9 February, 2010 • 9:07 pm
Kristin: Here’s a question that we at Bridge8 keep coming back to time and time again:
Why do we do public science communication?
From the discussions we’ve had over the past few months and over the last two days at the Australian Science Communicators Conference, there are many reasons. However, one of the broadest reasons is to ensure we have a society that values the contribution of science to our lives and to the world we live in. And to achieve that would mean involving the whole of society in learning and appreciating more about science (Doesn’t it? – Keep reading if you’re okay with the hypothesis so far – otherwise skip and leave a comment.) Which leads us to the follow-up question:
If it’s the whole of society that’s important then how do we involve the whole of society in science?
One of the research tracks presented the experiences of several initiatives and studies into tools for democracy and dialogue in science.
Read the rest of this entry »
Filed under: AccessNano, Awareness, Blogging, Learning, Nanotechnology, Open Science, conference, public science , public science, public nano, science communication, #asc2010, democracy, dialogue
8 February, 2010 • 2:31 pm
Kristin: The National Enabling Technologies Strategy has conducted awareness surveys on public attitudes towards emerging and transformational technologies since 1999. This includes attitudes towards stem cells, GM foods, cloning, science and technology in addressing climate change and nanotechnologies. Craig Cormick finished his presentation of the latest survey with four key lessons for those of engaged in the public response to science.
- People’s opinions are formed not by fact, but by values. Therefore, expecting people to change those opinions by giving them more information is cuckoo (my term, not Craig’s).
- Public perceptions are more important than reality.
- There is a discord between what people admit to doing and how they really behave. (People will say they buy healthy food, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they do or will.)
- Science is based on building a case from what’s know. Public perception is focused on the emotional response to what is unknown. Therefore to be effective science communicators we must think like the public, not like scientists if we want to have genuine engagement.
So great science communications that engages the public, changes misconceptions and transforms behaviour needs to be emotional, surprising and memorable – just like any good communication. What are your best examples of this well done?
Filed under: Awareness, Nanotechnology, public science , #asc2010, public nano, public s, science communication
Kristin: The talk on bushfires communications that preceded the opening of the Australian Science Communicators Conference raised a very critical question on the nature of science communications.
It seems there is evidence that some people died because they remained in their homes after the firestorm had passed. The science of fire would suggest that the bushfire itself passes in 15, maybe 30 mins but that usually a house would take longer than that to catch alight and burn. Therefore if people are able to shelter from the initial burst of flame and then emerge to fight the spot fires or the house burn, then the property, and lives, can be saved. The policy of Stay and Defend is built on this science.
But then this raises interesting questions, especially when we broaden the scope from emergency communications to consider all types of science and policy questions – on climate change, on emerging technologies and on health. Does understanding the science, then translate into understanding the reasons and motivations for the policy? And does understanding the underlying science mean greater adherence to the policy? Or can the communication of the policy be effective without explaining the science? Are there difference between science communications and policy communications that matter?
Filed under: Awareness, Open Science, public science , #asc2010, public science, science communication
7 February, 2010 • 6:10 pm
Kristin: Kate and I are in Canberra this week attending the Australian Science Communicators’ Conference in Canberra. Our first session this evening was titled ‘Bushifre science and journalism: communicating when emotions run high’.
On this anniversary of the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria, the organisers have assembeled a panel with experience of being in the media frontline, journalists and scientists who participated in the coverage last year. One of the panelists is Michal Gawenda, previously editor of The Age and now at the Centre for Advanced Journalism (CAJ) at the University of Melbourne. The CAJ has conducted a research project reflected on the media coverage during the fires, questioning the preparedness, ethical issues, empathy and the role of journalists during this event.
Louise Maher from the ABC in Canberra spoke about the responsibilities in being an emergency broadcaster. She covered the Canberra bushfires when she lived in one of the worst affected area. Other panelists included Andrew Sullivan, Head of CSIRO’s Bushfire Dynamics and Applications Group and Lyndal Byford, Media manager at the Australian Science Media Centre. Lyndal spoke about the role of scientists in providing clear and concise information to fill the information gap in breaking news.
The overwhelming impression I was left with was an appreciation of the many roles that people in the media take on during such emergencies and the multitude of responses – emotional, political, informational, speculative and reflective – that are brought forth. But Lyndal also raised an interesting aspect – the role of scientists in providing information early, in educating the public early – and how that contributes to greater understanding of a range of issues, including emergencies.
Filed under: Awareness, News, public science , #asc2010, bushfires, scicomms
Bridge8 is a foresight, industry development and science communications consultancy based in Australia. We offer insights into emerging technologies and how they interact with social, economic and environmental factors in the creation of possible futures.
Recent Comments