Science Outreach and Framing Science
10.21.09 by Daniel Gaddy
Yesterday I wrote about influenza and the influenza vaccines. In this post, I referenced two articles demonstrating how popular talk show hosts, on both sides of the political aisle, are irresponsibly promoting irrational fears of the influenza vaccines. I believe this is, at least in part, due to some issues that FundScience was founded to address. Throughout human history, it seems that science has been demonized. Over the past few decades, this has become particularly relevant. As science attempts to address important problems that affect all of us, from climate change to influenza pandemics, science is met by stubborn yet impassioned resistance from people who have no idea what they are talking about!
While writing yesterday’s post, I was reminded of two important articles I read a couple of years ago. The first was written in 2007 by Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute, entitled When Did Science Become the Enemy? In this article, Dr. Shostak attempts to trace the origins of the “mad scientist” perception of scientists. While these perceptions have likely been around throughout recorded history, they have become particularly prevalent over the past few decades due largely to Hollywood.
The peculiar thing is that American heroes aren’t often very good at science. Indeed, in much popular culture, it’s only the villains who’re conversant with Maxwell or Einstein. The “mad scientist” has become such a cultural icon that the Royal Society held a special lecture on the subject. Some of the mad men of science (and they are, overwhelmingly, men) are just evil characters intent on destroying the world, taking over the world, or simply rearranging the world according to their personal predilections. Dr. No and Dr. Evil come to mind, as do Lex Luthor, Dr. Octopus, the overly Teutonic Dr. Strangelove, and the Green Goblin.
How did scientists become the enemy? I mean, really: who would you rather have help you take a calculus final… or for that matter, cure the common cold or figure out the nature of dark energy: Spiderman or Green Goblin? Science is useful.
And if the scientists in popular media haven’t slipped entirely to the dark side, they’ve at least gone bonkers. They’ve become obsessed with some narrow field of research, and lost sight of the big picture. When a prehistoric monster is shambling through a major metropolis, wreaking havoc and destruction, there’s always some lab-coated PhD who’s interfering with the steely-eyed military types, screaming “we have to save it for science!” And just to make sure that these howling academics won’t become your role model, they’re usually portrayed as short, ugly bald guys with social grace and sex appeal on a par with Ben the rodent.
Certainly Hollywood has done its part to denigrate honorable scientific endeavors, but the reasons for that may be partially our fault. This brings me to the second article I would like to quote. Also in 2007, Matthew Nisbet and Chris Mooney wrote about Framing Science. In this article, the authors attempt to inform scientists how to “frame” scientific issues to not only catch the attention of lay-persons, but to “resonate with core values and assumptions.”
Without misrepresenting scientific information on highly contested issues, scientists must learn to actively “frame” information to make it relevant to different audiences. Some in the scientific community have been receptive to this message. However, many scientists retain the well-intentioned belief that, if laypeople better understood technical complexities from news coverage, their viewpoints would be more like scientists’, and controversy would subside….
…the scientific theory of evolution has been accepted within the research community for decades. Yet as a debate over “intelligent design” was launched, antievolutionists promoted “scientific uncertainty” and “teach-the-controversy” frames, which scientists countered with science-intensive responses. However, much of the public likely tunes out these technical messages. Instead, frames of “public accountability” that focus on the misuse of tax dollars, “economic development” that highlight the negative repercussions for communities embroiled in evolution battles, and “social progress” that define evolution as a building block for medical advances, are likely to engage broader support.
The evolution issue also highlights another point: Messages must be positive and respect diversity. As the film Flock of Dodos painfully demonstrates, many scientists not only fail to think strategically about how to communicate on evolution, but belittle and insult others’ religious beliefs.
On the embryonic stem cell issue, by comparison, patient advocates have delivered a focused message to the public, using “social progress” and “economic competitiveness” frames to argue that the research offers hope for millions of Americans. These messages have helped to drive up public support for funding between 2001 and 2005. However, opponents of increased government funding continue to frame the debate around the moral implications of research, arguing that scientists are “playing God” and destroying human life. Ideology and religion can screen out even dominant positive narratives about science, and reaching some segments of the public will remain a challenge.
It is true that scientists tend to let the facts speak for themselves. This is what we are taught, and what we are good at. But now we have to face the facts. The people making the decisions to give X dollars to science and Y dollars to, say, war are lay-people. The need exists to reach out to society at large and educate people in a way that is not boring. This is not an easy concept for scientists, because the research that is exciting to scientists is not necessarily exciting to non-scientists. Furthermore, there is a fine line between simply reaching out, attempting to appeal to the public, and making a fool of yourself and science in general. If you do not go far enough, you miss an opportunity to gain public support, and possibly even increase funding for your field. If you go too far, you become a quack or a mad scientist, and you risk alienating the public even more and making them even more suspicious of science than they already are. We must find ways to frame science appropriately, while doing our best to protect science from biases. FundScience is trying to be a part of this science outreach effort, and we would like to hear ideas for doing this from our community. Let us know what you think in the comments.
Related articles
- Saving science from “Unscientific America”
- The Vanderbilt Center for Science Outreach
- Stanford Office of Science Outreach
- Science outreach is becoming hip
- Perceptions of Science – Scientist vs Public
Science2009
10.13.09 by FundScience
The University of Pittsburgh’s Science2009 event happens this Thursday and Friday. The event is free and open to the public, and includes lectures on a variety of scientific topics, including cutting edge technology such as microRNAs, evolutionary biology, renewable energy, and infectious diseases. Anyone in the area should take a look and consider attending sessions they are interested in.
FundScience will have a presence at Science2009 in the form of a booth where you can meet FundScience members and obtain more detailed information about our mission and our upcoming funding opportunities. We are excited to meet members of our community and share the progress we have made over the past few months, so please stop by and, as always, spread the word!
Science2009—Unplugged, the University’s ninth annual celebration of science, technology, and research, is coming on Thursday and Friday, 15 and 16 October, to Alumni Hall (with two special preview events on Wednesday, 14 October). Here are six great reasons to attend:
1. Highlighting the program will be plenary lectures by four distinguished scientists: Victor Ambros, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School; Michael Graetzel, PhD, of Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne; Cori Bargmann, PhD, of the Rockefeller University; and Bruce Beutler, MD, of The Scripps Research Institute.
2. Pitt and Carnegie Mellon researchers will present Spotlight Sessions on a dozen timely topics in which they are actively engaged. Likewise, five Science at Work Sessions will draw on expertise from local industry.
3. Some of the latest laboratory equipment that makes today’s research possible will be on display at the Science2009 Supplier Showcase from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Wednesday, 14 October, at the Petersen Events Center.
4. The Opening Reception and Technology Showcase returns this year with a special exhibit of new technologies recently developed by local academic researchers. Come and mingle with them and potential investors, venture capitalists, and entrepreneurs from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, 14 October.
5. Maryrose Franko, PhD, of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute will be the featured speaker at a special professional development workshop designed especially for researchers in the early stages of their careers.
6. Two poster sessions highlighting recent research by students, post-docs, and faculty will be complemented this year by the Undergraduate Research Poster Reception.
For details, go to www.science2009.pitt.edu. All Science2009 events are free and open to the public.
| Posted in FundScience News, Research Resources | 1 Comment »
Measuring the Treatment of Evolution in Science Classes
08.13.09 by Daniel Gaddy
I recently wrote an Introduction to Evolution on this site outlining the basics of evolution and exploring the disconnect between the scientific community and the education system of the United States when it comes to the teaching of evolution. A new study by Louise Mead and Anton Mates, published in Evolution: Education and Outreach has performed a very thorough analysis of the teaching of evolution in science curricula, comparing each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The authors compare their results to results of a similar analysis in 2000, which was referenced in my previous article. Essentially, 9 states (California, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina) and the District of Columbia received grades of A, meaning the treatment of evolution in science classes was particularly good, while 5 states (Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia) received grades of F, meaning treatment of evolution was particularly poor. Kansas, in particular, is cited as a major success story. After several years of battling over standards for teaching evolution and intelligent design, Kansas “standards have improved immensely.”
While several states, including Kansas and Florida, improved their standards, several states, including Hawaii and Texas, actually regressed, often by the incorporation of creationist jargon. Overall conclusions from the study suggest that standards of teaching science in the United States public school system include more about evolution than in 2000. The authors also offer some advice on how to address science education standards in your state:
Get involved. Check to see when your state is next reviewing state standards, and ask your department of education or state educators’ associations how to participate in that process. Take a careful look at the language of your standards; check not only for explicit creationist claims but also for language that permits or encourages teaching material that makes such claims. Do not confine your attention to life science courses; check whether earth and space science courses discuss cosmological and geological evolution and whether human evolution is discussed in social studies or anatomy courses (as is sometimes the case). And make sure that the groundwork for all of these subjects is laid in K-8, rather than introduced for the first time in high school.
The Importance of Animal Research
08.7.09 by Daniel Gaddy
As a biomedical researcher, I firmly believe that the importance of animal research cannot be overstated. As eloquently expressed on the website of the Foundation for Biomedical Research:
Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century – for both human and animal health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through animal research.
Physicians and researchers overwhelmingly agree that animal systems provide invaluable and irreplaceable insights into human systems. The essential need for animal research is recognized and supported by medical societies and health agencies around the world.
Unfortunately, not everyone gets this point. Animal rights activists have fought for many years to end the legal and moral use of animals in research, or what they deem animal cruelty. The truth is, treatment of research animals in the United States is far from cruel. In fact, every institution in the United States that conducts animal research must establish an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, which oversees the use of animals in research and establishes guidelines that guarantee safe and ethical treatment of research animals.
As for the activists, they do not simply protest and voice their opinions. Animal rights activists are becoming increasingly violent. The video below describes a recent attack against Novartis:
A vacation home belonging to Novartis CEO Daniel Vasella was burned in a suspected arson, a week after his mother’s grave was vandalized by animal rights protesters. The words “Drop HLS Now” were spray painted on the grave, CNBC reports. The protesters want Novartis to sever its ties to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a contract company that does animal testing for drug companies.
When considering animal research, there are a few points that are important to remember. First of all, both humans and animals benefit from animal research. The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that animal research has helped extend the human lifespan by approximately 23.5 years. Furthermore, those of us who are animal lovers and love our pets will be happy to know that animal research has significantly helped advance veterinary medicine. Again from the FBR website:
Many people believe that research with animals is conducted for the exclusive benefit of humans. In fact, practically all biomedical research with lab animals also advances veterinary medicine and helps companion animals live longer, happier and healthier lives. Dozens of diseases, affecting both humans and animals, are prevented through the administration of vaccines. Many other conditions are successfully treated, in both humans and animals, with antibiotics. From asthma and epilepsy, from high blood pressure to cancer, people and their pets share myriad diseases and therapies. And thanks to animal research, effective new drugs have been designed, sophisticated medical devices have been developed and remarkable surgical procedures have been perfected – for human and veterinary medical care.
For years, there was basically one way to treat sick pets: Put them to sleep. But today they can live happy, long lives. Because animal research has resulted in medical advances for both you and your four-legged family members.
Another thing that is important to remember is that scientists are not crazed villains seeking to destroy animal-kind. Scientists who conduct animal research, including myself, view animal research as a necessary evil. Unfortunately, until better alternatives are found, animal models represent the best methods to study diseases of both human and animal origin.
Luckily, it seems that the majority of people understand this and disapprove of the violent actions of animal rights groups. CNBC currently has a blog post discussing the above-mentioned Novartis attacks. On the site is an unscientific poll asking readers whether they believe animal research is necessary or should be abolished. Currently, 89% of respondents believe animal research is necessary.
This is good news, suggesting that the vast majority of the readers of an economic blog support the ethical use of animals in research. However, one of the primary goals of FundScience is to raise money to support research projects. Since some of these projects will, undoubtedly, require the use of animals, we want to poll our own readers and potential donors. What do you think of animal research? Feel free to leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments. If you support the ethical use of animals in research, please sign the petition here.
[polldaddy poll=1852820]
Science Exhibitions: Dissiminating Science to the Public
07.31.09 by Daniel Gaddy
The following information was brought to our attention, and FundScience would like to invite our community to collaborate on this book exploring science exhibitions and mechanisms by which to effectively disseminate science to wide audiences.
CALL FOR PAPERS
THE SCIENCE EXHIBITION: CURATION, DESIGN, COMMUNICATION
We invite papers for a forthcoming book which will explore three related themes in relation to science exhibitions in museums:
* the processes involved in developing new science exhibitions in and for museums;
* the issues involved in transforming scientific ideas or events into exhibitions;
* the challenges faced by museums in communicating science to a wide audience.We are particularly interested in new, innovative and successful initiatives in this field.
Much has been written about the difficulties of disseminating science to the public through a variety of new and traditional media. It is, indeed, a complex subject to tackle in the exhibition space, yet a challenging and multidimensional one.
How best to understand the process of working from scientific data to the ideas-based exhibition? What exactly is lost during the transformation of factual information into an exhibition environment? And more importantly, how can the exhibition work most effectively as a tool for narrating science, its past and present?
We welcome a range of submissions including, but not limited to, the following issues/themes:
* both theoretical perspectives and case studies relating to science exhibitions
* exhibition design for science: problems and opportunities
* successful design techniques and approaches in relation to science displays
* science communication in the museum: interpretation issues
* learning activities and science collections
* developing learning resources for science exhibitions
* object stories and science learning
* exhibitions interpreting the history of scienceDeadline for abstracts and bio: 30 September 2009
Selection for inclusion: 30 October 2009Please submit an abstract (up to 400 words) and a biographical note (up to 250 words) by email to both:
Dr Anastasia Filippoupoliti
Museologist and Historian of Science
Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
afilipp@gmail.comGraeme Farnell
Publisher, MuseumsEtc Ltd, UK
graeme@museumsetc.com–
H-MUSEUM
H-Net Network for Museums and Museum Studies
E-Mail: h-museum@h-net.msu.edu
WWW: http://www.h-museum.net
Perceptions of Science – Scientist vs Public
07.10.09 by Michelle Kienholz
As summarized this week in Science, the Pew Research Center for People and the Press reported results of a series of 3 surveys of the public and scientists on their perception of science and scientists as well as the public’s general knowledge of science:
The survey of the general public was conducted on landlines and cell phones among 2,001 adults April 28-May 12; the online survey of scientists was conducted among a sample of 2,533 members of the AAAS from May 1-June 14. Science knowledge questions were included in a separate survey of the general public, conducted on landlines and cell phones among 1,005 adults June 18-21.
Not sure what to make of the public ranking members of the military as those who most “contribute a lot to society’s well-being” … 84% versus 70% for scientists and … in a little dig to that other class of doctors … 69% for medical doctors.
A bigger concern is the public response to “which comes closer to your view …”
Govt investment in research is essential for scientific progress – 60% [!!]
Private investment ensures enough progress w/out govt investment – 29% [!!!]
No wonder Congress doesn’t have a fire lit under them to increase and stabilize research funding …
You can take the general science knowledge quiz and, when you are done, raise your eyebrows at the perhaps not entirely surprising results in the elegant Tufte-esque display of the data by demographic and question.
FundScience Receives $100,000 Donation
06.26.09 by FundScience
FundScience Receives $100,000 Donation
Pittsburgh, PA – June 21, 2009
FundScience, an organization dedicated to enabling public funding of scientific research projects, announced today that it has received its first corporate donation in the amount of $100,000. The donation was received from Check Giant, a financial services company. This initial donation will support first year operating costs and allow FundScience to carry out its central goals, including the funding of small research projects.
About FundScience
FundScience is an online charitable organization which aims to create an open platform for funding the research of promising young scientists. Its mission is to generate start-up funding for pilot projects while raising public awareness of basic research. Founded in 2008 by David Vitrant and Mark Friedgan with the goal of creating a virtual collaborative ecosystem for scientists and the general public, by drawing on the growing online giving market as well as social networking , thus promoting science education and reducing the average age of independent scientists. FundScience is based in Pittsburgh, PA, USA and is currently accepting public donations. For more information, visit http://fundscience.org.
Media Contact:
Getting The Public Invested in Science
06.25.09 by FundScience
Below is a reprint of our most recent press release. Read the actual press release here.
Getting The Public Invested in Science
Pittsburgh, PA – June 1, 2009
FundScience is an online charitable organization which aims to create an open platform for funding the research of promising young scientists. Its mission is to generate start-up funding for pilot projects while raising public awareness of basic research. The organization intends to fill a well recognized funding gap of the major players in research funding: the government, foundations and the private sector, which tend to focus on seasoned scientists. FundScience identifies itself alongside these groups but provides an unconventional source of funding by drawing on the growing online giving market as well as social networking.
FundScience has discovered a market that is excluded by the current funding process: young researchers needing small amounts of funding to initiate research projects and create the data necessary for accessing larger and more sustainable forms of funding. By communicating these funding opportunities to the general public in an accessible fashion FundScience can help these young researchers generate the funds necessary to get their research started. By providing opportunities for these researchers at an earlier stage in their career, FundScience can lower the average age of researchers receiving large funding grants, provide money for training, and get young researchers trained for the competitive grant writing environment. It aims to educate the public about science and the research process, from grant writing to funding, all the way to the results, enabling everyone to be a part of scientific discovery. FundScience will create an ecosystem for scientists to collaborate with each other and general public.
FundScience has engaged scientists from various fields to leverage the well trusted peer review process to vet submitted projects prior to public review. For projects determined as viable by peer review FundScience will provide a platform to enable active and open communication between the researchers and members of the community in order to engage the public in the details as well as enable these projects to receive donations. FundScience provides additional resources by publishing general interest science articles on its blog and is in the process of securing free access to tools to assist scientists in collecting and processing data.
Later this year FundScience will put out its first open call for projects.
FundScience has been established and managed by two former Carnegie Mellon roommates, David Vitrant and Mark Friedgan. In the first couple of months of the organization’s existence it captured the attention of many publications and was featured in Science, The Scientist, and was picked up by several blogs. Mark’s philosophy of leveraging open technologies to drive success in an online business can also be found in his recent interview with Forbes.com.
Spreading Science to the Masses
05.29.09 by Daniel Gaddy
One of the key goals of FundScience is to provide a fun, interactive method to educate the public regarding the science that directly affects their lives. Interestingly enough, a lot of other people are now attempting to do the same thing. I was listening to NPR’s Science Friday just now and host Ira Flatow was discussing DNA Art with two artists who incorporate DNA and genetics into their artwork. Furthermore, yesterday The Scientist had an article about GQ magazine’s “Rock Stars of Science” spread, which organizers “hope will help heighten the public’s awareness of these biologists and their work while showcasing the need for greater science funding.” In addition, last week Nature News profiled SciFlies, an organization very similar to FundScience. Their website has the following to say:
At SciFlies.org, we envision a world in which people have a better awareness of how science supports them sustains their well being. Our mission is to create a movement that connects people from all walks of life with scientists and researchers, and provides a vehicle for them to fund micro-research projects that expedite the discovery of new breakthroughs and advance scientific progress in labs across the globe.
Using social networks, video, new media, and other online tools, we want to broaden the experience of discovery for everyone, especially young people. Getting kids excited about careers in science, technology, engineering and math is a great way to ensure the competitiveness of our nation and improve the quality of life for people everywhere.
We believe scientists are heroes. If you do too, please investigate the work of the scientists and researchers showcased on this web site and support them with a donation.
This suggests that many groups within our society are independently coming to the conclusion that science is interesting and needs increased public awareness. More importantly, funding for science is an absolute necessity. It is time for the scientific community to embrace modern, “outside-the-box” methods of funding, including avenues such as FundScience and SciFlies. Public funding for scientific research is a largely untapped reservoir. While some segments of our society may be resistant, I think the majority are thirsting for science, technology, innovation and information. The problem is reaching these people, and letting them know how they can participate and help. This is where organizations such as FundScience come in. However, in order for us to grow and be successful, we need your help. Spread the word about FundScience – tell your friends, family and coworkers about us. You can now follow us on Twitter @fundscience and we are working on moving into other social media sites. Finally, we are now accepting public donations, so if you feel that what we are trying to do is important, please consider supporting us.
The reason for FundScience
12.21.08 by Sharmila Pejawar-Gaddy
As a member of The American Association of Immunologists (AAI), I receive the monthly AAI newsletter that keeps me up-to-date on current happenings in the world of Immunology (and sometimes science in general). This month’s newsletter also included a letter to members from the Executive Director of AAI, where she was asking members to “continue their support to AAI by renewing their membership, which is so important specifically in this current economic climate, where a strong AAI voice in Washington is essential to Immunologists”. The letter continued to tell us, in actual numbers, what a hard hit science has taken in these last 8 years. According to this newsletter, the NIH has had a 14% loss in purchasing power since 2003. 14% in 5 years, think about it! Stepping out of my scientist-skin, I ask a serious, unbiased question: what type of a society takes money away from medical advancement? As a person who is witnessing this first-hand, I cannot tell you how many cases I have heard off in which brilliant scientists have lost their funding and have either had to leave research all together or move to another country like Singapore, which has realized that advancement in science and healthcare is the touchstone of any successful civilization. If history has taught us a few things it is that many ancient civilizations were wiped off the face of the earth due to their inability to deal with disease, famine and draught, all which can have solutions in science.
This is where non-profit organizations like FundScience come into play. The unique thing about FundScience is that the general public is put in direct access with the scientific method. This begins to disslove the misunderstandings about science, scientific techniques and the timeline from the advent of a thought/idea to the fruition of that idea.
| Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
| Posted in Research Resources | Comments Off