Don't be such a scientist...

Don't be so cerebral, don't be so literal minded, don't be such a poor story teller, don't be unlikable and don't be such a scientist. That pretty much sums up Randy Olson's book Don't be such a scientist: Talking substance in an age of style, since I just named all the chapters. The book is meant to be a guide for scientists floundering through the process of communicating with the public.

The book opens with the trials and tribulations of our plucky hero Randy Olson, a tenured marine biologist trying to break into the world of Hollywood. Throughout the book we get glimpses of his life and the lessons he has learned about science communication. He goes through the pitfalls of communicating as a scientist and what to things to avoid.

Olson spent about 15 years as a university professor and it shows. A lot of the book felt like being in a university course with a long-winded professor that tells more than a few, mostly related anecdotes before getting to the point.

That being said, Olson does have many good points. As scientists we tend to be overly critical of things because that is what we are trained to do. When reading a paper or listening to a presentation, we try to poke holes in peoples arguments or methods. As he puts it, we start with a "no" rather than a "yes". However starting with a "no" and being the skeptic puts a gap between you and the public. It is like being the kid who doesn't believe in Santa Claus and ruins it for the rest.

The book has some good analogies like the "Four organs of connecting to a mass audience". Basically you have the head, the heart, the gut, and the sex organs. Scientists and people who think too much tend to communicate from the head. The public however, tends to communicate more from the rest of the organs. Olson states that to communicate to the broadest audience we have to "move the process out of the head, into the heart with sincerity, into the gut with humour, and into the lower organs for sex appeal". (Sounds like rhetorical analysis).

For all the "Dont's" he has in the book, there are not a whole lot of "Do". His main suggestion is to be Carl Sagan, one of the greatest science communicators so far. Many people are critical of the book for the same reason.

The point of the book as he puts it, is not to teach you to be a mass communicator. (You should join our program if that's what you are interested in.) The book is meant as a lesson to help scientists "rethink [their] style of communication...to reach a larger audience". I think if Olson prefaced the book with this statement, the book would have gotten better reviews with the scientific community.

I enjoyed this book. I didn't agree with everything in it, but the good points really stuck with me. Life is too short to make every mistake in science communication. Read the book and learn from Olson's experiences. Take away the messages that can help you be a better communicator.

As a last note, what is the deal with all these marine biologists becoming science communicators? Randy Olson was a marine biology professor at the University of New Hampshire, Sheril Kirshenbaum completed her thesis on sea cucumbers. I guess we just like to talk...

Social Media, a world of new opportunities (aka Portfolio Building 4)

Lisa Lambert, research associate with the Council of Canadian Academies and former SciCommie did a two hour whirlwind lecture on social media with us. It would be impossible to fit all the information mentioned, so I'll stick with the highlights and some "words from the wise" on getting started in social media.

Social media, what is it? It's digital and computerized information that we are exposed to everyday and it is still a vastly untapped field. This includes blogs, websites, CDs, youtube videos, twitter, facebook... and these are just the popular ones.

This generation is being exposed to vast amounts of information, unlike any other generation before us. Not only can a user search out content on the internet, but they can take it and personalize it, then post it back on the internet. User generated content is huge, just look at anything on Youtube. Here is a nice science related one call the Large Hadron Rap.



Scientists, communicators and big business are really starting to tap into the field of social media.Scientific America has 60-second science. Check out this one on Dark Matter:



There are a ton more videos out there, not to mention podcasts, slideshows and more. So what's the point? New social media (if done right) can reach a lot of people and simply take off. If we as scientists and science communicators want to engage the public in science, these are some powerful tools to do so. These tools are gaining attention and were recently noted in Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum's "The Intersection" blog.

Projects in social media are also a great way to build up your portfolio for the program and future employers. I realize that I have been gearing the portfolio building posts towards getting in this program, but it is a great thing to show employers too. Show them what you can do!

So... on to some tips of the trade to help you get your feet wet in social media:

1. Have a specific goal. Social media is a vast field and you really need to narrow what you want to do, and the skills you need to learn to put it together. Floundering around will only exhaust yourself. Pick a medium, the subject goal, and run with it.
2. Be part of the audience. As I mentioned in the science writing post, it is important to be part of the audience and learn which strategies are good and which are bad. There are some great examples of social media out there and some not so great ones. This leads me to the next tip...
3. Trust your instincts. If you see something really funny or interesting, chances are someone else will find it funny and interesting. Chris Mah from the Smithsonian has a great blog on echinoderms called the "Echinoblog". 
4. Invest in good equipment. I'm not suggesting that everyone goes out and buys a $3000 video camera and microphone, but investing in good equipment will go a long way. Nothing turns off viewers more than really bad sound and video quality. You can do a lot with a computer microphone for less than $50. You can create your own talkshow or podcast for free online at BlogTalkRadio. Many decent flip cameras are quite affordable right now. Christmas is also coming up....
   
5. Don't cross-script. This tip is more for videos and slideshows. Do not narrate or talk about something, while the picture is on something else. This will only confuse your viewers. I'm sure there are learning and psychology research papers on conflicting signals and how it is bad for learning. However, cross-scripting is just plain annoying...
6. Have a good story. Story telling as has been mentioned many times in our program is a great way for getting knowledge across. More importantly it is interesting! The 60-second science videos are a great example of this.
   
7. BE CREATIVE!!!!! This point can't be emphasized enough. This is a newish field with huge opportunities. The only thing you are limited by is your creativity and imagination.

You are bound to make mistakes, but the field is still new. It is a forgiving time in social media. You will be constantly learning because the technology is always changing and new programs are always coming out. (I learned how to embed videos into a blog today... yay for me!).

This post is a glimmer of our amazing class on social media last week. It shows one of the amazing things you can do after the program. Lisa is also a great example of how far you can take the skills you learn in the program.

I'll leave you with one last video (a favorite of mine). It is by a company by Bio-rad which makes PCR machines... PCR (polymerase chain reaction) is used amplify DNA for sequencing.



- Justin

The Science-illiterate Public, or the Public-illiterate Scientists?

Dr. Peter Venkman: Alice, I'm going to ask you a couple of standard questions, okay? Have you or any of your family been diagnosed schizophrenic? Mentally incompetant?
Librarian Alice: My uncle thought he was Saint Jerome.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'd call that a big yes. Uh, are you habitually using drugs? Stimulants? Alcohol?
Librarian Alice: No.
Dr. Peter Venkman: No, no. Just asking. Are you, Alice, menstruating right now?
Library Administrator: What's has that got to do with it?
Dr. Peter Venkman: Back off, man. I'm a scientist.

- Scene from Ghostbusters (1984)

So one of the best movies of all time, Ghostbusters, was on TV yesterday. The conversation between the library administrator and Peter really mirrors the sterotypical relationship between the public and scientists. The public are lay people who don't understand the complexities of science and the scientists are all knowing people who do not have to answer to the intellectual unequals.

Not that there isn't a grain of truth to this. I'm sure there are many scientists and public people feel this way. Some scientists feel like they only belong in the lab and want nothing to do with the public. At the same time, many people do not understand why various types of research are being conducted. I'm reminded of Sarah Palin's comment about American tax dollars going to waste on fruit fly research during the election. To me, the comment is ridiculous, but only because I know that fruit flies are an important organism for studying genetics and genetic disorders in humans. I'm sure that the comment made perfect sense to many people in America and Canada.

This communication gap between scientists and the public was termed the 'deficit' model in the 1980's by social scientists studying science communication. Essentially the model states that public opposition to modern science and technology is because the lack adequate knowledge about it. Scientists can fix this gap by providing lots of information and knowledge to the public. Thus the public, armed with this scientific knowledge, will embrace modern science and technology with open arms and the world will enter a golden age of prosperity.

Yeah... not quite. First of all, a more informed citizen will not necessarily embrace science if he/she has more knowledge. A more informed citizen with a better understanding of nanotechnology or genetically modified organisms may be more strongly against it.

Secondly this idea was noted in the 1980's. It was emphasized again in 1998 with Gregory and Miller's book "Science in Public: Communicatin, Culture and Credibility" and about a decade later in 2009 with Mooney and Kirshenbaum's book "Unscientific America: How scientific illiteracy threatens our future."On a side note, I highly recommend these books for gaining a better understanding of the science communication issues today.

We have made great strides in framing the relationship between scientists and the public and in the field of science communication, however there is still a huge gap. This same topic was highlighted by the recent Canadian Science Policy Conference in Toronto.

This conference was well attended by scientists, engineers, policymakers, governmental officials, students, science writers and commuicators and more. The mission was to build a good science policy network. The conference was organized because there was a concern among the Canadian science circle about the lack of science information reaching policy makers. Chantal Barriault, one of our professors, attended the conference and made waves about citizen conferences and effectively engaging the public in science.

What was shocking to me was an informal internet poll on The Mark News which partnered with the conference to produce a "Science Policy in Canada" topics page. The question was: “Can the public be effectively consulted on the direction of science?”. Up till last week 60-70% said "no". At the time of this post, 55% said "no".

How can we effectively engage the public in science, when scientists don't believe it is possible? This is a huge challenge for a science communicator. To close this gap we need buy in from both sides... it will never happen if both sides don't think it will work.

After all, I don't want to be writing a book on the gap between the public and science another decade from now....