Even if what the presenter said was true, you wouldn’t be very happy to hear it expressed in such a negative way. As highlighted in the revised version, the secret is again to “hedge” what you are saying using the same techniques as suggested in 14.4 and 14.5, and to always be polite and constructive.

14.7 Explain whether your results were expected or not

If your results were not what you were expecting the audience will be curious to know why. Try to present the reasons in an interesting way, rather than as cold facts:

When, as in the revised version, you comment on your feelings and you use a narrative style, you inevitably use more words. This is not a problem, as in this case if you were concise (like I have suggested you should always try to be) you would lose the drama and thus the interest of the audience.

14.8Be upfront about your poor/uninteresting/negative results

A problem for researchers in some fields is that they agree to give a presentation at a conference that is scheduled 6–9 months later, hoping they will be able to present the results of some ongoing research. But they end up with unexpected, uninteresting, or seemingly inexplicable results.

But as stated in the popular journal New Scientist, Science rarely delivers what scientists set out to find.

Scientists who have been in research for many years will tell you that over the course of their careers, quite a large percentage of their results were not what they were predicting. But if you ask them what they do with these “negative” results, the good scientists will tell you that they learn from them. And, they tell their colleagues about their failures so that these colleagues can learn from them too. To do this they use papers in journals, but also presentations where they know there are often people in the audience who will see these unexpected results as a challenge and may help find a solution.

Dr Ben Goldacre is a British medical doctor who has spent much of his career trying to get medical scientists, the pharmaceutical industry, and the mass media

to be more transparent in publishing negative results. He talks about the dangers (including the death of innocent patients) of suppressing negative data. This is what he says in his fascinating and very readable book “Bad Science”:

‘Publication bias’ is a very interesting and very human phenomenon. For a number of reasons, positive trials are more likely to get published than negative ones. It’s easy enough to understand, if you put yourself in the shoes of the researcher. Firstly, when you get a negative result, it feels as if it’s all been a bit of a waste of time. It’s easy to convince yourself that you found nothing, when in fact you discovered a very useful piece of information: the thing that you were testing doesn’t work. . . . Publication bias is common, and in some fields it is more rife [widespread] than in others. In 1995, only 1 per cent of all articles published in alternative medicine journals gave a negative result. The most recent figure is 5 per cent negative.

The aim of a congress is to share experiences—both good and bad. If you have, or appear to have, negative results the audience will certainly be sympathetic, and probably relieved, because most of them will have been in the same situation. So

•admit to the audience that the results were not what you were hoping for

•never hide the poor results or invent anything to make them more interesting

•say what you plan to do next to resolve these problems

•ask the audience for help—have they experienced this, what did they do? Encourage them to come and talk to you later.

If you don’t do the above, you risk giving a bad presentation because you won’t be motivated to prepare well, thinking that your results are not interesting, and thus your presentation is unlikely to be inspiring.

In any case, consider asking your professors and colleagues about how they resolve the problems of presenting negative or unexpected data.

14.9 Encourage discussion and debate

Conferences tend to me much more interesting when the presenters speak convincingly about their topic, but they leave the door open to other possible approaches and interpretations. Also, they are willing to discuss any limitations in their research. If you follow this practice you will

•sound more credible. You will seem confident enough to give the audience space to suggest alternative interpretations

•sound less arrogant. Your aim is not to lecture to the audience like a university professor, but rather to discuss your ideas with them. It is important that your tone of voice is friendly and not hard. You do not want the audience to be passive listeners but to be active in asking questions, both in the Q&A session and after the presentation at the bar or social dinner

A series of presentations where ideas and results are presented in a way that there is no room for debate does not make for a stimulating conference.