Three questions to Alicia

Before we dive in Alicia, tell us a little bit about yourself!

I'm an Australian currently living in Brussels, Belgium. I grew up in the countryside and have embraced city life for the career opportunities but my heart is happiest in nature. This is how I regenerate when I'm running low, if not through music. As for my job, I mostly love the people. Even when progress is slow or the work is riddled with obstacles, my colleagues are really creative and perceptive, so I'm always getting exposed to new ideas (and humour!). I'm naturally a night owl but a perpetually-aspiring early bird!​

What is something you’ve changed your mind about recently? 

I’ve had a mind change about word change! Well ‘semantic drift’ to be precise. It sounds super dry but it honestly felt like such a revelation when I learnt about it! I used to be a stickler for semantics, taking pains to ensure I was using words by their dictionary definition. But what I didn’t realise is that it’s actually unnatural and until modern times, unprecedented, for words to stay fixed for so long. Before we started documenting and formally codifying English, words would gradually ‘drift’ in meaning. Over time, they would adopt new connotations and eventually entirely different meanings – to the extent that ‘silly’ used to mean ‘blessed’, and ‘nice’ used to mean ‘silly’! The same evolution happened across all languages – still does today at varying rates – and also applies to grammar, pronunciation and spelling (for written languages). So I'm now less concerned with how 'correctly' an idea is expressed, if it's a good one anyway, or whether certain semantics and language conventions are preserved. And I don't think these are always good indicators of education quality either. Standard metrics for assessing student performance and job candidates may focus too much on these conventions, at the expense of other critical skills. After all, if people speaking a language can understand each other, with as much if not more nuance than previous generations, why cling to obsolete rules that don't add anything? If you catch my drift? ;) 

Who is someone you admire and why? 

Anika Molesworth. She’s a brilliant science communicator who combines facts with stories and poetry. As a farmer and scientist on the front line of environmental challenges, rather than turn away from hard truths, she faces them with optimism and resilience. It’s not just a skillset but a mindset. Anika inspires people to choose ‘active hope’ and imagine a future that could be, not what would be if left to ‘passive hope’, ‘naïve optimism’ or despair. This message really resonates with me and highlights the interconnectedness of science and imagination, which are often dichotomised. 

What's one idea you think deserves more attention?    

There’s a sharpening focus on misinformation and disinformation. But what’s often overlooked is the diffusion of information, even when that information is reliable. It can take a surprisingly long time for new evidence to reach the ears of those who need to hear it. Then there’s the matter of translating it into change, be it behavioural, cultural or practical change. Take public health for example, where a preliminary estimate commonly cited is that this whole process takes an average of 17 years in clinical practice. This was studied in the context of R&D ‘translation’ in healthcare but what about other fields? And what about when findings call for urgent behavioural change? Social media might make it easier in some ways but those networks are saturated with other information, often false or poor quality. So it’s not enough to simply invent a solution, in fact – that seems like only half the journey. The solution then needs to be put into practice and it would be great to see more research around how we can get there.