Association of Health Care Journalists | Resource Center - Websites

Association of Health Care Journalists | Resource Center - Websites

The Science Writer’s Lament

The Science Writer’s Lament

Science Communication Symposium

I would like to start off by saying how excited I am that we had the opportunity to attend the 2nd Annual Public Engagement and Science Communication Symposium this year. It was a truly rewarding and enlightening experience and I hope to have the opportunity again next year.

The morning of May 13th I had a review session for a final and unfortunately had to miss out on most of the opening speakers. However, I am glad I was able to catch even the small portion that I did. I think the concept of using improv actors to act out the chemical bonds was an absolutely inspired idea. I am currently a communication major with a concentration in communication the life sciences, and an outside concentration in theater arts. I never could have imagined that my two concentrations would be able to mix in some way and I always thought of theater as something I did more as hobby and creative expression than something that could ever be part of my career. When I realized that imporv actors where actually playing a huge part in the communication of science topics, I was beyond thrilled and I am extremely glad I got to witness this first hand.

Later on in the day, I was also lucky enough to be able to attend the keynote address given by Jeff Nesbit of the national science foundation. I loved having the opportunity to hear him speak because not only was the talk informative and inspiring regarding ideas for the future, but it represented many of the topics we’ve been discussing in class and brought them alive by relating them to real world situations.

The first Comm. 285 subject I noticed in the presentation was the debate over what the definition of “science” really is. Throughout the semester we defined science as “reliable knowledge of the natural world, but we constantly had to go over exactly what that definition means. We discussed science as set of institutions, as a process of gaining knowledge, and as a social construction; and we concluded the semester by explaining that science is all of these things and more. So when Jeff Nesbit started discussing how newspapers no longer have “purely science sections” I found that incredibly intriguing because it seemed that he had a totally different definition of science from what we had been discussing in class, and that definition influenced his whole outlook on the world of science communication. Mr. Nesbit spoke a lot about how newspapers that used to have “science” sections now have only sections that are purely about technology, or only health related topics, and that these papers consider these to be on par with having a true science section. It was very interesting to see how one person’s definition of what science is affects his outlook on journalism as a whole.

Another topic from our class that I noticed thoroughly influenced Mr. Nesbit’s presentation was the interaction of many forms of media. When Jeff Nesbit began speaking about “Broader Impacts” in science communication (which basically strives to “help science topics be more widely disseminated and enhance scientific and technological understanding”) it remained me very much of Professor Lewenstein’s article “From Fax to Facts: Communication in the Cold Fusion Saga”, in which he spoke about the web of science communication and the interaction of different media affecting how science is communicated. I found it interesting because Mr. Nesbit’s views seemed to conflict with the ones presented in the article because he suggested using as many media as possible to communicate scientific information. While Lewenstein's article, on the other hand, suggested that too many different forms of media can lead to conflicting information. While I understood Mr. Nesbit’s point that using more media could reach more people, I tend to agree more with the views presented in Professor Lewenstein’s article that using all these different media can lead to confusion. However, I also think that, if these stories are edited for truth and content, using many media to deliver them might not be a bad idea. It is when information is coming from many different sources that a problem might arise.

In addition, I noticed that Mr. Nesbit mentioned several times that “anybody can be a communicator”. This statement, along with the explanations and evidence of this that he presented, was a great example of the citizen science we had been discussing in class. While he didn’t state that anybody can be a “scientist”, the fact that anyone can communicate science is exactly and help spread scientific knowledge is what we were discussing in the citizen science cases, and it was great to see that he supported this field.

All in all, I am extremely glad I attended this symposium. It was not only a great learning experience, but an ideal way to incorporate everything we’ve been studying over the semester and experience just how important science communication really is, as a tool for distributing knowledge, and as an essential part of science as a whole.

Science Symposium

Running between practice and an exam, I only had a few minutes to stop by the symposium, but in that short time I was able to learn a lot about the goal of the symposium and the mission of Cornell in research but also entrepreneurship. Interestingly enough, I learned little of this through the posters or exhibits, but by talking to two people.

The first was a gentlemen affiliated with Cornell University Core Labs Center. I must have walked in looking a little bewildered and overwhelmed because he immediately approached me and asked if I had any questions. I thought this was very interesting because every other interaction occurring was between contemporaries, and not involving any college students. In this respect, it was a tough atmosphere for a college student to walk into. By confronting me and asking if I had any questions, he made me more interested in the mission of the symposium as a whole, but also the goals and projects at the Core Labs Center.

Housing 9 labs, the Core Labs Centers, works with a range of businesses and people and on a variety of projects. This center is multidimensional, facilitating research from DNA and genomic sequencing or simpler, do-it-yourself microscopic projects. Maybe his eagerness to talk with me and teach me can explained by the extensiveness of this center at Cornell, but either way it was extremely effective. He communicated with me by relating my academic interests and understanding of science to what the Core Labs Center does on a daily basis and the type of people they attract.

After this I was feeling a bit more confident, so I continued weaving throughout the posters and somewhat disengaged (at least when they saw me—the “unimpressionable college student”) participants. I encountered one other helpful woman at the Business and Technology Park station who similarly explained the purpose of the park by relating to my academic course.

So what does this all tell me about science communication? I think I left feeling even more like science is an interpersonal field and the objectivity and validity of research goes only as far as one is eager to discuss it, and discuss it with a wide community of audiences. I was clearly not an important figure to many of these people, yet I am easily impressionable and interested. While I have little connection to the business aspect or even the research side of Cornell, I do think Cornell as both a business and research institution. It is this reason that I am leaving this class and semester feeling like even the hard, physical sciences are intertwined and dependent on communication that is universal and well circulated.

Science Communication Symposium

I was unable to stay at the event for a very long time, but being there for a short time was very interesting. I found the topics of the research projects interesting, and how so much time and energy is put into science communication research. I picked up information about the Sloan program in health management, I thought it was interesting that they have an entire program dedicated to health administration, and include it in this event. Before this class and thinking about it I did not see much of a connection between health administration and communication. Now I understand how important it is for scientists in this field to effectively communicate with each other and their patients. There were several other interesting projects and the even gave insight on just how much sophisticated work and research is being done in this field. I would have liked to have been able to talk to some people about projects and learn more about what the goals and current issues were.

The Mystery of the Dying Cheetahs

Another great example of science communication. After several studies point towards bad cow disease as the main source for cheetah extinction. Such information can be made public in order to serve as a source for the media.

Earthquake in China Highlights the Vulnerability of Schools in Many Countries

I posted this article because I thought it was appropriate to show how science knowledge can help the public. As a result of several earthquakes, scool officaisl are ablet o gain information that can better help their individual schools.

Great for science communication!

Evolution Goes Wild in Once-Polluted Lake

I found the above article while searching tv listing on the doscovery channel website. I thought it would be interesting to show a complete 180 in terms of bad to good for the mentioned lake.

Science Communication Symposium Experience

Going into the symposium, I was a little intimidated at first by the presence of all the big time researchers, and Nobel Prize winner Roald Hoffmann, but it turned out to be a great experience. Roald Hoffman’s presentation was completely hilarious and unexpected. I was tricked into thinking he had an actual “Power point” presentation on a computer and felt really bad that he couldn’t get it to work. I was blown away by his sense of humor and use of improv actors to explain a deep theory of chemistry to the audience. I thought this was such an innovative idea as part of science outreach to the general public, and reminded me of lab lit – as another way to communicate to the general public on a level that both scientists and non-scientists can understand through the use of humor. I feel that if this group of actors was to start performing at elementary and middle schools it would get children more excited about learning about science because they would find the presentation funny and enjoyable.

After Roald Hoffmann’s presentation, Professor Lewenstein led the panel discussion. I felt that this panel discussion really tied in a lot of concepts that we have covered in our Comm 285 class. The first question discussed was WHY it was important to reach out the general public about science in the first place. It was said that scientists fill the world with things we don’t understand, and it’s important to communicate all of these things in order to bridge that gap. From listening to Jeff Nesbit’s response, I also learned that there was a continuing medical education course on TV that was aimed toward physicians but as it turned out, 95% of the viewers turned out to be non-physicians. I thought that this was really interesting because it goes to show that people are willing to learn about science, as long as it’s presented in an interesting and easily available source (such as TV).

One of the questions that I felt was particularly hard for the panelists to answer was: how does one decipher between teaching and communicating science knowledge, from ENGAGING the public in science communication. This question then led to the concept of open access, which we discussed in class as well. It was discussed that there is much tension regarding this controversy (whether certain science journal articles and discoveries should be freely available or not). Jeff Nesbit discussed that the world of science communication is leaning more towards open access because Congress is fighting to make it available for the people.

One of the aspects of the panel discussion I enjoyed the most was hearing the debate over whether the content of material changes depending on the audience it’s being delivered to. I liked Roald Hoffman’s description of using metaphors and analogies to explain complex science. He stated that we “naturally reach for metaphor and analogy” when we’re trying to describe something complex to a less informed audience. He also believes that this method of explanation is underrated since it’s presenting material in a non-mathematical manner, yet is still very effective. Jeff Nesbit’s take on this topic was a little different however, yet still proved an excellent point. He said to “aim high, not low.” He believes that it’s best for your audience to reach up to your knowledge instead of “dumbing down” the material.

After the panel discussion I was able to observe all the research posters. I came across one that I found to be particularly interesting entitled: “Genetically Modified Grapevines for Virus Resistance” by March Fuchs and Jonathon Oliver. I was able to talk to Marc Fuchs about his research. It was really interesting since I am taking a course in the Food Science department this semester, “Wines and Vines” and he was able to help explain to me the differences between certain grape vine viruses. This was very helpful since my final was the following day.

Overall, the symposium was an enriching learning experience and I felt honored to be in the presence of so many accomplished individuals. This was a great way to end the class.

2nd Annual Public Engagement and Science Communication Symposium

I found the Public Engagement in Science Communication Symposium to be quite interesting and informative, and regret not having more time to spend at the event. I especially found the exhibit entitle “Discover the Microbes Within: Students Partnering with Research Scientists” (#5) pertinent to many of the topics covered in the course this semester. Although Jeff Doyle, the man I discussed the project with, said that it is not necessarily citizen science but rather “citizen science” (quotation marks). This is because many of the teachers participating are in fact science teachers, and involved in the field of science—arguably “scientists” themselves. The students, however are certainly citizens participating in science, contributing to research, defining the phrase “citizen science,” and I found the program quite inspiring. I also found some rough statistics Dr. Doyle gave me that day impressive—over 400 teachers are now involved in the program, creating a network of teachers from across the northeast. Furthermore, the program has been established for 16-17 years, indicating its success, and hopefully statistics such as these will inspire the development of more programs that help to increase the public's involvement in science and research.

Some other observations I made that I thought contributed to the communication of the complex information to a general audience—the goal of the program—were some “catchy” or “ironic” titles, such as “What Do Cocaine Inhibition of Brain Proteins and Plague Formation in Alzheimer’s Disease Have in Common?” Some other examples of "catching the interest of readers" were those posters that used everyday examples to compare their projects to, to help the audience relate to the topic. An example of this was the opening paragraph of the poster, “Understanding Cancer by Mathematical Analysis of Complex Molecular Networks,” which compared cells in the body to a desktop PC—when cells in the body crash, this is what initiates cancer. Other contributing factors to those exhibits that best communicated their science were those that used large pictures and graphics and those that bolded major ideas and conclusions. All in all, the symposium was very interesting, and I look forward to attending next year. Upon leaving, I found myself wondering what the posters outside the lab with complex scientific information look like in comparison to the posters presented at the symposium. Along the same lines as this, I would have liked to hear an expert’s opinion, who was judging the posters, and thoroughly understood the science behind them, because whether or not the information was re-worded in such a way to convey truth, and reliable knowledge, could potentially pose a problem, as discussed in class, and having the verification that the knowledge I was gaining at the symposium would have been interesting.

US lists polar bear as threatened species

It has been very obvious in the recent years that global warming is not only affecting us on this planet. The steady melting of the polar ice caps, caused by the global rise in temperature and greenhouse gasses, has caused the already small populations of polar bears to decline. The bears rely on the ice to travel, hunt, and live, and as it melts, there is less ares for the bears to do these things. This should really be seen as another one of the signs that if we don't do something now to reduce emissions, protect the environment and it's species, and stop global warming in it's tracks, we are going to be in big trouble in the near future.

Public Engagement in Science

When I first arrived at the symposium, I was about 15 minutes late, so I walked into a room with a man (who I later realized was Roald Hoffman) speaking next to people moving in strange ways, almost as if they were mimicking what he was saying. At first, I thought I was in the wrong place (I have never been in the Biotechnology building before), but eventually, I realized it was all "part of the show." But reflecting on what I have learned in Comm 285, this use of actors started to get me thinking about public engagement in science. For one thing, I must admit that I would never have thought of using people to demonstrate the action of chemical bonding, though I'm not entirely sure that the point of his presentation was simply to communicate knowledge about chemical bonding. But it did make me think about the contexts in which we communicate science to the public, which affected the ways in which I viewed each poster.

The posters were all phenomenal. I especially enjoyed the poster dealing with the economics of manure, especially because in an energy hungry world, the Haber process is one of the most energy consuming things we do in society. However, when viewing the posters, something unexpected happened for me: I found myself more drawn to the posters containing a lot of text and fewer pictures. Usually, the opposite would be true, as I am a visual learner. I think part of it is my desire to learn more, coupled with my preconceived notion that more text means a more technical explanation of the topic. But it made me think of two things we have dealt with semester.

The first was Hilgartner's paper "The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses." When viewing these posters and reading the text written on many, it made me wonder if what I was viewing was "genuine" scientific knowledge or if what I was viewing was a distortion of the knowledge, an alternative view of the true information viewed through someone else's perspective. Even though I felt as though I gained a better understanding of the subject matter through reading the text rather than looking at the pictures, I wondered if the knowledge I was gathering was reliable or not. After having taken Comm 285 and understanding the notion of "reliable knowledge," I felt as though the only possible way to understand the topic without someone else's view distorting the knowledge was through looking at pictures. Aside from using different angles or perspectives when capturing a picture, visual records of information usually create the "purest" form of knowledge in my opinion; it is knowledge that does not get distorted by the communicator. After viewing a photograph of a cell, for example, I gained reliable knowledge about what a cell looks like. However, when I was wondering about this, it made me think of the video we watched about the bee-eaters. In this video, I watched a hawk steal a baby bee-eater, and thought it was real. However, the way the video was merged together made it seem real, although that behavior has never been directly observed, let alone caught on film. So clearly, a picture can be altered to convey a particular message.

I viewed the symposium as the true end to my experience in Comm 285, even though I had turned in my final paper nearly a week earlier. Viewing all of these posters made me relive what I had learned in this course, and made me think about it with respect to the "real world." I think mainly what going to this symposium and being forced to think about the principles of science communication has taught me is that we should not have blind faith in science. In other words, we should not just believe everything a scientist says just because he/she is a scientist. Instead, we must always strive to be informed citizens and question what is read, said, or displayed to us, so that we might better the reliability of the knowledge we gain.

2nd Annual Public Engagement and Science Communication Symposium

When Roald Hoffman initially told the audience that his powerpoint presentation was not working, my reaction was not pleasant. I have had professors (not in Comm 285), who either do not make Powerpoints, or fail to use them. This situation often results in the professor rambling on and on – often to the point where I am so bored I do my French homework. However, I was pleasantly surprised and fascinated by the improve actors Hoffman used as a visual aid. It reminded me of Lablit, and its ability to entertain and educate simultaneously.

I also found the panel discussion intriguing. I agreed with Hoffman when he stated, “science has filled the world with things we don’t understand – from CD players to our cars.” In addition, I thought this was a great analogy for what I have learned in Communication 285 – the importance of science communication. Often at Cornell, I have questioned the relevance of the classes I am taking, and their applicability in real life. However, this symposium, and in particular the panel discussion, illustrated the relevance of science communication in today’s society. The relevance of effective science communication is especially relevant now that so many environmental and scientific issues are coming under public and governmental scrutiny.

One of the more salient issues discussed was the balance between keeping science unfiltered, and presenting generalized versions to the public. Nesbit pointed out that in many cases, the public wants to be challenged by “real” science, as opposed to any watered down version that the science community may offer to the public. I considered this while viewing the posters on display. Some of the posters I thought might have been too complicated. While I cannot remember these off the top of my head, on poster, in its comprehensive yet simplistic manner, caught my attention. Poster #8, “Making Manure an Environmental and Economic Asset” was in my opinion, one of the more effective communicators of science among the posters. While some posters were large and more detailed, #8 struck an important balance between being comprehensible and comprehensive. I did not stay until the winners were announced, but if “Manure” had won, I would not have been surprised.

Communicating Science through a Poster

When I arrived at the Public Engagement and Science Communication Symposium yesterday, I have to admit it was not what I expected. I thought it would be more focused on communication than science, but found it be be the opposite. I did not get to attend the panel discussions in the morning, but from reading other students' posts, I wish I could have made it. I did get to look through most of the posters, and talk to many of the faculty who conducted the research, which is what I will focus my blog post on.

There was a wide range of poster styles: some were mostly text, while others incorporated lots of charts and photographs. In talking with some of the faculty about their posters, I found that the ones with graphics were a lot more effective in conveying their research to me in an engaging manner. Dr. Chang's poster had large images in the middle that drew my eye toward his work. As he was talking to me, he used the images to take me along a step by step of how the bacterium he works on affects animals, and then how it affects humans to cause Crohn's disease. His laboratory works at the molecular level of this research topic, but his poster focused on the macro-level to allow lay audience to understand the "big picture."

Another research poster focused on the development of a new pesticide to control fireblight in apple trees. The research worked on a genetic level to engineer to the plants to produce a specific protein known to create resistant strains against the pathogens. Along with the poster, the researcher brought commercialized products of the protein isolates. The supplementation of the poster with applicable products allowed the audience to really see how the research is used outside the laboratory. Another poster presenter brought along a microscope to show specimens. She said this immediately drew in a lot of the high school students to her poster.

Overall, I found that I was more drawn to the posters with more familiar graphics and props. As we talked about in class, an unexpected science image tends to draw in an audience who may not be science experts. Dr. Chang's poster had a large image of a goat that looked like he had just taken it off of Google Images. It caught me off guard, since most science research posters I have encountered have microscopic images, but not large images of farm animals. Similarly, the incorporation of the microscope offered an interactive piece to the two-dimensional posters. Just like a DIY station at a science museum draws in participants, a microscope at the poster session can draw in people from all ages and levels of science knowledge. Put up a "Look in Here!" sign on a demo and people will most definitely be curious to see what's inside.

There were some posters at the symposium that were very technical and focused more on the scientific process than the results and applications. However, these were more difficult for me to digest especially if I was unfamiliar with the field of research. One question I left with is whether simplifying science to a level understandable to lay audience is compromising too much of the science. When we extrapolate too much, are we "popularizing" science to the extent that is no longer authentic? I think about my middle school and high school science classes compared to my undergraduate science classes. The simplified middle/high school science now seems too simplified to be real science, but those building blocks are necessary to build up to more complex ideas. Where should the line be draw between "real" science and "popularized" science, if it should be drawn at all? Is "popularized" science necessary to understand "real" science?

Public Engagement and Science Communication Symposium

This morning I attended the second annual Public Engagement and Science Communication Symposium. Here, researchers were given the task of presenting their findings using methods comprehensible by members outside of their immediate communities. Researchers, professors, and others in attendance used their poster presentations to convey their information to a panel of judges who were not from the scientific community, but rather were lay individuals, including high school and college students.

To begin the event, Roald Hoffman gave a presentation entitled “The Chemical Imagination at Work in Very Tight Places.” Here, he began his presentation as if he was having technical trouble with his PowerPoint. After announcing his computer malfunction, he asked for “young people” in the audience to come to the stage and help him. As 3 individuals stepped on stage, it became evident to the audience that this was not a result of technological malfunction, but rather a pre-planned innovation in conveying science research. Hoffman then explained chemical bonds and interactions through the movements of his performers. Such a novel presentation coalesced with our discussion on the use of metaphors in science communication. While metaphors might not convey certain technical details, the presentation today made clear that such an easy to understand device allows the un-technical audience members to gain substantial insight into the general principles of the subject and subsequently retain much of that information.

While such a novel spin on presentations was clearly related to the conversations of Communication 285, perhaps most interesting was the panel discussion of Nobel laureate, Roald Hoffmann, Jeff Nesbit, Director of Public Affairs at the National Science Foundation, and Gaspar Taroncher-Oldenberg, an Executive Editor of SciBX. The threesome discussed questions posed by Professor Lewenstein including, why is it important to communicate with the public, what tensions exist in this endeavor, and do different audiences require different methods thinking/presentations of knowledge?

In each of these questions, the ideas put forth in Comm 285 were clear and present. For example, in the discussion surrounding the idea of creating different types of knowledge for different audiences, the idea of knowing about nature vs. knowing nature was called to my mind. Similarly, the different presentations we examined on Bee-eaters in Emlen & Wrege, a Technical article using IMRAD; Living Bird, an ornithology publication; and Ranger Rick, a children’s magazine conveyed the same topic while presenting it in different methods. While students from Comm 285 understood many of the topics posed in Professor Lewenstein’s questions, at times, it seemed that some panel members were not as familiar with these concepts, as they often piggy-backed off of one another’s answers and did little to advance the discussion on certain topics – particularly the idea of different creations of knowledge.

Overall, I truly enjoyed the lecture. It was fascinating to see the different means that are being used to impart general audiences with scientific information, rather than just examining the theoretical aspects of science communication. This being said, I am looking forward to attending next year’s symposium.

Science Communication Symposium

Today I atteneded the Science Communication Symposium in the Biotech building. There were many scientists presenting posters of their work, and the first thing I was handed was the criteria they were being judged on. At the top of the sheet was "All presentations should be targeted to a general audience" in bold print. With that in mind, I walked around the room. The posters that I thought did the best job of conveying information were the ones that used effective graphics that were easy to understand. Pictures helped the general public to follow the science when they lost exactly what the words might be saying. Also, those with too much writing tended to lose me, as I found myself feeling like I was reading a novel when all I wanted was the main point of the research. A poster communicating to the scientific community can afford to be a little more wordy, but when addressing the public, being clear and to the point seemed to work best.

What I found made a big difference in sparking my interest in a poster was the presenter's ability to explain it clearly and with enthusiasm. I found myself very intrigued by nanotechnology that can detect chemicals, which is not something I would normally read about, because the presenter did a great job of explaining the research and answering my questions. They hope to get these detecting chips down to the width of a human hair to be used for things like detecting fertilizer distribution and gradients of harmful chemicals in the environment. Really incredible.

By taking a seat at a table full of real adults (aka not undergraduates), I got to see some interesting interactions between different areas of science. For example, a PhD from Cornell was in a discussion with a surgeon from Syracuse about finding a source of tissue samples to do breast cancer research with. He was able to give her the contact information of someone who could potentially help her out. A surgeon networking with a researcher can hopefully come back to help the medical community advance in the long run. It was also interesting to hear about the paths they had taken to get to where they are today in there professional lives.

The final powerpoint presentation by Jeff Nesbit talked about communicating science broadly. What struck me was how many mediums the National Science Foundation is using to get science out to the public. He showed examples of the NY Times science page (the last of its kind, actually), TV programs, websites, and radio. The NSF even worked with the cast of the Today Show to send them to Antarctica to broadcast live. Work has also been done with the cast of the popular TV series CSI to promote real science. The effort being made to reach the public with science is impressive, and today was just a snapshot of that.

Communicating Science Broadly: Science Communciation Symposium

Today I attended the Public Engagement and Science Communication Symposium, specifically the keynote address by senior communications strategist, Jeff Nesbit. His lecture addressed a lot of the topics that we've covered in class, focusing on a number of real world examples.

Nesbit talked a lot about what he called the "changing media landscape." As stated in the panel discussion earlier, science communication is no longer a upstream-downstream, two-dimensional process (Hilgartner anyone?). Newer mediums and bigger audiences require scientists and organizations to do more than just tell the public what's going on; people really need to understand. We can all attest to that suggestion, as Professor Lewenstein's Web of Science Communication exemplifies the complexities that new times and new technologies produce.

What I found most inspiring was his belief in taking risks. The National Science Foundation, of which he is associated, is unique in its pursuance of new, creative ways to communicate science. I feel that he's entirely right and that just about everything we've learned in class can back him up on this belief. Over time, the need for communication has expanded, from merely sharing ideas and experiments in order to expand the body of knowledge, to publishing in pursuit of funding and support, to ultimately interesting and involving the public in science.

We can see it in the diversity of mediums that have evolved in science communication. Science museums, in all their glory, can sometimes be intimidating with rows and rows and rows of specimens and the iconic exhibits guarded behind velvet ropes. Science centers have evolved to incorporate the public in science and learning, dropping the ropes for fully interactive and "touchable" exhibits. In recent years, citizen science has evolved, from attracting data-collectors to educating and really involving the public. It's even grown in size, from the Sapsucker Woods Ornithology Lab to the online, fully accessible database.

Without risk taking, I highly doubt that any of these advances could have been accomplished. Expanding the world of science communication demands creativity and with it, a little courage. Nesbit mentioned many of the projects that the NSF has done in recent years, partnering with various publications and organizations to connect the media with science.

One that impressed me most, involved them literally connecting The Today Show with scientists working in Antarctica. When NBC realized how great the idea was, they devoted a segment every day for a week, showing the public what scientists were doing, the implications, etc. The NSF has done a lot of work with network news stations, relaying background footage and satellite video phone connections with scientists for stories.

While Nesbit talked about these and many other examples, drawing from many of the topics we discussed in class, I couldn't help but think of the big picture. It seemed to me that the work of Nesbit and the NSF is what's needed to keep "The Web" interconnected. They sew together the mediums, the people, and the information that's necessary for building the body of knowledge we call science. They merge the television programs and the studies, the fans and the scientists, and the world of science with the rest of the globe.

Listening to this lecture, with the background that I gained from this class, has opened my eyes not only to the importance of science communication, but to the myriad of modern advances being made all around us. The realm of science communication is indefinitely expanding and I'm keeping my eyes out for newer, riskier, better ways to connect the public with the science.

Public Engagement in Science Symposium (5/13)

On Tuesday, May 13^th, 2008, I attended the Second Annual Public Engagement in Science Symposium, which began at 9:00 am in the Biotechnology Building. The audience was composed of scientists and other professionals from a wide range of fields, as well as several community members. The first presentation, entitled “The Chemical Imagination at Work in Very Tight Places,” was given by Nobel Prize winner (and Cornell faculty member) Roald Hoffmann. The presentation was described in Dr. Hoffmann’s introduction as a “PowerPoint presentation,” but it turned out to be a pleasant surprise.  As Dr. Hoffmann spoke, three actors from the Red Shift performance troupe physically acted out the chemical bonds and properties that he described. This on-stage performance was not only funny and entertaining, but it demonstrated how much easier one can learn when the right metaphors are used.

The highlight of the symposium though, in my own opinion, was the panel discussion moderated by our own Dr. Lewenstein. This discussion featured three prominent men who represent different aspects of science and science communication—Roald Hoffmann, an internationally-acclaimed chemical researcher; Jeff Nesbit, Director of Legislative and Public Affairs at the National Science  Foundation; and Gaspar Taroncher-Oldenberg, Nature Publishing Group Executive Editor of SciBX. The questions asked by Dr. Lewenstein and the answers given by the panelists touched on a great deal of the course material we covered in COMM 285 this semester, and I would like to share what I considered to be the most interesting and relevant portions:

In response to the question “Why is science communication important?,” Dr. Hoffman stated that, despite popular belief, scientists do not communicate with the public with the intent to persuade them into the field of science. Dr. Hoffmann said that, in his view, the ultimate reason why it is important to have the public engaged in science is because a basic understanding of science is critical for the operation of the democratic process. In other words, the public cannot decide on the pressing science-related issues of our time unless they truly understand them – a simple concept that I feel is often forgotten by many individuals in the sciences. Building on this sentiment, Jeff Nesbit shared his opinion that science communication is no longer a two-step, downstream-upstream process; that technological innovations have completely changed the communication of scientific knowledge – another idea we have discussed a great deal in class.

Later on in the discussion, the topic turned to the availability of reliable scientific knowledge and open-access. Dr. Hoffmann explained that there is currently no good business model for the “purchasing of information” (via journal access) and that the idea of open access, while a noble one, will continue to face major obstacles in the near future because of this. Gaspar Taroncher-Oldenberg then described how, in order to maintain a monopoly on certain cutting-edge scientific data, private companies will often not publish their research results. This surprised me a great deal, but in retrospect I can understand why this happens. This made me think a great deal about the “ownership” of knowledge.  Is it ethical for private companies with deep pockets to be able to withhold important scientific knowledge from the public? On the other side of the coin, this information would not even exist in the first place if it weren’t funded by private interests. This topic if definitely something I will continue to think about.

Finally, Dr. Lewenstein raised a familiar question to the three panelists—when you target different audiences for science communication, do you create different knowledge by doing so? In response to this inquiry, Dr. Hoffmann affirmed the importance of metaphors - which he claims are “underused” in general - for science communication at all levels. Dr. Hoffmann stated that the benefits of using metaphors far outweigh any potential negative effects, and that this is a critical way to help non-scientists and scientists alike learn about any one particular field. To end on a poignant note, Dr. Hoffmann then stated that the act of teaching is what makes a scientist a better researcher, not vice-versa as many have come to believe.  I personally could not agree more with Dr. Hoffmann in this regard. 

Poster #12: Multiplexed Pathogen Detection

The symposium held today had a poster entitled "Multiplexed Pathogen Detection via a Portable Fixcytometer." What drew me to it was the heavy and effective use of graphics. The graphic that caught my eye was a picture of a bar-code scanning device, the kind that are used at stores. The authors of the posters explained that one of the scientific techniques they developed, using tagged branched-DNA sequences, worked very similarity to bar codes in that each species of bacteria has its own unique DNA sequence, much like each type of cereal at the grocery store has its own bar code. By using this analogy, the authors of the poster were able to simplify their idea so that laypeople (like me) could understand it. A lot of the scientific details were lost to me, but I could understand the basic idea of the project through the use of analogies.
The project was also interesting because it combines both science (the DNA of specific species of bacteria) and engineering (how the information is displayed and read). When I talked to the presenter of the poster, he said that current machines cost a million dollars, and that technicians charge $40/hour for working on identifiying pathogens. There is also a time delay in getting the sample out to the lab, sequencing and figuring out what is in the sample, and sending the results out. This new machine would cost $500 and be easy for farmers to use out in the field. The machine makes science more accessible and cheaper. They are currently working on getting the results to be displayed on smart phones (i.e. blackberries, iphones) with a corresponding key. Although this idea was not presented with the poster, if information is collected in this way scientists could ask for the results to be sent to them, so they can chart the epidemiology of the disease. This would be a "bidirectional" flow of information, as the info would be going from a "downstream source" (the farmers) to an "upstream source" (the scientists).
When the poster-presenter explained to me how the results would be displayed, he used the analogy of an at-home birth test, saying that the different intensities of colors meant different bacteria. Again, his use of analogies was helpful in explaining the information in a clear way.

Should science knowledge be talked up or talked down?

I would have never thought that I would actually enjoy a lecture about looking at high pressure chemcials. Then again, I never thought that a lecture about chemistry could include improv actors acting out chemical bonds. This was the opening talk on Tuesday's second annual Public Engagement and Science Communication symposium. Following Nobelist Roald Hoffman's talk was a panel, moderated by our professor, which included Hoffmann, NSF director Jeff Nesbit, and SciBX executive editor Gaspar Taroncher. The bulk of their discussion was the necessity for public engangement because "mysteries that science introduced can cause alienation", "science knowledge is a basic need for the democratic process", "people need to see that science is not perfect, not black and white and full of uncertainity" and "we are on the verge of a learning explosion." These were just some of the reason that the panel said education of science to lay people is important.

While the discussion touched upon many subjects that we have discussed this semester-- in fact I wish I would have attended this before my last paper was due-- I would like to concentrate on one aspect that I had some qualms about which was how to present knowledge to different audiences. Hoffman made it a point to say that everything comes down to teaching and the difference is in the audience. This reiterates our classes discussion on different audiences produces different knowledge (ie. Bee Eaters example). He then went on to talk about the importance of metaphors and how they have a productive value for the scientist. Taroncer commented how when editing he tries to take out much of the jargon that is included because it needs to be an article that can be understood. The one comment I didn't agree with is when Nesbit said that he believes science should be more "talked up." He felt that science should not be dumbed or lessened down.

I feel that in order to effectively communicate to lay people that Nesbit is wrong and that concepts should be talked down -- there needs to be a certain degree of simplicity. When I was involved in journalism in my high school my teacher told us about the K.I.S.S concept, which stands for Keep It Simple, Stupid. The general public does want to know about complicated ideas however they need to presented in an appropriate level. Nesbit used the example of a morning medical teaching show intended for physicians and he commented that a large portion of the viewers were not doctors and they were lay people wanting to learn about these complex ideas. He used this as a justification that science should be presented in a "higher" context but I don't think his example necessarily supports that. It does shows that viewers, the lay people (which if they are watching Discovery Health is a specific demographic and not really representative of the gernal population) want to learn about higher science but the high numbers of viewers doesn't mean that what they saw they understood.

When it comes down to it, I think science communication should be presented in its simplest form to the general public. What do you think? Do you think people want to be challenged? Would they be turned off if the information is too lofty? In the end, will they truly understand science if it is talked down, talked up or is it relative to the individual?

Apple: Behind in the Environmental Race

This article is a relatively short one, and it brings to light the degree of 'greenness' of various electronics companies. It is interesting because environmental friendliness is becoming established as a major concern of society when it comes to brand loyalty. With more articles about rankings, such as this one, companies will make a conscious effort to move up the list.
I found it especially ironic that the company with the most natural name, APPLE, which carries so much symbolism, is the one that is most damaging to the earth.

"Lost" Science Debunked

Anyone who watches the TV show "Lost" will appreciate this article greatly.  It ties in well with science communication, especially lab lit material.

Activism Through Art

Ok, so this isn’t totally a “science” related post, however, I feel that the concept of using art to promote activism and awareness is one of the most powerful ways to get certain messages out there. Almost all of us are involved in some kind of art, whether it’s just listening to songs on our ipods, participating in theater, photography, or writing, art influences all of our lives, and can have a very powerful impact as well. In BioNB321 “state of the planet” (a class I think everyone should have the chance to take), we had a lecture where our guest speakers and main topic all concerned environmental activism through some kind of art. One of the speakers was an author working on her first novel that involved fictional friends dealing with changes in the planet, and the other guest speaker was a singer/song writer who uses his work to promote messages about global and environmental issues, as well as stories that are close to his heart. Anyway, as I was looking for examples of activism through art to share during our lecture, I came across a couple of music videos I thought some of you might be interested in. one of them has to do with science and environmental issues, and other deals with general social and global issues. I found both to be very inspiring pieces, and I also found it interesting to examine the communication these works inspire. By looking at the posts left on youtube about these videos, we can see that they’re already working to promote communication through a different medium, almost like a blog, but generally attracting a different crowd than might comment on a science or social issue blog. Finally, I encourage anyone who knows of more examples of science or social issue communication through art to share them with us! thanks J


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djP-c7d_Oeo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amwVyRH2B8A

Study: New dads' depression hurts kids, too

This article was interesting because it shows that fathers are even an active participant in raising children and substantially contribute to their developmental processes. An unnamed study mentioned in the article presented during the American Psychiatric Association meeting finds that “Fathers of infants are more likely to be depressed and that depression can hinder their child's development by age 2”. Furthermore, an English study linked to this initial study says these effects are far reaching: they are linked to psychiatric disorders in those same children by age 7. While the article makes its claim based off of two studies, it opens the door for further research into making sure fathers are adequately prepared to have children. As a product of a two-parent household, it also leads me to question what other developmental processes are affected by both the absence/presence and participation/non-participation of mother and father in raising children.

A Technology Consortium Plans a Wireless Network

After initially reading this article, I thought about the power of the dollar to divide just as quickly as it unites. This article discusses a meeting of the minds between communications names such as Sprint, Google, and Comcast to name a few to launch wireless networks across the country. These networks not only focus on speed of transmitting data, but on the scope of what that can be processed such as videos and ads. Moreover, the creation of such a network involves sensitive compromise between companies brought together to beat their rival such as Verizon. (They can’t beat that Verizon service in Ithaca right?) As the author comments, “The partnership of such fundamentally different companies underscores the convergence of Internet, entertainment and telecommunications services.” Questions about such networks ranging and reliability are raised, but I further question whether these plans promote technological advancement or dependency on technology as a crutch for individuals.

Inky Circus

Here is a fun online science magazine for women scientists, but I believe it's just as interesting for guys to peruse through. Along with entertaining articles about everyday science topics, they also have funny science songs and video clips similar to some that we have listened to and watched in class.

Myanmar Death Toll Could Top 10,000, Foreign Minister Says

This article alerted me to the ever- present reality of what is going on in other parts of the world. Tropical Cyclone Nargis hit Yangon, Myanmar, devastating thousands of homes and resulting in thousands dead or missing. The many roadblocks to receiving disaster relief presented in the article cause me to question if systems for mobilizing in times of natural disasters via agencies such as the UN and DART need re-evaluation.

Home Brew for the Car, Not the Beer Cup

I'm guessing that The New York Times' creative title for this article has attracted the attention of many of you!

Initially I was drawn to this article by its title, but I really felt such a strong desire to post this article because I enjoyed reading it so much. This article excitingly communicates a new development in environmental science that has the potential to "become the fuel industry’s version of the personal computer!" The home ethanol-making legend Floyd S. Butterfield presents: a possible (smart) way to avoid automobile gas stations and their ridiculously high prices!

Rightfully so, his idea for a home ethanol system, called the E-Fuel 100 MicroFueler, has been met with skepticism. I do not want to ruin too much of the article, but Butterfield's system has been criticized because the MicroFueler's fuel source (nope, not telling) does not cost much less than the petroleum used in commercial gasoline. It is hard to tell how easy (or not!) the MicroFueler will be for consumers to use when the final product hits the market. I'm also not sure how much success this machine will achieve because the machine itself costs almost $10,000!

However, all things considered, I am excited at the prospect of car fuel that will produce "one-eighth the carbon of the same amount of gasoline" when burned :).

Medical Writer: Health Risks and the Media

Here's a blog about being a medical writer. I don't know how good it is, but thought some of you might be interested.

Biosensing nanodevice to revolutionize health screenings

While the device in question boasts some spectacular future uses, it is all the more remarkable for the technology (or rather biology) behind it. The biosensing capabilities of the nanodevice stem from the utilization of the enzyme F1-adenosine triphosphatase, better known as F1- ATPase, which rotates as other structures bind to DNA and a solution with ATP is added. The rotation causes the emission of a red signal which can be observed via microscope. Scientists hope that this technique might be used to detect the presence of pathogens and other agents rapidly and efficiently for medical and security purposes. While the article is astonishing solely on technical grounds, it offers an important example of the importance of selling science to the public in ways that interest them. If the title of this article had read "Biosensing nanodevice through utilization of F1-ATPase", it would have failed to capture the public's interest. Making the nanotechnology relevant required framing it upon its potential uses.

New immune treatment may control AIDS virus

I feel this a great article because scientists are letting the public understand that they are making tremendous strides in an effort to try and cure the AIDS virus. This article does show that monkeys are used for testing. This obviously brings up the question of whether animals should be tested or not. I feel in this instance it is crucial to test animals because the AIDS virus is such an awful disease that has affected more than 33 million people since 1980. Its also good because it gives people who have the disease a sense of hope that doctors are trying there very best to try to and get a cure. Although doctors have stated that it has not cured the virus the discovery certainly has controlled it. They are testing it on humans as we speak!!

Interesting Science Blog

This is a blog called "denialism" from scienceblogs.com that I found in my search for our last paper. I liked it so much that I wanted to share it with the class. If you click on PalMD's "previous writings can be found here" it takes you to another blog called whitecoatunderground which was also really fun to read. A quote from whitecoatunderground - "It’s still the tail-end of flu season, so the office and clinic are bursting at the seams. It’s pouring cold rain outside, the sky an oppressive grey typical of this part of the country. And my third patient this morning said to my assistant, ‘Can you please tell the doctor his fly is open?’ I think it’s time for a vacation." I thought this was a great representation of how science blogs can function to make scientists more "real." There are many other examples of this as well. The denialism blog also has some great links to sources backing up PalMD's claims and statistics. Enjoy!

Measles in U.S. at Highest Level Since 2001

I know that I've been posting and commenting a lot about the measles situation in the U.S. and the debates on vaccinations, but I though I would post one last article on the progression of the story and the recently released statistics. I would also like to point out the second paragraph of the article:

"Most of the cases have occurred in people who were never vaccinated."

I really think that the use of vaccinations is critical to the management of these infectious agents, and I wanted to again emphasize my personal opinion about the use of vaccinations, as well as hear (or rather read,) everyone's final opinions of the vaccination debate. I also wanted to point out the "closeness to home" aspect of this article--most outbreaks in the U.S. in the past have been in the midwest, or west coast (although there were a couple cases in PA and VA) but this article points out a recent outbreak in New York City, which I think will instigate more people to take measures to ensure that they have received an MMR vaccine, or to even just be aware of the outbreaks--public awareness, communication of the science, is the first step, I believe to solving this potential epidemic.

At Hollywood Goes Green: GM vs. electric cars

I have been extremely interested in the future of electric cars in our country since seeing the movie, "Who Killed the Electric Car?". This is a blog post from the LA Times and it touches on some of the controversies that the movie referenced. I think it would be very interesting to dissect this ongoing debate about the integration of electric cars into society and discover which aspects are driven by scientific practices, communication, and tangible evidence.

Now, considering that this is a blog post rather than an formal article, does it work to establish and outline key points within the debate while also maintaining a more casual and conversational tone? Do you think blogs like this one will prove to be effective in teaching people about electric cars and their likelihood of a comeback? Or, are blogs more of a second source for conservations such as this one that are constantly evolving and becoming more dynamic? We are approaching a very exciting time as far as energy and political decisions and it will be fascinating to see how each is communicated and in what arena. I am also curious to see how blogs may play a dominant or lesser role depending upon the issue--electric cars, in this case.

In a New Climate Model, Short-Term Cooling in a Warmer World

So, I first noticed this article from its intriguing, contradictory title. As I read the article, I found it really interesting, a climate model has been set up that will include the effects of global warming and be able to predict weather decades into the future. However, upon further reflection on the article, I have to say I was slightly disappointed at how they communicated this story to the public. A new climate model that predicts “decade-long forecasts for climate, just as meteorologists routinely generate weeklong forecasts for weather” sounds like an amazing tool that could have a huge influence and positive impact on preparation for life of future generations on the planet. A model like this could let us know exactly how quickly we should be implementing new public policies and environmental laws, and how the world will change based on what humans do or do not do about their own behavior. However, the article does not really shed a positive light on the new model or any of the aforementioned possibilities at all. In fact, I felt that the writing led to even further uncertainty and skepticism than there already is.

The article demonstrated a lot of use of the Merton norm of Disinterestedness, with many of its sentences stating the uncertainty involved with this model, and the rest of the article filled with hesitant claims such as “…it was a preliminary effort” and “…able to reasonably replicate climate patterns in those regions”. I personally feel that publishing such a hesitant article lacking in any concrete details or short/long term uses of the new model was a mistake. There are already so many skeptics of global warming and human influence on environmental problems and I think publishing an article such as this simply reinforces their claims. In addition, the fact that their preliminary model ended up showing a cooling in temperature also doesn’t help to reinforce the severity of global warming. Although this warming is explained as a way “to chart what will assuredly be a winding climatic journey toward a generally warmer world”, the article doesn’t offer much proof of this and no reason that the public shouldn’t take this cooling as evidence against global warming; so, even their findings sort of contradict what they are trying to reinforce, that global warming will cause huge problems in the future.

Censoring Science?

We've spent a lot of time this semester discussing science communication. However, we didn't really address science censorship. Today, I started thinking about censorship and science when I was reading this story on cnn.com.

The story basically discusses an increase in "detergent suicides" in Japan. People have been following "recipes" online that help them commit suicide by mixing several household chemicals that release toxic fumes. The fumes are so strong that entire apartment buildings have to be evacuated.

Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world, and the country is working to reduce the number of suicides by 20%. In order to help address the suicide issue, the government has asked Internet providers in Japan to censor sites that contain methods for suicide. Today, many "scientific recipes"for suicide, bombs, etc. can be found online. I'm interested to see what others in the class think about the government censoring websites like these.

H.P. Unveils New Memory Technology

This article describes a new simple circuit element, called the "memristor" that was developed by Hewlett Packard Scientists. Today in class when we discussed everything we had learned, "advances in technology" and "nanotechnology" were two topics that came to mind. I had heard the topic of nanotechnology being discussed among some of my engineer peers here at Cornell once before but had never really thought about it otherwise. This article describes how quickly we are making advances in science technology. What the scientists found most intriguing was the memristors’ ability to store and retrieve a vast array of intermediate values, which makes them function like biological synapses. This could be beneficial for many artificial intelligence applications ranging from machine vision to understanding speech.

Giant Squid

For centuries sailors and scientists have conversed over whether or not there exists a "giant" squid. We're not talking your Daddy's calamari, we're talking massive "Take on Jaws in an Epic Battle of Sea-Creature Supremacy" squid. Until last year it had been chatted about and discussed but with no proof. However, last year the mystery was unearthed.
The first Colossal Squid was captured intact last year. This week, the New York Times has released an article on the size of the squids eye-the largest eye in the world. The actual eye is the size of a dinner plate and the lens is as big as a orange.
While this article caught my normal sized eye because it reminded me of my father's discovery channel stories of a living sea monster, it made me think of another issue. For centuries people have claimed they have seen these creatures. For centuries there has been speculation. By why didn't the established population ever believe it? It was passed off as sea stories and lumped with aliens. People for years called the sailors crazed afficionados and passed off stories of ship destructions as poor sailing. Why didn't I ever really believe my dad when he told me stories of the giant squid?
The whole article just made me think of the role of communication. How I had never believed my father, or specials on the discovery channel, but because someone in a lab coat or a writer for the New York Times I believed it. I believed the article before I saw a picture. Before I saw the "proof." For me, I guess the proof was in the Grey Lady's reputation. That the NYT wouldn't publish something that wasn't fortified.
I think of the seamen who told their stories in bars and ports and were scoffed at. Unforunately, I think of the 14 year old version of myself rolling my eyes at my dad. Unforunately, I think of the role communication plays and how it is so often taken for granted. Well I apologize Colossal Squid. I will never doubt you again. Move over 'Nessy, there's a new sea monster and its got its ginormous, massive, look like the moon, dinner plate sized eyes on you...

Hunting for Higgs

This was taken from a post on the lablit.com site and I thought it raised interesting questions about the use of metaphors in science communication.

Without being aware of it, most readers of scientific literature encounter a variety of metaphors, similes, and other literary techniques placed in the text by the authors to improve reader comprehension. Biology, in particular, is full of metaphors... take the common portrayals of sperm and egg, for example.

While metaphors often increase understanding of a particular concept or topic by making comparisons to already familiar topics, does such association lead to the formation of a new kind of knowledge? If so, does this tool aid or hinder the creation of ‘reliable’ knowledge? Should there be certain guidelines of the creation of such relationships? Just some things to consider.

Banning smoking for the Olympics... and beyond?

This article from USA Today talks about the efforts of China's government to enforce a no smoking policy inside most public buildings. I find it interesting that international events like the Olympics can stir the government of a country into conforming with international norms and putting their best foot forward in presenting their country.
This article contains statistics about the cost of cigarettes and the impact of the new laws on businesses like restaurants. This is an example of how science and risk are communicated to the public. Would you say that the owners of the restaurant are participating in citizen science by enforcing the no smoking policy? Will the citizens see this transition as a preemptive measure for their health and well-being or will they feel that this is just a reflection of the tyranny of those in authority?

new role: the science communication beauty manager

In this blog post, the author raises an interesting idea regarding the relationship between “eye appeal” and science. Perhaps more interesting, however, were the ideas of the commenters which brought up aesthetics, communicability, and visual credibility of science. While presentation of material is obviously important for a variety of reasons, including general appeal and professionalism, I found the issue of credibility to be of particular importance. In journal articles for example, authors often employ the use of graphs, charts, etc. to repeat information conveyed via text. While this visual representation does, at times, aid in the reader’s comprehension, I often view such data tables as ‘markers of credibility,’ particularly for audience members who are unfamiliar with content, or even those who fail to understand the meaning of the data. In these cases, just the presence of certain visuals bolster credibility and make clear that this is ‘technical data’ and perhaps by extension ‘science.’ So while “beauty manager” might be tongue-in-cheek, such a role would be well suited for science communicators.

Lions, ______, Bears, oh My

Here kitty kitty. Here kitty-kitty-kitty. Kitty?
Where have all the kitties gone?! Or more importantly, where have all the tigers gone? Today the New York Times released an article about the depletion of tigers in the world. Within the last 100 years, there has been about 97,000 wild tigers died. 97,000! Currently there is 3,000 tigers living in the wild, with about 15-20,000 living in zoos, breeding facilities, households (BIIIG Pet kitty), etc. Of these, only 1,000 are specifically "used" for breeding.
I bring this post up because it had just read the article about the dolphin, Sharkey, who died in captivity. Questions pertaining to that article centered around animal rights, being overworked, and institutionalized. Reading this article, however, made me think-what if we didn't have dolphins in captivity. Would they be going extinct like tigers. Every child grows up hearing, "Lions and tigers, and bears-oh my!" What if there are no tigers? What if this feline goes extinct.
I understand that animal rights is a big issue, and animals don't get an option whether they are plucked from their home and dropped in zoos, but what if they weren't. I'm no expert and can't tell you whether tigers would be breeding more outside of zoos and breeding clinics. But all I know is that for the majority, these animals are safe. There's no 97,000 tigers dying at zoos. So even though tigers and dolphins are institutionalized for the enjoyment of small children and others, maybe this serves a purpose for both animals and humans.

Pursuit of Yout Isn't Always Pretty

This article found on the MSNBC website describes how easy it is to have plastic surgery these days, and states, "But is all this really making us look younger? Or just weirder?". The article focuses on the difficult challenge of replicating the look of youth, compared to other forms of plastic surgery. It was nice to see an article posted about the negative aspects of getting Botox injections and trying to look young, because most people just end up looking less human. It is interesting to see how even plastic surgeons believe trying to obtain the look of youth isn't always the best decision. However, despite this, "Nearly 12 million cosmetic procedures were performed in 2007 — a 7 percent increase from 2006 and a 59 percent increase from 2000, according to the plastic surgery group." I think this statistic is terribly disturbing and it seems many people, especially celebrities, would rather look inhuman that have a few wrinkles. Another great aspect of this article was the slide show that allows the readers to see examples of celebrities who have and those who haven't gotten plastic surgery. It seems undoubtable that those without plastic surgery look better.

Cornell AND Citizen Science in the New York Times

In the title of this post is a link to the "Q&A" column of the New York Time's science section.

A reader asked why the pigeons that are ever present in front of her brownstone in Brooklyn never stay in the "nice backyard." The question is answered by "Miyoko Chu, director of communications for the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology in Ithaca, N.Y."

In the last two paragraphs, Dr. Chu plugs citizen science, specifically the lab's "Celebrate Urban Birds!" project. (www.birds.cornell.edu/celebration.)

It made me smile to see exactly what we were talking about last week in the New York Times!

Discovery Cove Dolphin Dies Performing Trick In Front Of Spectators

This brief article describes the death of a 30 year old dolphin, after crashing into another one while performing in a show at sea world. The dolphin was performing a trick that she had done dozens of times before. When I read about this I thought of the elephants playing soccer. It brings up the question if animals used to perform stunts are doing it because they are trained or because they like it? If anyone has seen a dolphin show they would probably guess that the dolphins were enjoying what they were doing and it was not putting them in danger, does one accident prove that it is not safe or fair to train dolphins (or other animals) to do things for human entertainment that could be dangerous? If the trick is for human nature and not dangerous should it be allowed?

Is Global Warming Real?

Is it climate change or global warming? This question is at the center of the climate debate. The following video clip, The Denial Machine, www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/, reveals how communication is at the source of controversy in this debate. Since the debate has become so political, communication of climate strategy has become particularly important and misleading. The video clip is clearly advocating that the current US government is attempting to delude the public about their climate change action. In the clip, a “word expert” is interviewed because he provided the government (i.e., Bush) with a pool of words to use to make the public think that he is saying something that he really isn’t. Confused? I was too at first. But, it really is interesting to watch how when you really pick out the words Bush uses in his speeches, he is really saying absolutely nothing about greater action against global warming. The power of communication is reflected in this video clip because simple choice in words can mask what the speaker is actually saying. Further, the video shows an investigation of the scientists advocating the opposing side- that global warming is not a problem. The scientists placed in the public eye are given government funding and stipends for speaking publicly that global warming is not actually happening. Media attention is given equally to both sides, but these dueling sides of a “debate” are not equally supported. The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and is disabling natural ecosystems. I encourage you all to watch this video clip and see for yourself how the media, speeches, etc. can be manipulated to convey a message that is not necessarily reliable information nor true!

Get your daily dose of SCIENCE

I was searching for a site specifically listing popular/new science books. I ran across ScienceDaily.com in the process. Here's what it's about:

* It's an online magazine 

* It draws from news releases submitted by other leading universities and other research institutes

* They provide links to the original news release, as well as other links that would be useful for journalists

* "It's been compared to the "C-SPAN" approach, providing unedited science

* It also links to "major science media and other internet sources, as well as a collection of interesting science related-sites" (the latter courtesy of an OPEN SOURCE directory)

* You can browse an online encyclopedia (OPEN SOURCE Wiki project)

* You can get the top science news in an email bulletin

* It posts news releases FREE for universities and research institutes 

* It includes not only news, but articles, images, videos, and book lists. All the subject matter is divided into "major" science categories. 

This website really grabbed my interest. It integrates so many ideas and topics we covered this year in COMM 285. It's a magazine, which is a traditional media, but it's on a new media (internet). It ties in so many open source sites, promoting the idea that every one should have access to science. Browsing through the site, it's a big mess of hyperlinks. The tabs are pretty easy to use, but the layout could be a bit more user-friendly. You really need to search through it to find what you want, but you will get lost in here. 

What do other people think of this website? Is it effective at helping reader's find what they need? How does it fit into science communication? I can see the Web of Science model being put into effect, since so many different medias are flowing into and out of this website. Check out the links at the bottom of the page "Awards" and "Editorial Staff." Do the awards really add to the credibility of the site? What about the credentials of the editors? Does this website do a better job of helping journalists find information to write an article more so than blogs? Is this site more reliable than blogs?

The Return of EPA's Libraries

This article caught my attention due to its direct link to science research. The Environmental Protection Agency decided to shut down many of their libraries and minimize open hours at others becuase they were trying to cut costs. The EPA claimed that, "its library shutdowns wouldn’t affect research by its employees or the public". However, the libraries they shut down were, "sometimes the only publicly accessible repository of important gray-literature filings and reports on environmental issues". However, Congress has taken an interest in this case and has given the EPA $1 million to reopen the libraries again. Although the libraries may reopen in different locations, they will once again be open to the public.

The Hybrid Car..a celebrity endorsement?

How has your perspective of the hybrid car changed? I remember when the hybrid car first came out, I was very skeptical. What do you mean it runs on a battery and gas? My second thought was “wow, that car is really ugly”. When you first look at the Prius, it is not that aesthetically appealing. However, when I finally experienced my first drive in a Prius, I was shocked. I felt like I was in a computer rather than a car. My friend told me that he drove from Michigan to Cornell on $15 worth of gas. Craziness. The Prius is still the only car specifically manufactured to be a hybrid. Now, consumers are bombarded with existing cars going hybrid, even SUVs. What has caused this surge in hybrids? Why did it take over a year for consumers to begin responding to the hybrid product? Now, you have to sign-up on a waiting list to get a Prius. One possibility is that the Prius was advertised and campaigned by many celebrities. Cameron Diaz and Justin Timberlake have been major advocates of the hybrid. These celebrities who can afford any car chose to buy the Prius, which really caught the public’s attention. The following article http://www.allabouthybridcars.com/hollywood-hybrids.htm sheds light on how some celebrities view that effect of buying a hybrid. In my point of view, the hybrid is a better option than the typical gas-guzzling car. However, the hybrid is not the solution to global warming as some celebrities alluded to in the article. I think that the electric car sales didn’t skyrocket because the process of maintaining an electric car is beyond what most people are willing to take on. The hybrid still requires us to go to the gas pump, which we (as consumers) can conceptualize. Is it the most innovative invention? No. Is it an improvement? Yes. Will it solve global warming? No. The hybrid, particularly the Prius, is a smart, more environmentally-friendly consumer product. However, it still is a source of pollution. If you HAVE to purchase a car, purchase a hybrid. However, we cannot disillusion ourselves to think that the hybrid is the answer to our environmental climate problem.

The Giant Squid Mystery

I found this article very interesting and applicable to what we have been discussing in class. How much do we really know about the giant squid? There isn't much and much of what we do know is based on theories, theories which are social constructs. Scientists try to base how the squid eats and moves from observations of similar species and from what we know already from science but not from direct observations of the giant squid itself. However, it is important to note that the squid is frozen after found, allowing scientists to keep it in good condition until they are ready to devote the time necessary to study it, an aspect that allows science to continue and allow for thecreation of more reliable knowledge.

Furthermore, scientists use the giant squid as a way to reach out to the public. The giant squid is a fascinating topic that intrigues many and provokes interest in the deep sea and marine life. This may be due to the fact we know so little about it. But scientists are using this opportunity to give public lectures and to show dissection of the squid on webcam, so that everyone can enjoy the adventure of uncovering the mysteries behind the giant squid.

Science Education and the Future of Humankind

The title of this article really caught my attention. After reading this article, I am amazed at some of the statistics. According to Leon Lederman 90-95% of people are science illiterate. Now, this can mean a number of different things, as we have not yet been able to identify what science really is. Either way, this statistic is extremely unacceptable. The article goes on to discuss the implications of this terrible problem. "Can we modify our educational system so that all high school graduates emerge with a science way of thinking?" This is a great question. How much time should be spent on science in school? English is required all four years of high school, should science be as well? According to the article, the root of the problem lies within the teachers. The teachers need to change their curriculum's in order for the students to change their thoughts about science. After all, science is what drives technology, and technology drives society. What is the future of science education, and furthermore, society?

Gene therapy "aid's youth's sight"

The BBC really seems to have a thing for positive articles on genetic studies. I wonder if this is a national thing; American news outlets seem to carry more articles about the press for laws against genetic discrimination, or opinion pieces debating the validity of genetic research, while I have seen a number of articles showing the positive side of genetic research. It's an interesting way of looking at how factors way beyond just what is happening in science influence what gets written about.

Creating Your Own Blog

So I figured the best way to give your views on science in the communication are educational programs and blogs, so I recently started a blog. If anyone is interested I have research many topics ins science extending from human population to environmental destruction to global health to indigenous culture.

My research was pulled from different mediums including the news, online news sites, books, and even blogs and my perosnal views.

I feel like blogs are amazing research accesses because they can either cover a very general scope or delve more into topics within that scope. I have kept mine slightly broad within the science field.

After Comm 285 ends, I would like to continue our discussion in the life sciences and how we communicate to the public, the government, and scientists. The goal of my blog is to communicate to the public to become more aware and active of the many scientific crises we are facing or will face

What Darwin Saw Out Back

I know that we have already finished up our unit on Science Museums, but I came across this article earlier today and found it to be quite interesting and somewhat pertinent to this subject, but with a little bit of a twist: a botanical garden putting up an exhibit, similar to a science center mixed with a bit of a science museum. There are artifacts and activities, but also history and research. It looks like it’s going to be a very interesting exhibit, and I’m interested to see how much public interest there will be, as well as how much visitors will learn and take away from the exhibit.

California Wildfire Forces Evacuations

This article from the New York Times website shows how governing personnel in California communicate an important risk that people living there face today. Some of the areas that have very recently experienced destructive forest fires have not been affected by this kind of natural disaster for over 40 years, but people in these areas are obviously now beginning to worry too. Nobody has been killed or even injured by the most recent documented wildfires, but even if they had stayed at home, the disaster most likely would not have troubled them physically. As mentioned at the end of the article, no property damage has been reported, but Californians still fear this possibility. Wildfires do present a risk to public health and should no doubt be avoided, so the evacuations that have been forced in some areas do make sense. We know from past stories of wildfires that have proved fatal to Californians and people all over the world that all wildfires present a serious risk. I think that the governing bodies of California did a smart thing by encouraging evacuations (it's better to be safe than sorry) because it is hard to tell from the initial onset of a forest fire exactly how great the risk will be to the public. The risk of wildfire destruction is a problem controlled by "Mother Nature" that Californians need to fear but accept as a condition of living in the area. I am glad that a popular newspaper like the New York Times has made this risk of living in California well-known through this article. It is important for people to realize that if they want to live in California, they should take into account the probable risk of needing to evacuate from their homes because of some wildfire.

Shark Attack Kills San Diego Man

I had to post this article for several reasons. One, I have a great (and irrational) fear of sharks and two, I posted an article several weeks ago detailing a shark attack off the coast of Florida. Although the article goes to great length to stress the rarity of fatal shark attacks, the fact that this made headlines (and an associated press story) speaks volumes about its sensational nature.

This story also made me ponder whether it is responsible science communication. After all, people are more likely to die due to fatal car accidents within the United States than a shark attack. And even though the article does delve into the isolated nature of shark attacks, this one Great White attack was worthy of a Discovery News headline story.

Alive?! Well...probably not

After listening to Professor Lewenstein and one of my engineering friends talking about nanotechnology, I found this article about nanobacteria. Because these particles are extremely prevalent in organisms and share some characteristics with bacteria, they were thought to be the smallest example of cellular life and thus proposed as a possible explanation for the being of life. With a series of experiments, Jan Martel of Chang Gung University in Taiwan and John Ding-E Young from The Rockefeller University in New York have shown that these interesting particles are indeed not living and seem to act as though they were abiotic material. These particles seem to lack both DNA and RNA, and their formation seems to be explained better by chemical rather than biological models. Nevertheless, some still speculate these particles have a role in causing disease.

The Crying Indian

I am surprised no one has posted this commercial. It is probably the most famous commercial targeted towards promoting a cleaner, less-polluted environment. This commercial definitely works as great visual science communication to spread a message.

I wonder how effective it actually was though? The commercial was made in the 70s when the Green Movement was still big, but towards the 80s, when green awareness was dissipating, did it still stand as a strong model for the world to stop polluting?

Senate OKs bill barring genetic discrimination

Though we have already discussed the issue of genetic testing in the guest lecture and in the blog, I found it relevant to return to the issue in light of recent news. Yesterday, a bill barring employers and insurers from discriminating against people based on their genetics was passed unanimously in the US Senate. The article I came across states "the measure would prohibit health insurers from rejecting coverage or raising premiums for healthy people based on their genetic predisposition to develop a disease. It also would bar health insurers from requiring a person to take a genetic test that might reveal a predisposition for illness." I find it comforting to know that probabilities of genetic-based diseases will not influence my ability to obtain a job or adequate health insurance. Moreover, I find it comforting to know that I can choose whether or not to undergo genetic testing. I am sure many individuals would not want to undergo such testing in order to avoid the stress associated with worrying about a future disease.

The article also brings up the point that the bill "encourages people to undergo genetic testing that might help lead to early treatment and prevention of diseases." Patients can use the information obtained from testing with doctors to guide medical decisions. This ability would also benefit insurance companies, as the onset of future diseases may be prevented.

VeriChips: Micro Chips in Humans??

In class on Wednesday Professor Lewenstein mentioned that often times new technological innovations can be quite controversial because they can often serve a dual purpose--for example the insert that can be used both to stop Parkinson's tremors or as a method of behavioral control/modification. Along the same exact lines and equally controversial is the VeriChip--a small tracking and identification device, approximately the size of a grain of rice, that is inserted under the skin. Nowadays, nearly all pets coming from breeders boast a microchip tracking device, to make identification easier and suggestions of inserting these identification devices into humans have recently been raised. Proponents of this idea suggest that these chip could be extremely useful in tracking missing persons such as children or criminals, or can be potentially beneficial in the medical field as a means of patient identification and a medical record verification. Of course as with virtually all new technologies, there is always the potential for abuse and loss of privacy--in essence the creation of a Big Brother type society where the government can trace you at any time. Check out the web site on veri chips posted above. What do you think? Do these chips have a place in the future of our society or do they cross the lines of ethical and acceptable practices?

Human Line "Nearly Split in Two"

This was an interesting piece on human evolution, and how current DNA sequencing projects can show more about the past. Definitely a more positive slant on the genetic research projects currently underway! I wonder if those genomics companies mentioned last week in class might start linking to this article...

When Language Can Hold the Answer

This is a great article that describes studies done by Dr. Gary Lupyan, who is currently working and doing research here at Cornell. The article is very self-explanatory in how it relates to science communication.

Should you really take those drug samples?

This was a study done about "free samples" of medication from doctors. Basically, in response to something like a skin condition, a doctor will give you a free sample of a drug that lasts long enough to see if that drug has any effect on you. But this study found that people who accept free sample wind up spending more money on medication than those who do not accept those samples.

I think an important issue this article brings up is the effect of brand name advertising on the costs that patients have to pay. The reason why free samples exist is because drug companies pass samples off to doctors for promotional purposes, then doctors give these samples to patients. However, as the article points out, the free sample runs out, and if the drug is effective, the patient will continue to take it. The problem is that these name brands usually have much cheaper generic alternatives that contain the same active ingredients. Theoretically, you could take the name-brand drug sample until it runs out, and then switch to the generic drug brand, but the article states that doctors are usually reluctant to do this.

Our conceptions of doctors are usually that they are caring, trustworthy people who always have our best interests in mind. While this is true for the most part, we must also realize that financial constraints are as large a factor for doctors as they are for anyone else (especially for smaller private practices). So we must all be informed consumers, and know when cheaper and equally beneficial alternatives are available.

NASA Official Plays Down a Troubled Soyuz Landing

This article brings to light an interesting dynamic in science communication – the decision of what information to publicize and how to frame such information.

While the title suggesting NASA’s “downplaying” of information may lead readers to assume that information is being masked in some way, a more careful reading of the article suggests otherwise. NASA officials note that they are concerned about the potential mishap, however, they similarly disclose that all participants are unharmed and that they have isolated the cause of the problem. With such risky events as space flight, such a situation is not as dire as it could have been…Or at least that’s my understanding from reading the NYT version of the event.

However, is my opinion simply a result of the way in which the article was framed? Had I read recapitulations of the event from another source, might my opinion be different?
Thus the way in which a story is worded and the emphasis it puts on certain ideas shapes the way in which knowledge is created.

Video Game Addiction Linked to Asperger's Traits

"You can't walk into a college interview and say that you are really good at playing Xbox."

So states Eileen Costello, pediatrician and author of the book “Quirky Kids.” This article fascinated me because here at Cornell many bright individuals surround us. At the same time, I know students who spend unhealthy amounts of time playing video and computer games. According to this article, there is a correlation between the intense video gaming and displayed symptoms of Asperger’s syndrome (a mild form of autism).

Although I am terrible at video games, I am not advocating a ban or anything of that nature. However, the article states that the symptoms exhibited by those observed included depression, neuroticism and a lack of extraversion and agreeableness. In addition, this unhealthy video game playing is certainly not helping the obesity epidemic among American children. Thus, I do believe it is in the best interest of parent’s to supervise children who play video games, and for young adults to realize the consequences of too much video-games. I am not too keen on political legislation, any other suggestions?

Science News New Style

Prof. Lewenstein mentioned awhile ago during our discussion of science writing that Science News magazine will shortly be getting a makeover. After reading this letter from their publisher, I realized how big of change they really are going to make. They are going to reduce the print magazine from weekly to biweekly [while doubling the size of each issue], while simultaneously revamping their web news operation to include daily, and even hourly, news updates. While originally the website was merely a reflection of the magazine, now it seems that the website will become the dominant medium for this particular publication. Additionally, the format of both the site and the magazine will change, and Science News seems to strive to adhere more to a "scientific" bent rather than a "popular" bent: "Science News will come alive, offering a much richer array of graphs, charts, diagrams, informational graphics and scientific images to accompany articles written in thes ame lucid and authoritative style that you have come to know and trust" and "We will also introduce new features to the pages of Science News, including occasional commentary by distinguished science leaders" are each passages which to me show a need to legitimize the "scientific" side to the magazine. I am curious-- is Science News smart to focus more on a digital medium? Will its readership change? Are the same people who are used to reading a weekly magazine going to go to the website for updates every day? How will a renewed focus on scientific legitimacy affect its readership? What other consequences or rewards do you see arising from this major face-lift?