Communicating Science


Sorry I neglected to write a post with real content last week, but I have one in the works!  Stay tuned.  For now, though, here’s a note about an science festival event in DC that they’re trying to create some advance buzz on.  I’m a big fan of science festivals — bring science to the streets, and have people run across it who wouldn’t usually go out of their way to go to a science museum or science talk.   We have art festivals, music festivals, why not science festivals?  There’s a big tradition of this in Europe, apparently, and we’re trying to learn their style.  I know there were a lot of sessions on science festivals at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meetings several years back.  Apparently this festival (which is the first nationwide festival!) are inspired by those international efforts.  Interestingly enough, it’s led by an entrepreneur and venture capitalist (Larry Bock), with a science bent, rather than a scientist.  Kudos.  Sounds like someone who knows how to get things done!

Here’s the info on the event in DC:

USA Science & Engineering Festival Expo Dates: October 23 & 24, 2010; 10:00am-5:30pm; This event is free of charge – no tickets required
What is the universe made of? Why did dinosaurs go extinct? What do magic tricks and hip-hop have to with math? What can amphibians and reptiles tell us about the environment? What do engineers have to do with baseball? Find out at the first ever USA Science & Engineering Festival Expo on the National Mall! Explore science & engineering with hundreds of free, hands-on activities and over 40 science shows on three different stages. The two-day Expo is perfect for teens, children and their families, and anyone with a curious mind who is looking for a weekend of fun and discovery. Build an underwater robot, chat with a Nobel Laureate, explore the science behind the magic of Hogwarts Academy and see a car that drives itself. From bugs to birds, kitchen chemistry to computer games, environmental monitoring to electronic music – the Expo has something for everyone and is completely free of charge. The Expo is the pinnacle event of the inaugural USA Science & Engineering Festival to be held in the greater Washington D.C. area October 10-24, 2010. The USA Science & Engineering Festival is a collaboration of over 500 of the nation’s leading science and engineering organizations. For more information on all Festival events and how you can get involved, visit www.usasciencefestival.org

Get involved now: join the over 400 organizations that have already signed up to host an Expo exhibit, become an official Festival Partner, organize a Satellite Event in your community, host a Festival Event, check out our cool school programs like Nifty Fifty and Lunch with a Laureate, volunteer, donate, become a sponsor, participate in one of several contests, buy a Festival T-shirt, follow our blog, and stay on top of it all by signing up for our bi-weekly e-newsletter. Will you be there when science takes over the National Mall?

I am a science education and communications consultant -- view my website for my full range of services.



I recently wrote a guest editorial for the American Physics Society’s Forum on Education newsletter, on my experiences as a science educator and communicator:

As a young physicist, I’ve had the immense good fortune to work with several expert communicators, like David Kestenbaum, to learn the best ways to bring science to diverse audiences. I realized in graduate school that I was more interested in helping people understand and appreciate physics, than in creating more physics myself. Those were back in the days of early global warming skepticism, and I was appalled at the general lack of trust and understanding of science. I wanted to do my part to change that. This article will tell you a bit about how I was able to get involved in science outreach, and the best practices that I’ve taken away from those experiences.

See the full article here.

I am a science education and communications consultant -- view my website for my full range of services.



In my copious spare time (!), I do some freelance writing assignments.  I recently got a fun assignment from my acquaintance and colleague David Ehrenstein at Physical Review Focus.  (I met David many years ago at a National Association of Science Writers conference… before a talk started, I heard someone ask “Could you explain Dark Matter to me?  I sidled up closer to hear how someone could do that in 1 minute or less.  That someone was David.  Great explainer and writer.)

Physical Review Focus explains the articles in Physical Review for a broad physicists audience.  They’re not easy to write — you have to understand a technical paper in an entirely new field at a deep level, and then write about it in a way that explains the details at a sufficient level to make a physicist happy, but with a broad enough story arc so that a non-specialist can understand it.  It’s  a tough balance.

This latest one was about how things break.  As you can imagine, it’s tough to get a real microscopic snapshot of a crack shooting through a material as it breaks.  But that’s what we need to do in order to get a deep understanding of fracture, so we can understand why materials fail.  Everything cracks (yes, even your jet airplane), but what we want to do is to understand why those cracks grow – that’s what we want to avoid to keep the stuff we build from falling apart.

So, take a look at my full article — Cracking the story of fracture. Any questions?  Let me know.

Image by Christopher Thomas:  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glass_fracture.jpg

I am a science education and communications consultant -- view my website for my full range of services.



I recently wrote an article for the National Association of Science Writers, on my career path to becoming a freelance science educator and writer.  It’s on the members-only part of the site here, but dear readers, I give it to you here to enjoy!  A big thanks to Cathy Dold for asking me to write it, and giving me great editorial comments.

——————

Stephanie Chasteen, a science education and communication consultant, was getting a PhD in physics when she realized she was more interested in learning about science than actually doing it. Time for a career change. Stephanie discusses how she launched a “do-it-yourself” program to learn science writing while still working on her PhD.

————————

I found out about science writing in an unlikely place: the hot and sweaty West African nation of Guinea. I was working as a Peace Corps volunteer, and one day happened to meet a successful writer for Science magazine who was visiting her boyfriend, another volunteer. Her enthusiasm for science writing got me hooked on the idea of using my creative side to express and explore my love of the natural world. Twelve years later, I’m a writer who specializes in science education, as well as a physicist. I’m one of the relatively few writers who gritted her teeth through the whole game of doctor, working on my PhD while squeezing in writing experience on the side. Here is my story: what I did, and how it worked for me.

The Science Gristmill — Dr. Steph

Like many other science writers, I found that I loved learning about science more than actually doing it. So once my classes were done and I began the research for my PhD, my enthusiasm for the degree began to wane. I began to wonder if I should change my career track. I read books and attended NASW conferences to learn more about science writing, and I posed the question to many writers: “Should I finish the degree?” I was told that in some venues (such as newspapers) the doctorate might count against me, since I would be numbered among the lost souls who could no longer communicate with regular people. But for the most part, people looked slightly wistful. “Finish it,” they told me. “It will open doors.”

I wasn’t entirely convinced, and I applied to the science writing program at my university — the University of California-Santa Cruz — then run by John Wilkes. John liked me and my work, but he claimed he wasn’t sure that I would leave my PhD program if he were to accept me.

It was clear that if I wanted to learn to communicate science, I would have to put together my own learning program. A friendly phooey on John; I would show him!

Do-it-Yourself Science Writing

I continued to suffer through my PhD research, while also launching my science journalism quest.

I knew I needed some directed training in writing, so I enrolled in a journalism class at Santa Cruz. I recommend this highly to anyone. I learned the essential features of a story and got hands-on editing practice. I also wanted clips, and the instructor was well-connected with the local paper. She managed to get two of my pieces for the class (written on my own research area of solar energy) published in the Santa Cruz Sentinel. After the class ended, I continued to write for the Sentinel, for peanuts, to get those precious clips and more experience.

I also kept in contact with the Santa Cruz science writing program, and traveled with their students to conferences. By making myself visible in this way, I developed valuable contacts and connections. When the Stanford News Service didn’t fill their internship that semester, I heard about it from these contacts, and offered to write some pieces for the service. “Write for free” is the first piece of advice I give to others (look up “reciprocity (social psychology)” on Wikipedia). I got valuable editing and assistance from the people to whom I donated my reporting and writing time. Plus, one of my press releases for Stanford garnered the attention of a writer for National Geographic, leading to my first writing gig in a (different) national magazine.

The Best Job I’ll Never Have

But I had a higher plan. When talking to other science writers at conferences, I’d been told that the two best routes for a scientist like me were to go through the Santa Cruz program (oh, well), or to get a fellowship with the AAAS Mass Media Science & Engineering Fellows program. So I gathered enough clips to create a good portfolio, and was accepted as a fellow. “Where would you like to be placed?” the fellowship staff asked. I hadn’t really thought about it. “NPR would be cool,” I suggested. My luck was golden; no one else had asked for the National Public Radio assignment. So I was off to the science desk at NPR, in Washington, D.C.

At NPR, I learned the high standards of excellence of national science reporting, including the nuances of language, the delicacies of health study implications, the dirty job of digging stories out of press releases and conferences, and how to write short, short, SHORT. I developed a deep respect for the science reporters and their craft, and discovered a latent love for audio. NPR correspondent Susan Stamberg said I had a “good radio voice.” I was in heaven.

Helen Fields, another former NPR intern, once told me wistfully, “I want my internship back!” And so do I. I would do it again in a heartbeat.

NPR was a delightful tease — a wonderful internship experience, but a job I’m unlikely to land permanently. Hence, “the best job I’ll never have.” But that internship gave me so much. Not only did I gain great experience at NPR, but the name carries a lot of clout. Even people who don’t know the AAAS mass media fellowship know the name “NPR.” So, it’s certainly helpful if you can snag an internship at a nationally recognized venue; the NASW internship fairs can help with that quest. And, another theme song from this experience is, it doesn’t hurt to ask.

What About That Pesky PhD?

Right about now you might be wondering how I managed to do all this and work on my PhD. I was very fortunate to have an extremely supportive advisor during my degree work. She granted me time off in the summer to do the AAAS fellowship, and when a contact arranged for me to take a researcher position with Twin Cities Public Television, she supported that as well. Other PhD students aren’t so lucky; their advisors keep them under lock and key. But, many PhD students are also too shy to ask, and remember, it doesn’t hurt to ask. Workaholic tendencies come in handy, too.

Selling Myself

In the last years of my PhD, I became my own business. I continued to teach myself about science writing and communication, and I marketed myself. Networking always feels slimy when you’re doing it as a means to an end, so I approach it with a sense of genuine curiosity and interest in people. Here are some of the surprising ways that my passionate delving into science communication has led to personal connections and jobs:

  • I volunteered to give a presentation at a science book club, which led to an introduction to physicist/writer Michael Riordan. He got me the researcher position at Twin Cities Public Television.
  • I offered to edit the physics laboratory manuals at Santa Cruz in lieu of a teaching assistantship, gaining valuable writing experience.
  • I audited an environmental writing course, befriending the instructor, Sarah Rabkin. She gave me professional advice and invited me back several times to present to her class on my career.
  • Overhearing a writer trying to explain dark matter in the 30 seconds before a NASW talk, I introduced myself as a fellow physicist. I have now written for David Ehrenstein (Physical Review Focus) a few times, and he is a friendly professional contact.
  • I wrote several press releases, for free, for the Stanford Report. One garnered the attention of the editor of a national magazine. He asked me to write a feature article on the topic, and I continued to contribute to that publication.
  • I contacted the husband of a family friend to find out more about science writing (these “informational interviews” are fantastic ways to find out about a field and get connections). I subsequently wrote a piece for the science career website he edited.
  • At the suggestion of my advisor, I contacted a scientist who was starting an ambitious public outreach project. He hired me as project manager, and through that job I met museum directors from around the country, science education specialists, and a national grantwriter. I still call on many of those contacts, and that is where I was introduced to the central figures at the Exploratorium museum in San Francisco.

The Exploratorium (The Other Best Job I’ll Never Have)

Soon after receiving my PhD, I heard that the Exploratorium was seeking a PhD physicist for a National Science Foundation-funded postdoctoral position running teacher workshops. I got the job and accepted enthusiastically, even though it represented a definitive career shift away from traditional science journalism and toward science education. While at the Exploratorium, however, I continued to write. In particular, I convinced the museum to give me a crack at creating their first regular podcast series, for their nanotechnology program. Through this and another podcast series, I learned the art of podcast production, and I have now produced podcasts as a freelancer, including a series for elementary teachers for the National Science Digital Library, and interview segments for Science magazine.

While I do a small amount of traditional science journalism, today my main career is devoted to improving science education and supporting teacher professional development. I create videos and write papers on effective pedagogy, blog for science teachers, produce podcasts to communicate polar science to elementary teachers, design professional development curricula, and evaluate the effectiveness of educational programs. For me, writing is one of the tools I carry in my kit toward creating effective education programs.

Lessons Learned

I’ve been continually inspired by the simple fact that science writers are really nice people. I have asked for advice and assistance from many talented and intelligent writers, and they have given it freely, for the most part. While some writers have ignored my contact or questions, they are rare.

It’s worked for me to be self-promoting without being pushy. I keep attractive business cards in my back pocket and distribute them freely. I give a little to get a little — I cultivate a genuine curiosity in what other people are doing, and ask questions to show it, but also have an elevator speech ready about myself — a verbal resume. I have found ways to do this that work with my innate shyness and introversion, though it’s always a continuing process.

Almost everything interesting that’s happened in my career was the result of me asking someone for something, such as an exception to the rules or the chance to do something new. On the other hand, it’s important to realize that rules are there for a reason, and there is a time to go with the flow. Being flexible and accommodating gains you valuable goodwill. There are times when I wish I’d recognized this line more clearly.

Lastly, writing takes practice. My blog gives me a public platform that helps me market myself, but it also gets me to write something every week. I also got writing practice by writing for free, creating podcasts, and writing as much as I could within jobs that were not focused on writing.

For the record, in the end I have mixed feelings about having completed the doctorate. It did open doors, and I am able to work on higher-level projects than I ever would have if I had left with a master’s. My professional life is now rich and varied, and I have a lot of control over my work. On the other hand, I spent three miserable years in the lab and, because I didn’t enjoy the process, I did not soak up many of the skills in problem-solving and research that are the mark of a PhD. I have a valuable piece of paper, but it’s as much a symbol of my stubborn nature and innate intelligence as it is a symbol of a doctorate-level understanding and aptitude. If this is a decision that you are trying to make for yourself, there is no easy answer as to the right path.

I’ll close with a story that defines my rather indirect professional path. I tell this to all people who ask me about my career, which defines the word “alternative.” “I’m like bacteria,” I tell them. Bacteria — thermophilic or acidophilic bacteria, for example — do not “know” that the hot spot or acidic island is “over there.” They have no overall map of their surroundings to direct their movement in a straight line towards what they seek. What they sense instead is a local gradient — a small change, right next to them. It’s a little warmer that way. They move slightly. They feel it out again. Move. Feel. Move. And feel. The resulting path is a somewhat jagged, but non-random, path toward the thing that they love. And so is mine. I could not have predicted, on that hot, bright day in Guinea, that I would end up writing for science teachers. But I listened to a woman talk about science communication and something perked up inside me. That way, it’s a little warmer that way. And I took a step.

I am a science education and communications consultant -- view my website for my full range of services.



It seems to be in vogue to teach about climate change.  Thank god.  I mean, is there anything else more confusing nowadays?  Teaching students just to wade through the puddles of mud being slung across party lines is a message in media digestion in itself!

Luckily there are many resources being developed to help educators teach about climate change.  Here I’m listing a bunch that I’ve been running across.

1.  Free standards-based climate change films (polar regions)

From CIRES in Boulder comes a set of films for use in the classroom.  Sadly, they’re right now out of DVD’s, but you can see all the clips on their website. They say:  “The film contains 7 stand-alone segments appropriate for use in all kinds of science classrooms and informal settings from the middle level through college. The segments illustrate the problem of climate change and how scientists are working in Alaska and Greenland to understand it. Each segment is about 10 minutes long.  The video was developed to align strongly with the National Science Education Standards across all science subjects”

Segment 1: Introduction to Climate Change
Segment 2: Polar History
Segment 3: Studying Alaskan Permafrost
Segment 4: Ice Core Drilling
Segment 5: Studying Glaciers
Segment 6: Studying Sea Ice
Segment 7: Conclusion and Solutions

2.  Hot questions about climate change

Also here in Boulder (working for NCAR/UCAR), my fellow blogger Sharon Glassman has created a set of 30-second climate change videos, such as “What difference can a few degrees make?” (embedded below).  She says:  “The segs are fun, trustworthy, free – and designed to be spread through the atmosphere of the Web and friendship.”
©UCAR

3. Climate Discovery online courses

Also from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) are a set of online courses. They are accepting registrations for winter term (starting Jan 22nd) here.   They cost $225 and there are several courses available.  They say:  “Are you seeking a K-12 professional development opportunity that will enhance your qualifications, competency, and self-confidence in integrating Earth system science, climate, and global change into your science classroom? The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) offers a series of six and seven week online courses for middle and high school teachers that combine geoscience content, information about current climate research, easy to implement hands-on activities, and group discussion. The courses run concurrently from January 22 through March 14, 2010.”

4.  How to effectively teach climate change

One teacher recommends a glacial melt activity here.  And a carbon calculator for kids.

CIRES has been working on a set of resources to help teach about controversial projects like climate change.   They have a set of helpful resources here. In particular:

5.  I also have a few activities and webcasts on climate change myself:

  • Several hands-on activities about weather and climate here and here (such as a rice model of the composition of the earth’s atmosphere, and a model of how carbon dioxide resonates in the infrared).
  • A set of webcasts – climate in the past (a synopsis of the included activities here) and in the future (a synopsis of content and activities here).
  • Also recommended are the following two books:

I am a science education and communications consultant -- view my website for my full range of services.



The National Association of Science Writers has a nice news feed now (check it out at http://www.nasw.org/, though the RSS feed isn’t obvious — ask me if you want it).  So, here I’m reposted a repost of a Wired article on Five Atrocious Science Cliche’s. Think that it’s time that we found a silver bullet for all the Holy Grails that scientists seem to always be seeking?  This article will shed some light on all the missing links that will eventually lead to a paradigm shift in modern science.  8-)

Look, we found the missing link!

Look, we found the missing link!

Other posts include information on the Freedom of Information act, science news roundups, and articles on the future of science journalism.

I find the argument against science cliche’s very interesting, as a writer myself.  The problem with a bunch of these cliche’s is that they’re often misleading.  “Missing link” for example, is an overused phrase that suggests that our models are so clean and tidy that if we find one missing piece, then it fills in the rest of the story.  “Holy Grail” similarly misleads people about the nature of science…. with very few exceptions (e.g., the Higgs boson) there are very few things that scientists are searching for as a perfect shining goal.

But of equal importance is that these cliche’s are just lazy writing.  They’re shortcuts to a common cultural parlance, that let a writer get away from really describing what happened, of telling the story.  They’re not universally demonic, but generally, they’re not helping to illuminate (shed some light?) on the science that is the subject of the study.

Image from Wikimedia via flickr – Tony Lozano

I am a science education and communications consultant -- view my website for my full range of services.



I recently read two interesting articles on translating science for the public — in particular, why we give lectures for the public at all, and some effective ways to do it.

For those of you who are interested, here are the original source articles:

  1. Explaining the Unexplainable: Translated Scientific Explanations (TSE) in public physics lectures, Kapon, Ganiel and Eylon, International Journal of Science Education, 785022307, p 1-20 (2009)
  2. Scientific argumentation in public physics lectures: bringing contemporary physics into high- school teaching, Kapon, Ganiel and Eylon, Physics Education, 33 (2009)

Carl Sagan -- the quintissential expert lecturer

Carl Sagan -- the quintissential expert lecturer

Contemporary physics topics are inaccessible to most high school students.  They need a lot of prior knowledge to follow them, which they don’t have yet.  So, we are often presenting complicated ideas to an audience who knows nothing about this.  But there’s another forum where we do this quite regularly — public science lectures.  What do effective public lectures have to tell us about explaining complicated concepts to high schoolers?

How do we translate complicated ideas to a lay audience, without being inaccurate? We must walk the fine line between understandability and inaccuracy.  My old mentor, Paul Doherty at the Exploratorium, taught me to think carefully about this line.  You can’t be as accurate and detailed as you might want to be when explaining things to the public.  As scientists, we are used to giving every caveat and detail in order to have no way to be misunderstood.  As communicators, instead, we need to leave out those details, and do our best at being understood in the broadest sense.

In public lectures, we are just promoting a sense of understanding and engagement, a “wow” factor, rather than deep understanding.  But this is a laudable goal.  Science is a cultural endeavor, just like music, and good lectures give people a window on this culture.  One can liken it to a music performance.  Someone who has not studied music will experience a concert on a very different level from someone with a PhD.  But they can still appreciate the beauty and aesthetic, and enjoy dipping their toes into this different world.  Similarly, physics lectures can give people a sense of what people do with physics in the real world, which is as important to science literacy as an understanding of scientific content.

There’s not much research on how “expert” lecturers manage to convey complex topics in this way.  So, these authors wanted to define just what it was that makes a good public lecture.  They gave three public lectures, and surveyed high school students and teachers afterwards to assess the impact.  This is a preliminary study, with just three lectures.

Not unsurprisingly, there was a big gap between the content in the lecture and what audience remembered and understood.  However, if the audience felt that they completely missed understanding the content, then it’s very demotivating.  So the lecturers had to find some way to bridge the gap in audience understanding, to give them some sort of explanatory framework. They found many charismatic lecturers, but many of them lacked the strength of explanatory power that is created by inclusion of the following elements.

Four aspects of successful lectures (as defined by these authors):

1. Use analogies, metaphors and visuals.

Explain something new in terms of something known.   For example, “A quantum particule lives through many parallel histories, as long as it does not leave a mark.”  They found that many audience members used these same analogies when summarizing the lecture.  These devices are used more in public lectures than in classroom lectures to bridge the gap in understanding.

2.  Tell a story

The importance of the use of humor, narrative, characters and protagonists, with cognitive conflict and some sort of surprise.  Speak in colloquial, casual language.
For example, A alien comes to earth and looks at people and sees that there are older and younger people.  Realizes that younger person will get older like the older person.  When we look at sky we see stars.  Similarly, we realize that there are older and younger stars.
These narratives provide coherence and a sense of understanding. That’s all we need in public lectures, a sense of understanding — this is not a class!  After a movie, for example, we don’t ask ourselves what the meaning of the movie was during every minute — we leave the movie with an overall impression.

3.  Knowledge organization

This is the structure of the lecture — using repetition, stating the outline, giving clear logic and visual aids.
For example, during one lecture an empty table of properties of elementary particles was filled in.   Many lecturers repeated ideas, bringing the ideas deeper and deeper each time (“spiraling”) to drive the point home.

4. Content

This is what we usually think about when we’re putting together a lecture.  What do we omit, what do we include?  At what level do we go into?  What do we simplify?  It’s important to keep in mind people’s cognitive load — how many new ideas they can process in a period of time.  This requires understanding of the audience’s prior knowledge.  Lecturers most aware of this aspect of what they do.
The general rule:  Omit and simplify.  If you’re going to lose the audience over it, toss the complicated explanation.

How might teachers use public physics lectures in their courses?

When a subject (like 20th century physics) isn’t in their textbooks, the use of public lectures (on the web) can help them enhance their course content.  The authors suggest that teachers use the previous four categories to ascertain whether a physics lecture is “good” or not, to decide whether to use in the class.

Unlike a public lecture, the goal of a physics class is for students to understand the scientific arguments, rather than just promoting a vague sense of understanding.  So the lecture has to be accompanied by learner-centered activities to cement the ideas.

The authors used public science lectures as part of a course in the following way in an online course.

  1. Watch lecture on own and fill out worksheet summarizing points
  2. Online discussion with others about worksheet, real time viewing of desktop and comments on worksheet
  3. Online discussion in class
  4. Reading of popular papers and posting questions in forum, reflection
  5. Created group summary of lecture, using a guided matrix.  They decomposed the lecture into arguments and analyzed each argument, explaining which aspects of the scientific method were reflected in the lecture.

However, using videos or doing reflective activities like this in class take time.  Many teachers in their study complained about this, and many didn’t end up using the activities for that reason.  I’d be interested to hear working teachers’ take on this — would you use videos in your class and do these kinds of activities with them?  What kinds of activities or videos would you use (or do you use) in your class?

I am a science education and communications consultant -- view my website for my full range of services.



I was recently reminded of this wonderful visualization of the processes inside the cell.  As a physicist, I found this quite powerful in imagining this mysterious (and usually, to me, boring) microscopic world.  It was created by a Harvard professor in conjunction with a scientific animation company.  Here’s the video:

In my art and science visualization seminar we had quite an energetic discussion about this video, however.  There seemed to be a lot of skepticism in the room about this visualization.  “It’s not art,” claimed the artists in the room, and the scientists (who were not biologists) were suspicious of its scientific content.  I’m here thinking this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and they’re tearing it apart.  What gives?  Are we distrustful of something that looks slick and expensive, as opposed to something homegrown?  I haven’t seen such resistance to people’s aesthetic garage experiments.  Perhaps because the garage experiments are simply celebrating aesthetics, not trying to convey scientific content.

One aspect of this video, of course, is its emotional content, which can serve to motivate people to learn biology.  It uses different camera angles, an movement, and music, to make the viewer feel that they are zooming around these dynamic views of the inside of the cell.  In terms of how people learn information cognitively, this is also useful. Multiple representations of a phenomenon are very useful in helping people make sense of information.  Most science content is presented quite abstractly.  As our guest speaker Martin Kemp said, this isn’t the science lesson, it’s the teaser.

Certainly, this video doesn’t stand on its own — it needs verbal support.  Presumably an instructor would use it before or after instruction where the content is more explicitly explained.

There is an emotional narrative here, said the seminar participants.  How does that relate to the intellectual narrative.  Does this compromise the science?  One claimed that there is incredible intentionality depicted here.  The processes we see aren’t random, it’s very cooperative, like a small city.  These little things are working very hard to accomplish what they do.  They’re not self-conscious, but still are active agents.

This is dangerous, several people argued.  We don’t know if these objects have intentionality.  It turns out that the Discovery Institute co-opted part of this video to illustrate that God exists in the cell.

But, I argued against this.  The “intentionality” that people saw in this video, I think, was their own anthropomorphizing.  There was no intentionality inherent in the video — only motion.  Any intentionality is just a metaphor, just like the “selfish gene” is just a metaphor. It can help us to imagine these ideas by ascribing intentionality, perhaps, but we need to be very aware that it is just a metaphor.

So, I think that this video is great — it helps us imagine something we can’t usually see and relate to scientific content in a new way.  Phooey on the naysayers.  Does anyone agree with me?

I am a science education and communications consultant -- view my website for my full range of services.



I’ve got another interview on the Science podcast, from last week — an interesting little story about how tiger moths emit a sound that actually jams bat’s sonar, to keep from getting eaten. Here’s the link. I come in around 13:40.

Of course, I had to ask, how did they manage to tether a moth for this study? Researchers are so funny. I asked him, “C’mon, how do you tether a moth?” and he gave me this nice detailed technical answer. I poked him again. “That doesn’t sound very easy….” and finally got a laugh out of him. I mean, geez, attaching surgical clips to moth to get a moth-on-a-leash? And then releasing bats into the enclosure and pitting bat against moth? I wouldn’t be able to keep from giggling….

I am a science education and communications consultant -- view my website for my full range of services.



From AAAS website:  Former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Al Gore

From AAAS website: Former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Al Gore

Al Gore spoke to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and gave an updated and truncated version of his “Inconvenient Truth” speech.  I recommend taking a look at it (you can watch it over breakfast if you’re like me and don’t like to sit and watch videos on your computer… I get restless).  I am so duly impressed by what a good speaker Mr. Gore is, and how he brings both passion and intelligence to what he says, only glancing occasionally at his notes on the podium.  He gave a strong call in this speech for scientists to get involved in the politics of combatting global warming.  It’s a half-hour well spent.

Here’s the link.

I am a science education and communications consultant -- view my website for my full range of services.



Next Page »