demos expertise pamphlet

To bring something out of the comments to the last post, there's a new pamphlet from Demos on expertise. Students might find it useful as further reading for some of the policy and PEST orientated topics we've been covering this half of the term, including the assignment (if you are choosing to design a dialogue-for-policy event).

To quote from the introductory blurb on their website:

Opening-up needs to mean more than showing people how expert advice works. Opening-up needs to mean open-mindedness, it needs to mean asking new questions and it needs to mean listening to a much wider range of perspectives.

Have a happy holidays - remember Humanities are all moving offices this week, so you can't expect to find us in the same place next term.

The Core and dodgy Hollywood science

You may have talked about this in your class on science in fiction last week.

But I was inspired to post after being unfortunate enough to catch the last hour or so of the film The Core last night: the plot of this involves a team of people having to drill/float/fly to the centre of the earth to start the earth's core turning again (very 21st century Jules Verne). This being a disaster movie, they save the world but get killed off one by one, leaving only - what a surprise - the two good-looking ones.

My physics isn't so hot, but even I found people wandering around 700km below the earth's surface (with only lines like 'These suits are holding up pretty well against the pressure!' to protect them) kind of unlikely. And indeed, Wikipedia's page on the film has a whole list of inaccuracies (ranging from the laughable to the subtle).

My question is: does this kind of thing matter? Normally I'm not too fussed about bad science in films - it's fiction, right? - but in this case I found it distracting. Do you think it's important that science in fiction is good science?

The Planet Earth Problem

There has been widespread media praise for the “scientific program Planet Earth”, so what’s wrong with the BBC spending license payers’ money funding the making of a science program, which utilizes cutting-edge technology to film the worlds wildlife?

The problem I feel is that the BBC have missed an opportunity to link cutting-edge film with thought-provoking science.

Due to time constraints of 50 minutes upon each habitat there’s nowhere near enough time to show the diverse range of adaptations to an environment, and what’s actually shown is a brief look at a few more recognizable creatures, with some rarities thrown in for the “wow-effect”. The BBC should be making scientific programs that encourage thought. Their own founding policy is that programs should “inform, educate and entertain”. And whilst I have no argument that Planet Earth doesn’t entertain, to say it informs and educates is debatable. I understand that there’s a balance between the amount of science and the accessibility to people, yet on modern television, with many animal programmes, people are more aware of the diversity of species, so programmes should be able to present more in-depth information, rather than acting as highlights shows of the Earths biodiversity. The BBC however compromises this and confines the science to 3 one hour slots upon BBC Four and radio4, which have significantly smaller audiences. A great chance to link environmental issues to natural beauty has been missed due to the BBC not wanting to risk audience numbers.

Submitted by Andrew Talyor

IMAX – ‘Deep Sea’

The IMAX at the science museum shows 3D films on a variety of science topics such as the moon landings, International Space Station and Wildlife.

‘Deep Sea’ is a documentary program about sea creatures, their environment and the interactions between them. The film focuses on the theme of symbiosis between fish and coral in the oceans whilst including interesting details about a diverse range of creatures, open sea and coral cleaning stations and the coral reefs themselves.

Overall I think that ‘Deep Sea’ focuses too much on the theme of symbiosis and is intellectually aimed at a young audience. I did not feel that it was necessary for every interesting point to be linked to this one idea and thought the film was long enough to have more than one main theme. However the film was very enjoyable. The 3D imagery was excellent making you feel you really were underwater in one of the world’s most beautiful environments, and the music was excellently integrated to create the peaceful atmosphere of the deep sea. I think that 3D cinema is an excellent media for this kind of film, allowing people to get really close to creatures and an environment that they would otherwise never experience.

‘Deep Sea’ includes a topical message: over fishing of the oceans is destroying the balance between ecosystems and causing the coral to die. I felt this was an excellent fact to include and was very effective within the media of the film. ‘Deep Sea’ also captures the wonder of science with facts such as how “all the coral in the ocean spawn precisely one hour after sunset eight days after the full moon in August.” This for me creates a fascination with science which I think is perhaps the best aspect of the film.

Submitted by Ceris Austyn-prys

The New ‘Scientist’

Who is the intended readership of the New Scientist magazine? Most of you have presumably at least flicked through a copy of the New Scientist; what did you think of it?

I personally think it has an identity crisis. On the one hand the public think of it as an up to date technical magazine where as those in research see it is dumbed down ‘popular’ science. It fits the later by trying to engage the public by being interactive like many other general science providers. Therefore it provides a website which includes podcasts, blogs and such like.

The problem in engaging the public seems to be that the content is too specific for those who not have none or little scientific background and hence understanding more than just the title becomes difficult. From my experiences the majority of the articles I can only get the gist of because there is a lot of presumed knowledge by the writer. Also a lot of stories covered do not necessarily have practical implications yet and therefore may not be of interest to the general public.

To gauge scientists points of view Alice recommended to me this discussion list (see point 12) which discusses the New Scientist usefulness to the scientific community. There are a range of views with some very interesting points. The majority seem to think that New Scientist is not an accurate report on research in their field and therefore are not trusting of the rest of the text.

To summarise I think the New Scientist is perfect for those scientists who wish to keep tabs on what is going on outside their field as the text is not up to date as a journal but also not so detailed. Though the last page of the New Scientist would certainly suggest that it does have a readership which extends outside the scientific community since ‘The Last Word’ has even been published in book form.

submitted by Sarah Clayton

new layout

Yes, we have a new layout - I'm taking advantage of Blogger Beta. This means we have "labels" to help navigate the blog (useful as it gets bigger) - so you can press the "class summary" label to only get the overviews of lectures, or the one to show only posts from other students, etc...

I've gone back to old posts and given key labels, but it might take a while to link everything up. New posts are and will be fully labelled.

Those blogging next term, if you want to specify labels to your post, do so. If not I'll allocate them.

class 10: Science in Fiction

We started the class talking about this episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. We then discussed some of the symbols of science and technology suggested by the piece, before going through some more general issues of science and fiction. I also touched on narrative, although we'll talk about that issue more next term.

I mentioned David Kirby's work on "scientists on set", and I've put a link to his paper up on WebCT which is well worth reading if you are thinking about writing an essay on the topic.

Some other links to things I referenced in class:

• Jon Turney's book Frankenstein's Footsteps. It's also worth looking up this book, although I forgot to mention it in class.
• A definition of slash fiction (warning, may offend) - I don't think I made the link between fan fiction and internet communities as clearly as I should have. Fan fiction (including slash) existed before the web, but much of it is now published there. Wikipedia cites 1993 as when the first slash mailing list started.
• Harold Rheingold's book (electronic version) on early internet based communication.
• The "Buffy Studies" online journal.

The hands in the photo above are Willow's, from when she goes evil (Buffy nerds can try to work out which episode).

Thinking ahead - work experience

You should bear in mind that you will be competing with MSc students who have a summer work experience requirement as part of their course.

If you want to find out about working in a newspaper or magazine, you can try contacting the newsdesks. But to be honest the best journalistic work experience you can get would be on Felix and/or publish yourself by keeping a blog. A woman at the Guardian was saying on their media podcast a few weeks ago that she won't look at applications from non-bloggers.

If you want office-based work, have a look at some of the organisations listed in the sidebar (such as NESTA). Find something or someone you are interested in, and email them.

The BA have a festival of science every year, and tend to ask for volunteers to work as runners for the week (working in the press office, events or with schoolchildren, you can tell them your interest). It's a great chance to network, lots of fun and they (at least used to) pay all your expenses. It's also only a week of your time at the end of the holidays - I'll pass round any information about that when it comes up.

If you are serious about working in the field, it's worth signing up to the psci-com elist. If you want to discuss any of this with me or Sarah (or get a reference) - just ask.

Thinking ahead - masters courses

There is an Imperial PG open day on Wednesday. Remember you need to book today or tomorrow.

I know there will be people talking about the three MSc's the Science Communication Group offer. I imagine the two MSc's offered by the History of Science Centre will also be represented. One of their courses includes science communication issues. They are both run in conjunction with UCL.

You can find links to other courses in the sidebar of this blog.

Play event at Dana

Last night a few of us went to the Dana Centre for a "PEST" type event (on play and learning).

The event eschewed the traditional set up of speakers giving presentations followed by questions. Instead, four speakers gave short (3 min) introductions of themselves. We were then sorted into groups, so you'd not necessarily be with people you know.

Each group was timetabled 10 mins with each speaker. The speakers sat in a circle of chairs and when we joined them we were just expected to talk. Some speakers gave a lead in, some just said "so, what you want to talk about". At the end of the night the groups joined together again and the speakers made a sum up comment. There was the opportunity to for the debate to continue, although no one took it up.

There was a whiff of speed-dating about the process.

Personally, I thought it worked better than I imagined it was going to. Conversation was quite stilted at the start, but by the end people had relaxed into it. A little at least, there was never a huge amount of energy in the room. Moreover, I worry the set-up of letting the audience talk as much as possible favours those who come with previously formed views on a topic. One problem might just be that audiences aren't used to acting like that - several people had come along armed with notebooks.

Horizon - Human 2.0 (24/10/2006)

I tuned in late to this program and found it so ridiculous that I really had trouble watching it through.

When I joined, the program seemed to be just finishing ‘explaining’ Moore’s Law and impressing upon the viewer that this ‘law’ made it obvious that very soon in the future the average computer would be ‘more powerful than the human brain’.

What does this even mean? Will a computer in 2 years time be able to hold believable verbal conversations with me or is it suggesting that a computer of now is not quite powerful enough to find the first million primes faster than I can? Clearly the statement means nothing unless it is followed up by a discussion of how ‘power’ is defined in this context.

The program then proceeded to introduce us to a line up of supposed ‘scientists’ that where there to share their crackpot visions of the future. By crackpot, I mean absolutely on the very fringe of current scientific thought, my favourite example being Ray Kurzweil, a man who sells pills designed to extend ones life long enough so that future science can help you live forever (see this link for a good laugh).

Ray was there to tell us about a future where we were ‘upgraded’ to the point where we had superhuman powers, ranging from the obvious super-strength (from the implanted nano-wires) to the memory and vision enhancements provided by brain implants.

Keeping with the outlandish theme of technology gone crazy, Horizon decided to bring in another doubtful personality to tell us about how things might happen differently – we might all be wiped out by a marauding artificial intelligence at any moment, despite presenting zero evidence suggesting that current science can deliver anything like a genuinely independent A.I.

At no point did Horizon see fit to introduce a scientist that put forward the much more plausible claim that neither of the above scenarios might play out.

Fundamentally, there was little in the way of real science presented to the viewer and what science that did appear was distorted, unbalanced, massively over-dramatised and generally misinterpreted. If a viewer were to take the program seriously they would have no choice but to start saving for the implants or begin digging a nuclear bunker immediately. Somehow I don’t think many people did either, they simply left this miserable ‘science’ program with no better understanding of technological progress than they had before.

submitted by Dan Rogers

Energy?

Energy is a very difficult topic to convey to the lay person or children, we can’t see it so how do we know it’s there? The Energy display at the Science Museum aims to do this. It is able to do this by showing how energy is harnessed, how we use it now and how we will have to use it in the future.

As with the usual Science Museum displays it is very hands on, with many different computer games and scenarios. The problem with this is the lack of substance in these games. For instance in one game all you have to do is get the engineer to the fuse to fix the blackout. No information how he would do this or why there was a blackout in the first place.

Where the exhibit does succeed is in the future of energy. To What lengths would people go for renewable energy, would you save your poo to heat your house?

Although some of the displays are very biased to non-fossil or Nuclear power it does present the topic well and give an idea of wanting to change the public’s view of renewable power. One display, aimed at the older group, informs you of the most environmentally friendly ways of cooking, cleaning and transportation.

submitted by Jonathan Watkins

Climate Change - comment & win

In class this week, I gave a print out of this piece on "Climate Porn". The idea was going to be to get you to summarise the reasons why emphasising risks of climate change is a bad thing, as well as considering reasons for sensationalism. We didn't have time for this, but I thought we could discuss it here.

So, press on the yellow "comments" link at the end of the post and give your reasons for and against sensationalism in risk reporting. You might like to read the article linked to above (and the comments - it's a blog entry) but you don't have to.

As incentive, before next week's class I'll write down the name of all the students who comment, and draw one at random to get a (chocolate based) prize. If there are lots of comments, I might draw out a few names (I'll see if the holiday spirit catches me). If you put more than one comment, you will be entered twice, so it's worth checking back to debate your points further.

The picture is meant to be a "baked" person (from climate change. Sorry, bad link...).

Session 9: risk (and intro to science policy)

We started with a debate, asking whether scientists are the best people to make decisions about science policy. If anyone wants to continue/ join this (with ideas on why scientists should or should not be the people to make policy decisions over science) we can start a thread in the comments to this post.

In terms of lecture content, we went through some key ideas in science policy and gave a brief overview of the topic of risk, especially issues of risk reporting in the media. All of this is covered in the handout (see WebCT). If anyone missed the class, read the chapter on "The ABC of Risk" in Gregory & Miller.

If anyone was particularly inspired by the topic of risk, Les Levidow is talking about GM issues at UCL this evening, details here.

I'm sorry if today was a bit rushed, I stupidly planned for a double session. I'm going to turn the activity we didn't get a chance to do (on sensationalism) into a blog entry - watch this space.

playing to learn...

...is the Dana event some of us will be attending next Thursday (the 7th). Check out this web-page for further details of the topic and the speakers.

A couple of things that struck me from the info given: the event is supported (i.e. paid for) by Nintendo, and the panellists are all 'experts' of one kind or another (academics, policy types). It will be interesting to hear the voices of the 'public' from the audience. Is there anyone else that you think should be given a voice in the debate?

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...

news values climate change

The news media is often accused of sensationalism, especially around science issues. A really interesting example of this recently was the IPPR report accusing the media of "climate porn".

But if sensationalism is all the consequence of news values, are the media excused? I think climate change is an interesting case study in this. The IPPR say the sensationalism over climate change is dangerous because the public think it's too late to do anything. But then maybe we need things exaggerated to scare us into small changes. And it's not as if scientific opinion is especially settled over how close we are to environmental armageddon.

Is there a place for sensationalism? If so where? Warning: one of the press release assignments last year was marked down quite severely for being "too sensationalist" (not by me, but you have been warned).

p.s. apologies about the WebCT problems. We've been assured that students just need to advice here and here, and if there are still problems contact IS.

Do violent video games make you a violent person?

And just in case you have any extra time this week, you might want to check out the BBC news coverage of a new video game, 'Bully', here. This hit the shops a couple of weeks ago and was considered controversial enough to have at least two TV interviews with the game's hapless spokesman - if you search the BBC site you might still find these online.


The fuss is because the game, set in a school, shows bullied kids fighting back with violence. Some - including bullying charities and support groups - are worried it could encourage violent behaviour in schools.

We'll be talking about the tricky subject of media effects a bit more next week. For now it's worth pondering what you think about violence in video games and the effects it has. Are games like Bully video nasties or just tongue in cheek fun?

Class 4: the media and the transformation of knowledge

In today's double session we looked at how scientific information changes as it moves between different kinds of publication. We started by looking at some extracts from places like Science, the BBC website, or the Science Museum's Antenna. Amazingly, we could spot what was from where - so good are we at picking up on the internal cues and signals that tell us whether something is textbook or news.

We had a brief overview of Fahnestock's analysis of the changes between scientific paper and 'popularisation': a shift in genre from forensic to epideictic; appeals to 'wonder' and 'application'; and an increase in certainty and in uniqueness. We also discussed news values - factors that media scholars think journalists use to decide what is newsworthy. After some analysis of newspaper cuttings, it looks like values such as negativity, relevance, personalisation, facticity, and threshold are importantant for science stories.

Good papers to read to support today's topics are Fahnestock 1986 (on WebCT) and Hilgartner 1990.

And finally we gave out Assignment 1, due next Monday 6th November. Students are to produce a press release based on one of the four science stories on WebCT. If you read the instructions carefully and remember what we've talked about in terms of newsworthiness and journalistic style, you'l be fine...

Comment or email us if you have any problems!

Being a humanities student

For those of you who aren't used to/are panicking at the thought of being a humanities student (reading outside of class! Essays! Words not numbers!), we have a book recommendation that could help you out. (This was meant to go on the reading list as suggested reading, but got left out for one reason or another.) Check out The Arts Good Study Guide, by Ellie Chambers and Andrew Northedge and published by the OU Press. This has got some really clear and readable advice on things like how to read productively (in science you can get away with reading just the abstract and discussion; in the humanities that's not always such a great idea...) and how to write essays. We especially recommend chapters 4 and 5 before you write your essay (Assignment 4) - if you're not used to having to argue your case it's very helpful on things like structure and style. And even better, there are copies in Imperial Library (Central Library level 5, reference 371.3 CHA).

Of course, news language is a different kettle of fish entirely. The best way to get good at that before you write your own press releases for Assignment 1 is simply to read lots and lots of news...

Class 3: intro to press releases

The central point of today's session was that to write a good press release you need to consider what would make a good news story. Reading through the advice from Tim Radford I handed out last week should help, as will some of the content Sarah's discussing next week.

In terms of the more "nuts and bolts" issues we covered today, you should remember the "pyramidal format" (i.e. that you can cut a news story from the bottom up) and the need to clearly state the "what, why, who where, when and how" of the story as soon as possible. We also did an activity with a news story I had added words to, aiming to edit it back into decent news language (you can read the proper full version here).

Next week, Sarah will handout the first assignment, which is due the following week and asks you to write a press release. I handed out a few example press releases in class, it's worth looking at some before you write your own. UCL have a good press release archive. It's also worth googling science-rich universities and checking out AlphaGalileo. This has a database of research news from all over Europe, but (unless you are a journalist) you won't be able to access "notes for editors" or embargoed press releases.

Any questions - leave a comment or email me.

more books

I love looking at people's bookshelves! So here is one of mine for you to have a look at as well. You'll notice that it's not strictly all science books - the Francis Wheen and Italo Calvino are both pushing the definition somewhat. (Although I seem to remember that Wheen does take a potshot at social constructionists of science.) Italo Calvino's Cosmicomics, though not the book on display in the picture, could be described as a science book - there's certainly some hard astrophysics in there, which is used as the inspiration for some very fun (if at times weird) fiction.

And further to Alice's post on what is, apparently, the best science book ever, I have to say that I'm with the voters on this one. The Periodic Table is fantastic - although it does seem to be one of those love-it-or-hate-it things. I think it's beautifully and elegantly written, incredibly moving, and - as a bonus - contains some great stuff on the carbon cycle and what it means to be a scientist. Others think it's boring and pretentious... The Wrench, also by Primo Levi, is very much on the same themes; all about being in love with the material world and our mastery over it.

books

I'm showing something quite personal here: the science section of my bookcase. Non fiction above, fiction at the bottom (children's books have their own set of shelves). It's reasonably small - I try to keep the number of books I actually own down, I move too often. Every now and again I look through the books I own, and ask myself "do I want to keep this?".

Reasons for keeping a book are often practical and/ or personal (they were gifts, I've annotated a copy for study, I think it'll be useful in future...) but in some ways it is also indicative of what I happen to think makes a good science book.

The question of what makes a "good" science book was addressed at an RI/ Imperial college event last night. And the winner is *drum roll* Primo Levi's The Periodic Table.

Personally, I don't think the Periodic Table is a science book, but I acknowledge I'm using a reasonably limiting definition (it doesn't say anything about science, or tell us any science). This doesn't make it a bad book, it's just not, for me, a "science book".

You can follow the debate (and add other suggestions of books you like) on Jon Turney's blog. Seeing as student blogging doesn't start till November, if anyone else wants to flash their science books, email me pictures.

technology vs. business

I was watching BBC news this morning and saw a story about the next big thing in DVD players (have a look at the video or some BBC user comments). Apparently there's going to be a format battle between Sony and Toshiba's new types of high resolution DVD players: similar to the BetaMax VHS stand-off twenty odd years ago (I can't remember it either...). New discs are incompatible and the systems extremely expensive.

Well, that's all well and good and maybe useful to those people who don't mind spending a grand to watch movies in exquisite clarity. But what interested me was that it was their business correspondant who presented and led the package (even though it's on their technology webpages). The emphasis was on the consumer and what it meant for them, and as a result you didn't get much of the science of the new systems at all. (Which is fair enough by me - I think 7.30am is pushing it for laser technology.) I'm guessing you saw a fair bit of this kind of thing when you looked at science in newspapers yesterday - science stories being presented via a completely different, non-scientific, angle. Because, ultimately, I don't need to know how a new technology - or medicine, or whatever - works to decide whether to buy it/support it or not. I just need to know what it means to me.

Is this good or bad? Should the media be telling people how stuff works? And how does this kind of thing affect the boundary work that science does?

podcasts part 2

Another podcast for you to check out is from Demos's science and society people. This is a chat with Kathy Sykes, who is one of the relatively few people to have a full time, academic post in public engagement (you'll also recognise her from TV). I thought it was pretty interesting - but had appalling music...

And on podcasts in general...I have to admit the Demos one was one of the first I've listened to. Not having an iPod I have to occupy myself with my own thoughts on the tube rather than somebody else's, and I'm unconvinced that I'm missing out. I'm interested - do people really listen to these on a regular basis? I.e. are they as big as they're hyped to be? Is everyone around me on the tube really listening to chat about science rather than the Arctic Monkeys?

Class 2: What is science? Anatomy of a newspaper

In this session we got our fingers dirty with newsprint and did a mini "content analysis" of science reporting in the British press.

Our rather rough piece of social research was inspired by a "proper" investigation, the Science Museum Media Monitor (details of this can be found on pages 118-119 of the reading). We finished up with a brief overview of formal definitions of science, information on this is in the handout.

The reading for next week is a short piece by Tim Radford, which gives some basic advice on how to approach science writing. Radford himself will be appearing at Imperial college on thursday, in a special event on popular science books - details here. This should be an interesting event and recommended to com'n sci students. You can read more about it on Jon Turney's science book blog.

We also introduced assignment four, if anyone has any questions about that, please email me (again, the handout is on WebCT).

podcast competition

Last week's Guardian Science podcast mentioned a competition. Prize: you get to go to the Guardian offices and sit in on the podcast recording.

They want people to suggest an idea for a "package" for the podcast (I think they mean a feature, i.e. a topic for investigation and debate) and also a short paragraph about what they would add to the show if they sat in on it. You can email (science@guardian.co.uk) or Skype (gu_studio) them to enter.

Plus, if you get the chance do listen to their "special extra" interview with Steve Jones - it'll be useful for next week.

Does anyone listen to science podcasts? Myself, I find the Guardian one a bit laddish and the New Scientist "scipod" very cheesy. Both have interesting content and TERRIBLE jingles. Any other recommendations? I keep meaning to listen to the Naked Scientists who've been around radio for years and seem to have found a great way of increasing their audience with the podcast.

Class 1: Introducing Communicating Science

Well, we've started! Our first class was 9th October at lunchtime and I think we got off to a good start. After some introductions (of Alice and Sarah) and some admin (the course notes and reading list are both online in WebCT, to which all students should now have access), we played a card game. Not poker (there was no gambling involved), but a kind of swap shop of statements about science, the public, and the media. We quickly discovered that we already disagree about some things. The statement 'Scientists may be experts in one field, but citizens can be experts too' seemed particularly contentious, with some loving it and others hating it. This is definitely an idea we'll be coming back to!

Then there was just time for a quick story. It was a tale of two reports and one department: the 1985 Royal Society report 'The public understanding of science' (which started off this latest wave of interest in communicating science); Imperial's very own Science Communication Group, started in 1991 by John Durant as part of the PUS movement; and the 2000 House of Lord's Third Report on Science and Society. Not a snappy title, but a key moment in the shift towards 'dialogue' in science communication. On which more soon...

Next week we start our survey of news media. Don't forget to do the reading for the second session before the class!

And finally, a quick QUESTION that we didn't have time for in class today: What do students want to get out of the course? We'd be interested to know so comment and tell us your thoughts...

hello

This blog has been set up for the "Communicating Science: the public and the media" undergraduate module at Imperial College, London. In the next few weeks you'll start to find comments, reviews and news from both course leaders and students.

Coursenotes are online here (links to PDF).

All comments are welcome, but they will be screened.