Science Podcasts

The online copy of the Guardian nowadays offers more than just a newspaper service; including blogs, talk (online discussions) and podcasts, all of which cover a range of topics including ‘science’.

The science podcasts are updated every Monday and come in handy half hour segments that aim to cover the topical science stories featured in the media that week. Their typical format is to feature two different stories with plenty of information and discussion usually including a guest speaker. In between the longer items there is a quick round up of the other newsworthy science stories of the week. If there is time they also have a final section where listeners’ letters are read out and the presenters are able to respond.

The subjects that the science podcast has delved into this past month have been wide ranging…from the ethical considerations and implications of a DNA database to the use of a space station for golf practice. The style is quite informal and there is a good mix of presenters and experts giving information and their opinions, which makes for lively listening. Often the editor of the arts podcast is one of the co-presenters as apparently she adds the “voice of reason”. I’m not sure about the message this sends out…can’t the scientists speaking do this? And I bet there isn’t the science editor included in the arts podcast!

Overall though I think the Guardian science podcast offers an excellent way of keeping up to date with weekly science stories and is incredibly easy to access. Although if you are tempted to have a listen be prepared to be deafened as they obviously have difficulty editing the music and voice clips to be at the same audio level!

submitted by Ella Ward

‘Techno TV'

New and innovative technology has always been sought after by the so called ‘techno geeks’ but the use of television programs which have a new entertainment value such as the Gadget Show have now more than ever brought this technology to wider audiences.

The earliest show that I can remember which reminds me of this type of programming is the BBC’s Tomorrow’s World but this has now evolved in to series which has more comedic value. This brings a new edge to technology based shows and like Channel Five’s Gadget Show and allows a more family friendly viewing.

The last episode as well as testing the gadgetry for general functionality also brought in the entertainment of pitting the technology through comedic testing to convey the more amusing aspects. For example the new as well as old toy robots including Lego Mindstorms, Robosapien and Robonova were put through a Robot Olympics including races, dance offs and fights. This as well as showing the technological brilliance of robots put across varied, although unlikely real world applications making the expression of the technological wizardry less boring.

Previous episodes have tested mobile phones to destruction by drowning, shooting and blowing them up all in the interest of science. These, although extreme, test the technology in ways we would never dare to test ourselves and provide a WOW factor that previous technologically orientated programs would not.

Submitted by Manish Patel

BBC science & Nature website

The BBC is responsible for a significant proportion of non-expert Britons’ understanding of science. Their science and nature site is a fantastic illustration of their proficiency in this field.

The element of this website, most central improving this public understanding, is not the sheer bulk of information conveyed, or its quality. It is the immediate curiosity and stimulation that the powerful titles and images induce in the viewer. This emphasis on creating the desire for knowledge is just as important as delivering the knowledge itself.

The format shares many characteristics with the popular press. The information it does show is condensed and alluring. The animal section features such ferocious beasts as the Polar bear. This, instead of the strain of bacteria which may hold an order of magnitude more ecological significance, is an example of the sensationalism which affects their choice of scientific content. The Polar bear is also a good example of how they utilise co-option as a news value to ‘sell their science’, as the viewers are made well aware of the link to global warming.

Then I found ‘Supergoose’. This captivating link led to a significant section of information concerning these migrating birds. From the warmth of my office, I took an interactive voyage to the frozen north, stopping only to learn.

Any age group would enjoy the information on this website and be more likely to pursue a deeper understanding elsewhere.

Submitted by Geoffrey Marsh

Class 8: thanks for your presentations

Just to say well done on your presentations earlier - I thought they were fantastic. If we'd had more time we could have discussed the pros and cons of the mechanisms and how well they fitted the different situations; as it is, you'll have to think about those things yourselves. (The info sheets are up on WebCT if anyone wants more details.)

Particularly well done for being creative with the mechanisms. These are not hard and fast processes, just as they are not a comprehensive list. Feel free to mix and match and to bend the formats when you come to do your assignments - just as long as you show why you're doing that.

That was your last class with me until after Christmas, so unless you're coming to Dana next week (I'll email those who are with more details) I'll see you then!

Class 8: Dialogue for policy

If the public are knowledgable and capable in dealing with science, then why shouldn't we involve them in science policy? And how could we do this?

These were the big questions of today's class. The work of critical authors - and the fact that we live in a democracy, and that millions of pounds of taxpayer's money goes to pay for public science - points us towards the need to engage publics in the science policy process. What this means in practice, we seemed to decide, varies from case to case.

A key point in solidifying these arguments was the 2000 House of Lords Third Report on Science and Society, which argued that "...direct dialogue with the public should move from being an optional add-on to science-based policy-making and to the activities of research organisations and learned institutions, and should become a normal and integral part of the process." A few years later, Demos argued that this dialogue should move 'upstream', to early in a technology's development, rather than just being tacked on at the end.

There are lots of ways of doing this. Participation mechanisms vary from e-consultation to consensus conferences to science shops to small group deliberations. The important thing is to fit the mechanism to the situation and to be clear about the aims and outcomes. As the GM Nation? debate proved, people rapidly lose patience with being engaged merely for PR purposes...

Answers in Genesis

The Answers in Genesis website is designed to present reliable scientific evidence to support the creationist movement. Written to equip non scientist Christians to defend a literal biblical perspective on creation, it claims to ‘uphold the authority of the bible from the very first verse’.

The homepage opens with a single provocative image linking evolution to discrimination and links to recent articles relating to the most controversial and recent world issues all design to promote an emotional response, of anger towards the ‘evolution lie.’

As a Christian and a geologist who has studied creation science the website angers me as it seems honest but yet deceives. It presents a completely bias argument against evolution with no solid scientific evidence. The articles have so many flaws that a eukaryote in a primordial slime could detect them but are written with such authority and confidence that you’re ready to start a jihad on evo-lie-tion.

The website claims to exposes the conspiracy behind evolution using phrases like ‘the lie’ and ‘where’s the proof’ to promote this dream. It seems the suggestion that evolution is a scientific theory and not an anti-Christian ideology set solely to destroy the church seems to have escaped the author’s vivid imagination. The whole idea is as scientific as a romantic novel and provides unintended comical value with the absurdity of the fictions presented.

I find the intelligent design argument as wearisome and frustrating scrubbing skid marks from pants. It is a travesty that Christians can claim to ‘uphold the authority of the bible’ but in doing so undermine core principles of the Christian faith.

Submitted by David Holder

some useful sites...

...for this Monday's class. We'll be talking about science shops, consensus conferences, citizen's juries, and other kinds of deliberative dialogue. We'll also be discussing part of this Spiked debate and the 2000 House of Lords Third Report on Science and Society.

Getting Involved In Science

With today’s news constantly mentioning a lack of science graduates it is more important than ever to get children involved in science.

The Launch Pad at the Science Museum aims exactly to do that. On entering the area you are immediately faced by an incredible array of colours, machines and the clamour of school groups enjoying themselves.

With a huge range of exhibits all the main areas of science are covered for KS3 level, for example the Sound Dishes which show how sound waves can be sent and received over long distances and Slow Bubbles where one can learn about the viscosity of different liquids.

Looking around I felt the easiest and most interesting method of delivering scientific concepts to children was by the pure interactivity provided. By allowing the children to personally experiment with the activities it gives them more insight into the experiment and encourages them to ask the helper more detailed questions. If you thought the learning stops on leaving the museum, you would be wrong- a Teacher’s guide is supplied to each school group so that the activities can be related to further class work.

From this visit it is clear to see, ‘interactivity’ is of vital importance in encouraging children to get involved in science and can awaken an interest that cannot be obtained by words alone.

Submitted by Nicola Garland

Wellcome Wing

The Wellcome Wing is an extension to the Science Museum in London, which aims to show visitors the latest developments in science and technology. The wing, which opened in 2000, consists of five floors, each with a different theme.

The basement contains the Launch Pad- a popular hands-on gallery, aimed at younger visitors to show that science can be fun. The Launch Pad contains interesting science experiments such as making bubbles, building bridges and creating electricity.

On the ground floor is an exhibit called ‘Antenna’, which shows the latest science news and research. In addition to a news ticker screen, there is research about lie detection and a method of capturing carbon dioxide to reduce the effects of global warming. Another thing I liked was a screen showing various figures such as how long oil reserves will last and how many seconds until the end of the world!

The first floor is called ‘Who am I?’ and contains both interactive games and displays about aspects such as biometrics and emotions, for example. The layout on this floor is good in that you could play the games first and then look at the exhibits for further details.

The second floor, Digitopolis, did have displays of new technology but, unfortunately, is currently closed for redevelopment.

The third floor is called ‘In Future’ and has interactive games about controversial issues. Visitors play a game related to a topic such as weather control or renewable energy and, after playing the game, players are asked to vote for or against the issue concerned. This style of exhibit is interesting as it makes people think about issues which may affect them in the future.

submitted by Mark Jenkins

lecture list

This listing could be useful for finding science communication events.

Class 7: PUS vs. PEST

Two weeks ago we discussed the deficit model and the critical authors who argued that it was an inaccurate picture of the public. This week we talked about the effects knowing this will have on our communication.

Once we acknowledge that science's publics are active and knowledgable, how we communicate needs to take this into account. A one-way flow of scientific 'facts' isn't acceptable any more: we now need to 'engage' people with science and technology. Communication is dialogic, interactive and public-led; using anything from market research to public debates to tailor each communication to its audience and to produce a 'dialogue' between science and the public. We have moved from the Public Understanding of Science to Public Engagement with Science and Technology.

We talked - and you planned - some examples of this new kind of sci-comm: from theatre to interactive computer programmes to model bridge-building or using public nature surveys. Creativity is key, as is remembering your audience.

This week's set reading (now on WebCT, albeit it as an upside pdf) gives some more examples of what one museum thinks of 'dialogue'. Today's powerpoint is also up there, as is next week's reading from a Demos paper (in full - you only need to read the first chapter), which starts us thinking a bit more about what 'dialogue' really is or should be.

And don't forget I have a couple more tickets for the Dana event on Thursday 7th Dec; you need to let me know asap if you want one.

Newton's Apple

Did anyone hear about the recent launch of Newton's Apple? It's a think tank aiming to promote a better relationship between science, society and politics.

Their site has a few mini-essays on science and society issues, by various great and good (e.g. our Rector). They are a mixed bunch, but this piece by Ben Goldacre about science media scares is quite relevant to issues covered in class this term.

happy birthday

Happy birthday New Scientist.

csi and science

We were talking about media effects a couple of weeks ago. People worry an awful lot about the effects of things like the coverage of bird flu or SARS, but I wonder whether these kind of things pass most of us by (although having said that, I did see someone on the tube the other day wearing one of those face masks - clearly flu season is upon us again). Maybe most of us non-scientists actually pick up most of our science from fiction?

And so we come to CSI. I have to confess that I'm fascinated by this show: each episode is basically the same, with different dead bodies, but I can't get enough of it. But it's not just the thrill of seeing if I can catch on to who the murderer is, or the cheesey puns (and terrible dialogue), or the innovative (when the show first started) SFX: I also think there's a great research project (or analytical essay) in the making in there. If all we knew about science came from the programme, what would we think? Well, that science provides certainty and truth, for a start. That 'evidence' never lies. And that all labs are incredibly shiny, clean and high-tech and all scientists incredibly good-looking.

I also think it's interesting that, for all the cutting-edge science and edgy camerawork, the show is basically conservative in the values it chooses to emphasise and extremely limited in the voices, people and situations it showcases. I feel like a lot of issues are reduced to black and white in it - including the 'messiness' of science; that human factor which we talked about the other day.

But then, I'm not basing this on anything but vague impressions. I would love to see someone do some proper analysis. For now, other thoughts or comments on the show?

A short history of nearly everything.

Having been a fan of Bill Bryson’s travel books I was surprised when he released “A short history of nearly everything,” as it isn’t very often that a writer ventures so far outside of their comfort zone. The book takes you through a journey of our history and the history of the universe around us. In this book Bryson is able to make what are perceived as the boring and too complicated aspects of science such as particle physics, and make them interesting and understandable. He does this by using language that is easy to understand, and although many scientists would think he has oversimplified some of the topics, he is obviously trying to educate a wider audience than just the science community. What makes this book so enjoyable to read is the humour that Bryson is able to write with, and it is very rare to find science written in this way. It is the obscure statistics and odd facts about the wide ranging topics that make this book so interesting. For instance while writing about evolution he adds facts such as ”it's important to keep in mind that regardless of these so-called improvements we are still 98.4 percent genetically indistinguishable from the chimpanzee." These astonishing facts are able to back up what he is writing, but do so in such a way that they are amusing and different to the way in which science has been written about in the past. While providing insight into the history of science Bryson's most interesting observations lie in his description of scientists and their peculiarities and obsessions. Giving even the most informed reader a different view of the people they have read about in text books and learnt about in the classroom.

Submitted by Michael Dowling

The selfish gene by Richard Dawkins

One of the first popular science books I read and one of the few I have no hesitation in recommending to anyone (indeed everyone). Its clarity and precision makes complex ideas like evolution and behaviour easily accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Dawkins book is mainly based on the ‘why’ of animal behaviour. Scientists originally believed that organisms worked for the good’ (survival) of the species for instance, a worker bee gives up its right to reproduce to instead raise its siblings. This explanation is based on the idea that the organism/species needs to survive. An idea effectively demolished by Dawkins, who looks at the gene as the primary unit upon which natural selection acts. Rather than an organism using genes to ensure their survival, it is the genes that use the organism to survive. This simple reversal with the aid of examples and easy to follow explanations, clarifies concepts such self sacrifice, co operation and aggression in animal behaviour superbly.

Undoubtedly the best part of the book was the chapter on ‘memes’ (ideas that propagate) and human behaviour and culture. This is the type of book that I love, the type that is convincing; detailed enough not to become boring and thought provoking even after it’s finished.

I would sincerely recommend this book to everyone, but be warned it may change your perception of the natural world.

Submitted by Sadia Ahmed

Planet Earth

Planet Earth is a brilliant, innovative documentary that communicates science in a very concise way that is not too advanced for a non scientific audience. It is relatively thorough and is able to provide a general outline that fits in the one-hour film. The documentary is aimed for all ages especially those that have an interest in the Earths natural history.

The descriptive narrative is explained in conjunction with the film. This technique is very effective in informing the audience, as they are able to understand the concepts more clearly.

The documentary I watched specifically described the Antarctic and Arctic regions.

Documentary allows the audience to gain knowledge of how polar bears, for example, survive, it allows the audience to witness them fight for survival. Documentaries give audience the opportunity to observe scientific facts rather than just passively accept them. Audience are able to visualise the lives of animals such as the hump-back whales below water, or the Emperor penguins on ice.

Film documentaries have the ability to fast forward time in order to illustrate the landscape changes throughout seasons, or the behaviour and response of the explored species.

Planet Earth is an informative documentary series that is able to communicate science in an interesting manner. The spectacular scenery as well as the amazing footage of the polar bears shown will definitely captivate the audience.

Submitted by Vanessa Bastian

public engagement with medical genetics

It's easy to forget, when we just look at examples of science communication, that there is an academic field focussing on the interactions between science and its publics. People do the kind of ethnographic work that Bruno Latour did on public engagement with science. (As well as Alice and mine's weird and wonderful research.) We run a research seminar to showcase some of this research - from inside and outside the SCG. This Wednesday Dr Alex Plows is coming along to talk: if anyone is interested let me know and I can give you the room details. Her seminar abstract is below...

"Snap-shotting" public engagement with medical genetics (genomics): overview of key findings and issues

The talk will feedback the findings of a 3 year research project 'the emerging politics of human genetic technologies' - ethnographic/ qualitative research - see www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/cesagen/politics/

Medical genetics (genomics) is a broad, complex and rapidly developing field comprising many different (potential) applications- biobanking, genetic testing, etc. Multiple publics are engaging with medical genetics in many different ways. This talk will provide an overview of key "prime mover" groups and networks, identifying key issues and core frames. A core finding is that to construct any actor group as simply "pro" or "anti" biotechnology fails to map the sophistication, range, context- dependency, and cultural and political situated-ness, of actor responses (see Irwin and Wynne 1996, Wynne 1995, Bauer and Gaskell 2003).

dana centre trip mark 2

Okay, so the event on the 22nd I was hoping we could go to is sold out. So I have booked some tickets for the one on Thursday 7th December - they still have some left for this. And appropriately enough, given our recent discussions on the impact of video games, it's called Playing to Learn and is about video games in education. It'll be interesting to see what models of audiences are used and assumed: is learning (if it happens at all) passive or active? Victims or instigators?

Email me for a ticket: but be warned, I only have a limited number. If I run out there may still be some left via the Dana ticket office.

Class 6: Understanding Science

What is science? It looks like there are no easy answers. We came up with a range of descriptions, from 'falsification' to 'furthering humanity's endeavours'. We're not the only ones to struggle for a definition: philosophers and scientists have been trying to agree on a good one since science began. Having talked to people with some experience of working in science, we might start to see a reason for this. People's experiences - in UROP or YII - can be very different.

But one thing that did seem to be important in all of their experiences was community. Scientists - usually - work in groups or in close contact with one another. Sociologists of science Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, and the philosopher Thomas Kuhn, also saw science as a social process. Trust is necessary and new scientists are 'socialised' into the processes and practices of science. But if science is like this it is a 'subjective' process, and science's authority in society rests on it being objective; the ultimate way of knowing. What does this mean for science?

We talked about the Science Wars (the fights that broke out between social constructivists and 'realist' scientists) and what all this might mean for us as communicators. It might help us in terms of content: perhaps it's more important for us to tell people about the process of science than its 'facts'? Ultimately I think it will help us be humble, as well - if science is liable to revision, contingent and based on trust then we should acknowledge this, along with the fact that there can be other forms of uncertain, trust-based knowledge.

What do you think?

dana centre trip

This course normally runs at least one trip to somewhere exciting (previous years have gone to the theatre and the Science Museum). Given that we'll be talking about interactive and dialogue-based science communication in the next couple of weeks, I thought it would be good to pay a visit to what is - for better or worse - one of the foremost sites of this in the UK, the Science Museum's Dana Centre. This is free and right next door to Imperial, so you can pop in any time to one of their evening events (although you need to remember to book). An event might also be a good thing to blog about - it's a relatively new form of sci-comm and I think there would be a lot of interesting things to say.

But a group visit might be useful as well - we'll all be talking about the same thing then. So I'm going to go along to the event on Wednesday 22nd November, 'The Learning Brain'. The event - about lifelong learning and the brain - looks pretty interesting and, as this is a subject area which there may well be lay expertise in, will give us a chance to look at how good places like Dana are at incorporating this. Plus there's a good cafe-bar. If you want to come along, email me before this Friday, the 10th and I'll book for a group of us to go.

And if anyone has any good ideas for other trips, let us know.

blog entries

A few people have said they are a bit lost about writing their blog entry. My simple answer is don't be. There isn't a secret criteria for it that I'm hiding for you to second-guess. Plus it's only 200-250 words and counts for a tiny % of your mark.

Find something in public culture that mentions science, i.e. not an article in Nature or anything else aimed at an audience of just scientists. Write about it.

You could introduce something you've spotted and think other members of the class might be interested in. Or you could take the opportunity to rant about something that's been annoying you for a while (note: ranting in the final essay will not be well received, now is the chance to get such things off your chest).

There are loads of things that reference or explain science which you could write about: art, tv and film (fiction and otherwise), all sorts of weird and wonderful websites, podcasts, blogs, shampoo adverts, just about anything... You can just take yourself to one of the museums on your lunch break. This listings site of science in London might also be useful. You can try looking at some of the science related blogs linked to on the sidebar and look at a few of the posts Sarah and I have done, but don't feel limited by these at all.

Try to keep it reasonably simple, 200 words isn't enough to get complicated in, and even if you are writing about something as widely known as television adverts, you'll need to spend at least a couple of sentences introducing it. It's always helpful to keep in mind what your audience is - it's your fellow class members.

Make sure nothing is offensive. If I think it is, I'll send it back to you and get you to rewrite before it goes up (you'll be marked on the one that goes up). Also, I expect a reasonably formal use of the English language - I'm not expecting Shakespeare, just avoid "txt-isms", etc.

If you want to include photos that's fine too (as long as they are your photos). Blog entries in cartoon or even rhyming forms are also fine, at the very least it'd make us laugh.

Any other questions, comment or email me. I won't mark drafts, but you can pitch an idea to me, see what I say (my answer will almost certainly be "that's fine").

what is science?

No assignment this week, so no reason not to have done the reading for next week's class (especially as it's an extra short paper). This one will involve a trip to the library as we aren't allowed to put the digital version on WebCT. It should be easy to find, though - go to Level 3, walk to the back and look for Social Studies of Science. You want volume 30, number 1, p.158-160 - the paper is by Bloor and Edge and is called 'Knowing Reality through Society'. You could even scan it yourselves for free.

We're going to be talking about what science is, how it works, and what it means to work in it; so you might want to start thinking about that. You could have a look at some science blogs (I found an interesting one from a PhD student here) or have a browse in the library's philosophy of science section. Plus, if you've done a year in industry or been involved in the UROP programme, be thinking about your experiences as I think they may be useful to us.

Class 5: Considering the public and media effects

After concentrating on the production of news texts so far in the course, this week we turned our attention to their reception and consumption by audiences and publics. We started with a discussion about violent video games and the effects they might have: opinion was divided but most people thought that other factors (such as home background or upbringing) would also help define how games changed behaviour.

We then talked about two different models of the public: a 'deficit model' which was used in the more traditional PUS movement, and the public as active. Drawing on Wynne's 1991 paper (the set reading for this week), we described the importance of context in how science is recieved. These models will affect how we 'do' communication; we'll be talking more about that in a couple of weeks time.

Finally we talked briefly about effects research and the difficulties of doing it. The media may well be powerful but it's very hard to establish a causal connection between what's in the news and our attitudes, beliefs and knowledge. If anyone's interested further, you should check out McQuail (316.77 MAC on level 5 of Central Library).

If anyone's still having trouble accessing WebCT, you need to contact IC service desk (service.desk@imperial.ac.uk).

Your assignments should be back with you in two weeks time (the 20th).

And - by the way - the picture is of an empty vessel. Like the deficit model of the public...

the guardian on web 2.0

Those of you interested in the web as a communication medium may want to check out the Guardian Magazine's feature on Web 2.0 from this weekend. The interested but ultimately cynical John Lanchester writes the main story surveying recent developments in cyberspace (do people still call it that?) and there are interviews with the key figures involved - the people who brought us Wikipedia (fantastic - but don't quote it in essays...), MySpace, YouTube and all the rest of it.

Lanchester reckons its all clever stuff but is doubtful that sitting at a computer can ever replace face to face human interaction. What do you think?

And if you get bored of techy stuff - it can happen - then they also have a nice looking recipe for yammy gingerbread...