scientist Program at Washington University in St. Louis (16). The curriculum presented here can be easily adapted for any research program, including undergraduate summer research experiences and graduate student laboratory rotations. This coursework serves as a guide for students participating in their first research experience and provides the skills for success in future STEM careers.

THE YOUNG SCIENTIST PROGRAM – SUMMER FOCUS

Since 1991, the Young Scientist Program (YSP) (16) at Washington University in St. Louis has been dedicated to encouraging high school students from historically marginalized backgrounds or underserved communities to pursue careers in STEM through activities that emphasize hands-on research and individualized mentorship. Its flagship program, YSP Summer Focus, provides high school students with paid 8-week summer research internships in biomedical laboratories at Washington University. Summer Focus Scholars are rising high school seniors from the Greater St. Louis, MO, region. They work alongside a research mentor in the laboratory on a specific hypothesis-based project, meet weekly with a tutor to review background materials, write a scientific research paper, and present their results at an annual symposium. Summer Focus is run entirely by volunteers who are graduate students, postdoctoral associates, laboratory staff, and principal investigators from Washington University in St. Louis. In 2005, Summer Focus volunteers wanted to add a didactic science communication course to the high school program; thus they designed the Writing Course to help students develop and practice their writing and presentation skills. The coursework was shown to be effective in increasing students’ confidence in oral presentation, writing, critical thinking, and peer review skills (17), and since then, the Writing Course has evolved to incorporate current pedagogy and student feedback.

COURSE OVERVIEW

The primary goal of the Writing Course is to provide science communication instruction to high school students engaged in their first research experience. The course is designed around four learning goals: 1) critically read scientific literature, 2) write clearly and concisely about research, 3) present complex scientific findings to a wide audience, and 4) provide constructive feedback to peers (Fig. 1, Table 1, and Fig. 2). Over 8 weeks of 1-hour classes, we combine lectures and active learning methods to challenge students to think, write, and speak about their research projects. Students are first given a sample manuscript that was published by a previous Summer Focus scholar and their mentor (18). Then, students complete a series of worksheets designed to enhance their critical reading skills and to help them recognize the components of strong Abstracts, Introductions, Methods, Results, and Discussion sections. We intentionally use this sample manuscript not only because it is written at a level appropriate for high school students but also to demonstrate the potential of high school scholars to write scientifically and inspire the current scholars. The course is paced to complement the student’s laboratory research activity and prepares them for the capstone of the summer research experience: writing a paper about their projects and presenting their results in an ∼5-minute talk at a closing symposium. Throughout the summer, students practice presenting their research problem, hypothesis, data, and conclusions by presenting short (3–5 min) elevator pitches, chalk talks, and traditional lecture-style presentations. During these presentations, instructors provide feedback and students are required to revise their material before future practices. In parallel, the students’ research manuscripts are edited weekly, and students complete several cycles of drafts and revisions to their writing and oral presentations. Here, we detail the activities and assignments we use week-by-week to improve science communication skills for students conducting summer research projects (Table 1, see endnote for Syllabus).

Figure 1.

Writing Course learning goals. Diagram illustrating the four main tenets of science communication and literacy that comprise the Writing Course curriculum: critical reading (dark brown; top left), writing (light brown; top right), presenting (light blue; bottom left), and collaboration (dark blue; bottom right). Example assignments pertaining to each learning goal are listed on the colored rings.

Table 1.

Writing Course goals and learning objectives

Writing Course Goals
Recognize the style, format, and content of scientific papers
Write clearly and concisely about an independent research project
Present complex scientific ideas/data to both a scientific and general audience
Provide constructive feedback to peers and improve interpersonal skills
Develop critical thinking skills
Strengthen skills in science communication (reading, writing, presenting)

Learning Objectives
Category 1 – Independent summer research project	Category 2 – Science literacy and general communication skills
Define the main question and hypothesis of an independent research project Briefly describe the methods used to complete a research project Generate appropriate PowerPoint presentations for presenting the research Develop and conduct a chalk talk for the research project Format raw data into figures and tables for a research report Draft and revise a research report about the project Draft and revise a short PowerPoint presentation to convey the research to a diverse audience	Identify the hypothesis from a primary literature article Describe the sections of a primary research article and what information should be in each section Understand the importance of an “elevator pitch” for quickly summarizing a topic Learn effective speaking etiquette when giving an oral presentation Demonstrate how to cite articles and use in-text references Provide constructive feedback to peers following their presentations Accept feedback from peers/instructors and adjust a presentation accordingly

The writing course helps students develop skills related to science literacy and communication. Course goals are listed. Students achieve these goals by completing learning objectives related to their independent summer research projects (category 1) and general communication skills (category 2).

Figure 2.

Writing Course structure. Diagram highlighting the flow of content covered during the Writing Course. Colored arrows denote the course learning goals and their corresponding weeks in the syllabus. Bullet points list assignments and activities used to achieve each learning goal.

COURSE STRUCTURE

Week 1 Focus: Critical Reading Skills

A schematic of the Writing Course structure is presented in Fig. 2. Week 1 of the Writing Course focuses on critical reading skills. Reviewing and synthesizing scientific literature is a fundamental part of research as it is essential for scientists to understand what is already known about a topic and how their findings fit into the field. After initial ice-breakers to familiarize students with each other and the instructors, we review the course syllabus, which uses welcoming language and a visual design shown to improve student perceptions of instructors as thoughtful and approachable (19). Next, we introduce the components of a research article, discuss why critical reading is important, and show students how to read and evaluate an article. We demonstrate how to search for articles in PubMed and Google Scholar databases, how to effectively use keywords and filters to narrow down search results, as well as how to “break down” the process of reading a scientific paper into a less overwhelming task. To apply this lesson, their homework assignment for the next class is to find and read two peer-reviewed primary research articles related to their project and then complete a worksheet to summarize each article’s goals and conclusions (see Critical Reading Worksheet in endnote). Students also work with their mentors to prepare a short (3–5 min) PowerPoint presentation summarizing their project’s background, main research question, hypothesis, and basic methods or techniques they expect to use over the summer.

Weeks 2–4 Focus: Writing Skills and Informal Presentations

The next three classes focus on writing a scientific paper while weaving in activities for students to practice speaking about science. In week 2, students present short overviews of their project in class. This provides students with an opportunity to practice public speaking skills and communicate complex scientific ideas simply and clearly. By watching their peers present, students in the audience also glean, through example, the components of an effective (or ineffective) presentation. Next, we review the format and content of the Methods section of a research article. The lectures are anchored by a practical example: a peer-reviewed article published by a former Summer Focus Scholar and their mentor based on their Summer Focus research project (18). For homework, students read the Methods section of the example paper (18) and complete a worksheet (see Materials and Methods Worksheet in endnote) to critically evaluate the purpose and effectiveness of this section.

In week 3, we review the format and content of the Results section of a research article. We demonstrate examples of different ways to visualize and present data such as figures, flow charts, and graphs. Subsequently, students break into small groups to discuss their research progress and experiences working in a laboratory so far. This allows them to practice explaining their projects in an informal manner with their peers and to bond as a cohort. This activity also allows the instructors to check in and listen for signs of possible issues, such as inattentive mentors or student disillusionment, for the program directors to remediate. For homework, students read the Results section of the example paper (18) and complete a worksheet analyzing the content and effectiveness of this section (see Results Worksheet in endnote). Students also begin drafting the Methods section of their own research paper. The expectation is not to have a finalized or detailed Methods section at this point; however, we encourage them to write about what they have already done and get guidance from their mentor to outline the remaining work. The course instructors edit these drafts and provide feedback each week, allowing the students to incorporate many rounds of revisions before the final draft.

In week 4, we review the format and content of the Abstract, Introduction, and Discussion sections. The structure of the Introduction and Discussion sections of a paper or research talk has been labeled as an “hourglass” to describe the changes in scope or specificity that occur from beginning to end (Fig. 3) (20–22). In this model, the Introduction section begins with broad concepts and narrows to a specific research question. The Discussion section uses the inverse format, beginning with specific conclusions from the findings and ending by describing how the results fill open gaps of the field. We describe this “hourglass” approach and ask students to create a schematic of their own to help outline their Introduction and Discussion sections. We also introduce the concept of a “chalk talk”: an illustrated presentation where the speaker illustrates their talking points on a board. For homework, students work with their mentors to outline a short, 4-minute chalk talk that they will present in week 5. They also read the Abstract, Introduction, and Discussion sections of the example paper (18) and complete a final worksheet to critically evaluate these segments (see Abstract, Intro, Discussion Worksheet in endnote). Finally, they begin to draft the Results section of their research paper and revise their Methods section. Again, students are not expected to have finalized their results, but this assignment serves to motivate them to outline and think about what types of data and findings they will include.

Figure 3.

“Hourglass” approach to structuring Introduction and Discussion sections. Model summarizing the main contents and flow of a scientific paper or presentation. Guiding phrases are provided to help students structure their own Introduction (broad to narrow) and Discussion (narrow to broad) sections.

Weeks 5–7 Focus: Formal Presentation Skills

After the halfway point in the program, the next two classes focus on presentation skills and visualizing data. In week 5, students present “chalk talks” that are ∼4 minutes long. This challenges students to explain their research projects (main question, hypothesis, preliminary findings) verbally and illustratively, without the aid of prepared PowerPoint slides. Before class, the instructors return feedback on the students’ initial draft sections of their papers. For homework, students focus on writing a complete draft of their research paper: initial drafts of the Introduction, Discussion, and Abstract sections, while continuing to revise their Methods and Results sections.

In week 6, we review oral presentation skills and tips for effective presentations. We also demonstrate how to cite articles with the format and style used in Nature journals, manage references, format paper sections, and create figures. Before class, the instructors return feedback on the students’ initial draft sections. For homework, students continue to revise their research papers and incorporate feedback from their course instructors, mentors, and tutors, all of whom are research scientists. They also prepare a first draft of their closing Symposium presentation: an ∼5-minute PowerPoint presentation about their summer project.

In the final 2 weeks of the program, students collaborate with their peers, mentors, tutors, and instructors to construct and revise their final research project manuscripts and oral presentations. In week 7, students practice their Symposium presentations in class. These presentations summarize the project’s background, main research question and hypothesis, brief results, and key conclusions. The course instructors provide individualized feedback (both written and verbal) immediately after each talk. Before class, the instructors return feedback on their full paper drafts. For homework, students continue to work with their mentors and tutors to revise their full research papers and refine their Symposium presentations.

Week 8 Focus: Peer Review Skills and Symposium Preparation

The final week of the course focuses solely on preparing Symposium presentations and finalizing research papers. The class meets daily that week to allow students to practice their Symposium presentations regularly as students are often anxious about the presentation. Course instructors continue to provide individualized feedback (written and verbal) immediately after each talk. Students in the audience are also encouraged to provide feedback to their peers, especially from the perspective of someone outside of that field. After each day’s practice session, students update their slides to incorporate feedback, practice with their mentors, and continue to revise their research papers. The Summer Focus program concludes with a closing Symposium, where the students invite their families, mentors, colleagues, and teachers to view and support their summer research presentations.

CONTENT FOR A PROGRAM WITHOUT A COMPLEMENTARY RESEARCH COMPONENT

Since its inception, the Writing Course has strengthened the science communication skills of high school students working in biomedical research laboratories. The course has traditionally been held in person on the Washington University School of Medicine campus, but the COVID-19 pandemic led to campus restrictions in 2020 and 2021. In response, the Summer Focus organizers adapted the program (including the Writing Course) to a virtual format to provide new cohorts of students with valuable scientific training. Since students were unable to conduct laboratory research during Summer Focus 2020, we designed new course activities that could be conducted entirely online (see endnote for Syllabus).

We introduced virtual poster presentations into the Writing Course curriculum in lieu of the usual research paper and oral presentation. This ensured students were still exposed to the tenets of science communication (e.g., reading, writing, and presenting). The course instructors collected recent articles from various fields that were accessible at the high school level, several of which were identified on STEM education website Science in the Classroom (scienceintheclassroom.org). Students chose a paper, identified the key data and figures, reformatted them into a research poster, and presented it orally at a virtual symposium. To facilitate this exercise, we added a lecture on poster design and presentation skills to the course and provided sample posters and poster templates. Groundbreaking research about the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19 pathophysiology emerged in summer 2020; unsurprisingly, many students selected papers related to the pandemic. Thus the poster assignment enabled students to read primary research on an important salient topic and to discuss the findings and their implications for global health, thereby enhancing scientific literacy and reinforcing effective communication strategies. Posters are also a common tool for communicating results at academic conferences, so students gained early experience with a presentation format that they will encounter in their future careers. We believe our virtual 2020 Writing Course, which gave students the opportunity to learn about and practice science literacy skills without taking part in hands-on research projects, could be used by institutions that do not have the support or resources to host students in research laboratories as a way to introduce students to several principles of laboratory research.

METHODS FOR PROGRAM EVALUATION

The YSP Summer Focus cohorts from 2019 through 2022 completed self-assessments for participating in the Writing Course. The number of YSP Summer Focus participants who completed the Writing Course are 21 (2019), 13 (2020), 15 (2021), and 16 (2022). We combined pre- and postprogram survey data from each year for a total of 45 preprogram surveys and 35 postprogram surveys. The breakdown of pre- and postprogram surveys by year are as follows: 20 pre and 0 post in 2019; 10 pre and 8 post in 2020; 0 pre and 8 post in 2021; and 15 pre and 12 post in 2022. Students rated their self-confidence in scientific communication, critical reading, and peer review. The questions used were based on previously published surveys (16). Students completed pre- and postprogram surveys on paper in 2019 and 2022 and on Qualtrics XM software in 2020 and 2021. Students were not required to respond to questions. Surveys were completed in 15–20 minutes. Responses were recorded using a modified seven-item Likert scale (23) ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. We hypothesized that students would have increased confidence and comfort levels following the Writing Course; thus answers of “strongly agree” to “somewhat agree” were classified as positive sentiments, whereas answers of “neutral” to “strongly disagree” were classified as negative sentiments. For each question, we compared the difference in the number of positive and negative student responses before and after participating in the Writing Course using Fisher’s exact tests (24), where P < 0.05 was considered significant. The surveys also inquired about students’ prior experiences with various elements of science communication, where responses were recorded as “Yes,” “Not Sure,” or “No.” All data analyses and visualizations were performed in the R programming environment (25). Qualitative evaluations were also collected following each session of the Writing Course by implementing two-question surveys through Qualtrics that asked students to state one thing they learned and state any additional questions.

Our study has been reviewed and approved by the Washington University in St. Louis Institutional Review Board (IRB ID No. 202303197).

PROGRAM OUTCOMES FROM STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENTS

We collected a total of 45 preprogram surveys from 2019 to 2022 to gauge students’ prior familiarity with course concepts (Fig. 4A). Before participating in the Writing Course, only 40% of students reported that they could name the different sections of a scientific paper. Eighty percent of students had interpreted basic scientific results, 66% had read a scientific paper, and 35% had written a scientific research paper. After completing the Writing Course, every student gained experience with reading, writing, and interpreting scientific papers as these were all assignments built into the course curriculum.

Figure 4.

Students completed self-assessment surveys before and after participating in the Writing Course. A: preprogram survey responses to questions that gauged the students’ familiarity and experiences with reading, writing, and interpreting scientific papers before completing the Writing Course (n = 45). Stacked bar charts denote the proportion of students with each response per question: Yes, Not Sure, and No. B: comparison of pre- and postprogram assessments of the students’ self-reported confidence in scientific communication, critical reading, and peer review skills (preprogram: n = 45; postprogram: n = 35). For most questions, we observed significant increases in positive sentiment responses after completing the Writing Course. Diverging bar charts denote the proportion of students with each response per question. Survey responses were reported on a modified seven-item Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001; assessed by Fisher’s exact test.

We also collected a total of 35 postprogram surveys from 2019 to 2022 to determine how effectively our course objectives were met. Students rated their self-confidence in skills related to scientific communication, critical reading, and peer review. Survey responses were recorded on a modified seven-item Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” We compared the general sentiment of the students’ self-reported skill assessments before and after completing the Writing Course with Fisher’s exact tests (Fig. 4B). Answers of “strongly agree to somewhat agree were considered positive sentiments, whereas answers of “neutral” to “strongly disagree” were considered negative sentiments because we hypothesized that participation in the Writing Course would increase confidence and comfort levels. Overall, the proportion of students who positively reported that they could effectively review and critique a peer’s work significantly increased from 60% to 89% (P = 0.0054). The proportion of students who positively reported feeling comfortable interpreting basic scientific results significantly increased from 60% to 97% (P = 0.0001). Notably, the proportion of students who positively reported feeling comfortable reading scientific papers significantly increased from 40% to 100% (P = 0.0002). Similarly, the proportion of students who positively reported feeling comfortable writing a scientific paper significantly increased from 29% to 75% (P = 0.0071). The proportion of students who positively reported feeling confident in their writing skills significantly increased from 62% to 94% (P = 0.0011). The proportion of students who positively reported feeling confident in their presentation skills also significantly increased from 64% to 94% (P = 0.0023). Finally, the proportion of students who positively reported that they have strong critical thinking skills did not significantly change from 89% to 91%, but the proportion of “strongly agree” responses increased from 35% to 63%. All these improvements were also recognized by the course instructors, who noted substantial growth in students’ understanding of course content, ability to read critically, and application of communication tips over the summer.

In 2021, we implemented two-question surveys following the weekly class that asked students to state one thing they learned in class and indicate if they had any questions. These brief questions allowed instructors to obtain formative feedback to assess student learning and helped students reflect on what they learned. Student comments revealed that the “hourglass” activity was helpful for drafting certain paper sections but that similar activities focusing on the Results section would further increase confidence:

“During the Week 5 writing course, I learned how to format introduction and discussion sections. The pyramid methods were particularly helpful in guiding my writing.”

“Learning about the “inverted pyramid” approach was incredibly helpful for presenting on my introduction, but I'm still confused on how to present my results.”

According to one student, the Summer Focus program’s additional goal of inspiring students to pursue STEM careers was achieved:

“The experience [that] they provided me is such that I will carry [it] with me throughout my journey as a medical professional … I hope to lead young scientist too someday.”

Overall, the student feedback supports our conclusion that the course goals and learning objectives are successfully met each year, whether the instruction is held in-person or virtually. The Writing Course successfully teaches students how to interpret and communicate scientific methods, results, and conclusions. Students report feeling more equipped to critically read scientific papers, create tables and figures from raw data, and connect new data to published work. Students strengthened their abilities to critically think, write, and present about their research projects to different audiences.

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Student reflection and response to feedback is an essential part of the active learning experience (26). Accurate, comprehensive, and constructive feedback is one of the most valuable tools for student growth and development (27–29). In addition, peer review increases scientific literacy and improves writing skills (30). Unfortunately, students often struggle with feedback literacy, or “the ability to read, interpret, and use written feedback” (31). Students in the Writing Course can benefit from periodic guided reflection exercises beyond the brief two-question surveys following each weekly class that we currently implement. Guided feedback forms where students provide critiques to each other can be used to help students process what they learned and express their thoughts (28). Peer-to-peer critiques are beneficial because they require students to use critical thinking skills and reflect on their own performances (32, 33). These activities can fit into every step of the curriculum, from the initial exposures to scientific articles to their final presentations at the closing Symposium. Furthermore, instructors can record the practice sessions for students to watch their own presentations and provide feedback to themselves. This will allow students to witness their own growth, build self-confidence, and invest in their own training. In addition to peer review and feedback, the Writing Course could also benefit from other active learning activities, like the “Paper Puzzle” activity to help students understand what should be reported in the figure legends and results sections of a paper (34). By providing more opportunities for students to evaluate their peers and more active learning activities, we can help promote feedback literacy and create a more interactive classroom environment.

BROADER IMPACTS

Throughout the YSP Summer Focus program, the Writing Course strives to train high school students to think critically and communicate effectively about their research. These two skillsets are highly valuable and set students up for success in their academic and professional careers beyond high school. This course strategically introduces high school students to primary science literature that is accessible for their educational level and complements their intensive research experience. By making this science communication course a core part of their first research experience, we aspire to provide high school students with the skills to communicate their research findings with their colleagues as well as their own communities, including peers, teachers, and families. Furthermore, we know that student retention in STEM fields is related to levels of confidence, the degree to which students feel like a scientist, and adequate preparation in high school (9, 12). This course is designed not only to build presentation skills but also to build confidence in students who may not have previously been exposed to careers in science. After supporting these students through a rigorous research experience and equipping them with the tools to communicate effectively, confidently, and critically, we hope they will continue to pursue their interests in STEM in college and beyond. Furthermore, the course curriculum presented here is designed for high school students engaged in their first research experience but can be adapted for students at any level, including undergraduate students participating in summer research programs or graduate students early in their training.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Data will be made available upon reasonable request.

GRANTS

The Young Scientist Program – Summer Focus is generously supported by the James McCarter Family Foundation and the following departments/institutions affiliated with the Washington University School of Medicine: the Division of Biology and Biomedical Sciences; the Medical Scientist Training Program; the Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center; Dr. Will Ross and the Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion; and Washington University Medical Center Alumni Association. M.D.R. was supported by the National Cancer Institute (F31CA236506). C.L.S.P. and M.L.A.-T. are supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (DGE2139839). K.C. is supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorder and Stroke (F31NS124128). We also thank Dr. James Skeath, Dr. John Edwards, and Dr. Yatrik Shah for their critical reviews of the manuscript.

DISCLOSURES

No conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the authors.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

M.D.R., L.B.S., M.L.A.-T., K.C., and C.L.S.P. conceived and designed research; M.D.R., L.B.S., M.L.A.-T., K.C., and C.L.S.P. performed experiments; M.D.R., L.B.S., M.L.A.-T., K.C., and C.L.S.P. analyzed data; M.D.R., L.B.S., M.L.A.-T., K.C., and C.L.S.P. interpreted results of experiments; M.D.R., L.B.S., M.L.A.-T., and C.L.S.P. prepared figures; M.D.R., L.B.S., M.L.A., and C.L.S.P. drafted manuscript; M.D.R., L.B.S., M.L.A.-T., K.C., and C.L.S.P. edited and revised manuscript; M.D.R., L.B.S., M.L.A.-T., K.C., and C.L.S.P. approved final version of manuscript.

ENDNOTE

At the request of the authors, readers are herein alerted to the fact that additional materials related to this manuscript may be found at https://figshare.com/projects/Young_Scientist_Program_Summer_Focus_-_Writing_Course_materials/139036. These materials are not a part of this manuscript and have not undergone peer review by the American Physiological Society (APS). APS and the journal editors take no responsibility for these materials, for the website address, or for any links to or from it.