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.