London

Three minutes, no slides and immediate, hard-hitting feedback from a panel of judges: tough conditions for even the most seasoned of orators. But for the past few weeks, hundreds of UK scientists have been subjecting themselves to this ordeal in a bid to win the science-communication competition FameLab.

The regional heat in London on 14 April saw contestants wax lyrical about everything from the science behind the “perfect design of the penis” to the difficulty of defining what is and isn't a drug. Each then faced the enthusiastic but occasionally blunt thoughts of the judging panel, while their audience watched.

Many entrants say that they see FameLab as a way of developing outreach skills. “Science communication will be a big part of my career,” says Ed Moran, who is studying for a PhD in infectious diseases at the University of Oxford. His talk involved a bedpan containing chocolate spread, and discussed how human faeces could be used to replenish gut bacteria.

But it was Matt Wilkinson, a zoologist at the University of Cambridge, and Rebecca Lloyd-Evans, a biotechnology consultant with Cambridge-based firm BioBridge, who impressed the six judges enough to secure places in the 12-strong final, to be held in June at the Cheltenham Festival of Science. The pair triumphed with respective talks on animal locomotion and the link between manic depression and creativity.

The overall winner will get £2,000 (US$3,800), a part in a TV science programme on Britain's Channel 4 and a speaking tour. The competition, organized by the Cheltenham festival and the UK National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, was inspired by the hit TV show Pop Idol, in which aspiring pop stars audition before a celebrity panel.

The judges say that the quality of entries has been high. “I've been really impressed,” says Kathy Sykes, who holds a chair in science communication at the University of Bristol. She notes that scientists often have more passion for their subject than professional communicators — and that passion and enthusiasm, rather than a polished performance, were priorities for the judges.

“Everyone has been really good,” adds science author and judge Simon Singh. “We haven't had the Pop Idol thing where people just can't sing.”

http://www.famelab.org