Skip to main content

Your research matters, but does anyone know why?

Your research matters, but does anyone know why?

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Image by Author — Her beloved Mediterranean Coast

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

I’m so excited that I’m writing today’s newsletter from my beloved hometown on the Mediterranean coast north of Barcelona.

I truly needed this break, and I’m enjoying every second I spend with my family… even waking up earlier than anyone to still send you these newsletters that are so important to me.

Climate Ages is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

Here we go, much love from the place that saw me grow up into my nerdy self!


There was a time when I believed research spoke for itself.

If the science was rigorous, if the paper was peer-reviewed, then surely someone outside the academic circles, somewhere, would recognize its value.

It wasn’t until I started framing my work through the lens of why it mattered that everything changed.

That’s when:

More people cared.
Funders listened.
Collaborators reached out.
And I finally felt aligned with the reason I became a scientist in the first place.

Let’s talk about how this works and how you can apply it to your own work.

Why framing matters more than you think

Imagine you’re working on soil microbe interactions. Important stuff. But say your abstract starts with:
“Species-specific microbial consortia mediate nitrogen flux under fluctuating precipitation scenarios.”

Now imagine you reframe it like this:

“Farmers around the world are struggling to grow food in increasingly unpredictable weather. Our team discovered how the right microbes can help soil hold onto nutrients during droughts, boosting resilience for crops and communities.”

The science didn’t change.
The framing did.

You went from “technical niche” to “climate resilience and food security.”

That’s not spin. That’s storytelling rooted in purpose.

The 3-Part Shift: From Research → Relevance → Resonance

Here’s the simple framework I use with Climate Ages stories and with my students:

  1. What is the research?
    State it clearly, without jargon.

  2. Why does it matter to someone specific?
    Who benefits? What changes? What’s at stake?

  3. How can you tell that story in human language?
    Use real-world comparisons. Ground it in emotions, not just data.

Example:

We studied fossil reef isotopes to understand abrupt extinction events.

Ancient reefs reveal how fast oceans can change. Understanding past collapses can help protect coral reefs today.”

Real talk: This is also how you unlock funding

Funders don’t fund ideas. They fund outcomes.

If your grant proposal sounds like a technical exercise, it may get lost in the pile. But if you can clearly show:

What’s at stake
Who it helps
Why it matters now

…you’re speaking their language.

That’s how you go from “another proposal” to “an urgent opportunity to fund.”

Try this exercise today

Pick a project you’ve worked on recently. Now rewrite it using this template:

  1. Problem: What issue does your research help solve?

  2. Action: What did you do or discover?

  3. Impact: Why does it matter in the real world?

Here’s another example:

Before:
We assessed groundwater salinization trends in peri-urban aquifers under increased anthropogenic stressors.”

After:
Millions rely on groundwater to drink, farm, and live. Our study shows how urban sprawl is quietly salting our water, and what can be done to protect it.

Which one do you think a journalist, funder, or policymaker is more likely to engage with?

Exactly.

Science with purpose isn’t fluff. It’s strategy.

When you frame your research through the lens of purpose:

You clarify your message.
You build trust with non-scientists.
You create ripple effects beyond citations.

This is what we do at Climate Ages’ Outreach Lab every day:
help scientists like you connect the dots between curiosity, credibility, and change.

Because the world doesn’t need more research papers that never get translated to a lay audience.

It needs more scientists brave enough to say:
This matters. And here’s why.”

Your turn: Today’s exercise

Pick one of your current or past projects.
Rewrite it using the Problem → Action → Impact method.
Then post it on LinkedIn, share it in your newsletter, or pitch it to a journalist.

Or just send it to me: I’d love to see how you reframe your science through purpose.

Bridge your Science with the World
It’s ready to listen.

See you next week,

— Sílvia Pienda-Munoz, PhD — Climate Ages’ Outreach Lab

P.S. One last note: I’m opening the first Outreach Lab cohort in mid-September.

It’s a program designed to help you build a profitable and scalable Science Newslettter that attracts collaborations, brings funding, and increases your impact as a scientist.

If that sounds like something you’d like to be part of, you can join the waitlist here.

There will be only 20 spots in the first cohort, and spots will fill quickly.

Speech Sequencing: The Hidden Architecture Behind Human Fluency

New research reveals how a little-known brain region may help transform thoughts. William A. Haseltine Ph.D. Best Practices in Health Posted July 28, 2025 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

Key points

  • Speaking fluently involves organizing the precise sequence of sounds required to say words.

  • A brain region called the middle precentral gyrus appears to play a key role in organizing sequences of sound.

  • Disrupting this region causes stuttering, hesitations, or speech errors.

Every day, we speak thousands of words, without rehearsal or hesitation. We order coffee. We soothe a child. We describe a memory, tell a joke, argue, confess, comfort, persuade. To us, speech feels as natural as breathing. Yet from the brain’s perspective, it is anything but simple.

New research published in Nature Human Behaviour suggests that speech fluency rests on an intricate, moment-to-moment system for sequencing sounds in the correct order. This process is so seamless that we rarely notice it, unless something goes wrong. But inside the brain, a specialized region is working tirelessly to prepare each syllable, line them up, and deliver them at just the right time.

This region, the middle precentral gyrus, is a little-known fold of brain tissue tucked in the frontal lobe. It may be the key to why our speech flows like a symphony, instead of crumbling into a clatter of broken notes.

Thought Is Not Enough

To speak is not merely to have a thought. It is to turn that thought into motions: tiny, precise muscular movements of the lips, tongue, vocal cords, jaw, and diaphragm. These parts must dance together, millisecond by millisecond, to produce even a simple word. What comes first? What comes next? How long should each syllable last?

This coordination is what scientists call speech-motor sequencing. This study reveals the middle precentral gyrus, or the mPrCG, to be its architect.

Using recordings from 14 patients undergoing brain monitoring, the researchers asked participants to say short syllable sequences. As people prepared to speak, the researchers saw something surprising: the mPrCG lit up not just during speech, but long before it began. The more complex the sequence, the longer it stayed active, quietly assembling the motor instructions before a single word escaped the lips.

In a sense, the mPrCG was acting like a conductor before the orchestra plays, scanning the musical score and preparing each cue. It was not producing the sound itself. It was preparing the order of operations.

A Glitch in the Machine

But how do we know this region isn’t just reacting to speech, rather than preparing it? To test this, the researchers directly stimulated the mPrCG with gentle electrical currents while participants spoke.

The results were immediate. People who had just spoken fluently a moment before began to pause, stumble, or say syllables in the wrong order. Some dragged out their speech, others inserted unintended gaps.

But when asked to simply repeat “ba-ba-ba,” their speech was perfect. The breakdowns only appeared when the sequence required coordination. It’s like a pianist flawlessly playing a single note but fumbling when asked for a short melody. The hands are fine. The memory is intact. But the choreography is lost.

Interestingly, the mPrCG is located near regions involved in reading and writing. Some patients with damage in this area struggle not only with speaking, but also with forming written sentences or reading aloud. This hints at a deeper principle: the brain may use a shared sequencing system for many types of expression: spoken, written, gestured. Whether you’re typing a text or delivering a toast, the same basic architecture might help you organize your thoughts into a meaningful sequence.

What this research shows is that fluency is not a given. It is constructed, second by second, by systems that work in silence. When those systems fail or falter, the result isn’t just noise; it’s disconnection.

People with speech disorders often describe knowing exactly what they want to say but being unable to unlock the words. This study suggests a clear reason why: The neural blueprint for speech, assembled in the mPrCG, has been disrupted. ​​

Understanding this system could pave the way for better tools to support people with stuttering, aphasia, or other speech coordination challenges. Even for fluent speakers, it offers a reminder: slowing down and practicing articulation may help reinforce the very sequencing networks that make speech possible.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Rewriting the Map of Speech

For over a century, scientists have looked for the “speech center” in the brain. What this study suggests is that there is no single center. Instead, speech arises from a community of brain regions, each with its own role. Some regions select the words. Others control the lips or vocal cords. But the mPrCG appears to do something uniquely human: sequence our intentions into actions.

In daily life, we rarely notice this machinery. But perhaps we should. Because it reminds us of something profound: fluency is not a gift, it is an act of construction. Every sentence we speak is the result of a hidden chain of decisions, prepared and executed with remarkable precision. And when that chain is disrupted, we glimpse the delicate scaffolding beneath our most human act.

What makes our speech powerful is not just vocabulary; it is structure. Without sequencing, there is no fluency. Without fluency, we are left alone with our thoughts, unable to share the stories that make us who we are. Recognizing this hidden complexity can deepen our empathy for those who struggle to speak, and remind us to be patient, whether with others or ourselves, when the words don’t come easily.

References

Liu, J. R., Zhao, L., Hullett, P. W., & Chang, E. F. (2025). Speech sequencing in the human precentral gyrus. Nature Human Behaviour, 1-18.

Register Now for the Annual Meeting Teacher Workshop!

Register Now for the Annual Meeting Teacher Workshop!

From hip hop narratives to veterans’ oral histories, and from teaching with sound to identifying bias in the archive, Local Learning works collaboratively with partners across the nation to engage, inspire, and inform learners by integrating oral history, ethnographic, and sound primary sources into classrooms through the Teaching with Primary Sources (TPS) program. TPS is […]

Funny Literal Illustrations Of English Idioms And Their Meanings.

When we use language we don’t often notice what some words mean if taken literally, but when you actually pause for a second and think about what some expressions literally mean-https://thelanguagener

From The MARVELOUS Language Nerds: https://thelanguagenerds.com/2022/funny-literal-illustrations-of-english-idioms-and-their-meanings/

—and—you’d be surprised how you didn’t notice that before. The words that we use every day are so full of joy and wonder and a lot of fun if taken out of context and played with.

That’s what Roisin Hahessy did. Roisin loves to play with words and put them in humorous illustrations to show their double meanings. For her last project, she went after idioms and everyday expressions to illustrate their literal meanings and the result is a funny batch of witty and funny illustrations that make you both laugh and wonder about the craziness of the English language.

MORE TO COME! WATCH FOR THEM!

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

English language pushes everyone – even AI chatbots – to improve by adding

English language pushes everyone – even AI chatbots – to improve by adding

What if the English language—and by extension, the AI trained on it—encouraged us to make things more complicated than they need to be? A fascinating study from the University of Birmingham, highlighted by the World Economic Forum, explores how both humans and large language models like ChatGPT tend to prefer “adding” over “subtracting” when improving text. This subtle bias toward elaboration isn’t just a cognitive quirk—it’s a linguistic one. And it may be shaping how we write, translate, and communicate, often in ways we don’t notice. For language professionals, this raises an important question: when AI suggests edits, is it helping us clarify—or just adding noise?

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

A linguistic bias in the English language that leads us to ‘improve’ things by adding to them, rather than taking away, is so common that it is even ingrained in AI chatbots, a new study reveals.

Language related to the concept of ‘improvement’ is more closely aligned with addition, rather than subtraction. This can lead us to make decisions which can overcomplicate things we are trying to make better.

The study is published in Cognitive Science, by an international research team from the Universities of Birmingham, Glasgow, Potsdam, and Northumbria University.

Dr Bodo Winter, Associate Professor in Cognitive Linguistics at the University of Birmingham said: “Our study builds on existing research which has shown that when people seek to make improvements, they generally add things.

“We found that the same bias is deeply embedded in the English language. For example, the word ‘improve’ is closer in meaning to words like ‘add’ and ‘increase’ than to ‘subtract’ and ‘decrease’, so when somebody at a meeting says, ‘Does anybody have ideas for how we could improve this?,’ it will already, implicitly, contain a call for improving by adding rather than improving by subtracting.”

The research also finds that other verbs of change like ‘to change’, ‘to modify’, ‘to revise’ or ‘to enhance’ behave in a similar way, and if this linguistic addition bias is left unchecked, it can make things worse, rather than improve them. For example, improving by adding rather than subtracting can make bureaucracy become excessive.

This bias works in reverse as well. Addition-related words are more frequent and more positive in ‘improvement’ contexts rather than subtraction-related words, meaning this addition bias is found at multiple levels of English language structure and use.

The bias is so ingrained that even AI chatbots have it built in. The researchers asked GPT-3, the predecessor of ChatGPT, what it thought of the word ‘add’. It replied: “The word ‘add’ is a positive word. Adding something to something else usually makes it better. For example, if you add sugar to your coffee, it will probably taste better. If you add a new friend to your life, you will probably be happier.”

Dr Winter concludes: “The positive addition bias in the English language is something we should all be aware of. It can influence our decisions and mean we are pre-disposed to add more layers, more levels, more things when in fact we might actually benefit from removing or simplifying.

“Maybe next time we are asked at work, or in life, to come up with suggestions on how to make improvements, we should take a second to consider our choices for a bit longer.”

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Is “Is” Always Capitalized in Titles?

Chicago Manual / August 24, 2021 Updated August 12, 2025

CMOS 8.160 in the Spotlight

A key feature of any style is how it capitalizes words in the titles of books, articles, and other works. Most recommend a variation of title case, or what CMOS until very recently referred to as headline style (before the publication of the 18th edition).

And though there are some differences among the major styles—for example, AP and APA capitalize prepositions of four letters or more in a title, whereas for Chicago it’s now five or more—they all specify an initial capital for verbs, regardless of length.

This includes the word “is,” as in the song title “Breaking Up Is Hard to Do” (Neil Sedaka and Howard Greenfield, 1962).* When such a title is mentioned in ordinary text or in a source citation, there are generally no exceptions (see CMOS 13.89). But there are some nuances to consider, including some graphical contexts where it may be appropriate to leave “is” lowercase.

“Is” in Title Case

“Is” is a mere linking verb, the textual equivalent of an equals sign—and it’s only two letters long. So it’s an easy word to forget to capitalize.

Nor does “is” appear all that frequently in titles, considering its ubiquity in ordinary prose. When it is used, it’s sometimes contracted, which is a good way of minimizing its impact. Take the title of the iconic movie It’s a Wonderful Life (1946). Without the contraction, and particularly with a capital I, the emphasis would shift toward the verb: It Is a Wonderful Life.

“Is” is spelled out in the title of the 1997 movie Life Is Beautiful (a translation from the original Italian), so it gets a capital I in Chicago style. But the word is de-emphasized in the poster art for the theatrical release. Notice how the movie’s title is in caps and small caps except for the word “is,” which is in all small caps—and in a smaller font than any of the other letters in the title:

That works well: “Life” and “Beautiful” are the words that matter most.

Thanks for reading Capturing Voices! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Consider also the cover for Sue Grafton’s novel Y Is for Yesterday (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 2017):**

The connecting words “is” and “for” are both lowercase, which allows the more important elements in the title (namely the Y’s) to stand out. (The preposition “for” would be lowercase in Chicago and most other styles.) In Grafton’s title—as in each of the titles mentioned in this post—“is” plays more of a supporting than a leading role.

A lowercase “is” like the one on the Grafton cover, where the small i alone signals that the word is unimportant, would be unlikely to make it past Chicago’s editorial team. But our publications tend to be scholarly in nature; in fiction and other creative contexts, rules are made to be broken.

What’s the Verdict?

“Is” is a verb, so unless it’s hiding behind a contraction, it should always be capitalized in titles mentioned in the text or in a Chicago-style source citation. But it’s a humble little word that doesn’t always like to stand out. In a graphical setting like a book cover or a movie poster, bigger isn’t necessarily better.


* Note that “Up” is an adverb, not a preposition, in the title phrase “Breaking Up”—and therefore capitalized (see also CMOS 8.160, rule 3).

The subheads in this post are in title case, but sentence case is also an option for subheads, provided it’s consistently applied across a document (see CMOS 2.22 and 8.159).

Wikipedia’s entry for Life Is Beautiful, as of August 23, 2021 (the day before this post was originally published), mentioned or cited that title twenty-eight times (up to and including the bibliography); in thirteen of those instances—or nearly half—the word “is” was spelled with a small i. Apparently, it’s natural to want to lowercase “is” in a title. (As of July 27, 2025, most of these had been fixed.) Such inconsistency isn’t a problem with the Italian title—La vita è bella—where sentence case (and, by extension, lowercase for è, “is”) is the norm (see CMOS 11.8).

** According to CMOS 7.67, letters used as letters are normally italicized (as when mentioned in text). Ditto for “Yesterday,” a word used as a word—which, according to CMOS 7.66, would normally be set in either italics or quotation marks. In an italic title, however, these distinctions are unnecessary (see CMOS 8.175).

Top image: Life Is Beautiful, by Linnaea Mallette (public domain).