Interesting transcript, giving, I believe, some insight into what we can expect from our chief scientist. What do you think?
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3251029.htm
And some more insight here: http://theconversation.edu.au/ian-chubb-this-is-not-the-office-of-the-chief-climate-change-scientist-1982
Maybe you need to work in a factory to understand this one? http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2774928.html
Fenella Edwards, Vice-President, ACT branch, writes: To celebrate National Youth Week and the International Year of Chemistry, CSIRO Discovery hosted an evening for young people – of all ages!
The theme of chemistry was visible in an array of non-alcoholic cocktails, or ‘mocktails’ mixed up by the ACT Branch of Australian Science Communicators. These colourful concoctions, as well as admission to the Discovery exhibition with live creature shows, were included in the free admission event.
Local bands ‘Project B’ (Lyneham High School) and ‘Loud Mud’ (Gundaroo) entertained all with jazz and light rock before the poetry element of the evening sparked up some creative chemistry among the crowd.
Canberra poet extraordinaire Hal Judge guided us through a group performance of two of his poems, and invited the audience to submit creative answers to questions to win prizes. The audience were then dazzled (if not intimidated) by fabulous performances of local poets Omar Musa and Andrew Galan before the open-mic poetry competition got underway – with $500 in worth of prizes up for grabs for the best original poem/story/song having a chemistry theme.
The winning poem by Sarah Sherringham ‘The Tale of the Very Strange Step-mother’ was a modern day remake of the fairy tale Snow White, the following is an excerpt:
“Some people said she married him just for the cash
And they were not entirely mistaken in that.
The sciences had taken such a beating and a shunning,
Rich husbands were the last source of research funding!
In the room she’d been given to dress for tea,
She’d set up some kind of weird laboratory
Where beakers bubbled and test tubes foamed;
She stayed in there all day and night, on her own.
…
Wrapped up her research (in time for tea
Published her treatise on Clean Energy;
Became the leading expert in her field of Chemistry;
And these days she’s a Professor at the University.”
Also during the evening, prizes were awarded to the winners of the National Youth Week science-art competition, ‘When Science Meets Art’. The winning entries were on display in the CSIRO Discovery gallery space throughout National Youth Week, see the prize winners at: http://www.csiro.au/resources/When-Science-Meets-Art-2011.html
Our tireless editor of Scope, Laura Miles, is leaving the position after three years of service. She is making room in her busy diary for a range of other opportunities which have opened for her.
The National Council thanks Laura for her valuable contributions to the ASC. I add my appreciation for her work with Tim Thwaites, James Hutson, Kali Madden and me to improve our communications and refine our membership strategies. Laura has been a thoughtful voice in many discussions about complex matters.
We will be advertising for the position of Scope editor and I hope we have willing and capable hands being raised to take on this important task.
Laura is of course unique and therefore irreplaceable. Happily the ASC has members with different unique qualities and one of you will have the opportunity to stamp their mould on the position.
I wish Laura all the best in her other endeavours and I expect we will continue to seek her council on a range of issues.
Jesse Shore
National President
Editor, Australian Science Communicators www.asc.asn.au
Location: anywhere in Australia with broadband internet access
Honorarium: $150 per issue, with the expectation of 10 to 11 issues produced per year.
SCOPE is the monthly online newsletter of the Australian Science Communicators (ASC), a network of 500 + professional science and technology communicators across Australia and overseas.
The current Editor, Laura Miles, is resigning due to competing board commitments, so ASC is looking for a new Editor effective from the August 2011 issue. Laura will be available to handover to the new Editor to ensure a smooth transition into the role.
The role includes the following activities:
The key selection criteria for this role are:
Applications are invited by e-mail no later than 5 pm on 21 July 2011 for the attention of Jesse Shore, ASC National President at: jesse [at] prismaticsciences.com.
Please include a brief CV (two pages maximum) and a statement addressing the selection criteria with contact details of two professional referees (one page maximum). Applications must be submitted in PDF or Word 2003/2007 format (.doc or .docx). Candidates must be current financial members of ASC.
If you have any technical questions about the role, e-mail Laura at: editor [at ] asc.asn.au
I recently visited the media140 conference in Brisbane a number of weeks ago. There I met Elena McMaster, the Nanotechnology Project Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Australia. As a science communicator for an NGO, I thought she might have an interesting perspective on science communication. We had been emailing, but finally had a chat at the FOE shop on Smith Street, Collingwood.
I asked: Do you think there are different challenges in communicating science from an NGO perspective?
“There are some unique but important challenges in communicating science from within an environmental and social justice campaign.
I guess the key challenge for us is that we are presenting a critical perspective on a technology (i.e. nanotechnology) that is the subject of a lot of hype. The hype is driven by governments, industry and scientists and researchers and is often not subjected to rigorous scrutiny or a healthy dose of scepticism (e.g. the claim that nanotechnology will deliver space elevators)
We are also presenting a perspective different from mainstream communication, in that we seek to make health, social, ethical and environmental dimensions central to the debate and decision-making around technologies rather than peripheral (or missing entirely).
Many nano-applications and materials carry the potential for significant environmental, social and health impacts, yet regulation is largely nonexistent. Meanwhile hundreds of products containing nanomaterials are already commercially available. Nanomaterials such as nano-silver, for example, are widely used in hundreds of consumer products (ranging from socks to baby toothbrushes to washing machines) unregulated despite evidence of serious environmental problems. Other nanomaterials, also used widely commercially, such as nano titanium dioxide and nano zinc oxide in sunscreens and UV resistant surface coatings display the potential to cause serious harm to human health. A key challenge is moving the debate around nano safety beyond the narrow risk vs. benefits framing to a broader understanding of the precautionary principle.
As with any technological shift there are also social and ethical dimensions that need consideration. For example, nanotechnology is often promoted as ushering in an entirely new manufacturing paradigm, dislocating economic growth from resource constraints and revolutionising traditional manufacturing methods. This could have far-reaching effects for people employed in the global South in traditional manufacturing industries and in the extraction of some raw resources. Historically, with large technology shifts, the need for unskilled labour contracts while some jobs are created in knowledge-intensive skilled industries. This means that less privileged unskilled workers are often disproportionately affected.
It’s important that science R & D and technological innovation is not regarded as happening, somehow, outside of social conditions.
The Friends of the Earth Nanotechnology Project is also a passionate advocate for public interest science and increased public funding for researchers. The increasing pressure on researchers to tailor their research towards developing innovations with market potential, due to dwindling public funding and the rise in public-private research partnerships, means that ‘public science’ is being squeezed by the commercial imperative. It is absolutely essential that scientists are able to conduct their research free from commercial pressures and use public money for R&D that reflects community desires rather than the market potential.
Communicating these ideas and bringing social and environmental questions to the centre of science and technology debates are some of the key challenges we face.”
Thanks to Elena for her time. Check out her work at FOE.
George Aranda
ASC (Vic) branch
George also blogs as Popsciguy – www.popsciguy.com.au
Popping into my inbox the other day was a review by the journal, Science Communication about a book Open Science. The authors are Julian Cribb and Tjempaka Sari (CSIRO publishing).
Another book from Julian Cribb, I thought, how wonderful. But Julian is no one hit wonder, so why was I surprised. The review was positive, even recommending that this book be assigned reading for science communication students. The reviewer was particularly complimentary about the chapter on good science writing calling it a ‘near perfect minicourse.” The review can be read here.
I read another two positive reviews and posed some questions to Julian; based on two concepts that are pivotal to the book: excellent science communication, and open science.
Q> Explain the concept of ‘open science”
A> Open science is knowledge that is freely available to humanity at large. It recognises knowledge as a common human right and a heritage, to be shared for the benefit of all.
Q> If we were to achieve open science do you think it would be read?
A> I would expect that some science would be read by people who would want to use it – farmers, engineers, ecologists, policymakers and the like. However I also believe that science should invest far more in translating its findings into language that ordinary people can use in their daily lives, work and activities. Research tends to see the production of knowledge as the ultimate goal, regardless of whether that knowledge is ever used or not. (and much of it isn’t)
I argue that, as the public has paid for most science, the public is entitled to know about it and be able to use it if they can. Science does not belong to scientists, governments or corporations: it belongs to the people.
Q> Can you give three tips to achieve ‘open science’
A> 1. All scientific research institutes should have a firm policy of sharing the broad outcomes of their work with the public, especially if the public has helped to fund them
2. Scientists should be trained as communicators and, early in their careers, imbued with an ethos that knowledge belongs to society at large and they have a duty to share their findings.
3. The communication of science should be funded proportionately to the conduct of research. For example, every research grant should have a percentage of funds dedicated to sharing the resulting knowledge with a wider audience or public. (At the moment most scientific organisations ignore their obligation to communicate, or do it very half-heartedly. There needs to be a firm communication budget that cannot be side-tracked for other things.)
Q> In the chapter on audience research you take from marketing theory by adding customer value analysis (CVA) and reputational analysis. Can you explain these concepts and how they add to the PR arsenal?
A> 1. CVA involves research into customer attitudes towards new science and technology and trying to understand the value that an end-user attaches to it. For example scientists may think a piece of research very important, but end-users may not – this creates a misfit and usually ends in the knowledge being wasted eg GM food. Where there is a close fit between the science and the end-user, it usually has high uptake and high social, economic and environmental impact: everyone benefits
2. Reputational analysis is how a research institute (or any corporation) can understand how it is perceived by the outside world – positively or negatively. A positive reputation is important to a scientific body because it creates trust in society for that organisation, and hence a greater likelihood its science will be adopted. So there is a very practical end-use, not just a warm feeling.
Q> Can a journalist benefit from reading Open Science? ie is it more geared towards PR professionals?
A> I don’t use the word PR in the context of science communication. In my view that is adding spin to the (usually dubious) marketing claims of a commercial organisation or government, whereas science communication is transmitting the fruits of science truthfully, accurately and understandably to various publics. It does not involve spin.
Yes, journalists can benefit from various chapters. It will help them to understand how scientists think, for example, and that will enable them to obtain more and better stories from science. But it is mainly written for science communicators, who are a separate and honourable profession, but also for interested scientists, science managers and scicomm students.
So if you’re looking for a good book on science communication (written by an Australian and a former president of the Australian Science Communicators) One that explains how to get the message across, after all Julian always does, then grab a copy of the book.
When planning to travel interstate or territory I encourage members to contact the local branch committees. You might find they are running an event or workshop that meets your interests or that they can provide you an opportunity to present something yourself to share your expertise. You’ll also have some valuable and enjoyable networking and socialising.
There are potential taxation benefits and real professional gains in mixing a bit of science communication with a holiday. This is even more so for a business trip. So make use of the branches for fun and profit.
This is also a way to make contacts in our non-branch regions. The NT and Tasmania are slowly growing in member numbers but do not yet have local branch committees. The same goes for central and northern Queensland (members in several states suffer the tyranny of distance but especially Queensland folks).
If you are heading in those directions, contact Kali Madden <office at asc.asn.au>. Kali can look into putting you in contact with members interested in exchanging science communication perspectives (perhaps over a drink or dinner).
Several of the branches have contact details of their committee members on the ASC website. It’s worth an email or two to seek the benefits of networking.
Jesse Shore
National President
Numerical milestones have both symbolic and real meanings. It great to see that our Victorian branch has recently exceeded the hundred mark in number of members. NSW is not far behind and ACT is also closing in on the century. ASC membership is growing across the nation and we are nearly at 500 members. These are significant symbols along our path.
The aim is to associate these rising numbers with an increase in meaningful activities and services within the volunteer framework of the organisation. So it’s good to note that the VIC branch has an event-full second half of 2011 and other branches also have busy programs.
We have a load to share (as in ‘lots’ and ‘effort’) to run events, offer networking and professional development opportunities, and meet the needs of the members. This means translating increasing member numbers on the books into more hands on deck.
Full steam ahead.
Jesse Shore
National President
ASC branch committees always need good ideas for events. Last December I posted a list of 30 events the branches ran last year and I think it’s worth mentioning some topics which are worth borrowing.
For the latest ideas check the events listing for each branch on the ASC website.
New ideas are very welcome. Email them to me if you don’t have the contact details of your local committee. Or post them on the asc-list.
Jesse Shore
National President