View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Essays inspired by the annual Science Communication Conference. Published by the British Science Association, in partnership with the Wellcome Trust
Citation preview
Science Communication: State of the Nation 2013
Essays inspired by the annual Science Communication Conference
Registered charity 212479 and SC039236
CONTENTS
Foreword...........................................................................
W(h)ither the future of science communication?.............
One message: many voices: another way of legitimising
censorship?........................................................................
How not to present science...............................................
Science communication – bridging theory and practice..
Working with arts festivals..............................................
Informal science learning and the challenge of
measurement....................................................................
What‟s the true cost of free?.............................................
Ask for evidence................................................................
3
4
6
9
11
14
16
19
23
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 2
FOREWORD
For a community that is founded on the principle of openness, we can get very hung up on
emphasising the divisions and differences in our sector.
For instance, someone recently suggested that the British Science Association should change
this conference‟s name to the Science Engagement Conference, because „communication‟
belongs to the old-school „public understanding‟ crowd rather than these more enlightened
„public engagement‟ times. (Though, how you‟re meant to engage without communicating, I‟m
not sure).
There‟s that science writer on a national newspaper who visibly bristles at me whenever I call
him a science communicator. He insists that he is a journalist first and foremost, and definitely
not in the business of 'communicating science'.
I also see two-way suspicion between some „scientist communicators‟ and some professional sci-
commers. And it remains difficult to have a conversation about the Science Media Centre or
Sense About Science in public without being told they‟re secretly a front for the Illuminati or
Monsanto.
But the Science Communication Conference sees practitioners and thinkers from every part of
our sector come together to debate, plot, and share best practice in a positive, inspiring,
friendly setting. And I think the big part of the reason behind that is that we spend rather a lot
of time doing something unusual for us; talking about motivations, discussing why we do our
brand of science communication, and our methods.
Outside the conference we often make the mistake of assuming everyone should have the same
motives – after all, we‟re all in the same trade. Some funders even acknowledge that we are
diverse but wish we weren‟t – “if only they were all pulling in the same direction”.
But that diversity of motivations is what gives us the breadth of activity in science
communication. In this e-book there are complaints about censorship, tips on presenting styles,
reminders on evaluation, calls for „geek action‟, and much more. Over 80 speakers presented at
the Science Communication Conference that took place in London on 16 & 17 May 2013. The
authors of this publication were selected by delegates of that conference. The full report of the
conference can be read at http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/science-communication-
conference/reporting-2013-conference
Each of them come from a different sci-comm perspective, and as I read them I‟m pleased that
we do have such a complex and varied sector – it‟d be boring if we all wanted the same thing.
Imran Khan,
Chief Executive, British Science Association
November 2013
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 3
W(H)ITHER THE FUTURE OF
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION?
Gail Cardew, Royal Institution
By the show of hands in the audience, only
one or two people had attended the Science
Communication Conference around 10 years
or so ago, so fortunately for me there weren‟t
many present who could disagree with my
reflections of the conference in those early
days. It struck me that to consider the future
of science communication it would be helpful
to reflect on progress we‟ve made. I chose to
mention an example of an issue that had
preoccupied us back then that we‟ve more or
less succeeded in resolving (although has
inevitably highlighted other issues), one that
we‟ve had some success in but could do more,
and one that still continues to be raised to
this day like a bad headache that won‟t go
away.
One of my favourite memories of that
conference was having an energetic
discussion about whether or not the
activities we all run around the UK could
somehow be linked together to collectively
find out what attendees think about a
particular issue and feed those thoughts into
policy. We were of course aware of all the
work taking place in dialogue conferences
and consensus conferences, but we were
curious to see if this kind of „quick and dirty‟
approach could throw up some interesting
comparisons. A few of us organised a small
workshop at the Science Communication
Conference and began planning a project
around the topic of nanotechnology. This
subsequently developed into a successful
funding proposal, et voilà Small Talk was
born[1]. Unsurprisingly we found lots of
benefits from working together, e.g. building
relationships with policy makers which none
of the participating organisations had the
resources to do individually in-house.
We also found that public attitudes to
nanotechnology were similar to the results of
dialogue conferences: that people‟s attitudes
to nanotechnology are not significantly
different from their attitudes to any new
technology, and they were not concerned
about risks arising from the technologies but
instead the regulation of the technologies. At
a personal level, I also found it deeply
satisfying to go to a conference that directly
resulted in an actual project, as opposed to
sitting around discussing endlessly the
issues our community faces. At the time,
Small Talk was one of a number of
initiatives that laid the foundations and
rationale for Sciencewise[2], which has
taken on the mantle of linking policy makers
with public dialogue initiatives. However,
I‟m sure if you talk to anyone involved in
Sciencewise, you‟ll find that there are still
significant barriers to embedding the
practice of public dialogue within policy
making. This therefore falls into the „could
do more‟ category.
In contrast, my head is in my hands every
time I hear people discussing the gap
between practitioners in science
communication and those who study the
relationship between science and society
from a more academic perspective. This was
also recently highlighted in the Wellcome
Trust‟s report on informal science
education[3]. Ten years or so ago
practitioners were initially delighted to hear
of the ESRC‟s (Economic and Social
Research Council‟s) new grants scheme on
Science and Society. Delight, however, soon
turned into frustration and a somewhat ugly
atmosphere seemed to descend on one of the
main sessions.
4 British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013
Needless to say, when the results of the
research were published, very few of us
bothered to read the literature because the
projects didn‟t appear to be directly useful
for developing our science communication
activities. This was also despite efforts of the
British Science Association in organising
some follow up joint workshops with
practitioners and academics. In fact, these
workshops only served to reinforce the gulf
between the two communities. I‟d love to see
this change... to a future when the science
communication community‟s box-ticking
evaluation morphs into something more
meaningful and joined up. When academics
are working alongside practitioners. And
when I can stop rolling my eyes at the mere
mention of this topic and move on to
considering something else.
And finally I move on to the point when we
can all pat each other on our backs, for a
brief moment or two at least. We were
concerned in those days about scientists not
being adequately praised for their efforts at
public engagement, and that engagement as
a whole wasn‟t sufficiently embedded within
our major science-based organisations. At
the time, COPUS (Committee for the Public
Understanding of Science) [4] was on its
death bed, partly because public engagement
was starting to open up beyond the tri-
partite arrangement of its founding
members: the British Science Association,
the Royal Institution and the Royal Society.
However, we were a long way off the
situation we have today. Scientists reported
being side-lined in their careers if they spent
any time on public-facing activities and such
activities were in themselves largely
regarded as insignificant and unimportant
by many of the big cheeses in science-based
organisations. I don‟t think I can single out a
particular initiative that can be credited for
the change in direction.
The University Beacons for Public
Engagement certainly helped, but so have
the prominence of the wonderful science
centres around the UK, the RCUK (Research
Councils UK) Concordat for Public
Engagement, lots of the learned societies
who have embraced this movement by
appointing public engagement officers and
efforts by funders such as the Wellcome
Trust to invest in a plethora of original and
creative ideas. Anyone who subscribes to the
psci-com mailing list will certainly agree
that hardly a day goes by without a job in
this area being advertised.
So, it seems we have achieved our goal of
embedding science engagement.
Or have we? Despite the huge enthusiasm
amongst young scientists at sharing their
results with the wider world, those involved
in public engagement are largely absent
from the governing structures of science
organisations. And there are still reports of
some senior academics at best paying lip
service to public engagement and at worst
stifling the enthusiasm of the young
scientists following in their footsteps. I‟m
confident that we‟ll overcome this, as long as
those young scientists persevere and inspire
those who follow behind, and as long as the
science engagement community as a whole
provides the necessary support and
continues to believe that involving the public
in science, in whatever format and to
varying extents, is inherently a jolly sensible
thing to do.
With thanks to Roland Jackson for his
thoughtful contributions.
To read the full report from this session visit
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013
REFERENCES:
1. Small Talk website
2. Sciencewise website
3. Wellcome Trust Informal Learning Report
4. COPUS – wikipedia
5
ONE MESSAGE: MANY VOICES:
ANOTHER WAY OF LEGITIMISING
CENSORSHIP?
Pallab Ghosh, BBC & Fiona Fox, Science Media Centre
Part 1: Pallab Ghosh
My impression was that the session at the
Science Communication Conference was
organised to help science communicators
present important scientific information
during a national emergency such as a flu
pandemic. The premise is that differing
opinions would serve to confuse at a time
when the public want clarity.
Such thoughts are well intentioned but
naïve, in my opinion.
The underlying intention in the desire for
“one message” is to control the message. This
is the opposite of the scientific process which
requires discourse to develop knowledge and
understanding. It is also the opposite of
science communication which seeks to
empower. The purpose of “one message” is to
quell dissent.
This is what the Canadian government has
done [1] and is what the UK government
seems to be trying to do as most recently
seen in the Department of Environment,
Food, Farming and Agriculture‟s public
presentation of the science behind the
badger cull.
This acts as a brake on the culture of debate
that is necessary to develop effective
evidence-based policies.
Government agencies exist to serve the
public good and usually do. In theory, if they
believe that an area of public policy is going
badly wrong and have the evidence to prove
it, they say so.
In the past, this has worked well, as with the
impact of lead in fuel on child development,
the causes and effects of climate change and
- more recently - the harmful effects of
excessive dietary salt on human health.
Science advisers can act as an independent
voice within government to identify and
challenge bad practice. For research results
to change policy, government scientists need
direct access to the public in order to explain
the policy implications of their work through
the news media.
Without that, it would be tempting for
governments to ignore research results that
do not suit them.
The public understanding of science
empowers individuals and enables an
informed debate from which policy changes
can spring - benefiting society.
In Canada, several government departments
are currently under investigation by the
country's information commission for
allegedly "muzzling" their scientists.[2]
Requests for interviews with scientists
working for the Canadian federal
government have frequently been turned
down as a consequence of a media protocol
introduced in 2008.
This directive explicitly states that press
officers should ensure that the minister is
not surprised by what they read in the
newspapers and that the interview is "along
approved lines".
In the UK, there is no such overt directive.
But more subtle manipulation of some of the
country‟s leading scientists by the UK
government has the same effect. [3]
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 6
During times of crisis they are brought in to
advise government and are told they can‟t
speak to the media. The stated reason is for
national security. Who knows what state
secrets they are privy to but the press and
the public are denied access to their
expertise at times when we most need to
hear from them.
There has been a tightening of restrictions,
and constraints on the open and free
discussion of the science in recent years. It
has been done by governments under the
guise of better coordinating the message.
Stifling the free flow of information about
research findings might reduce ministerial
embarrassment. But for the sake of good
governance, it might be better if there were a
few more surprises for ministers in the news
media.
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013
REFERENCES:
1. Canadian government is „muzzling its
scientists‟, BBC, February 2012
2. Has Canada's government been muzzling
its scientists? BBC, April 2013
3. Call to 'let UK government scientists off
the leash„, BBC, June 2013
7
Most of the science community accept that
politicians have to base decisions on many
things as well as science. As my husband, a
politics teacher, reminds me regularly we do
live in a democracy and politicians have to
listen to other interest groups and voters as
well as 'my scientists'. However that is not
an argument against scientists entering
these debates and robustly defending the
evidence base. It is absolutely essential that
they do so in order to inform that debate
with the best science available. Otherwise
we are quickly back to the bad old days of
BSE where scientists were blamed for
getting it wrong because the politicians
misrepresented advice presented behind
closed doors. This is not rocket science -
openness and honesty on both sides are
needed. Secrecy is not.
Some in government favour a scenario where
scientists bring their influence to bear
through a framework of advisory committees
that take place behind closed doors and
arrive at a consensus that can then be
passed to ministers. Nothing sinister about
that and with a media that often wilfully
mistakes legitimate scientific differences for
a „row‟ I can see why this is attractive. But I
profoundly disagree with this approach and
believe that removing the scientists who
advise government from the media debates
is bad for public discourse. I am also
convinced that it is bad for evidence based
policy – you don‟t have to read every spin
doctor‟s diary as I do to know that Ministers
are just as influenced by the Daily Mail and
the Today programme as they are by science
advice delivered behind closed doors. We
need our best scientists to be engaging with
the media as well as with politicians even
when the science subjects are so messy and
politicised that they run the risk of being
presented as taking sides. Critically we need
our Chief Scientific Advisers to encourage
and support them to do both.
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013
Part 2: Fiona Fox
Ian Boyd, the chief scientific adviser to the
Department of Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs, recently got into hot water
with George Monbiot for arguing that
scientists should recognise the difference
between explaining their science and
advocating for specific government policies.
For Boyd, scientists who express strong
opinions on the latter in public cease to be
independent scientists. I tend to agree that
there is a fine line between science and
advocacy, or as Ian Boyd puts it 'where
authoritative comment stops and political
points of view begin'. Indeed the Science
Media Centre (SMC) often reminds
scientists that when talking about their
own research to journalists they should
avoid being drawn on the policy
implications or the public health advice.
Unlike some good friends in science I
believe that the role of scientists is to
inform society‟s debates not win them!
However I think we need to acknowledge
that sometimes the line between science
and policy is a difficult one to draw. The
scientist who tells the media that the
evidence from field trials on the effects of
neonicotinoid pesticides on bees are
inconclusive may never express any opinion
on the EU ban but can reasonably be
assumed to think it is unjustified. When
the SMC ran our badger cull briefing
several top scientists said that the previous
trials on badger culling had not reduced TB
transmission overall due to perturbation
effects. They repeatedly refused to be
drawn on the proposed badger cull, but
most journalists left that briefing having
concluded that while there may be many
great reasons for a badger cull, the
scientific evidence is too uncertain to be one
of them. Would these experts fall foul of a
plea to avoid commenting on policy? Hard
one to call and sadly I already see far too
many scientists too scared to do media
interviews on these subjects for fear of
crossing the line.
8
HOW NOT TO PRESENT SCIENCE
James Piercy, science made simple
Elin Roberts, Centre for Life
Watch a presentation going well and
everything appears seamless. Yet the
presenter, like the proverbial swan, is often
paddling furiously beneath. Watching good
presenters isn‟t always the most useful
training.
Sometimes it‟s easier to learn by watching
presenters who are struggling or performing
badly. You see first-hand the negative
impact on the audience as a bumbling
performer fails to make eye contact, or an
over-enthusiastic presenter makes their
audiences cringe.
It was with this in mind that a merry band
of trainer/presenters with little regard for
their professional dignity presented „How
not to present Science‟ at the Science
Communication Conference.
Everything was presented badly.
Two of the presenters on the day, James
Piercy and Elin Roberts, share their tips on
how to present science to engage the
audience.
Body language and eye contact
The often misquoted research into
communication by Albert Mehrabian [1] tells
us that we need to be careful to avoid
mismatch between our spoken words and
non-verbal messages. Telling an audience
how glad you are to see them whilst looking
at your feet or fiddling with props won‟t
support your message. Let your stance and
movement reflect the tone of what you are
saying. If you expect the audience to be
surprised or excited, mirror that emotion
yourself as if it were the first time.
It‟s common for presenters to want to hide.
This might be behind something physical
like a desk, but you can also hide behind
demonstrations, crazy costumes or a loud
voice.
Effective communication occurs when you
pair it with a personal connection. Make
good eye contact. Look to the audience, take
time to cover every part of the crowd and
make sure they can see you. Keep those
glasses clean and hair off your face.
Use your body language to help focus
attention where you want it. Audiences will
look where you look, listen if you listen and
match the tone you set for the presentation.
If you don‟t want people to call out, don't
start by asking them to shout „hello‟.
Distractions
Your audience‟s attention is like a delicate
flower. Stamp all over it and it refuses to
flourish. Perhaps you are afflicted by the
two-step-shuffle, buzzword bingo or the
incessant necessity to repeat the word
„anyway‟. Your audience will notice and will
spend the rest of the presentation playing
their own game based on your foibles rather
that listening to what you have to say. Tame
those distracting habits and what you say
will have more impact.
Volunteers
Be nice to your volunteers. Take the blame if
things go wrong. Charm them, banter with
them. They are your audience‟s proxy. Be
kind to them and the audience will repay
you.
Only use a volunteer if you really need them.
Give clear instructions on what to do,
including when to leave the stage. Asking for
applause not only shows your appreciation
but also covers the time it takes them to
return to their seat.
A volunteer should feel good when they leave
your stage. If they don‟t, you‟ll not succeed in
getting volunteers again.
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 9
Honesty
Even young children can easily ask
questions which might leave you stumped.
Be truthful about what you don‟t know.
Have the confidence to admit uncertainty
and offer suggestions of ways to find out.
If you are using a demonstration, it‟s
important not to fake it. If a member of your
audience figures out that you are tricking
them, they‟ll tell everyone around them and
nobody will trust what you say.
Know your audience
This shouldn‟t be an ego trip. The
presentation isn‟t all about you. It‟s about
them, too. Know your audience. Find out all
you can about your audience before you
start. Then, watch them. Are they bored,
engaged, excited or depressed? Can you
accentuate getting a good reaction and
eliminate the negative responses?
Allowing the audience to be clever
The feeling as you figure something out for
yourself is powerful. Being told the same
thing is never as good. Having a speaker
carefully prepare a talk to lead you to a
conclusion before the reveal can be
engrossing and memorable. If you‟re after
engrossing and memorable, it‟s a good tip.
Edit
We often fall into the trap of packing too
much in, but faced with so much information
and so little time we make the mistake of
trying to say everything. Do your audience
need the details? Careful editing shows that
you value your audience, giving them
enough to sustain their interest but without
boring them. Less is more.
Storytelling
Stories are powerful devices in human
culture. They captivate and entrance. They
are much more than „Once upon a time‟. It is
rare to be unable to engage in some kind of
narrative approach to your topic. Perhaps
it‟s the story of your own interest, maybe the
tale of early experiments, a thought
experiment that the audience themselves
conduct? Stories start with an outline, build
to a crisis or question and reach a resolution.
Set up a narrative in the information you are
trying to transmit and the audience will be
longing to hear the end.
Stopping is not an ending
According to Pixar‟s 22 rules of storytelling
[2], endings are hard. Drawing a narrative to
its satisfying conclusion can be one of the
most challenging things about preparing a
presentation. It can be tempting to fall into
the trap of „and that, Ladies and Gentlemen
is all the time I have‟.
Please don‟t.
A short while contemplating the impact of
your ending can pay dividends to how your
presentation is remembered by your
audience. When you have finished,
remember that it may take a moment for
your audience to register this and
acknowledge it. Give the time and avoid the
temptation to speak again.
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013
REFERENCES:
1. Mehrabian, Albert; Wiener, Morton
(1967). "Decoding of Inconsistent
Communications". Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 6 (1): 109–114
2. Coats, Emma (2011) The 22 Rules of
Storytelling According to Pixar
10
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION –
BRIDGING THEORY AND PRACTICE
Helen Featherstone, University of Exeter
Paul Manners, National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement
Brigitte Nerlich, The University of Nottingham
Huw James, To The Blue
A call to action
There are growing calls for greater
interaction between science communication
practitioners and academics ([1], [2], [3]).
Underpinning this desire for greater
interaction between these two communities
is a sense that science communication could
be improved. In the 25 years since the
Bodmer report there has been a significant
investment in science communication
activities [footnote 1]. The recent move
towards engaged research [footnote 2]
suggests that science communication
activities will continue – yet we often
struggle to articulate what constitutes
success and how to enable successful
communication.
Who’s playing?
The call has been made for practitioners and
academics to work together which suggests
they are the only players in the science
communication game, but it‟s more complex
than that. We can see the practitioner
community comprises two groups: those for
whom science communication is their job,
and research scientists who communicate.
Science communicators are in a near
constant state of change as they compete for
limited funding and innovate to be
competitive. Research scientists who
communicate have other professional
priorities: data collection, teaching, and
publishing papers. Their communication
activities are rarely formally recognised.
Academics who research interactions
between science and society are dispersed
across many fields. For example, education,
social studies of science, mass
communication, psychology, and social
research to name but a few [footnote 3]. As
with all academic disciplines, those looking
at the relationship between science and
society do so with a critical eye, are
grounded in theory and are looking for
something novel. They experience the same
academic pressures as scientists: teaching
and publishing, with communication rarely
formally recognised.
However, there are others in the community:
those who work in the boundaries between
practitioners and academics, funders and
members of the public. Brokers working in
these boundaries understand several
communities, speak multiple languages
(science, communication, engagement,
psychology, sociology, arts etc.), and can
facilitate relationships. They also support
practice, professional development and make
representations on behalf of others.
Funders shape practice through the
constraints they put on the money they
release, and the work that gets
commissioned (and excluded) through
largely competitive processes.
While the public are a diverse group. The
more we know about them, and their
interactions with science, the more we
realise the complex and multiple
expectations and motivations they have to
engage with science ([4], [5]).
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 11
Of course, these descriptors are broad,
unsubtle and cannot accurately reflect the
lived experience of those we are describing.
But we ask that you play along and accept
these, broadly defined, players in the game
of science communication.
How do we learn?
We‟ll make a bold assumption here: that
everyone involved in science communication
wants it to be as good as possible. Clearly we
are likely to have a range of perspectives of
what counts as good and we are constrained
by resources, but let‟s hold this as a common
desire. If we want to make things better we
have to improve practice individually and
collectively which leads us to thinking about
how we learn about science communication
(see box).
Our practitioner groups have different
learning and development needs but they
primarily learn by doing and watching
others. We might consider these groups as
using the apprenticeship model of learning
where the purpose of learning is to inform
the next time, often in the short term.
Academics who study science communication
develop their insight through traditional
academic means which is incremental, may
not be intended to influence the next time,
and may not have an application in practice
for the foreseeable future.
To date, we have seen these cultural
differences prevent collaboration rather than
assist. Science communication practitioners
have asked academics to “prove their long
term impact” while academics have seen
practitioners as participants or data points,
people to do research on, rather than with.
Improving practice
In painting the picture in this way the call to
action is simple, but the practical response is
hard because time and motivation may be
lacking and previous attempts to work
together have been instrumental on both
sides. However, the role of research funders
should not be underestimated. They are
asking for plans for collaboration when
academics bid for research funding and
those activities are being called to account
through the Research Excellence Framework
[6] and other mechanisms; for example the
Office for Fair Access guidance [7] opens
with the call to action:
“Perhaps the single most important
difference between this and previous
guidance is our increased emphasis on the
need for evidence and evaluation. We want
you to build in evaluation of your access
measures right from the start so you can
maximise the effectiveness of your efforts.” P5
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013
Differences in cultures of learning:
practitioners and academics
- insight from the academic world is found in
a diverse array of disciplines and is shared
through traditional academic routes of
journal papers, conferences and teaching,
making it challenging for practitioners to
access collective academic knowledge;
- practice moves quickly and is in a near
constant state of innovation; academia
moves slowly, and learning is incremental;
- many science communicators trained as
scientists which makes the academic
language of non-science researchers opaque
and challenging;
- scientists who communicate cannot spend
years honing their skills, building
relationships with practitioners, nor
digesting large volumes of academic insight;
- evaluation of practice is often undertaken
as a short-term accountability mechanism to
satisfy funders‟ needs for a specific activity,
while academic insight often seeks to
address long term, generalisable effects or
outcomes and aims to develop or critique
theory.
12
The Arts and Humanities Research Council
are facilitating truly collaborative work
involving practitioners and academics (see
Codesign heritage [8] as one example).
These changes in research culture are
opening the door to much more sustained
and practical collaboration. There is of
course a danger that this “impact agenda”
may increasingly institutionalise
engagement, subtly undermining the quality
of science communication. Are there similar
changes in culture happening in the
practitioner community?
Finally, there is an increasing investment in
brokers. Two of the authors (Helen and
Paul) play such a role. We create the
conditions for purposeful interaction
between academics, practitioners and
publics. What was previously left to chance
is now a site for sustained investment and
will help us move towards building shared
understandings and developing a common
language.
Of course the ultimate test will be – does
greater interaction between theory and
practice actually improve the quality and
impact of our work. We believe it does.
What do you think?
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013
FOOTNOTES:
1 To take one example, £800m a year is
spent on widening participation activities,
many of which involve inspiring young
people about science
2 See RCUK‟s Concordat for Public
Engagement [9] and the inclusion of Impact
in this year‟s Research Excellence
Framework
3 Recognition of this diversity can be found
in this recent call for conference papers:
http://stsconference2013.wordpress.com/
REFERENCES:
1. Cavell, S, Dawson, E, Featherstone, H
(2011) Roundtable for advancing the
profession: assessing impacts of science and
discovery centres.
2. Falk, J, Osborne, J, Dierking, L. Dawson, E,
Wenger, M, Wong, B (2012) Science beyond
the classroom. Analysing the UK Science
Education Community: The contribution of
informal providers. Wellcome Trust: London
3. Facer, K., Manners, P., Agusita, E (2012)
Towards a Knowledge Base for University-
Public Engagement: sharing knowledge,
building insight, taking action, NCCPE:
Bristol
4. Barnett, C & Mahoney, N (2011)
Segmenting publics
5. Mohr, A, Raman, S, Gibbs, B (2013)Which
publics? When? EXPLORING THE POLICY
POTENTIAL OF INVOLVING DIFFERENT
PUBLICS IN DIALOGUE AROUND
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
6. Research Excellence Framework (REF)
7. Office for Fair Access (2013) How to
produce an access agreement for 2014-15,
(p.5)
8. Codesign heritage
9. RCUK Concordat for Engaging the Public
with Research
13
WORKING WITH ARTS FESTIVALS
Jen Wong, Guerilla Science
The following chapter outlines the Guerilla
Science ethos and approach for working with
arts festivals. It traces the origins of
Guerilla Science within the intersection
between public engagement with science and
the UK music festival scene, and gives a few
examples of how Guerilla Science has taken
advantage of the opportunities within the
arts festival context to create wonderful
experiences that are inspired by and
incorporate science and scientists.
Since 2008 Guerilla Science has brought
science events to music festivals, art
galleries, and theatrical productions – places
where people least expect to see science. We
surprise people with science in
unconventional places, and celebrate it in
unorthodox ways. We believe that taking
researchers out of the lab and into the
traditional domains of the arts helps us to
reach new audiences that may feel alienated
from and even hostile towards science.
Our aim is to move people using scientific
ideas, with the same emotional colour they
might get from theatre or art. We do this by
placing science where it can be seen as part
of our cultural sphere, and interpreting our
content in a way that transforms the
unfamiliar into a relevant, engaging, and
often participatory experience for our
audiences.
So what better place to take our trade than
to the burgeoning UK arts festival scene?
The diversity of a festival where many
worlds and cultures collide, and where one
can wander from a hands-on foraging
workshop into a crowded mosh pit in the
space of a mere field, affords the science
communicator a multitude of challenges and
opportunities. And it is in this space that
Guerilla Science has let rip with its
collective imagination and thrived,
delivering a program of events that mixes
science with art, music and play.
The work of Guerilla Science within this
field (literally within at least 16 fields over
the last six years) highlights how this mode
of science communication can blow peoples‟
minds: not just the minds of our audiences,
but of participating scientists as well.
Take the Decontamination Chamber at
Glastonbury 2011 as an example. In
partnership with the producers of Shangri-
La Glastonbury and the Wellcome Trust‟s
Dirt season, Guerilla Science conceived the
Decontamination Chamber as a surreal
immersive experience that sat inside a 10 x
10m white inflatable cube, within the overall
narrative environment of the Shangri-La
field – where a mysterious virus outbreak
was infecting and posing a threat to festival-
goers. The chamber offered a means of
cleansing visitors of the virus, presenting
two possible methods of decontamination:
psychological or physical. The first portal
featured a human microbial zoo installation,
and practicing microbiologists who
introduced visitors to their bacterial flora,
before outlining the choice to become either
physically or psychologically „clean.‟
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013
Guerilla Science/Strong and Co.
14
Psychiatrists recruited by Guerilla Science
helped to deliver the „psychological
cleansing‟ route, whilst a biohazard suited
actor and Health Protection Agency inspired
protocols facilitated the „physical cleansing‟
route. On exiting the last room, visitors were
proclaimed „clean.‟ With a final cleansing
shot, they were allowed to proceed to the
skywalk – a suspended, white, shrink-
wrapped walkway that traversed the field –
in order to „survey the unclean filth‟ i.e. the
rest of Shangri-La, which was by then a sea
of mud below.
As one of our participating scientists
remarked, “I was impressed by the amount of
imagination, creativity and effort that went
into creating not only the city, but the story. I
was proud to be a part of it.”
In situations where audiences are used to
suspending their disbelief and role-playing
to a certain extent, the opportunities to
communicate science become endless. And
this kind of environment is often to be found
at arts festivals, such as Glastonbury, or
other similar minded music festivals like
Secret Garden Party where Guerilla Science
was founded.
A smaller scale example of our ethos at work
is the Particle Safari – where we interpreted
the fundamental particles of the universe as
a Safari Tour. Particles, embodied by willing
audience recruits in a mixture of boiler suits,
gold gimp suits and a sumo suit, represented
the various properties of up and down
quarks, electrons and the Higgs Boson.
Audience involvement - as quarks, electrons
and the Higgs – was key to the success of the
tour. Recruits had been briefed to re-enact a
range of particle interactions for the rest of
the audience, who eventually physically
formed a representation of the LHC. The
„particles‟ collided within this space, and the
Higgs was revealed. A host interpreted each
interaction in the style of a safari guide,
injecting more humour into the interactions
unfolding before the eyes of the tour. This
interactive tour was devised in collaboration
with particle physicists Jon Butterworth and
James Monk, and designer Patrick
Stevenson-Keating.
The breadth of professional expertise within
the Guerilla Science team is essential to our
successful work with arts festivals. Most of
the team have at least one science degree,
layered beneath careers in event and
exhibition production, journalism and
theatrical production. This makes us
uniquely placed to work with and within
arts festivals, and together we have 20 years
experience of producing and delivering
events in different environments.
To summarise, here are eight top tips for
introducing science elements into arts
festivals:
- Don‟t be a loner. Work with a trusted team
and build diverse people (personalities,
approaches, backgrounds) into the team to
make yourselves stronger
- Interdisciplinarity provides opportunities
to tackle subjects with more creativity and
sophistication, in order to create a richer
audience experience
- Be collaborative and flexible in your
approach – an open mind will help you make
the most of your people and talent and
achieve greater things
- Know what you want to achieve and what
your arts festival, scientist, or other
collaborators want to achieve
- If you can‟t find have any obvious common
ground with prospective collaborators, don‟t
collaborate
- Know and respect your audience. Who are
you doing this all for?
- Don‟t lose sight of your goals. Delivering at
festivals is often tough! Letting yourself get
bogged down in the practicalities is a fast-
track route to meltdown
- Have as much fun as possible whilst doing
all this – if you‟re enjoying yourself, you‟re
probably creating a better experience for the
audience and your team.
Looking at the festival scene today, six years
on from when we started, it‟s rewarding to
see how science elements are increasingly
being embedded into more and more arts
festival programmes. Science at arts
festivals seems to be trending. Why not come
and join us?
15 British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013
INFORMAL SCIENCE LEARNING AND
THE CHALLENGE OF MEASUREMENT
Stephanie Sinclair, Wellcome Trust
The Wellcome Trust has been thinking a lot
about informal science learning recently,
including the learning that occurs in
exhibitions, debates, games, broadcasts,
theatre productions and other activities that
help with the learning of science. When you
realise that even when young people are in
full-time education, they spend less than
20% of their time in school, it is clear to see
why (Figure 1). There is evidently huge
potential to engage young people with
science experiences outside of the classroom.
In terms of evaluating informal science
learning activities, the Review highlights
that the community is „eager to find out
what its users think of its activities, but less
inclined to measure long-term impact‟.
Practitioners working in informal learning
were surveyed about how they evaluate their
activities and 91% of respondents stated
that they undertook formative evaluation of
their activities, which involves, for example,
testing early prototypes in order to result in
a higher-quality or more engaging end
product. In contrast, only 15% reported
carrying out summative evaluation at the
end of a project, which would provide
evidence about the impacts of the activities.
Our research shows that the most common
methodology used to evaluate informal
learning activities is user surveys, with 98%
of respondents using these. Observations of
participants and discussions with groups of
users are also common with 79% and 76% of
people carrying these out respectively.
Evaluation of non-users is less frequent with
32% of practitioners holding group
discussions and 25% doing surveys with
those currently not engaged with their
informal learning offer. Interestingly, when
users‟ experiences are being evaluated it
tends to be internal staff conducting the
research but when non-users are being
researched, external evaluators are more
likely to be involved.
To better understand these findings, it is
important to look at the obstacles to
evaluation which the community face. Our
findings show that the two largest barriers
which practitioners cited were „difficulties in
finding time to evaluate‟ which was seen as
a barrier by 81% of respondents and „lack of
funding‟ which was a barrier for 76%.
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013
Figure 1 Time spent in and out of school, from the
Wellcome Trust infographic „Evidence for informal
science learning‟
In 2012, Wellcome published a Review of
Informal Learning in the UK [1] which
examines the provision of informal learning
and its value to science education. There are
several issues identified within the Review
including: (i) the difficulty in evaluating
impacts of informal experiences; (ii) the
extent of the gap between research and
practice; (iii) the fact that some audiences
are being under-served; and (iv) the huge
diversity, but limited coordination across the
sector. The first two issues listed here will
now be explored in more detail.
16
These two responses are possibly linked; if
there was funding available to carry out
evaluations then this would allow time and
resource to be allocated to this role.
However, it is hard to unpick what the root
cause of this is. Have practitioners applied
for funding that included long-term
evaluations and been unsuccessful or do
they not include this in proposals because
they do not see it as part of the project?
Equally are funders not demanding grant-
holders to carry out summative evaluations
or are they expecting it but not making this
clear?
Higher-quality evaluations may be one way
to better understand what works, and
importantly what doesn‟t work in informal
learning but this is only one piece of the
puzzle.
There are many fascinating unanswered
questions about the way in which audiences
engage with informal learning experiences
such as how people learn science when
taking part in these activities, how this
learning differs from more formally acquired
knowledge and skills, how informal
experiences may be able to particularly
engage young people turned off by formal
environments and how informal learning
activities may spark interest and
imagination. To better comprehend the
important role of informal learning rigorous
academic research and analysis of datasets
is needed.
The Review found that practitioners within
the community are currently not heavily
engaged with the relevant academic
research, such as it is. A list of the most
cited articles about informal science learning
was compiled and practitioners were asked
which of them they had heard of or had read.
The most common response for how many
people had read an article was zero, and the
most common response for how many people
had heard of, but not read, an article was
two. Even the most well-known article had
only been read by less than half of the
respondents.
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013
People were far more likely to read policy
documents, evaluations and other items
which can be termed „grey literature‟.
The reasons why practitioners are not
reading the academic literature were
explored with participants who attended a
workshop at Wellcome where the Review
was launched. Reasons given were that the
academic literature can be difficult to access
and that it takes time to find the most
relevant articles and to synthesise them and
consider what the findings mean for your
own practice. There are some existing
mechanisms which aim to alleviate these
barriers, for example the website Relating
Research to Practice [2] highlights short
synopses of research relevant to informal
science education. The Wellcome Trust has
also produced an infographic [3] which
collates evidence for the impacts of informal
science learning.
Tools such as these are valuable in terms of
bridging research and practice, but there is
more to be done to facilitate effective
partnerships between researchers and
practitioners.
The Wellcome Trust is aiming to bridge the
gap between research and practice by
launching a new initiative to make a
transformational step to improve the
knowledge bases and practices of informal
science experiences to better understand,
strengthen and coordinate their vital role in
science engagement and learning. It will
involve funding for researchers and
practitioners to work together on new
research programmes and details will be
announced in 2014.
17
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013
As a community there are steps we can all
take to address some of the issues raised in
the Review of Informal Learning. These
include considering how to best grow the
knowledge base around informal science
education, how to share learning and
expertise within the field and how to
strengthen the skills of researchers and
practitioners to ensure that the sector
continues to thrive. By working together, we
can help practitioners of informal science
learning make an even greater impact on
people‟s lives.
REFERENCES:
1. Wellcome Trust, 2012, Review of Informal
Science Learning
2. Relating Research to Practice website
3. Wellcome Trust, 2013, Evidence for
Informal Science Learning Infographic
18
WHAT‟S THE TRUE COST OF FREE?
Deborah Syrop, science made simple
Jamie Gallagher, University of Glasgow
Part 1: Deborah Syrop
Some science engagement activities are
charged at cost, few at a commercial rate
and many provided free to their audience.
What is the relationship between price and
impact? Are we exceeding audience
expectations or do we inadvertedly lose the
market forces that help raise standards?
What are the ramifications of a no-fee
culture on professional development and
long-term sustainability? Does it make us
less professional? This chapter examines the
question of cost from two different angles;
the effect of not charging the audience and
the effect of not paying the presenter.
The true cost for the audience
Science communication doesn't make much
sense as a sustainable business model. The
people we most want to reach are often the
least interested. Not the ideal customer
base. Does it matter? As long as funders
share our aims and want to invest in the
good work, who cares who pays? If we have
external funding, the end 'customer' benefits
from a no-fee activity, the funders can pat
themselves on the back and we get to keep
doing what we love. Everyone's a winner.
The audience end up with a bargain -
everyone loves getting something for
nothing. At least that's what you would
expect. A classical concert must sound
sweeter when you don't pay a hundred
pounds for the privilege.
Apparently not. Joshua Bell is an acclaimed
violin player. As part of a stunt, he stood by
a Washington Metro entrance and gave a 43
minute virtuoso performance. 1,097 rush
hour commuters passed by. The reaction, or
lack of it, was a complete surprise.
Perhaps not paying for an event means you
don't value it.
Perhaps who pays matters.
At science made simple, we present science,
engineering and maths shows to over 70,000
people every year around the world. We do
this in schools, in theatres, in libraries, on
the street. Anywhere and everywhere we
can. Who pays for this? Sometimes our
audience members pay individually,
sometimes the booker pays on their behalf
and sometimes a funder covers part or all of
the cost. We have experience of a wide range
of funding models.
Our science theatre show, Visualise, fits the
Joshua Bell scenario. When we perform in a
prestigious arts venue with full-price theatre
ticketing, the audience perceive it to be even
better than when we do a heavily-discounted
performance for a science festival. You would
expect audiences to be more critical the
higher the price. In reality, it is the opposite.
We can sell more tickets and increase the
audience enjoyment by putting the price up.
What about free schools outreach? Here's a
typical scenario. Teacher sees free offer.
Teacher grabs offer. Teacher carries on with
work. Teacher remembers the week before
and realises they are too busy to fit in an
extra activity. Teacher cancels activity at the
last minute. Alternatively (if the show is
particularly appealing), teacher remembers
the week before, discovers school hall is
booked for exams. Teacher decides to
squeeze a whole year-group into two co-
joined classrooms so that students are
overcrowded and can't hear or see the
presenter properly. The quality of the
activity is severely compromised.
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 19
Perceived lower quality becomes real lower
quality in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking cost
is of paramount importance to teachers.
Certainly it is a factor, but only a limiting
factor. If a wonderful project is aimed at year
groups facing exams, is not tied to the core
curriculum, does not fit easily within the
constraints of the timetable or has an
unrealistic delivery timescale, then it simply
does not matter how little it costs. There are
some schools outreach projects you can't
even give away. 'Free' does not equate to
'schools want it'. I'm not even convinced that
'free' guarantees 'broader reach'. In my
experience, the teachers who make the most
of 'free' projects are the ones who are already
poised to make the most of any project - the
highly-engaged group.
Even if the project is highly desirable for
teachers, offering it for free can actually
degrade its perceived quality. In the eyes of
those you wish to engage, 'free' often equates
to 'not very good'. A violinist can't be that
great if he is scraping a living from the odd
dollar thrown in a hat. A STEM activity
can't be that great if they have to give it
away for free.
If given the choice, we prefer to charge a
very nominal fee. Even a token amount is
enough to ensure that teachers require sign
off from senior staff. This in turn ensures
that they have a vested interest in making
the activity a success, avoiding many of the
common problems. If we stress the real cost
and how much they are saving, they wish to
prove their 'worthiness' to receive such a
huge discount. Care is more likely to be
taken over reading and complying with any
technical requirements. Audiences are more
likely to be the promised target group.
Disruptive behaviour is less likely. Drop-out
rates are vastly reduced.
Some providers operate a cost neutral
system e.g. a deposit returned upon
attendance. In the good old days, this could
be an uncashed cheque, so no cold hard cash
needed to change hands.
The actual price the audience pays is only
important due to its effect on their
perceptions. With our theatre show we can
still offer discounts and giveaways to reach
target groups. Sometimes, payment in kind
can be enough to secure buy-in from the
customer. If a teacher has to enter a
competition, describe why they deserve the
opportunity and complete a compulsory
feedback form, this can be enough to confirm
that they have been given something worth
fighting for.
We don't have 'free show' issues when we do
pilot events. Partly, because the audience
understands the reason why the show is free
and partly because they are often repeat
customers who know us well. If you watch
the online video of Joshua Bell's metro
performance you notice towards the end a
lady stops to watch. She recognised who he
really was and could not believe her luck
seeing him perform live. She alone
understood the true value of that experience.
In a similar way some providers benefit from
their reputation or associations. For
example, if a project comes from a highly-
esteemed institution it may reassure those
booking that this is a free activity worth
having.
Context is important. Context sets the
audience expectations which are hugely
influential on engagement success. When we
busk on the street we can demonstrate our
competence without needing to charge
anything - the audience haven't had to
choose to attend. They have no preconceived
ideas. We are judged right then and there.
However, for any activity which requires
booking in advance, then it's vital we
consider how to reinforce its real value - by
requiring a token investment of time or
money: disclosing the undiscounted rate:
creating special offers for target groups: or
by emphasising our reputation. The bottom
line is if the price is lower than comparable
activities in that particular context, and the
audience are unaware of the true value, the
resulting engagement suffers.
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 20
The true cost on the presenter
Part 2: Jamie Gallagher
When we‟re asking “the true cost of free?” we
are asking a many faceted question. How do
free events reflect upon audience
expectations and enjoyment? How are free
events professionally structured? How do we
ensure successful running? For my part I
would like to question the impact of free
events on the performers and volunteers
themselves.
When an event is to be provided free to an
audience, funding quickly becomes one of the
primary concerns. Event planning is an
expensive business and even small scale
events can quickly tot up to terrifying totals.
What better way to save some money than
by enlisting volunteers?
As the worlds of academia and industry
cotton onto the importance of public
engagement and communications skills it is
easy to find a plethora of volunteers looking
to gain experience. Volunteers will come
from all walks of life and will have different
hopes from the activities they are involved
in. Many will have an interest in science
communication and will be looking to get one
foot on the ladder. They will hope to gain
some experience that they can add to a CV
or perhaps use as a stepping stone to further
their own career in communication.
It was in this vein that I started my own
science communication experience. While
doing my PhD. in chemistry and electrical
engineering I began volunteering at my local
science centre. They were happy to give me
space and let me do my own thing. I took a
little stall and showed anyone who would
listen a little about my research. I gave up
many weekends for this and I was happy to
do so, more for love than experience. Then I
developed a little show, again I didn‟t expect
to be paid or the audience to pay a ticket, it
worked out rather well. Soon I found myself
doing slightly larger shows and somewhere
along the line I started getting expenses,
then a fee and by the time this is published I
will be a full time public engagement officer.
This is directly because I was allowed to cut
my teeth on free events. I was able to gain
vital experience and establish a passion as a
career.
Had I wanted to be part of events in front of
a ticket paying audience I would have
needed a back-catalogue of experience but a
free event provides an excellent training
ground for new enthusiasts. With a free
event where performers or facilitators are
unpaid they are allowed to gain experience,
give that line on the CV and gain good
networking opportunities. Volunteering also
comes with the advantage of often having
flexible working hours and people will have
a choice as to which activities they want to
be involved in and for how long.
But all is not as rosy as it seems as free
events and volunteering can be a double-
edged sword. Where does the fine line
between experience and exploitation lie?
Someone volunteering is by no means taking
an easy path. When volunteering I have
worked myself hoarse and often found to be
somewhat abandoned while the stars of the
show are ferried around with every courtesy.
It is possible for volunteers to be neglected-
something unlikely to occur when a guest
has been transported in at great expense.
This is in spite of the fact that the invited
and paid guest will work for perhaps an
hour while a volunteer may put in an
incredibly long day. There is also a limit to
how much “CV” experience someone can
gather. Someone could fill all their time with
school talks and STEM volunteering and it
is likely that the volunteer may incur an
actual loss after transport, food and
potentially props are purchased.
The ubiquitous use of volunteers can also
impinge negatively on the professional
communicators. When a school is faced with
choices between hiring a professional
communicator at several hundred pounds a
day or inviting in a group of local PhD
students for the price of a bus fare and half a
dozen lunches, it is easy to see how we put
professionals in an increasingly difficult
position. There is a risk that in the cost
becoming the primary concern we run the
risk of not focussing on the quality.
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 21
We need to work hard at ensuring that
professional communicators get the respect
they are afforded as it is an often under-
appreciated area. Communication and
engagement areas are one affected by the
“friend‟s wedding phenomenon” where
musicians are constantly bombarded with
requests to do a gig for free for friends and
friends of friends. Would an electrician get
the same treatment? Would you ask a
lawyer for free representation or a cleaner to
“do a favour” or “gain some additional
experience”?
In the science communication industry we
must continue to use volunteers to increase
the audiences, scale and numbers of
activities we can deliver. We need to ensure
these volunteers are also getting something
from the activity- enjoyment, experience and
encouragement. We must understand the
role of the volunteer and the skills of
professional communicators so that they can
learn and support each other.
Perhaps with the growth and increasing
professionalisation of the science
communication industry we must look to
organising ourselves. As freelancers without
a union or professional body we leave
ourselves in a potentially weak position.
Science communication is still forging itself,
making itself strong. It is establishing the
importance of its own role and we must
continue to grow with it and, like the science
we preach, look objectively at its strengths
and weaknesses. We must ensure each new
project is a fair, welcoming and sustainable
endeavour for all involved.
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 22
ASK FOR EVIDENCE
Síle Lane, Sense About Science
When a patient support group told us recently
that they were battling again with an illegal
stem cell clinic offering miracle cures to people
with multiple sclerosis that they thought they
had knocked back 3 years ago, they wondered
what they should do. Exposing dodgy science
claims has often been effective – stem cell
clinics have been shut down – but as soon as
attention is turned elsewhere they crop up
again. Regulators and science communicators
are making efforts to chase down bad science
but they can‟t be everywhere all the time. And
what is the patient group supposed to do -
police every post that is put on their forums?
That probably wouldn‟t work even if it was
something they wanted to do.
We hear daily claims about what is good for
our health, bad for the environment, how to
improve education, cut crime, improve
agriculture or treat disease. Many of us
wouldn't want the level of regulation and
policing necessary to prevent unfounded
assertions. The only solution is to give people
the tools to make sense of these claims for
themselves. More people need to be evidence
hunters. Everyone has to critically engage with
claims, whether in adverts promoting products,
from scientists exaggerating research or
government bodies announcing policy.
Over the last decade Sense About Science has
campaigned to put scientific evidence higher on
the public agenda. Over 6,000 scientific
researchers and hundreds of organisations
have been working with us to encourage
different communities to engage with evidence
and they have answered thousands of
questions from the public. In doing so we‟ve
engaged people, scientists and non-scientists
alike, in a discussion about evidence. We talk
about what we know and how, about the basis
of claims, and such things as peer review,
replication, fair tests, stability of findings and
levels of confidence. This isn‟t the same as
taking people back to school for a science
lesson. Instead it involves scientists and the
public working together to call people to
account for the claims they make, testing those
claims against evidence and what else we
know.
You don‟t have to study for a Masters in
epidemiology to ask questions about claims
about links between mobile phone masts and
cancer. You can ask whether evidence exists,
how conclusions have been reached, whether
there has been a fair test, whether results
have been peer reviewed, replicated or
challenged. We know that people who don‟t
naturally see themselves as interested in
science can really use the insight that the
status of findings is as important as the
findings themselves. This has become the
backbone of all our campaigning work.
We launched the Ask for Evidence campaign to
start helping people to request the evidence
behind news stories, marketing claims and
policies for themselves. We developed
postcards to make asking for evidence easy
and public figures and organisations joined the
campaign. The campaign has seen people ask a
retail chain for evidence behind its MRSA
resistant pyjamas; ask a juice bar for evidence
behind wheatgrass detox claims; ask the
health department about rules for Viagra
prescriptions; ask for the studies behind
treatments for Crohn‟s disease and hundreds
more. Even in its modest form we have seen
organisations withdraw claims and public
bodies held to account. Medical research
charities are making it their business to take
on claims that hit the headlines; organisations
like Which? scrutinise product claims, and
parenting groups are encouraging their
members to ask for evidence about claims for
fertility treatments.
The claims we all hear daily may be based on
reliable evidence and scientific rigour but
many are not. How can we make companies,
politicians, commentators and official bodies
accountable for whether claims stack up? If
anyone wants us to vote for them, believe them
or buy their products, then we should ask them
for evidence, as consumers, patients, voters
and citizens. This is geeks, working with the
public, to park their tanks on the lawn of those
who seek to influence us. And it's starting to
work.
British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 23