Category Archives: Research

A Little Knowledge Can Be Dangerous: ‘White-coat syndrome’ and the ‘CSI Effect’

Posted on by
Reply

rmp-explained-stillProviding jurors with carefully designed instruction prior to a criminal case involving DNA evidence improves their understanding of science and reduces the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice, according to research by ASC members in NSW.

A recent research project “Improving jury understanding and use of expert DNA evidence” (Goodman-Delahunty & Hewson, 2010) has shown that the less jurors know about DNA science, the more likely they are to be influenced by scientific evidence and convict.

This “white-coat syndrome” in which jurors place undue weight on scientific evidence is compounded by a “CSI effect” in which frequent viewers of forensic criminal television shows often have the lowest understanding of DNA science – but feel competent to use it.

Jurors in criminal trials in Australia are increasingly expected to hear and understand complex scientific evidence before considering their verdict. Unfortunately, only about two-thirds of typical Australian jurors have studied high-school mathematics and only one-third has studied any science at high school level. Juries are three times more likely to convict in identical cases where DNA evidence is presented.

This study exposed jurors to an 18-minute video instruction on both DNA science and the calculation of random match probabilities to improve understanding of DNA evidence and reducing the overall conviction rate. Jurors’ trust in DNA evidence declined as their knowledge of DNA science increased – they became more sceptical and empowered to be critical of the evidence.

The study also compared the efficacy of different instructional media and sources of scientific information.  Researchers examined the learning preferences of jurors prior to the case and then exposed them to either verbal or multimedia presentations, and also compared judge-led and prosecution-led scientific experts. Instruction presented by a DNA expert was perceived as more credible than judge-led instruction.

The researchers recommendations propose jury education programs which would equip jurors with relevant knowledge about complex scientific concepts, with increased use of visual aids in evidence and other legal proceedings to facilitate jury understanding.

Reports on the research and its recommendations (Improving jury understanding and use of expert DNA evidence and Enhancing fairness in DNA jury trials) can be accessed through the Australian Institute of Criminology.

Dr. Lindsay Hewson – ASC NSW branch
lindsay [at] unsw.edu.au

What do the public really think? + Victorian AGM

Posted on by
Reply
20 April 2010
6:00 pm

Date: Tuesday 20 April 2010
Location: The Clare, 421 Rathdowne St Carlton VIC 3053
illo_ascvicagm+publicthink

part 1: ASC Victorian Branch AGM
6pm for 6.15pm. Free drink for all members in attendance.

The Victorian branch is due for an annual general meeting to renew and refresh our committee. Please come along and so help to shape the ASC locally. We’d love more passionate communicators to get involved.

The Committee’s main function is organising networking and professional development events for ASC members in Victoria. Often we invite speakers on current issues relating to science communication and it is an opportunity to share our thoughts and experiences in an informal atmosphere. We have had a range of speakers such as Fred Mendelsohn, Director of the Howard Florey Institute talking about the biochemistry of depression; Peter McGauran, the Federal Science Minister at the time; science comedians; science artists; museum exhibitors and more. Recent sessions have included:

  • Lawrence Krauss on The Physics of Star Trek
  • Scott Sampson on The Dinosaurs of West America
  • A designer, a publisher and a typographer discussing Brochures, banners and budgets. Oh my!
  • Our networking evening Science Centric at the three degrees bar and brewery

Current  committee positions and office bearers are:
-  President: Niall Byrne
-  Secretary & Treasurer: Jason Major
-  ASC national committee representative:  Meg Rive (not seeking re-election)
-  General committee members: L.E. Ohman, Ian Muchamore, James Hutson, Maia Sauren, and Laura Miles

part II: Polls and surveys what works?: Finding out what the public really think 6.45pm for 7pm.

We write for the general public, we talk to the general public. But who exactly are the general public? And how do we know what they think? Or even whether they are interested in science in the first place?

Join us for a discussion on public surveys, polls and focus groups.

How easy is it to conduct a survey? What can surveys reveal? And how can we use them to better direct our communication efforts.

Our panel includes a representative of polling company Roy Morgan, who will explain what’s involved in creating and running a poll; and two users – one from state government, one from federal government – who will talk about their experiences in conducting large public surveys, what worked, what didn’t and what people really think about science.

The speakers are:

  • Craig Cormick, Manager of Public Awareness for the federal government’s National Enabling Technologies. Craig has used public surveys and focus groups to track community attitudes over time to biotechnology, genetically modified foods, cloning and more recently, nanotechnology. He is a regular spokesperson on public attitudes and has written several reports and books on the topic.
  • Wendy Williams, Manager of Science and Community for the Victorian Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development. Wendy coordinated a major study in 2007 on adult attitudes to science and technology and looked at whether attitudes to science mirrored attitudes to new applications of science and whether attitudes an indicator of behaviour?
  • Bruce Packard, National Customised Research Director for Roy Morgan Research. Roy Morgan is the company that can tell you exactly how many people read Cosmopolitan magazine, the Herald Sun or The Australian. They specialise in market research and public opinion surveys and cover all aspects of market research from personal interviews, to telephone, self-administered and the Internet. Bruce has undertaken a wide range of qualitative research for both public sector and private sector clients, ranging from in-depth interviews with indigenous leaders in remote communities in the Northern Territory to focus group discussions with gamblers in Melbourne. He currently looks after the company’s social and government research.

Download the pdf poster for prominent public display at your work place.

Free for members.
$10 for non-members. $5 non- member students.
Meals and drinks at bar prices
(+ a free drink for members attending AGM!)

RSVP and enquiries:
Sarah Brooker sarah@scienceinpublic.com.au 0413 332 489

Stem Cells at the Pub

Posted on by
Reply
22 November 2009
7:00 pmto9:00 pm
7:00 pmto9:00 pm

Whether the story is about promises of groundbreaking cures, allegations of scientific fraud or warnings of ethical dilemmas, stem cell research makes headlines and sparks debate.

How does the media shape the public’s perceptions of stem cells and scientists? Is the promise of stem cells over-hyped?

Who is responsible for keeping the story straight?

Stem Cells at the Pub

Date: Sunday 22 November

Time: 7pm for 7.30pm start

Venue: Canberra Labor Club, Civic, 16 Petrie Plaza

Panel features:

  • Prof Alan Trounson (California Institute of Regenerative Medicine)
  • Leigh Dayton (The Australian)
  • Simon Grose (Science Media)
  • Rebecca Skinner (Communication Officer, Australian Stem Cell Centre)
  • Assoc Prof Edna Hardeman (University of Sydney)

This event is free and open to the public.

Seats are limited so rsvp to 0402710943 or asccanberra ‘at’ gmail.com.

Presented by the Australasian Society for Stem Cell Research and the Australian Science Communicators.

More links: Alan Trounson’s profile on ABC, Australian Stem Cell Centre, About Science Media.

ASC National Conference 2010: Call for papers

Posted on by
1

Preamble

The ASC National Conference will enable science communication researchers and practitioners to share experiences and learn from each other. The research track provides opportunities to present work, identify areas that need enquiry, investigate how to improve practice, and strengthen practitioner-researcher collaborations.

To maximise the opportunity for interaction, standard presentations will be minimised and dialogue and networking fostered.

Whether you are academic, practitioner or student, if you are involved with any research or evaluation that has implications for science communication, we encourage you to put forward a paper.

THE DEADLINE FOR ALL RESEARCH-TRACK SUBMISSIONS IS

7 December

Research communication and discussion will be formally facilitated at the conference in four ways.

1) Research papers  - parallel session presentations

Presentations on an aspect of science communication research or evaluation will be given 10 minutes talk-time and followed by panel sessions or roundtable discussions, depending on the number of people attending the session. It is not necessary to submit under a particular conference theme, but where relevant and possible, presentation sessions will be thematically grouped.

SUBMIT

  • An overview of not more than 500 words to:

conference.submissions@asc.asn.au

  • Submissions can be on any science communication research or evaluation

area, but must include:

  • Your name, title and contact information
  • A brief outline explaining why the paper constitutes “science communication” research and/or evaluation. (100 words)
  • An abstract outlining the context or event, research questions, methods, outcomes, etc.  (350 words)
  • One to three questions that the research or evaluation has inspired, or provokes, for discussion after the presentation.  (50 words per question)

2) Research contributions to plenaries, workshops or symposia

  • People submitting papers that are of particular relevance to specific

plenaries, workshops or symposia may be invited to contribute to these fora instead of a research-specific session. It will be up to the session/theme convener to invite and provide details to presenters directly.

  • You can choose to make submissions to contribute to

specific sessions, and they will be forwarded to that  forum’s convener.  Should you wish to submit directly to a specific session, please indicate the name of session to which you would like to contribute clearly at the beginning of  your 500-word overview

  • If your submission to a specific session cannot be included in that session,

it could be accepted for submission in a research track session.  The convener of the session will forward your submission to the research stream committee.

3) Research student sessions

The goal here is to bring together widely distributed research students in science communication and related fields.  Interaction with peers can be a confidence-building reality check and an invaluable avenue for finding ways to clear hurdles that your supervisors have not, or cannot, address.  These sessions will focus on discussion, sharing of experiences, and networking rather than formal presentations.  However, you are welcome to organise extended focus on one individual’s work in one of the conference’s ad hoc sessions (outlined below at 4)

For these sessions, please tell us what you would like to see in these sessions, and what you hope to get out of them. For example:

  • Preferred session format. For example; roundtables, panel-

discussions, problem-solving workshops or informal drinks

  • Preferences for session content. For example; current big issues in

science communication research or methodological matters.

4) Ad Hoc sessions

Flexible meeting spaces and facilitators will be on hand for ad hoc sessions in response to ideas and issues that have been nagging you or issues and questions that arise during the conference.

Some of these sessions may be ‘clinics’, where you bring a problem where you would like input.  For example, would you like an academic to assist in developing an evaluation tool for a community outreach program that you are running?  Or, are you a researcher who needs your theory ‘reality-checked’ by a practitioner?

NOTE – These sessions do not have to be about research

Details about how to take advantage of this opportunity will be provided at the conference.