After the 2011 Inspiring Australia conference, interesting conversations -unfinished in person- spilled out on to blogs and Twitter. Bridge 8 and Heather Bray wanted to keep theses conversations going.

Through colleagues, we’re aware of two successful twitter forums #agchatoz (AgChatOZ) and #hcsmanz (Health Care Social Media Australia and New Zealand). We’d like to borrow their model and encourage science and other systems communicators in a similar endeavour. A conversation on what’s new and interesting for communicating science. On Twitter.

Our first discussion was held on 14 April 2011 and have been held roughly once a month since at 9-10pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (GMT+10).

To be involved simply:
1. be on twitter
2. follow the #onsci hashtag and
3. tweet using the #onsci hashtag

Annoucements via the @onsci twitter account.

It’s an Australian Idol-style competition for scientists, where students are the judges. Scientists and students talk online on this website. They both break down barriers, have fun and learn. But only the students get to vote.

http://imascientist.org.au/

Our pilot in June 2011 saw 900 students from across Australia ask 15 fabulous scientist 933 questions and engage in 42 live chats and we want to triple it!

We’re currently seeking sponsors for May and September events in 2012. If you’d like to be involved please get in touch.

I’m a Scientist, Get me out of Here! (Australia) is managed by Bridge 8 under license from Gallomanor Communications ltd 2011.

It forms part of an education resource which covers basic logic, faulty arguments and the developing critical thinking skills. It’s designed for year 8-10 (but is just as appropriate for a general adult audience) and focuses on science issues. The accompanying education resource is found here: https://education.technyou.edu.au/critical-thinking

TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized subject to certain rules and regulations.

Bridge8 organises TEDxAdelaide partnered with RiAus, sponored by the South Australian Department of the Premier and Cabinet and with the assistance of a team of valued volunteers and raft of excellent presenters. TEDx Adelaide and TEDxYouth@Adelaide are held in November.

TEDx Adelaide

Kristin

The January topic  is “What’s in store for science during 2012?”. I’ve read plenty of articles which threaten collapse to many of our the current structures we take for granted – from climate and ecosystems, to new financial crises and the way we do business, to education and learning and to the way the internet functions.

Here’s some*:

• Why you should care about Twitter vs Google (Geoff Livingstone)
• Generation Flux: The new and chaotic frontier of business [Fast Company]
• Science and Big Data [The Atlantic]
• What Americans keep ignoring about Finland’s school success [The Atlantic]
• On Parenting, Science and Trust [The Mother Geek]
• Iceberg blocks Mawson tourists [ABC]

*Links are a selection only and any unstated notions of collapse are probably my own pessimistic perspective ;)

What’s on your radar? What do expect the big stories on science to be in 2012? What are the major issues, especially for how we continue to communicate science? This very broad topic will allow us all to present the issues that are front of mind for us this year and will serve to inform future topic themes. I’m anticipating you’ll mention at least the following:

• research funding
• science education (science enrolments and the national curriculum)
• filter bubbles and public understanding of science (especially the process of science and testable theories)
• bets on major “breakthroughs” that will be profiled in mainstream media
• open access/open science/science 2.0
• continuation of climate change, vaccination debates
• consciousness, neurobiology, the mind and the way we think

If there’s anything specific you’d like to add in advance, let me know. Otherwise see you at #onsci on Thursday 19th January at 9pm AEDT | 10am GMT | 5am EST

Kristin

In Why Religion is Natural and Science Is Not, Robert N. McCauley, one of the founding fathers of the cognitive science of religion, argues that our minds are better suited to religious belief than to scientific inquiry. Drawing on the latest research and illustrating his argument with commonsense examples, McCauley argues that religion has existed for many thousands of years in every society because the kinds of explanations it provides are precisely the kinds that come naturally to human minds. Science, on the other hand, is a much more recent and rare development because it reaches radical conclusions and requires a kind of abstract thinking that only arises consistently under very specific social conditions. Religion makes intuitive sense to us, while science requires a lot of work.

This description, read in conjunction with Craig Cormick’s talk (that we also explored last month – how values might make us reject science) is worrying – does religion make more sense?

Alternatively, there’s Sam Harris’s TED talk on how science can answer moral problems. Is there a role for science in guiding us to what is just and right?

As Christmas draws close we’ll explore the links between science and religion. How does faith intersect with science? Do atheism and science go hand-in-hand? What role might religion play in science and vice-versa?

And best yet – from supernovas to faster-than-light-travel – we’ll ask you to put forward your scientific theories to explain the stories of Christmas!

#onsci: Thursday 15th December: 9pm AEDT, 10am GMT, 5am EST

Sarah: Imagine you’re on Yorke Peninsula, a scrubby, unrefined corner of South Australia. Dead kangaroos on the roadside. The occasional emu. You drive to the end of a rough, gravelly road. It’s cool but sunny. You park the car at the base of a hill, and wander up a sandy pathway towards what you presume must be the ocean. You reach the top of the path, and the gusts of wind and salt coming off the sea take your breath away. The ocean is bright blues and greens, the wet sand so shiny it makes you squint. You shift your line of sight about 100 metres from the shoreline to see two jagged poles jutting out of the water. Must be a ship! And then you notice a placard in front of you. The text reads:

BLACK GEMS ON THE BEACH

Fill your beachcombing bucket with tokens of another place and time.

Stranded on this pristine white beach are chunks of 3-million year-old coal, castaways from a place thousands of kilometres distant.

With rough seas, the coal is released from the sunken hold of the steamer ‘Willyama’, which ran aground here in 1907 whilst en route from Newcastle, NSW to Port Pirie, SA.

There actually is no such sign*, but I wrote this piece after an inspiring workshop coordinated by Interpretation Australia, run by Susan Cross, last week^. These 50 words were developed over the course of the day, my best effort at capturing the pleasure I experience collecting pieces of coal with my children at Willyama Beach.  Every trip to this special place, we skip along the sand and imagine what it must have been like to be shipwrecked here over 100 years ago. I aimed to make other people want to do that too.

An earlier version was nowhere near as punchy:

COLLECTING COAL ON YORKE PENINSULA

Washed up on this pristine white beach are scattered chunks of coal which formed nearly 2000 kilometres away.

With rough seas, the coal is gradually released from the hold of the ship ‘Willyama’, which sank here in 1907 whilst travelling from Newscastle to Port Pirie.

By working through my piece of text, and based on lots of excellent theory and examples from Susan, I got rid of the passive voice (passive is evil!), introduced elements of the personal experience (use of ‘your’ in the opening sentence) and got the point across that these pieces of coal didn’t really belong on this beach, without giving a history and science lecture.

That’s interpretation! The art of creating powerful, appealing and memorable information which informs and inspires the general public. A new meaning to a term I was already familiar with. You’ll read interpretive signs in museums, art galleries, libraries, cemeteries, all over the place. And actually I think that what we often refer to as ‘science communication’ could also be included under the ‘interpretation’ umbrella. That’s why I’ve just become a member of Interpretation Australia, and I’m really looking forward to my first IA networking event in February 2012.

*the board that is really posted above this beach can be seen here

^Regan Forrest also attended the workshop, and has blogged about it here

Kristin

The Conversation has recently run series of articles on the State of Science a series in which Australia’s leading scientists give a “snapshot of their discipline”. The first article to kick off the series was by Australia’s Chief Scientist, Prof Ian Chubb on “Does Australia Care About Science?”. The series itself is recommended for its coverage of why do people reject science, how it’s imperfect, why communicate, and how to teach it. In reading these articles, I kept coming back to Prof Chubb’s question – do we care?

A recent ANU study found that Australians were more interested in science than sport, so perhaps we do care?

But why should we care? One reason might be found in Ben Goldacre’s TEDGlobal talk on Battling Bad Science. We’ll be showing that talk at this Saturday’s TEDxYouth@Adelaide (Book now if you’re 12-26!) alongside Janine Mackintosh‘s inspring talk on art and biodiversity, and Emily Steel‘s on how to tell science stories from TEDxAdelaide last weekend (will post links as soon available!). All three talks explain why we should care, but for vastly different reasons.

The recent responses from scientists I follow twitter to NHMRC and ARC funding success rates are other reasons why perhaps people should care. Plus Craig Cormick’s recent presentation broadcast on Radio National program Ockham’s Razor discussed the fact that a large number of people believe in psychic powers, UFOs, magic and similar things. Does this mean they don’t (or can’t!) care about science?

I think these ideas make for an interesting #onsci discussion, particularly whether we (as Australians and/or other nationalities) care about science, why or why not, and why should we? I’m hoping this discussion can go beyond “because it’s good for you like muesli” responses and pick up valid, urgent and important reasons to support the argument that we should care. So, some further questions to provoke your thinking:

• Do we care about science?
• Why should we care, what’s at stake?
• How might science engender empathy?

• Venessa Miemis (US), Emergent By Design (emergence, future of money, future of Facebook and social networking, design, insights on human connection)
• Ross Dawson (Aus), Trends in the Living Networks (future of cities, future of sex, networks, insights on human behaviour)
• Cindy Freewen Weller (US), Urbanverse (future of cities, architecture, design)
• Frank Spencer (US), Kedge Forward (corporate future, futures and design)
• Andy Hines (US), Hinesight (corporate futures, strategy, leadership)
• Jennifer Jarratt and John Mahaffie (US), Leading Futurists and Foresight Culture blog (corporate futures, strategy, leadership)
• Maree Conway (Aus), Thinking Futures (corporate futures, strategy, leadership)
• Stephen Tighe (Aus), Chasing Sunrises (corporate futures, future of cities)
• Linda Carroli & JM Armstrong (Aus), Harbinger Consultants (future of cities, place-making)