As a PhD student at the University of Cambridge, UK, Kate McAllister wrote articles, designed a neurology course for a lay audience and worked on videos and podcasts. This October, the clinical neuroscientist took home a Science Communication Award from the Society of Biology, a UK advocacy organization.

What shaped your early-career aspirations?

I avoided science during my undergraduate studies in psychology at the University of Glasgow, UK, until the end of my degree, when a good teacher got me interested in biology and neuroscience. I did my master's at the University of Cambridge, working on mouse models of Huntington's disease, and spent three years as a research assistant in clinical neuroscience. I just wrapped up my PhD on mitochondrial function in people with Down's syndrome.

Credit: Cambridge Cognition

When did science communication become important to you?

During my time as a research assistant, I worked on Prader–Willi Syndrome, an inherited disease that often leads to obesity. I was asked to write for a newsletter that went out to families and patients. I'd always been interested in writing, and explored opportunities with the university's science magazine. As my interest grew, I came across a public-engagement training course called Rising Stars, funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. For the course, another trainee and I worked with a film-maker to create a short film called The Scanner, on using brain imaging to understand the syndrome, which won the Digital Revolution award at the Sheffield Doc/Fest in 2010. I got so much nice feedback, especially from patients' families, that I realized science communication is important and hugely worthwhile.

Describe your other communication pursuits.

I've found that once you do a bit of outreach, people ask you to do more. I helped to put together a course on neuroscience for lay people that proved popular. I also worked on a podcast for a radio show called The Naked Scientists. The British Film Institute also asked me to consult on a travelling live event focused on cognitive enhancement, which was an interesting combination of art and science.

Were you ever discouraged from pursuing these interests?

No. My PhD supervisor was very encouraging. He could see how, if I was interacting with lay people, it was important for me to broaden my communication experience, and that that would also help my interactions with study participants. I think support for these activities is very adviser-specific. The important thing is to show that it is a worthwhile endeavour and relevant to the group's work. For example, my involvement in the documentary helped to bring attention to Prader–Willi Syndrome.

Are these types of award important?

Yes. Communication is becoming such an important part of our jobs as scientists, and with funding getting so much more competitive, you have to be able to talk to people about your science. You can't hide away any more.

What do you plan to do next?

I don't want to close the door on academia, but I started a job recently at a neuroscience start-up firm called Cambridge Cognition. I'm working as a scientist, but am also involved in academic collaborations. We use computerized touch-screen tests to assess different aspects of cognitive function. The results can be used, for example, by academics wanting to link cognitive function to different brain circuits or by drug-makers who want to detect the cognitive effect of a candidate drug. My interest in science communication will continue, but it will probably take a different form.

How have your science-communication efforts influenced the way you work?

Writing about other scientists' work forces you to appreciate what others are doing and how your work fits into the bigger picture. As well, I've found collaborations I wouldn't have stumbled on otherwise.