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?