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