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.
No comments:
Post a Comment