Monthly Archives: January 2016

Unsung Hero of Australian Science Communication 2015

Posted on by
Reply

The Australian Science Communicators

is proud to offer the

Unsung Hero Award of Australian Science Communication

 

The award will be announced at the ASC Conference in Brisbane on 11 March 2016.

Nominations close at 5pm on Monday 22 February 2016.

ASC Unsung Hero Award 2015 Nomination Form – Entry PDF
ASC Unsung Hero Award 2015 Nomination Form – Entry WORD

The Unsung Hero of Australian Science Communication is an initiative of the Australian Science Communicators. The ASC offers this award to honour a person or group who exemplify science communication.

Nominations are now open for the 2015 Unsung Hero Award of Australian Science Communication.

Previous recipients are Frankie Lee (2014), Craig Cormick (2013) and Guy Nolch (2012). The award was launched by the 2011 National Executive and realigned from the previous ‘Unsung Hero of Science’ award (read some background here).

 

Criteria

The criteria for nomination for the Unsung Hero Australian Science Communication are:

  1. Nominees (an individual or group) must be resident in Australia and actively engaged in science communication, interpreted broadly to include, but not limited to, pursuits such as:
    • teaching,
    • broadcasting,
    • script and book writing,
    • science shows,
    • science promotion and
    • interpretation of science within cultural institutions.
  2. The work the nominee is being nominated for must have been carried out in Australia.
  3. Nominees should have not yet received significant recognition for their contribution to science and its promotion. This will almost certainly rule out a ‘top’ or popular science communicator. The nominee should have shown that they regard science communication as an integral part of scientific work.
  4. Nominees should have a considerable or prolonged record (at least several years) in science communication.
  5. The award is intended to recognise those whose contribution has been so significant over a period of time that they should by now have been recognised. It is unlikely that this would apply to a candidate whose contribution, however significant, is of short duration.
  6. Nominators must give careful consideration to what counts as ‘science’ – for example, nominees from technological or environmental fields should be nominated not just on the basis of their contribution to those particular fields, but because the scientific side of their work is strong and their communication contributes to a better understanding of the process and practice of science.

Notes:

This award may be made to a candidate whose work is specifically in science education, promotion or communication in one or many fields where the science component of their work is highly significant.

Benefits of the award

Ideally, the award may assist the recipient in their work, for example by publicising a difficult issue or by recognising that they have been a ‘lone and unpopular voice’ in spite of their scientific achievements being strong.

The award may also help a recipient to focus attention on their efforts or give them greater credibility and help them overcome adverse or unfair criticism.

Selection Process

Selection is based solely on the written information provided on the nomination form.

A selection committee of representatives from the Australian Science Communicators will assess all nominations and determine award recipients.

In some instances the selection committee may request further information before making their final decision.

The Australian Science Communicators reserves the right to make no awards should the judges consider that the quality of candidates does not warrant awards, or should the nominated candidate(s) not satisfy the selection criteria.

Requirements for Award Nomination

The nominator must be a financial member of the ASC, but the nominee need not be a member. The nominator should first consult with the nominee and referees to ensure the nominee is aware of, and gives consent, to the application.

Each nomination must comprise a fully completed award nomination form. Preferable length: 2 pages.

ASC Unsung Hero Award 2015 Nomination Form – Entry PDF
ASC Unsung Hero Award 2015 Nomination Form – Entry WORD

Nominations close at 5pm on Monday 22 February 2016.

 

Nomination enquiries to:
Sarah Lau
Secretary of the Australian Science Communicators
secretary@asc.asn.au

Send completed nominations to:
Kali Madden
Executive Officer – Australian Science Communicators
office@asc.asn.au

Nomination forms

ASC Unsung Hero Award 2015 Nomination Form – Entry PDF
ASC Unsung Hero Award 2015 Nomination Form – Entry WORD

ASC2016 is live!

Posted on by
Reply

ASC2016 is in Brisbane on March 11, early bird ends in FebruaryThe premier industry event for science communicators, science journalists and all those who make science accessible is here again.

Designed as a single day plenary format that will allow delegates to participate in the World Science Festival in Brisbane in March on either side, initial program details have gone online here. Program updates are coming in daily and we look forward to hearing any questions you may have, and to seeing you in Brisbane in March!

Click the button below to save your seat:

Eventbrite - Australian Science Communicators National Conference (ASC2016)

Professional Development Grant: Science Features

Posted on by
Reply

 

The 2015 ASC Professional Development Grant I received, for which I am very grateful, enabled me to complete a journalism course on feature writing through the Extension program at the University of California, Berkeley.

I work as a science writer for the Queensland Brain Institute, which is based at The University of Queensland. My role there involves communicating neuroscience knowledge and research news through a variety of channels, ranging from social media through podcasts to press releases.

Of the science communicator/science journalist divide, about which Bianca Nogrady wrote an excellent ASC piece last year, I’d likely sit in the communicator camp: I didn’t study journalism at university, and prior to my UC Berkeley course, I had no significant reporting experience.

In this golden age of distraction, with our 24-hour news cycle and the shift to online media consumption, with social media and the rising dominance of mobile Internet usage, attentions spans have steadily been eroded and information is reduced to as small as tweet-sized chunks. It isn’t uncommon to read a 400-word piece of science news that is little more than a fleshed-out media release.

Despite all this, the feature as a journalistic form is far from dead: the success of publications like The New Yorker signals that the demand for long-form, well researched reportage is as great as ever. Features get down to the nitty-gritty of a subject, whether it’s CRISPR gene editing or tardigrades, where shorter news pieces don’t have the scope to do so. The devil is in the details, after all.

So it was partly to expand my skillset, and partly out of interest in the feature as a journalistic form, that I chose the UC Berkeley course. The ten-week online program took us through the basics of writing a feature, from conception to pitch.

The required reading for the course was William Blundell’s The Art and Craft of Feature Writing, which is based on the Wall Street Journal guide—it’s a fantastic resource that I’d highly recommend to anyone who is interested in testing out or improving their feature-writing abilities. The book is a good guide to the entire process, from generating ideas (start with general topics of interest and brainstorm potential specific stories from there), to shaping the direction of a story (conflict always makes things interesting!) to self-editing (let your written piece rest for a while and then read it again with fresh, reader’s eyes). The course co-ordinator was herself a freelance journalist, and also gave great advice and feedback when it came to writing, as well as pitching editors.

The course had weekly assessment that culminated in the submission of a 1500–word feature article. I wrote a tech piece on ethical hackers, which I successfully pitched to The Atlantic’s science editors. The feature was fascinating to research, and I was lucky enough to interview individuals ranging from a hacker in the Philippines to a former counterterrorism analyst at the NSA.

When I talk to ‘non-sciencey’ friends, I am occasionally surprised by the discrepancy between what a layperson knows and what most people with a science background consider as being basic information. Well written, engaging science feature articles are a great way to make science accessible and bridge the knowledge gap, and I’d recommend the UC Berkeley course to anyone interested in writing them.

President’s Update

Posted on by
Reply

Thank you to Joan Leach for the President’s Update

Happy 2016!

Having just completed an interstate move and changed jobs, 2016 seems like a rather fresh start — I find myself more optimistic than usual (academics being prone to a bit of cynicism, I suppose).

Going into the holiday, I was buoyed by a quick trip across the Tasman for the SCANZ conference. The program was smart and engaging and it was also well attended by ASC members so it was great to catch up in Wellington. Plans were already afoot for the 2018 PCST conference in Dunedin. I look forward to talking with ASC members to see how we’d like to get involved.

The SCANZ conference was kicked off by the Minister for Science and Innovation, the Hon Steven Joyce. I was struck by how central science communication was in his innovation vision for NZ. He also discussed awards and incentives for great communicators and for science communication initiatives. His message seemed very much in line with the innovation message we’re currently hearing in Australia.

My hope is that after a strong presence by the Prime Minister at the 2015 PM’s prizes for science and the appointment of Alan Finkel as Chief Scientist who is well aware of the value of science communication and science journalism, our advocacy for science communication and recognition for quality work will not fall on deaf ears!

Back to the topic of the SCANZ conference — the plenary sessions focussed on citizen science as well as NZ’s myriad programs communicating environmental issues, Antarctic science, and basic research. It was inspiring — and the plenary format meant that science communication and journalism colleagues across sectors could respond and discuss questions and issues all together. We’ll try to follow our Kiwi colleagues lead in March in Brisbane. I really enjoyed the interaction across the diversity of science communication, journalism, policy, academic research. Congrats to Christine Ross, outgoing President of SCANZ, for a great conference.

Since I am overwhelmed by the listicle at the moment (‘5 ways to really stick with your New Year’s resolutions this year’) I thought I’d share my own: 3 top trends (in addition to the “innovation agenda”) I look for in science communication in 2016:

1. Citizen Science is hot. Now, most of us have been involved in some way with initiatives for a long time, but now the rest of the world loves it! As I unpacked my boxes from my move, I found my 1995 copy of Alan Irwin’s Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development. It will repay another read! The idea has morphed in the last 20 years, but even a scan while hunched over a pile of books was revealing. So, if we love the idea of citizen science, why is citizen journalism more problematic (I think it is)? Does the current focus on getting people to do scientific activities preclude getting people to think about controversial science? Anyway, these discussions are coming our way and I look forward to them.

2. ‘Engagement’ may be a dead metaphor by the end of 2016: For a fun read, try http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/dec/17/public-participation-science-technology-failure-to-launch

3. Native content advertising is going to drive a lot of science communication: OK, so this is a special interest of mine so I see it everywhere at the moment. But, some of the journalists I most respect are doing very good work… but paid for by Universities and other institutions (and of course, corporate sponsors). I’m not willing to say ‘this is terrible, this is the end of the world…’  but it’s a trend. I want to understand it. So, I hope this year we can have an open discussion on this… the good, the bad, the ugly… the science listicle.

I hope ASC members had a great end to 2015 and are optimistic about 2016.

Professor Joan Leach

ASC President

ScienceAlert: science communication for the masses

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier in the year I won a grant from the Australian Science Communicators to fly down to Sydney, and spend some time with the ScienceAlert team.

ScienceAlert has over seven million fans on Facebook. They have over 1000 views at any one time on their website. They are one of the leading science communication channels in this country, and yet the team is just three hard working writers, two freelancers and a programmer who keeps everyone together.

The team was nothing like I expected. Having just spent a week with the ABC as an intern, and one day a week at Brisbane Times earlier this year, I was expecting the science version of that. An office in the heart of Sydney, 10-20 employees all working hard to make science content for the masses. Probably taking shifts to ensure content was always being generated. Instead, I found a tiny group of incredible writers all working from home, each contributing three or more stories a day to make ScienceAlert what it is.

A Master’s project for one of the founding members, ScienceAlert has become something incredible since it was created in 2004 republishing press releases of Australian research. It has grown a long way since then, taking the Facebook and science communication scenes by storm.

Chris Casella, the managing director, flew up from Canberra to see me in Sydney on the first day and we spent the morning discussing the history, my past work and how ScienceAlert works. Fiona MacDonald, one of the editors was there as well, but she still had two more stories to write that afternoon so she was busily tapping away on her laptop at the coffee shop we were in.

Later that day, when Chris went off to meet with a contact from Google, Fiona and I worked in the coffee shop finding stories, interesting pictures and basically just working out how the ScienceAlert system works.

That night we enjoyed dinner and drinks with the rest of the team, and they were just as kind and interesting as Fiona. It was great to get to meet the whole team, and even after a full day of writing, they still seemed excited to meet me and have a good time.

The next day we spent in an open hire office in Sydney CBD, the team incredibly accommodating with my errors or silly questions. Chris headed back on a plane south, and we got into writing.

Surprisingly, I felt like my most intense three days were not the days in Sydney, but instead the days I spent at home, working with them from a laptop.

Since that morning in the office, I have done close to six original articles, one that has been posted on ScienceAlert and about the same amount of reposts of Business Insider and the Conversation, two of their business partners. One of the original articles has been published, and there are more on the way.

I’m finally adjusting to the style guide and the quick paced nature of online publication, and I love it.

ScienceAlert definitely wasn’t what I was expecting and I think it’s better.