12 minute read
pagesSciTech
from Palatinate 833
by Palatinate
Science & Technology “Not cheerleading for science” A conversation with Dr Robert Sternberg
Durham alumnus Dr Robert Sternberg designed the MSc Science Media Production at Imperial College, London. He also teaches the MSc Science Communication, as well as making his own documentaries. Faye Saulsbury speaks to him about documentary-making, the anti-science zeitgeist, and maverick marine biologists.
Advertisement
Faye Saulsbury
Science & Technology Co-Editor
A good documentary
In 1998, after a career making educational films, Dr Sternberg joined the Science Communication Unit at Imperial. Just three years after that, he created the MSc Science Media Production. I ask him what makes a good documentary. “Your main responsibility is to tell a gripping story,” he says. “And to know how to make it gripping, you need to know your audience. The facts will be the same regardless, but it’s up to you to choose how to deploy them.”
He cautions against being “swept away by enthusiasm.” “The scientific process is not logical. We all have prejudices that affect the decisions we take, even when we are trying to be objective and logical. Scientists are no different. It’s important to depict the scientific process as accurately as possible.”
“But you can’t bewilder people, either,” he adds. This difficult balance between portraying the disagreements, U-turns and dead ends inherent to the production of science and creating a gripping storyline is what makes documentarymaking such “a nuanced form of journalism”.
According to Sternberg, it is also why “you can’t make films about really new science, because really new science is controversial. Producers like the BBC are scared of that.”
Maverick marine biologists
It turns out, however, that the science explored in Dr Sternberg’s most recent documentary is both quite new, and quite controversial.
It examines the work of the late Don Williamson. For those who are unfamiliar with the name, Sternberg describes Williamson as a “maverick marine biologist with outlandish ideas about evolution.”
Williamson believed that breeding between different animal phyla occurs on a regular basis, and his work was met with a lot of anger and resistance.
Williamson’s research was finally published after gaining the support of Lynn Margulis. Margulis was an evolutionary biologist known for her endosymbiotic theory of eukaryotic cell development. Although she ultimately came to be seen as quite the maverick herself, her influence was farreaching.
This, says Sternberg, highlights how nepotistic the scientific community is. “Everyone knows everyone, and editors and publishers already have preconceived views on your work.” No journal wants to be the first to publish controversial views, but with a bit of encouragement from a respected name, they might just change their mind.
By the time Dr Sternberg met him, Williamson was in his late 80s and wasn’t carrying out his own research. Sternberg made him a deal: he would continue Williamson’s work in the lab, and in return, Williamson would allow him to film it.
A seat of learning
Being in research settings has made Sternberg wonder if he should have gone into research himself. “My undergraduate degree at Durham was in zoology and botany – we didn’t have biology in those days. I remember going out to spoil heaps and doing botanical examinations. I had a fantastic time. Durham University was, at the time, doing a lot of work to clean up pollution caused by mining.”
Although he has not been back to Durham recently, it is clear his memories of his time here are fond. “Durham is an historical seat of learning. The science was excellent. I loved the town; I loved how you could walk everywhere. I think I even took some photographs for Palatinate. And in 1981, my first year, the River Wear froze!”
But scandalous rent prices, it seems, were as aggravating then as they are now. “Over the duration of my degree, rent increased from £7 per week to £11 per week. We were outraged!” He chuckles. Some things never change.
But while he valued his academic studies at Durham, Sternberg eventually chose television after graduating. “As a journalist, I sometimes feel like a parasite. I’m in the room watching, but I’m not creating the knowledge.”
Still, Sternberg doesn’t regret his career path. He stresses that “there is a great need for writers and communicators with a scientific background. There are so many scientists now, we need their work to be communicated accurately.”
Reflecting on the scientific process
And where better for students with a scientific background to learn than at Imperial? I first heard about the course from an editor at The Lancet, who told me that if I was interested in science communication, Imperial was the place to go. I ask Dr Sternberg what makes Imperial’s course so outstanding. I am surprised when he gives much credit to the students. “A lot of students who come to do the MSc Science Communication have research backgrounds – a lot of them have PhDs. But they feel
disenfranchised with the world of research. It’s hard to get funding, and it’s hard to be paid a decent salary. They want to stay attached to science, but they don’t want to continue with research.” He goes on: “although the MSc Science Communication at Imperial is a practical degree, it is not just about learning how to use the technology. Any broadcasting job can teach you that. The course, fundamentally, is about reflecting upon the scientific process, and learning how to represent it. It is about understanding the social impact of science.”
When I ask what he thinks about the recent politicisation of science, Sternberg corrects me. “The political debates surrounding climate change and Covid-19 are not novel.” “There have always been sceptics of science. Which ideas get promoted, funded and published – that’s political. The politicisation of science is not new.”
That’s why presenting science in a clear, accurate way is so important.
Aside from documentarymaking, museum curation, and charity work, Dr Sternberg says, “many Science Communication graduates go on to work in policy – parliament, The Wellcome Trust, the Royal Society. There is resistance to empirical evidence in policymaking and law.”
Advice for applicants
So, what advice can Sternberg give to students applying for MSc Science Communication? “More than anything, you need to prove interest in communication – student newspapers, photography, videos, podcasts. It’s so easy to do any of these things on your phone, there’s no excuse to not include them. It doesn’t have to be about science.”
As a journalist, I sometimes feel like a parasite
I joke that he must see a lot of David Attenborough references; he interrupts. “Don’t mention David Attenborough! Everyone’s watched David Attenborough. Saying you watched David Attenborough when you were a kid is not evidence of your interest!”
This leads him to a more serious conclusion. “Science communication is not cheerleading for science,” says Sternberg. “You have to be able and willing to see it how it is. If you idealise science and present it in an unrealistic fashion, you’re in danger of feeding the antiscience zeitgeist.”
SciTech Covid-19 vaccine reported to be 90% effective
Elise Garcon
Science & Technology Co-Editor
With the cautious celebration of the first effective Covid-19 vaccine this week, normal life almost seems within reach. Despite remaining questions about it, scientists are generally accepting the new drug with optimism, some suggesting that life could resume some semblance of normality by spring.
The announcement comes from New York City-based company Pfizer, and is the first vaccine to go from development to effective in such a short amount of time. Its 90% effectiveness rate is unprecedented; regulators have previously said that a vaccine with an effectiveness of around 50% would be approved, making the Pfizer vaccine all the more compelling. The RNA vaccine is the first of its type to be approved for human
Dasha Scanlan-Oumow
Boris Johnson’s second lockdown is making many of us worry about Christmas. Will we be able to see our family? Will Granny and Grandpa be forced to join via Zoom? What if we can’t get to those naff shops we only ever visit the day before Christmas when you’re desperately trying to find anything, anything will do, for your 14 year-old cousins?
And whilst our worries seem very relevant, across the sea and towards the Northern Lights, a very different series of worries are going through the minds of Sami reindeer herders as they prepare themselves for yet another winter that may turn out catastrophically. catastrophically In 2013, 63,000 reindeer on the Russian Yamal peninsula starved to death. The cause? Climate change. Reindeer are expertly adapted for life in the extreme cold, and the Arctic is their perfect playground. Long cold winters with metres of snow coverage barely holds them back from foraging for tasty lichens which can easily sustain the large herds throughout the winter. And yet as our planet slowly warms, permafrost melts just a little more, and sea levels creep up, it seems another victim of this ruthless tirade could end our use, and, like others in production, targets the spike proteins on the virus’ surface. The shot holds the messenger RNA which encodes this protein, and causes our own cells to synthesise it.
The vaccine maintains an immunological memory against the virus
Alone, the protein is harmless but trains the human immune system to produce antibodies against it, without causing illness. This maintains an immunological memory that can fight the actual virus. The trials are not yet complete: so far around 43,538 participants have taken part, and 94 cases of Covid-19 have been identified. The trial will continue until 164 Covid-19 cases occur, so there is still a way to go, and questions remain.
It is still unclear what level of disease the vaccine can protect fairy-tale stories of Christmas. to death
The cause of these deaths are known as ‘rain-on-snow’ events. The result of global temperatures rising and winters warming up, even just a couple days warmer weather results in rain, instead of snow. When this rain falls on the snow cover, it turns to ice. And no matter how well adapted the reindeer are at pushing through snow with their antlers or hooves to get to their food below, they just can’t get through ice. And these once-rare ‘rain-on-snow’ events are only getting more and more frequent. As winter temperatures tiptoe up past 0°C, and venture into the positives, these events will have massive impacts on the ability of these animals to find sufficient grazing in the winter months. more frequent
And yet research is suggesting that reindeer might even be key weapons against climate change. Studies focusing on the effect of grazing suggest land where reindeer have passed through, increases the amount of light reflected off the surface of the Earth, or to put it scientifically, increases the albedo. How does this prevent climate change? Well, reindeer browse back tall against. If, in the future, severe symptoms are seen in the placebo group, it would suggest that the vaccine can prevent such cases, but none have arisen yet. It is also unknown if the vaccine is transmission-blocking, where it would prevent asymptomatic patients from spreading the virus. If this was so, the end of the pandemic could be even sooner than predicted. However, this is difficult to determine, and would involve testing a larger sample size of patients.
Government officials have released a priority list of those who will receive the vaccine first, with older care home residents at the top of the list, but efficacy in these and other specific demographic groups, such as shrubs and dark, bushy grasses, leaving vegetation with a higher reflectivity. Generally, dark surfaces reflect a low amount of solar energy, whereas light surfaces have a high reflection rate. This is hugely important in the maintenance of permafrost throughout the Arctic. The higher the albedo, the more light reflected, and the less solar energy being absorbed by the cold Arctic soils. Cold soils mean a cold permafrost, and a cold permafrost means carbon
(Anna Kuptsova)
over-65s, is unknown. Pfizer have stated that 42% of participants have “racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds”.
The lasting protection of the vaccine can only be discovered over time. If the immunity doesn’t last, then it may have to be administered once a year, like the flu jab. Both the US and UK celebrated the news but urged citizens to remain cautious and continue following lockdown restrictions.
There are also logistical issues with the vaccine. Low income countries are unlikely to be able to store it without the infrastructure to maintain the -70°C temperature that the vaccine needs to stabilize. This poses problems for storing it at GPs or health centres. stays locked up and doesn’t get released into the atmosphere. All very good things for our planet. change
And so this paradoxical cycle, of climate change dragging down reindeer numbers and reduced reindeer numbers negatively impacting climate change, continues. So, as a plea going out
Despite these unanswered questions, we will know soon if the vaccine is approved, as Pfizer is seeking an emergency use authorization from the FDA in the third week of November. The UK government has secured 40 million doses, with 10 million due before the end of the year, if no problems arise.
Both the US and UK urged citizens to remain cautious and continue following lockdown
Although some scientists are optimistic, others cast doubts on the Easter date for normalcy. Jonathan Van-Tam, the deputy chief medical officer for England, stressed the uncertainty of the situation, but said he was “Very hopeful of [a transition back to
Is climate change killing Santa’s helpers?
normal life] over time”.
to everyone this Christmas. For all those thinking of making New Year’s Resolutions to cut down on your carbon footprint or be slightly more ecologically aware. Spare a thought for our reindeer and our planet, the two go hand in hand.
GOT AN IDEA FOR AN ARTICLE? WE’D LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU!
Send your thoughts to scitech@palatinate.org.uk
