Science Communication Conference 2013 by Science Communication Conference

Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................................4 Networking.....................................................................................................................................5 Introduction to science communication..................................................................................6 Welcome and keynote address.................................................................................................8 Hail to the chief: experts, publics and the future of scientific advice...................................10 Science on TV................................................................................................................................12

Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x;s the true cost of free?.......................................................................................................14 Dialogue LIVE!................................................................................................................................16 Asking for evidence: What do people ask and how should we respond?..........................18 Working with arts festivals.............................................................................................................20 Developing sustainable science communication enterprises................................................22 Young (science) apprentice........................................................................................................24

The physics of beer........................................................................................................................26 W(h)ither the future of science communication?....................................................................28 The challenges of measuring informal science learning.........................................................30 One message, many voices........................................................................................................32 How not to present science........................................................................................................34 Bridging theory and practice......................................................................................................36

Citizen science..............................................................................................................................38 Evaluating online engagement: Practical and critical...........................................................40 Engaging visitors through scientific discovery...........................................................................42 Keep calm and carry on: Practical tips on how to cope when public engagement events go wrong........................................................................................................................................44 Inclusive initiatives.........................................................................................................................46 Working with sponsors...................................................................................................................48 Unconference: Over to you........................................................................................................50 Science soapbox...........................................................................................................................51 About us..........................................................................................................................................53

Introduction

Hello and welcome to the report from the 2013 Science Communication Conference. This document aims to collect together the main points from the Conference and point to further useful reading elsewhere. Each session from the Conference is represented by a summary written by an attendee and edited by Louise Ogden from the British Science Association. The Science Communication Conference was held on 16 and 17 May 2013 at Kings Place, London. You can find further content (such as blogs) on the British Science Association website and you can view the presentations from the Conference on our Slideshare channel The organisers of the Conference would like to thank all the people that came together to make it such a success â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the speakers and session organisers, the staff at the venue as well as the delegates themselves. Weâ&#x20AC;&#x;d also like to thank our colleagues at the British Science Association who supported the Conference and a special thanks to our partners, the Wellcome Trust, for their financial assistance and their expertise in helping us form the programme. We hope you enjoy reading the report, Alice, Monica and Toby Science in Society British Science Association July 2013

Networking

Networking remains one of the main motivations for delegates attending the Science Communication Conference and to facilitate this, the 2013 programme featured the following networking opportunities: • Pre-conference mixer – Science Showoff at the Star of Kings pub. This lively, anarchic open-mic night encouraged participants to talk about their latest project, demonstrate an experiment or just sit and watch with a drink. • Speed networking organised by James Roberts of Shark Tank Consulting. Give every delegate a Scrabble tile with a letter on it and let the game begin! The task was to join up with other delegates to make the longest possible word, whilst chatting and making new connections on the way. The winners were: • Zoopathogenesis (15 letters) • Quantitative (12 letters) • Exoskeletons (12 letters) • Science soapbox – giving delegates the chance to chat about their own project for a few minutes to raise their profile, float new ideas and get feedback. • The lonely hearts boards made their second appearance at the Conference, a central point for people to advertise a new project, job vacancy or opportunity to collaborate. • The first day of the Conference closed with a drinks reception enabling delegates to continue chatting over a glass of wine.

Introduction to science communication • • •

Speaker: Karen Bultitude, UCL Chair: Sue Hordijenko, British Science Association Report written by: Louise Croft, University College London, Institute of Child Health

PICTURE GOES HERE

To kick-start the conference this year Karen Bultitude, Director of Research for the Department of Science and Technology at UCL, gave delegates an overview of the fundamental concepts underlying science communication – what, why, who and how? – ending with a jargon-busting finale. When considering what we mean by science communication, Karen emphasised, “it‟s not just about telling people stuff”, and that there are three different forms of communication, each with their own aim. Transmitting involves the unidirectional passage of information from science communicator to receiving audience. It aims to inspire, inform, change, educate or influence public groups. Receiving also involves the unidirectional transfer of information, but in the other direction. It therefore aims to transfer views, experiences, skills or knowledge from public groups to inform science communicators. Examples include service-user questionnaires and citizen science projects. The hybrid of these two forms of communication, which is growing ever more popular, is collaboration; the bidirectional flow of information (or dialogue) between scientists and public groups. Collaboration allows scientists and non-scientists to consider, create or decide something together. It can take several forms, such as public consultation or online chat-rooms.

In order to choose the best communication strategy for a project, it is important to reflect on why we want to communicate. A complex web diagram (link below) “certainly not designed for power point” provided a good overview of the many purposes of science communication. By reflecting on our own motivations, and the motivations of other science communicators, we can appreciate the value (and limitations) of different communication strategies for achieving different goals. Who you want to communicate with will also influence your choice of science communication strategy. Karen emphasised that “there is no such thing as the general public!” To make science communication work effectively, and to maximise its reach, it is important to target specific groups within the „general‟ public. The public can be segmented into subcultures according to endless variables; occupation, age, religion, ethnicity, etc. Each group will benefit from having its own tailored approach to science communication (depending on the brief). Karen provided a wealth of resources offering a foot hold for any aspiring science communicator. These included a how-to-guide from the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement and a very useful online booklet from Vitae, providing plenty of ammo to convince the not-so-convinced of the value of public engagement. The British Science Association website also provides many practical guides on their Science in Society pages; a repository of useful information.

For those looking for hands-on science communication experience, several exciting events were highlighted. STEMNET is a national charity supporting school outreach, providing the contacts to help you take science to the young minds of tomorrow. Cafe Scientifique, SciBar and SciCafe all provide a forum for public discussion between academics and non-academics. Karen also highlighted FameLab for those with an appetite for the limelight; in Turkey, it‟s “bigger than Pop Idol”. Those brave enough to try a hand at stand-up should sign up for Bright Club; where science meets comedy. As a grand finale, Karen busted some jargon; PES, PEST, PUS, REF, PE, BIS, RCUK, STEM and STEAM. The term to avoid, apparently, is PUS. Not only does it sound grim, but it stands for Public Understanding of Science; but as we just learnt, science communication aims to engage, not educate.

Further reading: • How-to-guide from the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement • Online booklet from Vitae • Science in Society – British Science Association • Slides from presentation • Purposes of public engagement diagram

Welcome and keynote address • •

Speakers: Imran Khan, British Science Association; Brian Cox, University of Manchester; Alok Jha, The Guardian Report author: Amy Hayward, University of Aberdeen

PICTURE GOES HERE

Kicking off the Science Communication Conference this year, Imran Khan – the Association's new Chief Executive – began with a swift but flattering address to the crowd. Suitably enthused, the session moved on to a discussion between Professor Brian Cox, of the University of Manchester, and Alok Jha, science reporter from the Guardian, about the importance of public engagement with science. A man well known for his own science communication, and shiny hair, Professor Brian Cox needed little introduction. After denying having any involvement with the glorious Higgs-Boson particle (with a smile and a shake of the head), Cox went on to discuss some of his own projects in depth. In his account, Cox told of how often communicating research to the public can be something people fall into rather than directly choose. Whatever the way you get into the work, however, there's real value in it, he insisted. The public need to know what science is doing right now, for the benefit of themselves as well as for research funding. Communicating the real timescale of large international projects is also something that is often struggled with, and needs to be addressed. People understand that science takes time, Cox said of these projects, citing quantum mechanics as an example. Nobody could doubt its importance, despite its slow progression. Cox himself admits that his initial interest in science communication was to save the funding for blue-sky projects in physics. Cox pushed his way to the front of the battle, intending to show government officials how taking away from this research could have a tangible impact.

With the funding issues resolved, Cox realised the fight was far from over and that's why he continues to be involved in science communication to this day. As he said: "Motivations change over time, don't they? Now it underlines why I became a scientist in the first place, and why it's attractive... I've remembered why I loved the show „Cosmos: A Personal Voyage‟ so very much.“ So why carry out science communication if many scientists don't value this work as much as they should? It's important to remember that times are changing – universities are increasingly realising the importance of engagement as impact assessments start to highlight the need for science to be spoken about. Research is no longer just about sitting in a lab, because how can any finding be important if you never tell anyone about it?

Those who criticise this work are perhaps missing the point, because it's about getting the public invested in science once more. The real question isn't whether other scientists like what you do, but whether what you do matters. And it does matter, because science communication can change government policy. The interesting thing is, the need to invest in a knowledge economy is blatantly obvious to the scientific community (even if engagement is not), but this insight has yet to reach the upper echelons of government. The perception is arguably still that standing up and supporting more science won't be a vote winner. So communication can also remind everyone that investing in science is a must. With such success in large-scale projects, it's easy to wonder whether funding is being taken away from smaller "grassroots" projects in favour of shiny TV science. Cox is fairly certain this isn't the case, as BBC shows are largely funded externally and presented to an international audience. We can try to be better but defining excellence in science communication is like trying to define excellence in research. "Measurements of that kind are so difficult," Cox added. The success of a project will depend on the aims of those involved, and so will the future of science communication.

Edward Duca (@DwardD): ““The step into Sci comm was easy because it was an accident " #scicomm13 @profbriancox”

Hail to the chief: Experts, publics and the future of scientific advice • • •

Speakers: James Wilsdon , Alice Bell, both Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex; Robert Doubleday, Centre for Science and Policy, University of Cambridge Chair: Jack Stilgoe, UCL Report author: Julie Gould, Imperial College

PICTURE GOES HERE

Sir Mark Walport has recently taken on his new role as the Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA), and he‟s got a lot on his plate. With changing governments, financial issues and uncertainties of how to deal with evidence-based policy, James Wilsdon, Alice Bell and Robert Doubleday gave their input of what important factors need to be addressed. James Wilsdon started the session with a whistle stop tour of a new book, „Future directions for scientific advice in Whitehall‟, a collection of essays from a stellar cast of contributors exploring how science policy is determined, and some advice they have for Mark Walport. One topic he touched on was the use of experts as intermediaries, saying that there is a whole ecosystem of experts involved in the decision-making processes. The CSA is the charismatic mega fauna, but what about the other decision makers? These roles need to be better understood. Before that, you need to know what an expert is: who decides who the experts are?; which disciplines count?; where do you draw the line? His advice was to use the rear view mirror; the history of science has a lot to offer on what works, and what doesn‟t. Through these lenses, Wilsdon advised Walport to “build on Beddington‟s legacy.” Alice Bell then took to the stage to raise “a sceptical eyebrow” to the title of the session: hail to the chief. As a continuing hierarchical structure of society persists, Bell questioned: should we be hailing chiefs, or should we be questioning them instead? This boils down to the deficit model of communication, which assumes the public lacks scientific knowledge. It has its attractions, according to Bell. For a start, scientists are paid to become experts, and if they want to tell other people about what they have learned, who is to stop them? Sharing knowledge is nothing but a good thing, right?

But, its faults seem to outweigh the positives, she argued. It only serves those who are in the know; you are only cultured if you know about science. One way to balance this deficit model is to question the people at the top, which relies on people being open and transparent about what they do. Bell mentioned the Science Media Centre, hoping that the public, and the scientists, will push the SMC to be more open, in a meaningful way. On this topic, Bell recalled her visit to the Big Bang Fair earlier in 2013, when she overheard volunteers being briefed to not talk about the politics. “I have never heard so much bulls**t!” It was a story to inspire us to open debate, engage with the public: “Yes its great to have a top down model, but you need to see it in context. It‟s your job to keep them honest.” Her take home message was for science communicators not to turn into science PR machines, but instead use the opportunities to be more critical. To finish the session, Robert Doubleday focussed on what it means to be CSA and the drawbacks of the title. Doubleday stressed that science is at the heart of decision-making, and by appointing someone from outside of academia as a CSA, it brings science policy and the outside world closer together. He did say, however, that the role does bring attention to the connections between the intermediary, the science and the politics, and obscures what actually needs to be discussed.

Doubleday suggested using a “richer set of intermediary processes that operate at different levels.” He said they needed to ensure that they are effective in government, and operate to bring a wide variety of evidence and knowledge to different levels in government. Several questions following the panel discussion were directed at Bell, asking her to elaborate on her comment about SMC, and her tales of the volunteers at the Big Bang Fair. She was careful to mention that she had nothing against the SMC, “I don‟t think it‟s evil, I just think it could be more open.” As for the Big Bang story, one questioner was shocked, and another mentioned that they had a similar experience at an event happening during the summer.

The badger cull debates were also brought up, to see what we could learn from the policy decisions made there. Doubleday offered this in response, “science isn‟t straightforward. Politics isn‟t straightforward.”

Further reading: • Alice Bell‟s view on the debate • Future directions for scientific advice in Whitehall • Julie Gould‟s Storify of the panel session

Science on TV • • •

Speakers: Helen Czerski, University of Southampton; Jill Fullerton-Smith, Channel 4; John Farren, 360production Chair: Iain Dodgeon, Wellcome Trust Report author: Louise Croft, University College London, Institute of Child Health

PICTURE GOES HERE

Commissioning science content for TV broadcast is no easy task. Not only is there too much science for airtime, but breathing life into abstract and complex concepts is an art form in itself. So what are the secrets to successful science on TV? Commissioning editors search for hot topics, with the primary aim of entertaining not communicating. It‟s important to pick something that‟s “going to give you bums-on-seats”, explained Jill Fullerton-Smith, Commissioning Editor in science for Channel 4. To do this, TV makers watch the news closely, foraging the crème de la crème of science stories. Timing and relevance are crucial. As such, ideas are kept in an incubator - just waiting to happen when the time is right. Once the content has been decided, success lies in weaving a compelling story. Fullerton-Smith explained that “working in science TV, it‟s your job to make the science come alive. It‟s like being a painter…it‟s the most magical job”. Making science come alive, apparently, requires three special ingredients; narrative, character and emotion. The narrative is crucial to any story. According to producer John Farren, good science films are “beautifully crafted journeys”. They carry the audience along, from beginning to end. The good news is that having a layer of science underneath any story makes it immediately irresistible to the audience, said Fullerton-Smith. The trick is, maintaining the interest: if the audience doesn‟t understand one word – one word – in the first five minutes of a science production, you‟ve lost them. The main measure of success for any new science production is „what didn‟t you understand?‟ Broadcasters therefore take painstaking efforts to ensure every word is carefully planned to be just right.

Finally, no story would be complete without the character and emotion of a lead protagonist. The hero of the story may be a science heavy-weight (such as Professor Brian Cox) or an „I-don‟t-do-science‟ rock star (see the award winning Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives). Either way, a good science presenter takes the audience along with them, on their personal journey of discovery. Add to this a heavy pinch of personality, passion and quirkiness of course. Helen Czerski, a broadcaster herself, believes these last three qualities are particularly important, “because the science itself is just not cool enough for TV”. While narrative, emotion and character are critical for science on TV, online channels play by their own rules. Here, brevity and relevance are more important than rich production and a compelling story. With online science communication “we can do pure science”, Farren explained. YouTube channels, such as HeadSqueeze, have subscribers – they all love science – so they will all watch pure science. The saviour of factual content online is therefore pure education – putting science in the centre. This, Farren explained, is the difference between broadcast and narrowcast media. Broadcast and narrowcast media both play a crucial role in communicating science to public groups; one through beautiful stories, the other through bite-size chunks of information. Professor Brian Cox praised TV as the “shop window” for advertising science to young people, and as the main medium for (mass) communication with the public, TV holds the power to place science firmly within popular culture, alongside music, film and art – just where it should be.

Lucy Harper (@LucyHarper): Emotion, character and narrative are what makes TV, not the subject – Jill FullertonSmith #scicomm13

Further reading: • HeadSqueeze Youtube channel

What’s the true cost of free? • • •

Speakers: Savita Custead, Bristol Natural History Consortium; Debbie Syrop, science made simple; Jamie Gallagher, University of Glasgow. Chair: Timandra Harkness, writer and comedian Report author: Rachel Hagen, University of the West of England

PICTURE GOES HERE

This session focussed on the benefits and challenges associated with a range of free events. Despite each speaker having experience in different areas of public engagement, Savita Custead running the Bristol Festival of Nature, Debbie who runs workshops for schools and Jamie Gallagher who is a part time science communicator alongside working towards his PhD, there were a number of common threads highlighted below. Savita started the discussion off with highlighting some advantages of running a free event. As the Bristol Nature Festival is free there is no pressure from the point of box office numbers. “Essentially it doesn't matter if anyone shows up to the event as the event has already been paid for” she said, and this can reduce pressure associated with running a free event. In addition there are less administrative duties as there is no need to deal with issuing/refunding tickets. Jamie described his experience of working as a part time science communicator. Free events can help build communication skills, improves a CV, aids networking and provides a positive experience. Along with the advantages of running a free event there are also challenges. There is the obvious lost opportunity to generate income. Savita also touched on the fact that the absence of tickets can result in a missed opportunity to capture data about the audience and affects the ability to accurately evaluate the event. Debbie spoke of her experience of high dropout rates amongst schools with free events. This may be due to the reduced value placed on making sure the event goes ahead. An additional problem she identified was that even if the event goes ahead, a free event may not result in any support from the school as there is no investment from them.

The key challenge that was experienced by all was the concept of value. They have observed that generally if an event is free there is a decreased perception of value from the audience. Some suggestions on how to combat the notion of value to a free event were offered. Debbie suggested charging a nominal fee or having payment in kind (e.g. the show is free as long as feedback is provided). The relationship between the provider and audience is also instrumental in ensuring a successful outcome. If the audience knows the event is high quality the cost does not influence their perception of value. For school events it is important to understand what the school/teacher wants. Savita also suggested that special offers or discounts can improve perception of value.

Jamie also spoke of the struggle of the transition from conducting free events to paid events. Paid science communicators are in competition with volunteers who will work for free to gain experience. There is still some resistance from schools/events paying for science communicators with some not appreciating a presenterâ&#x20AC;&#x;s experience and the time it has taken to master science communication. To finish the session questions were taken from the audience with a number touching on the concept of value and cost. It seems to be human nature that we value products based on how much they cost.

@thepermanator: How to get audiences to value a free event? its about how you sell it. They value discussion, participation & entertainment too #scicomm13

@TheVintageDoc: Doing free activities doesn't always progress a researcher's career, but need to fight corner for paid work #scicomm13

Further reading: â&#x20AC;˘ Session presentation

Dialogue LIVE! • • •

Speakers: Edward Andersson, Sciencewise; Pippa Hyam, Sciencewise; Suzannah Lansdell, Sciencewise Chair: Roland Jackson, Sciencewise Report author: Katie Nightingale, The Roslin Insitute, University of Edinburgh

PICTURE GOES HERE

This session was run by Sciencewise, a resource centre for public dialogue funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It helps policy makers to use public dialogue to inform policy decisions. It also offers training and advice in public dialogue and co-funds public dialogue initiatives. Roland Jackson, Executive Chair for Sciencewise, introduced the idea of a dialogue and engagement specialist. These specialists have expertise in public engagement often involving contentious issues, such as genetic modification, and work with government departments and research councils. They are a “catalyst for public dialogue within the policy making realm”. They bring the public together with researchers and policy makers to have informative conversations, usually around ethical issues. The output of public dialogue is to inform policy makers to make better decisions that reflect the public‟s views. Edward Andersson, a dialogue manager, showed the audience a video of one of the members of the Sciencewise citizen group who had taken part in an open data dialogue. The video showed the citizen group member giving his thoughts and views on the experience of contributing to the dialogue. The overall impression of this video was that the member came into the process fairly sceptical, but got “real value” out of the session at the end. One of his major concerns was a confidentiality issue; he didn‟t want his opinions to be shared, which was slightly surprising considering the topic of discussion. There are two main problems in creating public dialogue – firstly, many members of the public only see the merit of dialogue after going through the process, and secondly, finding the money to do it, which means companies rely on their own staff, despite their lack of training or knowhow, to deliver dialogue sessions.

The first round of discussion was opened up to the audience asking them to discuss what matters most when it comes to open data. A series of statements were placed on each table, and each group were asked to pick the ones they felt were the most important. Examples of the statements used are “public data will be widely compatible and should not require specialist equipment or expensive software to access”, “data used in government websites will be made freely available” and “researchers may have a short period of exclusive access to their data, allowing them to formally publish their results before making the data public”. The next round of discussion focussed on a case study detailing whether data gathered under public funding should be released to industry (case study linked below). The case study highlighted that things aren‟t always as clear cut as they may seem. Open access was seen to be a good thing from the first discussion, but had its pitfalls in the second discussion. Trying to emanate public dialogue with the audience was more difficult as the majority of the room were a fairly homogenous group of academics/researchers and so discussions in tables were fairly similar. Public dialogue usually encompasses a more diverse range of people that often form opinions from their experiences in their own lives. A dialogue taster toolkit was handed out to everyone in the audience containing information on dialogue, some case studies, plans of how to run sessions and facilitate public dialogue. It was also suggested that the toolkit could be used outside the area of policy making such as in institutes and doctoral training centres. One question raised was how the toolkit can be used to help researchers to become involved in policy making. The answer given emphasised the need for researchers to be an active part of dialogue. Nancy Mendoza: .@science_wise dialogue necessarily includes publics brought together with policy and science to discuss, debate, and conclude #scicomm13

Rachel Hagen: Citizens bring lots of experience to dialogue and heterogeneous background and there is a lot of diversity #dialogueLIVE #scicomm13

Further reading: • Sciencewise website • Open Data 2013 • RCUK Open Data Case Studies • Session presentation

Asking for evidence: What do people ask and how should we respond? • • •

Speakers: Jennie Evans, Freelance; Chris Flower, Cosmetics Toiletry and Perfumery Association; Síle Lane, Sense About Science Chair: Simon Denegri, NIHR Report author: Angharad Watson, Cardiff University

The floor was first given to Síle Lane, of Sense About Science, who elaborated on their Ask for Evidence campaign. This campaign aims to give everyone the tools to interrogate claims about health products, beauty treatments, therapies, food supplements or anything that makes a promise about having a particular effect. Sense About Science has an ever-growing database of experts whom they can call upon when a member of the public contacts them with a specific question. Questions they have so far received include midwives requesting advice on the safety of plasticisers in babies‟ bottles, local education authorities who are worried about the potential risks of WiFi hotspots in schools, and even an individual querying the hygiene implications of peeing in the shower (the expert view on this is that it‟s ok as long as you keep plenty of water running through). Within all these separate messages, Síle made it clear that the mantra of Sense About Science is: “the status of the evidence is as important as the finding”, so if the answer to a question is: “there have been a few small studies, but we don‟t really know for certain,” then that‟s the answer they give. Equally, assessing the “status of the evidence” allows a controversial new finding to be put into context – is it a rogue result, or a paradigm shift? The Ask for Evidence campaign encourages the public to directly challenge individuals and organisations about claims they have made, and assess the “status of the evidence” themselves. This has had a range of results, from causing Planet Organic to revise their leaflets to remove unfounded claims that wheatgrass can remove toxins from blood, to giving the Terrence Higgins Trust a welcome opportunity to clarify a statement taken out of context, when the Daily Mail quoted them as saying that the 2012 Olympics would make London the “STD capital of the world”. Sometimes the requests have less positive outcomes; one requestor was overwhelmed when a request for evidence from GSK resulted in a “data dump” of 18 470 peer-reviewed studies arriving on his doorstep.

The problem of how to present evidence effectively to the public, without making GSK‟s mistake, was one discussed in detail by the other two speakers. Jennie Evans spoke from the point of view of researchers, who, often funded by charities or the public, have a responsibility to fully engage the public with their work. She gave a great deal of practical advice, including seeking training and support in communication, and a constant reminder to be aware of the audience. A request for evidence from a potentially vulnerable patient requires a very different response to a request from a policy maker. When dealing with media misconceptions, she advised rapid, accurate and measured responses via letters to editors, press releases or online comments sections. Maintain a consistent online presence by putting statements released to the media on your own website, and always be mindful of the long term view. Finally, she echoed Síle‟s mantra, requesting that researchers put their own work into context by explaining the “status of the evidence” and being clear on where the limitations of their study were, and honestly admitting if they don‟t know the answer. Chris Flower, a toxicologist by training, represented yet another facet of the debate, that of the cosmetics industry. While funded by companies, Chris was keen to highlight that the CTPA was a trade association, not a PR firm, with its main focus being the encouragement of best practice amongst the ~4000 companies they represent (85% of the market value). They support Sense About Science‟s campaign, and have recently started to be proactive in public engagement. They have launched a website called www.thefactsabout.co.uk, aimed at the general public, which aims to provide clear, concise information on topics related to the cosmetics industry, with clickable links for more detailed information such as safety reports and legislation. Questions and comments at the end of the session focussed on the challenges faced in communicating research without over-hyping or over-simplifying (a great tip from Síle Lane was to talk about your research in terms of “What problem did you solve?”) , and included a representative from Alzheimer‟s Research UK highlighting their plans for an online virtual lab to help the public better understand the bench-to-bedside process, which would be another tool to help them assess the “status of the evidence”. @BenValsler: "Inoculate people against [medical] claims" by informing them of the questions to ask. As important as communicating the science #scicomm13

Working with arts festivals • • •

Speakers: Ellen Dowell, Green Man Festival; Donna Renney, Cheltenham Festivals; Rosie Turner, British Arts Festivals Association; Andrea Sella, UCL; Jen Wong, Guerrilla Science Chair: Frank Burnet, UWE Report author: Ginny Smith, Freelance

The session on working with arts festivals took the form of a panel discussion, with questions from the audience. The first speaker, Ellen Dowell, explained the success of Einstein‟s Garden at Green Man Festival. This is a space given over to engaging people who might not normally go to science events in a fun and interactive way. The criteria for the selected acts specifies that they must be creative and engaging, with a focus placed on aesthetics, to ensure that the experience is more than just one of learning. One example Dowell gave of an act that had worked well in the past was from a group of roaming performers who recreated the accidents that caused people‟s scars – she explained that this was very effective because it was personal and interactive, and played on people‟s emotions. She sees Einstein‟s Garden as a testing area for new, brave approaches, and stressed the importance of collaboration between scientists, science communication professionals, and artists, something that was a running theme in this session. Donna Renney spoke next, about the development of the science programme at Cheltenham Festivals, since it was added in 2002. Again the importance of collaboration between scientists and artists was mentioned. However, she acknowledged that this is not always easy, and that good communication is vital. Rosie Turner from the British Arts Festivals Association discussed the addition of science to the Canterbury Festival. The science programme is only in its third year, and they have been trialling different structures. In the first year, they had one central science venue, and it was very successful, but the second year they decided to try having fewer talks, and spreading the science throughout different art form areas. This reached more people, but the lack of a big name was a drawback to this approach. This year they are reverting to an approach more similar to the first, with more big names as well as input from local scientists. She found that the audience at Canterbury was a limiting factor when it came to more inventive 20 ideas – they are very traditional and as such tend not to explore different areas.

Andrea Sella, a chemist from UCL, told the audience a personal story about the tension between arts and science in his family, which spurred him to get involved in projects attempting to combine the two. He stumbled into presenting, and enjoys festivals as they provide a new audience. He talked about some art/science crossover projects that he has seen to be successful, such as using mercury and a laser to produce beautiful patterns. Finally Jen Wong from Guerrilla Science told the audience about some of their art/science projects. Guerrilla Science aim to mix art, science and play in unorthodox ways and unusual places. They use immersive experiences to target adults who are not scientists. They aim to put scientists centre stage, but audience participation is key. One recent project at Glastonbury Festival offered people the chance to go through a „decontamination chamber‟ (talking to microbiologists on the way) with people in biohazard suits carrying wetwipes! The idea is to open up a dialogue, and get people talking about science. Throughout the talks, and the Q+A session at the end, ideas were raised about why science and art should collaborate. It was suggested that because art can tap into emotions in a way that most science does not, science communicators should use this to their advantage. The point was made that the aim for many communicators is to show that science is part of culture rather than something separate. Science and art crossovers can help bridge the gap to people who “don‟t do science”, and show them that they use science every day without realising it. The difficulty comes in judging whether these collaborations are actually doing any good, or even what is meant by “good”. No matter how these events are evaluated, the key message that came out of the session was that cooperation between scientists and artists can open up a whole new world of science communication.

Further reading: • Mercury and laser experiment • Storify by Ginny Smith • Session presentations: • Donna Renney‟s presentation • Jen Wong‟s presentation

Developing sustainable science communication enterprises • • •

Speakers: Emma Mortoo, School for Social Entrepreneurs; Kay Yeoman, UEA; Heather Rea, University of Edinburgh; Phil Smith, Teacher Scientist Network; Sophia Collins, Freelancer Chair: Chloe Sheppard, Wellcome Trust Report author: Liz Granger, University of Manchester

PICTURE GOES HERE

The session began with each speaker introducing themselves and giving us an insight into their background and experience of social enterprise. Some interesting messages came out of these introductions. It was identified that science communicators and scientists often don‟t think or act like business people and are uncomfortable „selling‟ themselves and their projects. The session then broke out into small table discussions about previous experiences trying to secure funding and the challenges faced in this process. In our group, two main funding routes were discussed. The first was that of science festivals and securing funds from sponsors. The second was gaining funds in the form of grants. We touched on the fact that when it proves difficult to secure grants through a traditional route, then one alternative is to use crowd funding. Emma Mortoo from the School of Social Enterprise then gave an overview of her institution and their approach to learning. She elaborated on some of the themes touched on earlier by other speakers. Notably, when trying to attract funding it is important to identify what you are selling. What do you have to offer? What is the unique selling point? Science communicators also need to identify who the beneficiaries and the customers are. In the example of a ticketed science show, the two are the same. When securing a grant, the funding body is the customer and the „public‟ are the beneficiaries. It‟s important to identify how to give both parties what they want.

In our groups we then discussed ideas that might require funding. We had to identify what the value of the project was and how to convince another person of this. This discussion highlighted the importance of speaking to people outside of your usual circle in order to recognise the value of the project and how this can be effectively communicated to others. The session was rounded off with a few words from Emma. Her advice was to consider a project‟s leadership and influence, especially when pursuing funding. She also stressed the importance of being creative when using grants and loans as leverage to secure further finance. The overall take home message from this session seemed to be that science communicators need to identify the value proposition of a project and be confident selling that to stake holders. In order to gain funding from external sources, you have to instil confidence in what you are selling.

Laura Wheeler: #SciComm13 value what you do - pilot & evaluate - be creative about income know your strengths &weaknesses- talk £ can lead to engagement

Further reading: Session presentations: • Phil Smith‟s presentation • Kay Yeoman‟s presentation • Heather Rea‟s presentation

Young (science) apprentice • • •

Speakers: Kenny Webster, Thinktank; Anthony Richards, Science Museum; Keriann Shah, National Space Centre Chair: Penny Fidler, CEO of Association for Science and Discovery Centres Report author: Rebecca Broadbent, freelance STEM communicator and PhD student

Penny Fidler opened the session by introducing the audience to the role of science centres and museums where family science learning is only the “tip of the iceberg” when it comes to engaging with young people and the community. Kenny Webster was first to speak and he discussed the “journey with young people” which he has experienced whilst implementing a science and heritage career ladder (shared from the New York Hall of Science) at Thinktank. Through realising a hierarchy of paid experience in the museum, Thinktank are able to offer a clear engagement journey for young people entering apprenticeships. The apprenticeship offered at Thinktank takes young people during their college summer holiday and looks to raise their awareness of museum jobs and careers. The overall aim is to employ them after they complete their studies. Although the apprenticeship is not accredited there has been a good uptake. Kenny spoke about the desire to encourage young people from the local area to become involved in the museum so as to create a workforce which is representative of the visitors. This was echoed by the second speaker, Anthony Richards, who spoke about the apprenticeship that the Science Museum offers and their aim to improve the relationship between the museum and the local demographic. The Science Museum is coming to the end of its first year of an apprenticeship course which was undertaken in partnership with the V&A and Kensington and Chelsea College. The apprenticeship offers students an NVQ qualification and they are hosted at the Science Museum for one year.

Whereas Kenny looked for confidence but not arrogance, an understanding of the concept of enabling and the ability to follow instruction from the applicants who were to become potential employees, Anthony took on challenging individuals who would not normally be given this kind of opportunity. Taking such an approach meant that the last year has been a massive learning curve for both the young people and the museum staff. More support and guidance were required to help the Museum and the young people they were working with but the impact on the young people who have gained the qualification has been great. He took a photo of the audience and tweeted it to the students who replied with glowing reports of the opportunity and thanked him for the belief which was shown in them.

Although Kenny was talking about a programme which gave students a clear career path within an organisation and Anthony was talking about giving students an opportunity to gain experience in the workplace as part of an NVQ qualification the common theme was to provide the students with transferrable skills and to boost confidence and self-belief. The final viewpoint came from a more traditional scheme as Kierann Shah spoke about the involvement of the National Space Centre in the Space Engineering Higher Apprenticeship. The apprenticeship was shaped by discussion with industry so that the required skills and approach taken was suitable to prepare young people for work in the industry. The apprenticeship takes 19 – 24 year olds who are working in the space sector and is awaiting accreditation by the University of Leicester. The question was raised about the focus on general versus specific skills for apprenticeships. The answer to this varied depending on which speaker was answering as each apprenticeship had individual aims, however a consensus formed around the need for courses such as these to teach transferable skills which will prepare young people for the world of work and specific skills which will enable the young people to effectively engage with the job and their colleagues whilst carrying out the course. Do we have a responsibility to be running these types of courses, asked Penny, the session chair. The final question was a thought provoker but if it isn‟t our responsibility then whose is it?

Further reading: • Session presentations: • Kierann Shah‟s presentation • Kenny Webster‟s presentation • Anthony Richards‟ presentation

The physics of beer • •

Speaker: Svet Bajlekov, Lightyear Foundation Report author: Monica Lobo, British Science Association

Beer, kindly donated by Wychwood Brewery, was distributed to all delegates,. The first thing we learnt was that, surprisingly, beer is the English straw. Svet showed us a very nice example of how using straws to build bridges in developing countries can engage young people with science. The Lightyear Foundation engages audiences with science using readily available local resources. If we apply the same principle here in the UK, beer seems to be the widely available resource. So how can beer help science communication? It turns out that there are many ways. The half life of beer foam can be measured although it varies depending on the temperature and the grease on the glass, as demonstrated by a quirky video. This highly entertaining session ended with a few interesting facts: • On 28 February 1953, Watson and Crick interrupted the lunch of many at the Eagle pub in Cambridge to announce their discovery of the DNA double helix. • A study showed that the increase of beer consumption is inversely related with the number of articles published, at least among ecologists. • For the relief of many, the beer belly claims may be a myth. • And... you can interest people who wouldn‟t be interested in science through beer!

W(h)ither the future of science communication? • • •

Speakers: Gail Cardew, Royal Institution and ESOF; Jon Drori, Changing Media Ltd.; Michael John Gorman, Science Gallery; Clare Matterson, Wellcome Trust Chair: Timandra Harkness, writer and comedian Report author: Ginny Smith, freelance

PICTURE GOES HERE

During this session, each speaker talked about where they saw the future of science communication heading. First, Gail Cardew compared this conference to the one 11 years ago. She believes that in this time we have done quite well at feeding people‟s opinions into policy, and very well at making science communication less of a fringe activity. It is now more embedded into big companies, and more academics are recognising its importance. She felt, however, that the science and society row had not moved on much in this time, so should be a focus for the future. Next, we heard from Clare Matterson, who focussed on how to reach a more diverse audience. She brought up the point that a lot of science communication activities reach a very similar audience – one that is already engaged with science. She believes that the answer to this is to integrate the arts more with science, and that the government needs to recognise that learning is learning wherever it happens. Third up was Michael John Gorman who argued that although arts/ science collaborations are nothing new, the hybrid spaces that are starting to open up on the edges of existing institutions are. He discussed the STEM to STEAM movement, supported by will.i.am as an example of the integration of arts and sciences.

After that, Jon Drori asked how we could get the public to recognise that science is both important and fun. He argued that audiences are fragmenting due to the amount of choice – particularly with the rise of Youtube. This means that the days of broadcaster -led TV may be numbered and we need to look to new ways to engage with younger audiences. Live events, which provide a way to stand out from the competition, may be a way to do this. The BBC‟s recent science events, such as Stargazing Live, were hugely successful. Young people assume that they will be able to interact with events and shows, and this could be a way to draw them in, using citizen science projects, for example. Timandra Harkness wrapped up the session by posing a question to the panel – if we make science communication too mainstream, will it cease to exist as a separate entity? The response was that it will always be needed, as however audience-led events become, people don‟t always know what they don‟t know, so someone will be needed to guide the discussion. Questions from the floor covered the idea of „maker‟ communities becoming more important as a way for people to get involved in doing something for themselves, and science centres as an important platform for this. Science integrating more with the arts and becoming part of everyday culture was a running theme, with science events becoming more popular at music festivals for example. Art elicits emotion, something that science sometimes struggles with, and it was suggested that combining the two could be a more effective way of getting the science across, and helping people to remember it.

Generally, the view of the future of science communication was a bright one, although everyone involved admitted it is a work in progress, and will need to adapt with the times. The main focusses going forward seemed to be accessing traditionally under-represented audiences, integrating more with arts and other parts of culture, and changing the expectations of higher education institutions, academics and government. This would give every scientist the chance to get involved in disseminating their research and engaging with the public, and every member of the public the chance to realise just how interesting and vital science is.

Further reading: • Storify by Ginny Smith

The challenges of measuring informal science learning • • •

Speakers: Stephanie Sinclair, Wellcome Trust; Emma Pegram, Natural History Museum; Jenny Mollica, Barbican Centre Chair: Penny Fidler, Association for Science and Discovery Centres Report author: Rebecca Broadbent, Freelance STEM communicator and PhD student

PICTURE GOES HERE

The session was opened by Penny Fidler who gave a flavour of the discussion, describing it as a “thorny issue” which has been wrangled with for some time. Stephanie Sinclair, Project Manager for the Education and Learning Team at the Wellcome Trust spoke first about the arena of informal science learning. She began by highlighting the key findings of two reviews carried out by the Wellcome Trust in November 2012, pointing out that there is ample opportunity for learning to occur outside of formal education and that science attractions are perfectly situated for informal learning experiences. Much of the evaluation of informal science learning is carried out formatively. The main barriers to summative evaluation have been found to be difficulties in finding time and lack of funds to carry out the evaluation. Where evaluations are undertaken there is a need for greater sharing of results so as to increase awareness of what works and what doesn‟t. During the discussion it was suggested that a barrier to this was the dislike of sharing failures. “We can learn a lot from the things that haven‟t worked and we don‟t want to replicate failures,” said Stephanie. The importance of a closer link between research and practice to ensure that research underpins practice was also highlighted. The problems with access to academic papers was mentioned as well as the fact that social science research can be hard to understand if you are not a social scientist and so it needs to be more user friendly for this aim to be fulfilled. The second speaker Emma Pegram, Evaluation and Research Team Manager at the Natural History Museum (NHM) also highlighted the use of language as an issue.

“Part of the pickle we are in is due to the language we use,” she explained. When looking at evaluation, we are searching for a quantifiable measure of learning, when learning can‟t be measured like this instead we need understanding. Emma began by asking if we use research to inform practice, noting the importance of front end as well as formative evaluation in the process of developing a “better product” and explained that the NHM now has internal summative evaluation documents for use on all projects. These are project specific and involve self-reporting the data on learning and so there is little crossproject or cross-organisation relevance. To improve this situation it was suggested that instead of an overall evaluation studies focus on an innovative aspect of a project e.g. digital labels. By evaluating the impact of the smaller aspects of the project the evaluation would have more value for other practitioners. It was also suggested that we move away from the What? to the Where? How? Why? For Whom? And When? in terms of evaluation. The final speaker was Jenny Mollica, the creative learning team leader at the Barbican Centre. Focussing on why, how and who the Barbican evaluate for, Jenny spoke about what the Barbican is doing to explore science and the wider impacts of this work. She believes that a consistent approach to the evaluation of impact is required within the cultural sector and that there needs to be a drive for a more scientific way to make the case of impact in arts due to the Government wanting the informal sector to “pick up the slack” in formal art education. She also concluded that the focus needs to be on sharing and disseminating research and evaluations to improve the situation across the cultural sector, a common theme throughout the discussion.

Katherine Mathieson: "learning is organic, dynamic, neverending and holistic process of constructing personal meaning" - messy & tricky to measure #scicomm13

Emily Dawson: #scicomm13 informal learning Sesh, Emma P from NHM suggests problems with summative evaluations abt 'what works' to ask 'why it works', yup!

Further reading: • Session presentations: • Stephanie Sinclair‟s presentation • Jenny Mollica‟s presentation • Emma Pegram‟s presentation

One message, many voices • • •

Speakers: Pallab Ghosh, BBC; Fiona Fox, Science Media Centre; Tim Jones, Department of Health; Simon Wilde, NICE Chair: Adrian Bull, National Nuclear Laboratory Report author: Katherine Portilla, Elements Science

Should science communicators be fighting to get one clear and consistent message out there at times of great public confusion? Or should the media be encouraged to feature a range of different voices and allow for conflicting opinion to be aired? According to Pallab Ghosh, BBC science correspondent, having “one message in science is just another word for censorship.” He argued that too many scientists are muzzled, kept from sharing their research, for a number of reasons including politics. “It‟s not your science to suppress”, Ghosh said, addressing the political manipulation of publically funded research. So are there times when it is appropriate to have one single message? Some would say it depends on the subject at hand. Tim Jones, Department of Health, said that in issues of public health and safety, many voices can dilute the validity of a scientific message. In these situations there is a need for consistency. Fiona Fox, Chief Executive of the Science Media Centre (SMC), raised the importance of researchers speaking out about their studies and giving interviews. According to Fox, there is an issue of self-censorship in the scientific community. For example, scientists are often afraid of going against the government. However the government should welcome other opinions instead of deterring scientific discussion.

And what do you do when a celebrity is presented as an authority? Angelina Jolie‟s recent revelation of her double mastectomy made a good example of the point. A celebrity‟s voice can be a powerful tool, however on subjects of science this can prove disastrous. Fox cautioned that on scientific issues it is more appropriate for a scientist to lead the discussion as opposed to a celebrity. Before the establishment of the SMC it was more common to have celebrities, and other uninformed commentators, talking about scientific issues as if they were experts. Fox explained that the organisation was created to promote more informed science in the media. The SMC provide journalists with briefings on scientific issues and facilitate interviews with scientists. As the Chief Executive of the SMC, Fox said that the organisation also stands to get more scientists to speak in times of crisis. When they don‟t step forward, they leave a void often filled by the likes of NGOs and protest groups, which do not present enough evidence. Simon Wilde, the Associate Director of Communications at NICE, pointed out a health crisis warrants special consideration from scientists - there is an opportunity to inform public debate. Imran Khan, from the British Science Association, asked Fox if the SMC have become the gatekeepers for a journalist‟s access to scientists, meaning they can hand pick the experts that are perhaps too “mainstream”. She said that while the SMC does work with mainstream scientists it is important to hear multiple voices from the scientific community, otherwise “we end up with just mavericks”. Fox added that it‟s not the SMC‟s role to find scientists with extremist views, and that journalists themselves are often very good at finding them anyway. The panel then discussed the issue of communicating a balance in science. A member of the audience commented on the fact that although scientific discussions rarely see a 50/50 split, the media can falsely present it to be so. Pallab said that it‟s important for journalists to give due weight to scientific evidence when balancing their story.

Steve Cross: Key question for SciComm industry RT @iamhazelgibson: One message- what do you do when celebrity is presented as authority? #scicomm13

Farrah Nazir: Fiona Fox – the problem is there are a lot of self censorship for experts #onemessagemanyvoices #SciComm13

How not to present science • •

Speakers: Matt Pritchard, Science Magic Shows; James Piercy, Science Made Simple; Debbie Syrop, Science Made Simple, Elin Roberts, Centre for Life Report author: Liz Granger, University of Manchester

PICTURE GOES HERE

The session was presented in the form of a science show gone wrong. This led to a genuinely entertaining experience that highlighted some of the common pitfalls people encounter when presenting science. First up was a tutorial on „Bad Body Language (Volume18)‟ performed by Debbie Syrop and Matt Pritchard, detailing classics such as The Zombie, where one does not move, shows no emotion and maintains a constant tone of voice without inflection. There was The Hypnotist, which involves swaying side to side and the use of overly massive hand gestures. The Spaceman involves standing as far away from the audience as possible, making yourself small and using the podium as a barricade. A variation on this involves the opposite and getting as close to the audience as possible, preferably invading their personal space. The Visually Impaired can be achieved by staring at the floor, ceiling, into the distance or at one single member of the audience. Finally there was The Runner in which you remove yourself from the audience and do not give them any indication of what to do. We then had a presentation called „Communication in the fast lane‟ by James Piercy. Highlights included the presenter standing in silence for a good minute while trying to load the PowerPoint presentation. Once it did load we were treated to some very busy slides. What they lacked in formatting quality they made up for in animations. There were plenty of blank slides and videos that didn‟t work. We still waited for them to load up though. When the presenter eventually gave up, we got a nice blow-by-blow account of what we should have seen in the video. The presentation was finished off by skipping through a few slides, a fuzzy conclusion and saying good bye. This good bye was, of course, followed by a minute or so of sorting out technical issues on stage.

There was then an important public service announcement raising awareness of death by PowerPoint, the modern day instrument of torture. We learned that although many don‟t know this – every time you use a bullet point a puppy dies. Next we had the privilege of watching the finalist from „The World‟s Cringe Worthiest Moment‟ played by Elin Roberts. The contestant got up to talk about her passion: the Parasaurolophus, while a panel on stage (Matt, James and Debbie) critiqued her cringe technique. There was really, really good use of the word really. The panel also enjoyed use of unnecessary build up to nothing and some light audience patronisation. It was also nice to see the contestant getting the science wrong and propagating a myth. She then moved on to using some humour. Firstly, she forgot her joke. Once remembered she laughed at her own joke for a good while and then explained why it was funny to the audience. After the humour, there was a hidden prop – a very large part of the Parasaurolophus skull, which the presenter mounted on her head. It didn‟t really add to the talk but did allow the audience to feel awkward as the presenter struggled for a few minutes. There was a big build up to the fact that there was a trombone in the head piece…but it didn‟t work. Some audience participation followed. Volunteers were rejected for not being right but finally the presenter found one that „would do‟. After getting the volunteer‟s name wrong the presenter made him feel uneasy and finally got him to help in a demo that didn‟t work. It‟s ok though – the presenter assured the audience that the demo never works. The presenter was running out of time, so criticised other performers for over running. Finally, she handed the volunteer a prop and walked off stage leaving him unsure of what to do, but she saved the end by exploding something. If in doubt – explode something. Most science communicators have made some of the mistakes outlined in this session at some point in their career. The session ended with a Q&A about how to avoid these pitfalls. The main points were to be prepared and have a back-up if something goes wrong, to find a balance between assuming knowledge and condescension (explaining things matter-of-factly helps), to identify what the story you are trying to tell is and to make sure you check your equipment and props . The latter point did lead to an amusing story from Matt involving apple juice and urine. It probably is what you‟re thinking of. Raeka Aiyar ‫‏‬: How not to present science: Use low-resolution, indecipherable, figures with as many labels and colours as possible. #scicomm13

Ginny Smith: Real advice now- risk assess everything, not just the dangerous stuff, for what can go wrong #badsci #scicomm13

Bridging theory and practice • • •

Speakers: Helen Featherstone, University of Exeter; Brigitte Nerlich, University of Nottingham, Huw James, Freelance Chair: Paul Manners, National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement Report author: Katie Nightingale, The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh

Is there a gap between theory and practice in science communication? If so, what‟s the cause of the gap? What can be done about it? Helen Featherstone started the discussion by identifying 3 main groups involved in science communication – science communicators, science communication researchers and researchers who are communicating. She argued that the science communicators have a long history of practice, which is not often informed by theory nor does it influence theory. Also, the evaluation that is done is based on individual learning rather than adding to collective knowledge. Science communication researchers tend to focus on case studies where little research is done with practitioners. And the researchers who are communicating recognise that the skills needed for engagement and communication are often lacking in their own skillset and there is little evaluation of events. The question of whether a gap exists between theory and practice was opened up to the room and discussion took place around the tables. The general feeling in the room was that a gap does exist, but that it is biggest between science communication researchers and those that practice communication than between science communicators and researchers who are communicating. “If you‟re having to read science communication research papers, you‟re not doing science communication right!” was one opinion given. The research papers are often done looking back at what has happened rather than the way science communication is done in the present. These papers are often hard to find, and free access can be a problem.

Two panellists, Huw James, a science communicator, and Brigitte Nerlich, a science communication researcher, were then asked to describe what they did in the last week, to give the audience an idea of how these jobs differed. Huw had spent his week writing new material, contacting schools regarding upcoming science festivals, being interviewed on the radio as well as going into schools and practicing science communication. Brigitte spent her week marking essays/dissertations and speaking to students, writing a grant in collaboration with other departments and revising, proof-reading and writing papers for publishing. This is exemplary of the theory versus practice model; the science communicator does no theory and the science communication researcher does no practice. The question was then raised whether theory mattered in practice. The overall feeling was that it did matter, however bad theory was acceptable if the practice was good. Good theory combined with bad practice was not acceptable. The final question up for discussion was centred on how to close the gap between theory and practice. A few ideas were raised including the need for excellence in professional development such as high quality Masters programmes in science communication and the importance of science communication researchers involving science communicators in the experimental design. An increase in communication between these two groups of people would also be beneficial, it was noted that in the panellist‟s discussion Huw used a technique called knowledge progression, which was found to be what Brigitte called zone of proximal development. It appeared the practitioners do use science communication theory but potentially aren‟t aware of it. Another solution proposed was to centralise supporting documents and guidelines for science communication. It was pointed out that there are a number of websites that do contain this information (links below), but that they aren‟t used that much.

Hazel Gibson: Bridging theorygood theory from research provides a framework for good practice #scicomm13

Further reading: • Bridging theory and practice blog post – NCCPE • Collective Memory • Relating research to practice • Informal science • NCCPE • BIG • Bridging theory and practice blog post – Nottingham

Citizen science •

• •

Speakers: Helen Roy, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology; Lisa Horton, University of East Anglia; Michael Pocock, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology; David Jones, Natural History Museum and Imperial College London Chair: Katherine Mathieson, British Science Association Report author: Chris Rhodes, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology

Citizen science, the fusion of research and engagement, appears destined for continued growth and diversification. How can the success of citizen science be measured? What aspects of a citizen science project improve the effectiveness of science communication? The gauntlet was set for the “most trendy session” at the conference. Katherine Mathieson, Education Director for the British Science Association and session chair, introduced a session which lived up to the hype. Dr Helen Roy, ecologist at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, is an esteemed expert in citizen science with extensive experience through ladybird research. As coauthor of a recent review and guide on the current state and practice of citizen science, Helen was perfectly placed to introduce the subject. Diverse approaches to citizen science are already being practiced. Projects vary with respect to resources, participant numbers and roles. Lisa Horton, Media Relations Manager at the University of East Anglia, showed that time is of the essence. Rapid action was required when ash dieback invaded the UK‟s ash tree population in 2012. Forged by a team at UEA over one weekend, the AshTag app enabled citizens to report the spread of the disease. Speed was crucial because autumn leaves would fall within weeks, hampering disease diagnosis. Numerous participants were involved in identification of suspected disease cases, some of which were confirmed, and media coverage was abundant. Dr Michael Pocock, ecologist at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, discussed his work on conker trees and their invasive moth pests. Using hypothesis driven science leads to quality data that engages participants, who are motivated to answer 38 interesting questions. The project has evolved to follow lines of enquiry led by the volunteers, thus morphing into „contributory‟ citizen science.

Dr David Jones is OPAL‟s (Open Air Laboratories) earthworm expert. OPAL encourages citizens to explore their local environment, and has attracted over 500,000 participants. The need for scientist-citizen interaction is paramount, "engagement on the ground, face to face, is second to none". Beneficial outcomes of this work include changing attitudes. Participants learn “greater respect for worms”, organisms which are “more important than they thought”. Monitoring data quality as it is collected is vital, with a need to obtain data of “known” quality, by measuring of error and bias. Befitting of the session theme, audience questions came thick and fast. Does one portal collate all citizen science activity? An overarching catalogue does not exist, but a diverse set of hubs were acknowledged (Natural History Museum, Zooniverse for physics, Citizen Science Central, Sci-starter, and Citizen Science Alliance to name a few). The innovative and anarchic quality of disparate citizen science projects, emerging without an overarching structure, can be viewed as something to be celebrated. What makes a project suitable for citizen science? Michael Pocock‟s upcoming work for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has produced a flow chart for determining when citizen science is useful for a project. In many cases, citizen science is not useful, for example searching for caterpillars at the top of a tree would not be amenable to many volunteers. The value of engagement is also an important consideration. A weekly requirement might be too much for many citizen scientists, more ad hoc involvement might be appropriate. The sheer volume of data obtained by citizens can be valuable when compared with that of professionals, as in the case of scuba divers surveying fish diversity. One sceptic pointed to volunteer participation in survey style science reaching back decades prior to rebranding as „citizen science‟. What is new in citizen science and how can citizens pursue their own curiosity? The panel pointed to the explosion of citizen science, involving citizens from more diverse backgrounds, rather than being restricted to amateur naturalists who were traditionally involved. A great number of citizens are yet to be reached. There is potential for more citizen-lead projects in future, powered by possibilities generated through advances in communication. Citizen science will also grow as the need for „big data‟, collected over large spatial and temporal scales, increases. What is the political impact of citizen science? Does it generate a pool of supporters who advocate continued funding? Citizen science isn't cost free. Some of the panel have not seen more funding as a result of citizen science. Some of the projects were run on a shoestring, but the value came in getting people involved. What are perceptions of citizen science within academia? Is it viewed as dilution, reducing the quality of science in comparison with work by professionals? Perceptions are changing. Citizen science can present a „win-win‟ scenario, where researchers can simultaneously prove themselves to be credible both as scientists and communicators. Further reading: • Understanding Citizen Science & Environmental Monitoring • UK Ladybird Survey • AshTag app • Conker Tree Science • OPAL • Natural History Museum • Zooniverse • Citizen Science Central • Sci-starter • Citizen Science Alliance • Presentations: • Michael Pocock‟s presentation • Lisa Horton‟s presentation • Helen Roy‟s presentation

Evaluating online engagement: Practical and critical • • •

Speakers: Shane McCracken, Gallomanor Communications; Rosie Schultz, I‟m a Scientist Chair: Karen Bultitude, UCL Report author: Ginny Smith, Freelance

PICTURE GOES HERE

„I‟m a scientist, get me out of here‟ is a web-based science communication enterprise which aims to connect school children with scientists, and allow them to ask questions. Scientists are chosen, and assigned to a group relating to their topic of interest. Through live web chats, and questions posted at other times, young people can ask the scientists anything they like, whether it is about their research, what it‟s like being a scientist, or just what their favourite colour is. Because of its online nature, the team from I‟m a Scientist use a number of tools to help them determine how effective their sessions are, and it was these tools that they aimed to share with the group at this session. They did this by focussing on one particular project, the food scientists‟ zone, which ran in March 2013. The first tool they suggested was myphpadmin, which is a web tool that helps you to extract data from a website. Along with SQL, a query language, it can be a powerful way of getting the data you are interested in into Excel, so you can analyse it in whatever way you are comfortable with. One way they suggested to visualise data simply was to use a Wordle. This displayed the frequency of words used – below is an example using my tweets from the conference.

You can remove common words (such as, “and”) and others, to get the most data out of it. I removed hashtags, which were, of course, the most commonly used words, and also the names of people I had had conversations with. The next tip was to use Google Analytics to see how people are using your site, for example which pages people stay on the longest. Combined with Google Fusion Tables, which allow you to map where your audience are in the world, they give a comprehensive picture of who is using your site, and how they are using it. This means that you can see which pages might need more content (if people aren‟t staying on them very long) and also which areas of the country you may need to target more directly. This links into the next tip, which was about widening participation. Using IDACI, Polar3 and GCSE5+, you can see how well certain areas are doing with respect to income deprivation, young people in higher education, and school performance. This means that you can check that you are targeting deprived areas equally compared to schools that may be more active in science communication schemes. Mailchimp allows you to easily design and send newsletters, but can also be integrated with Google Analytics, allowing you to target emails just to the groups who need them, for example teachers who have taken part once, but not a second time. SurveyGizmo can also be integrated with Mailchimp to send targeted surveys. It also allows easy replication of surveys, and has the ability to combine data from multiple surveys to allow easier interpretation. Wordpress was the team‟s suggestion for a web publishing platform. They find the ability to tag posts particularly helpful. They also stressed the importance of Twitter, and suggested Gephi as a tool to help you visualise the networks you have developed within Twitter. The links for all these sites can be found at http://about.imascientist.org.uk/scc13/

Further reading: • Storify by Ginny Smith • Session presentation

Engaging visitors through scientific discovery • •

Speakers: Ian Simmons, Centre for Life; Jennifer DeWitt, King's College London Chair: Daniel Glaser, King‟s Cultural Institute, KCL Report author: Katherine Portilla, Elements Science

PICTURE GOES HERE

Panel member, Jennifer DeWitt from King‟s College London, started off this session sharing her research on how children approach science. The ESRC-funded project, known as ASPIRES, looks at the various factors that contribute to children‟s interests and aspirations in science. A number of surveys and interviews were conducted, and various aspects are to be analysed over time. The ASPIRES project reveals that school children in years six and eight have quite a positive view of science, and their levels of interest vary little between the two years. However, few of them want to go on to be scientists. Why wouldn‟t a child want to become a scientist if they genuinely like the subject? “Their choices are driven by their perceptions,” explains DeWitt. Children don‟t have a clear view of what scientists actually do, and need a broader perspective of what is involved in the subject. Their parents' attitudes towards science are also an important part of the equation. The next talk came from Ian Simmons who shared his work at the Centre for Life‟s Curiosity exhibition, which completely rethought the nature of hands-on exhibits in science centres. “Since they originated in the late 1960s science exhibits have functioned in the same way – by plain discovery,” said Simmons. Instead of telling people what to think, he wanted to show them how to think. This project drew from the Active Prolonged Engagement (APE) approach, which is a way of creating more engaging experiences in science exhibits. Simmons explained that label-free, multi-user exhibits are about developing scientific thinking, not conveying scientific content.

Simmons highlighted the importance of correctly arranging the exhibition space. Partitions are used to break up the space so only two exhibits are visible at a time, while still giving the visitor a sense that there is something beyond to be explored. Parents are also drawn in to collaborate with their children; after all almost 50 per cent of visitors to science centres are adults. He then explained that this shift in approach does work, and results show that people are spending more time at exhibits and return visit rates are increasing. Science exhibitions are bringing new levels of imagination and involvement to their audience. Daniel Glaser, the chair of the session, divided up the talks with opportunities for audience participation. A number of questions were raised, including what the best set-up for an exhibit is, how disordered the display should be, and what role exhibition staff play at exhibits. Simmons pointed out that staff have a very important role in curating the space to stimulate people to talk and help them along. To wrap things up, Glaser asked the room to bridge the two talks about child engagement in science and the evolution of science exhibitions. The key ideas that came out were that people tend to go to science centres out of personal interest, whereas we all have to go to school. Another point that was made about engagement in science is that role models in the field are fairly rare and that the scientists are generally not seen as „cool‟ – however Brian Cox is one exception to this. The panel agreed that it would be ideal to feed in research results about children‟s interests and aspirations in science into further developing the effectiveness of exhibitions in science centres.

Hazel Gibson: Engaging visitors – the ASPIRE project didn‟t find a drop off in +ve attitudes to science from primary to secondary children #scicomm13

Katherine Portilla: The usefulness of a subject for future career is the biggest driver of subject choice among 12 year olds #SciComm13 #engagethruscience

Further reading: • Session presentation

Keep calm and carry on: Practical tips on how to cope when public engagement events go wrong • • •

Speakers: Kay Miller, Biochemical Society; Sarah Norcross, Progress Educational Trust; Becky Purvis, Association of Medical research Charities Chair: Timandra Harkness, writer and comedian Report author: Holly Rogers, Academy of Medical Sciences

PICTURE GOES HERE

This session was a wry tour through the highs and lows of event planning, peppered with tips on how to avoid making the same mistakes and plenty of advice on how to cope when things go pear-shaped. The session opened with Kay Miller talking about her experiences of planning events for the Biochemical Society, from small workshops to huge, full-day events with upwards of a thousand attendees. She defined a crisis as the equivalent of a weed, something “happening at the wrong time or in the wrong place”. Her best advice was very much focussed on crisis prevention and a positive outlook – in her own words, “no one will die at one of your events”, although she then rather worryingly added that at least two delegates die at conferences in the UK each year. She strongly recommended writing a crisis plan before any event. This is similar to a risk assessment, identifying any possible problems and laying out clear steps on how to deal with them, including which member of staff should be responsible for each task (note: Kay has offered to share her own crisis plan template with anyone who is interested). She also highlighted the importance of evaluating the crisis after the event, working out why it happened and communicating to staff and attendees what will be done to prevent it in future if necessary. In sharp contrast to Kay, Sarah Norcross admitted she was “more of a winger than a planner”. She told an anecdote about a past event where someone had used a microwave while standing directly behind someone giving a presentation.

She summed up her advice with the acronym “SLAP”: S is for speakers (get lots of prep – make them send their slides in advance, and take note of their mobile numbers), befriending security guards and being strategic with seating plans. L is for lists (make lots), loos (most people will want to find them), and learning from your mistakes (everyone makes them). A is for acting with authority, attention to detail (never forget cough sweets in the winter!) and adapting to the situation. P is for being polite, punctual, and bringing props – Sarah pointed out that a clipboard can also be used as a physical barrier or weapon, in times of real emergency at an event. Third up, Becky Purvis shared her experiences with organising policy events for the AMRC, focussing on her work with parliament. She gave away some of her best sneaky strategies for making sure an event is a success – making it a breakfast or evening meeting so attendees can‟t double book, registering slightly more attendees than there are places, or telling speakers they have less time to make sure they don‟t overrun. Her top tips were to keep your aims clear, assume nothing, smile and ALWAYS carry blue tac. The session ended with an excellent selection of tricky questions from the audience, many giving an insight to the problems that really keep people awake at night when planning an event. Some of the best questions included how to manage a speaker‟s expectations when an audience is likely to be small, how to deal with hecklers and how to treat a speaker well – Timandra offered her own insight into this, advising the audience that keeping them under control is like riding a horse. “Start tough, then ease up – then they can never be sure if you‟re still holding the electric cattle prod!” The audience also shared tips among themselves, agreeing that the drop-out rate for a free event is usually around a third, and that you should never rely on volunteers or interns unless you know they feel invested in the event. The final question was short and clear – what‟s the most valid reason to cancel an event? The answer was even shorter: snow.

@DocWithTheSocs: What happens when events go wrong. What is a crisis at a SciCom event? Death! fire! Just something you cannot predict or control. #scicomm13

@BenValsler: "Be lovely to everyone" and your events are more likely to go well. Take home message from "Don't Panic" event planning session. #scicomm13 Further reading: • Session presentations: • Kay Miller‟s presentation • Becky Purvis‟ presentation • Sarah Norcross‟ presentation

Inclusive initiatives • • •

Speakers: Sharmila Metcalf, Nuffield Research Placements, Nuffield Foundation; Jenny Legg, British Heart Foundation; Annika Joy, Science Museum Chair: Karen Folkes, BIS Report author: Louise Croft, University College London, Institute of Child Health

A recent review by the Science and Society team at BIS suggested that blanket approaches to science communication will fail. There are significant groups of people who remain „hard to reach‟, and require targeted strategies for inclusion, including; lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGBS) groups, young people from regions of low socio-economic status (SES), and Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups. Three speakers, themselves from different backgrounds, discussed their approach to including traditionally under-represented audiences in science communication projects. Sharmila Metcalf, from the Nuffield Foundation, has been running summer research placements for A level students, for the past ten years. This scheme is highly valued by students; enhancing their CV and UCAS application forms. However, uptake is skewed towards children from privileged backgrounds. The Nuffield Foundation wanted to widen participation, to include talented students from challenging backgrounds. In order to include the most deprived schools in the research placement scheme, Nuffield realised they had to make fundamental changes to how the scheme worked. Firstly, they redistributed budgets to provide additional support to the low SES target group. This included an £80 per week bursary, as well as travel expenses. Secondly, they introduced co-ordinators to the scheme, to provide support in identifying suitable placements - something students had previously organised themselves. Finally, Nuffield forged several fruitful partnerships with associations such as Realising Opportunities, Teach First and the Social Mobility Foundation. Advertising the scheme through these partners now brings in sixty additional students per year.

46 By making fundamental changes to the way the scheme worked, Nuffield have succeeded in raising the inclusion of students from low SES backgrounds from 17% in 2010 to 25% in 2012.

Jenny Legg, from the British Heart Foundation (BHF) faced a rather different challenge. Black, Asian and Minority ethnic (BAME) groups have a higher risk of heart disease. Crucially, they are less likely to be aware of their heightened risk. Communicating the risk of heart disease, and how to take preventative steps, is therefore crucial for BAME groups. The key to success for the BHF, was being culturally aware and tailoring advertising campaigns accordingly. BAME individuals were used as case studies in local media, a relevant BAME spokesperson was selected to appear in adverts and interviews (a BHF funded scientist), and BAME celebrities were involved in key campaigns. The BHF found that involving even minor celebrities worked well, as long as people could relate to them.

As well as tailoring their communication message, the BHF also tailored the delivery; favouring small BAME publications and radio stations over national press. They also took special care to target major cultural events. Crucial to the success of their campaign, the BHF found it extremely important to understand and address certain cultural beliefs eg the south Asian concept of fatalism posed a challenge; how can you encourage someone to take steps toward reducing their risk of heart disease, if they believe it‟s their fate? The answer came in white coats. By directly involving BAME scientists and doctors in campaigns, the BHF was able to circumvent cultural barriers and instil real behaviour change. Encouragingly, the BHF found there was a genuine appetite for science content in BAME groups. They capitalised on this, by increasing research messaging in their successful Fight For Every Heartbeat campaign.

Finally, Annika Joy discussed the Science Museum‟s approach to widening participation beyond their primary audience of “white beardy men”. They wondered; “Could the whitebeardy demographic of our audience be related to the demographic of our white-beardy exhibition producers?”, and “What would happen if we involved other groups in the exhibition design process?” The Science Museum launched a series of collaborative initiatives which aimed to provide hard-to-reach audiences with ownership over exhibition content. To do this, they had to change the traditional behind-closed-doors approach to exhibition design, to something much more dynamic and collaborative. In 2010 the Science Museum launched the Who am I? gallery. Content development and exhibition teams from the Science Museum worked alongside young people from diverse backgrounds, to make something relevant to museum visitors. The same young people were also encouraged to work with visitors at the exhibition, to share the content. When evaluating the project, the Science Museum were pleased that visitors gave the publicmade exhibition no less credibility. Quite the opposite. Visitors enjoyed having a new voice in the gallery, which brightened up and enriched their experience. Crucially, it was evident that participants wanted to become stakeholders in the exhibitions, “rubber stamping what the museum was creating”. Most importantly, “participants don‟t want to feel they are being wheeled out to meet some measure of social inclusion”, they require genuine involvement, a sense of ownership, explained Joy. Although all three speakers approached science communication with different aims, targeting different groups, all three demonstrated the success of tailoring communication strategies to hard-to-reach audiences, by developing a deep understanding of the target audience and by offering them the opportunity for collaborative involvement – some ownership. Further reading: • Session presentations: • Sharmila Metcalf‟s presentation • Jenny Legg‟s presentation • Annika Joy‟s presentation • Karen Folkes‟ presentation

Working with sponsors • • •

Speakers: John Halton, EngineeringUK; Steve Burgess, Cheltenham Festivals; Kevin Smith, Oil Sponsorship Campaigner, Platform; Emma Clare, Science Oxford Chair: Amy Sanders, Wellcome Trust Report author: Jane Magill, British Science Association

PICTURE GOES HERE

This session covered three main themes; how to identify sponsors, the rules for engagement and the ethical considerations that need to be addressed. Steve Burgess, development director of Cheltenham Festivals started the discussion. The Festivals receive no government funding so the team needs to raise over £1 million in order to support them. Steve stressed that this level of funding can only be achieved if you are successful in meeting the expectations of sponsors, and clearly explaining what can and cannot be delivered. The range of sponsors includes corporate and non-corporate organisations as well as educational institutions. Visitor expectation at the festivals is very high and corporate branding does not always give the right message. Cheltenham does not work with some groups from an ethical or an event perspective. The decision was described as drawing a red or pink line around certain types of sponsorship with tobacco company sponsorship being the wrong side of the red line. Emma at Science Oxford focussed on some of the pitfalls that can occur with corporate sponsorship. Science Oxford is a small public science centre which each year hosts the world wildlife photographer exhibition from the Natural History Museum which is sponsored by Veolia. A local Palestinian solidarity campaign objected to the sponsor and staged demonstrations at the exhibition. While this did not have an adverse effect of visitors, there were cost implications and Science Oxford have decided not to host the exhibition in future.

Engineering UK is a charity which promotes engineering and engineering careers and has two key programs; the Big Bang including the National Engineering Competition run in collaboration with the British Science Association and Tomorrow's Engineers which provides in-school activities to young people age 1214. The Big Bang attracted 64,000 visitors in 2013. Engineering UKâ&#x20AC;&#x;s income comes in part from the government and also from funds raised by the membership. There is also some money generated through corporate stands and exhibits. The final presenter was Kevin Smith from Platform, a small organisation working mainly with social justice issues in art/science projects. The main focus of Platform's current work is with oil exploration and its relation to human rights in countries such as Nigeria and Canada. Platform are concerned that corporate sponsorship is not entirely philanthropic and provides advertising and a certain degree of legitimacy for the sponsors. They offer workshops to organisations in helping them to understand their own values and the role of ethics and sponsorship. A lively discussion followed. The first topic was about the evidence that events do deliver sponsorsâ&#x20AC;&#x; expectations, e.g. does the Big Bang Fair really attract more engineers? In response Halton provided clear figures for the growth in the engineering sector but emphasised that it is very hard to gather long term feedback. Burgess from Cheltenham supported this view of the difficulty in carrying out longitudinal studies and particularly when schools are involved. The next theme returned to ethics and the drawing of red and pink lines in decision-making about corporate sponsorship. Cheltenham has 70 sponsors, the biggest being the Times newspaper which also attracts other potential sponsors. However, News International was seen more as a pink line organisation as is BAE Systems who work in the arms industry but also in Cyber security. Clear editorial control of sponsors needs to be considered. In contrast, at the Big Bang sponsors are responsible for their own content and while BAE Systems are sponsors, they would not work with either tobacco or drinks manufacturers particularly as their major audience is young people. Kevin Smith from Platform cited the example of BP sponsorship to the Tate galleries which had caused problems in the wake of the deep water horizon catastrophe. However, there was also evidence that the public view could be improved through corporate sponsorship. For BP, their negative public image before the Olympics was improved through their involvement in the 2012 Games. Platform stressed they need to understand the impact of involvement on an event while the Big Bang focussed more on what a corporate sponsor wanted to get from an event and building a good long-term relationship. For Science Oxford, the most important thing is to research sponsors very carefully, a message reinforced by the Cheltenham Festival who emphasised the importance of research before reaching an agreement.

@hjrea: Really important to know what sponsor wants (could be many people in one org) & what you will get out of the relationship #scicomm13

Unconference: Over to you

• •

Speakers: Hilary Leevers and Hannah Baker, Wellcome Trust Chair: Dom McDonald, Science Oxford

The Unconference session was delivered by Hilary Leevers and Hannah Baker of the Wellcome Trust who highlighted the findings of the recent Wellcome Trust Monitor. The Monitor, an independent survey of 1396 adults and 460 young people (aged 1418 years) revealed an up to date picture of what the UK thinks about science, biomedical research and science education. Discussion ranged widely on issues raised by the report, which explores everything from people's understanding of biomedical research to their views on personal responsibility for obesity and their concerns over vaccinations. It also gives the first accurate measure of how widespread the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs is among the general public. The session also discussed how the report was presented to the media: how should the Wellcome Trust handle the possibility that key messages would get lost if some of the report's more sensational findings were made the focus for press attention? Or was all publicity good publicity? Finally, the session looked at possible questions that might be included in the next survey of this type.

Further reading: • Further information about the Wellcome Trust monitor • Infographics available to download from Flickr

Science soapbox •

• •

Speakers: Martin Coath, Plymouth University; Jonathan Stone, University of East Anglia; Emily Goodall, University of Sheffield; Wendy Barnaby, British Science Association; Ian Wilson, University of Liverpool; Agnes Becker, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Chair: Monica Lobo, British Science Association Report author: Katie Nightingale, The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh

PICTURE GOES HERE

First up was Martin Coath who wanted to advertise resources available at Plymouth University which has received €6 million to fund 14 interdisciplinary science/art PhDs with a view to collaborate with other institutes and universities interested in the fusion of art and science. Secondly, he made a plea to science communicators, particularly those talking in secondary schools for differentiation in the intellectual level of which you are delivering a talk. The students you want to grab most likely need to be engaged at a higher level as they already have an interest in science, but by doing this you may alienate other students who want to listen but then can‟t understand the science. He urged people not to stick too vigorously to the level the talk is aimed at, but to include bits that would require higher level understanding, not unlike some children‟s shows that include adult jokes; the children don‟t get the jokes but don‟t miss out on anything for not getting them. Jonathan Stone, doing his PhD in volcanology at UEA, wants to make a top trumps card game with the theme of volcanoes. He has been in contact with Winning Moves, the company that makes top trumps and is looking for help on the commercial side of things to get the business going. He‟s also offering help to anyone else who wants to do something similar. Emily Goodall wanted to promote the motor neurone disease association and asked conference attendees to tweet pictures of her meerkat mascot „Mo LeCule‟ to raise awareness of the disease. Wendy Barnaby, editor of the British Science Association magazine „People and 51 Science‟ advertised the magazine and asked everybody to fill in a questionnaire about the content of the magazine that will be emailed around after the conference.

Ian Wilson wanted to promote his blog science gremlin takes journals and explains them in layman‟s terms. He is looking for guest bloggers or blogs for him to guest write on, and any advice on improving his website and writing. Agnes Becker feels there is a gap in science communication aimed at adolescent and young adults. She has developed science themed greeting cards that marry craft with science. Her two examples were a valentine‟s card describing a heart palpitation on the outside with „What I am trying to say is: When I see you, my heart skips a beat‟ and a card for general use explaining how a star is born. She is looking for advice on developing her business, feedback on the card designs and anyone who wants to collaborate with her.

Further reading: • People and Science magazine • Ian‟s blog Science Gremlin • Agnes‟ blog with card designs

About us

About Science in Society

We aim to lead those involved in public engagement by sharing best practice and encouraging innovation through our core programmes, training schemes and consulting on external projects. Find out more how can we collaborate and meet the team. Sign up to our Public Engagement Newsletter to receive regular updates about public engagement opportunities and news from the British Science Association and beyond and be the first to hear news about the 2014 Science Communication Conference.

About the British Science Association

The British Science Association (formerly known as the BA) envisages a society in which people from all walks of life are able to access science, engage with it and feel a sense of ownership about its direction. We seek to achieve that by connecting science with people: promoting openness about science in society and affirming science as a prime cultural force through engaging and inspiring adults and young people directly with science and technology, and their implications. The British Science Association is a charity established under Royal Charter and governed by a Council which forms the Board of Trustees. It is registered with the Charity Commission (number 212479) and with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (number SC039236).