Last semester, speculative designer James King worked with myself and a small group of science and public health students at the University of Michigan to explore how a fusion of science and creative art can lead to new insights and modes of communication.  The exercise was part of the A World of Surprises project – a project James is working on as the Witt Artist in residence at the UM School of Art and Design.

Part of the aim was to take these science-grounded students out of their comfort zone, expose them to some radical new ideas and perspectives, and see what happens.

The results were impressive!  Once the students realized that they weren’t bound by the rigid limitations of their science education, they became enthused over using creative techniques to tell science-grounded stories that connected with people on a far deeper level than just the facts would allow.

Today the group presented the fruits of their final assignment: to produce a piece of creative work that captures the tension – in narrative form – between imagined catastrophic risks and experienced mundane risks. As a group, we were interested in the tension between the catastrophic consequences often imagined to arise from human endeavors, and the mundane reality that often develops.

I’ll try to showcase all of the projects over the next few weeks.  They were all, in their own way, quite brilliant.  Coming up in future posts there will be:

• The Tale of Rhino Banana (a brilliant story of a technological breakthrough that runs up against public resistance);
• Salutary lessons from the struggle between evil and the divine in the middle ages;
• A visual juxtaposition of comparative risks related to Fukushima; and
• A new-future story of technological sophistication and mundane consequences.

(I’ll add the links as they are posted – The Tale of Rhino Banana will be up first)

James will be back in Ann Arbor for the culmination of the A World Of Surprises project in March – stay tuned on that.

]]> http://2020science.org/2012/02/04/exploring-speculated-catastrophe-and-mundane-reality/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2012/01/05/spare-a-comment-student-science-writers-need-your-help/ http://2020science.org/2012/01/05/spare-a-comment-student-science-writers-need-your-help/#comments Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:32:00 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4556

In a little over a week, ten of my University of Michigan Masters of Public Health students will embark on an intensive  science blogging course – and they need your help!

Every week for ten weeks, each student will take a recent scientific publication or emerging area of scientific interest, and write a public blog post on it that is aimed at a non expert and non technical audience.  And as they do this, they will be evaluated in the most brutal way possible – by the audience they are writing for!

The blog is Mind The Science Gap (mindthesciencegap.org, or mtsg.org for short), and the course is designed to use the medium of science blogging to develop more generally applicable communication skills.

This is where you come in:  We are looking for people who are willing to read and comment on the posts each week, and help the participants hone their skills.  You don’t have to be an expert in what is being written about – you just have to have an opinion over whether the pieces connect with you or not, and how they could be improved.  Even comments as short of “I liked this” or “I don’t get this” are tremendously helpful in indicating what works, and what does not.

Whether you are a public health expert, a science communicator, or simply someone who enjoys reading about science and health, please consider checking into the blog regularly and commenting on what you read.  If you can commit to leaving a couple of comments a week, please consider becoming a mentor – check out the blog’s Mentor page for details.  Even if you can’t, please do read the posts and comment when you get the chance.

And please do spread the word – the more readers and the more comments, the quicker these ten students will develop the skills necessary to communicate complex science to a broad audience.

Blogging starts on January 16th – Thank you for your support, and see you there!

Two years ago I posted links to ten (relatively) mindless online “games” as a bit of fun, and as something not too taxing to indulge in over the holiday break.  Having reached that point again where anything more intellectually challenging than tic tac toe makes my head hurt, I thought I would revisit and update the 2020 Science Compendium of Mindless Games. The only criteria for inclusion: an ability to retain my attention for more than 10 seconds, minimal thinking required, a high smile-factor, and absolutely nothing of overtly educational value!

Just in case you are looking for something a tad more intellectually stimulating, you can always try the Royal Statistical Society Christmas Quiz instead!

Have fun, and Happy Holidays!

___________________

Science Crossword

Two years ago I started off with a simple crossword to give the illusion of intellectual integrity – here’s another one in the series.

If you enjoyed this, there are fifteen other science crosswords to keep you amused ScienceCrossword.com

Levers

Retained from two years ago – a deceptively engaging bit of fun from VectorPark.  Like all games from VectorPark, it’s up to you to discover the rules by trial and error.  Or you could just sit and watch your mobile twist and turn on the screen – my recommendation after a heavy Holiday meal!

Monkey Lander

I spent some time looking for an alternative to Monkey Lander – but failed to find anything quite so mindlessly enjoyable.  And the neat thing is, the gravity-thruster simulation isn’t half bad

Acrobats

Another brilliant offering from VectorPark, and something that’s new to this collection.  Just play with the controls, move the acrobats with your cursor, and enjoy!

Simon Says

Confession: I was going to include something with a more artistic bent from Paul Neave’s great online collectionbut I couldn’t resist this piece of retro-nostalgia!

Gravity Launch

Another game I had to keep! Gravity Launch almost didn’t make it into the mindless game compendium last time round – it teeters on the edge of being too educational.  But despite this obvious flaw, it’s still a lot of fun – and simple too.  Just adjust the rocket’s thrust and takeoff angle, and try to dock with an increasingly complex array of space stations.

Snowflake Designer

I must confess that the simplicity of this application had me enchanted.  Design beautiful “snowflakes” to your heart’s content.

Seasons

Yet another VectorPark application that’s new to this compendium.  It has all the hallmarks of other applications from the same shop – deceptive simplicity, beautifully imagined graphics, and delightful serendipity.  Move the cursor around and see what happens. To move to the next season, simply move the cursor to the right of the screen.

A load of Jackson Pollock?

Not a new application, but still worthy of this collection: design your own Jackson Pollock lookalike painting.  The secret is in knowing when to stop!

Feed the Head

In 2009 I finished the brain candy collection with a really trippy piece from Vector Park.  And here it is again – I couldn’t resist!  Follow the mouse, and see where it leads…

A couple of weeks back I had the pleasure of moderating an American Chemistry Society webinar on the Chemistry of Fireworks with pyrotechnics guru Chris Mocella.  It’s not quite emerging technologies, but Chris gave such an engaging talk that I thought I would post it here.  It’s a great intro to some chemistry basics, and perfect for high school chemistry classes

You can read more about the ACS webinar here.

A question for you: How many science literacy/communication/engagement metaphors can you see in the photo below?

Answers on a metaphorical post card in the comments area below please – I’m really interested to see what you come up with!

The photo by the way is the header image for a student science blog that will be launching in January – I’ll be writing more about that in a couple of weeks.  The blog is called Mind the Science Gap, and is designed to improve the science communication skills of public health masters students.

I picked up a new toy this weekend. (If you want to cut to the chase and see what I’ve been doing with it, please head straight to the end of the post).

I’m fascinated by the combination of old tech (essentially “chalk and talk”) and new media that Sal Kahn has been successfully using to teach mathematics and science on-line.  The basic approach he uses of writing and drawing while talking is as old as the hills.  But he successfully enhances this through “debundling” topics (breaking things down into small digestible chunks) and making his digitized chalk and talk lessons freely available as short online videos.

Chalk and talk is a way of teaching I still find effective, as it forces me to develop ideas at a measured pace, while allowing my students to follow the thought process and take notes. But it’s an approach that is increasingly out of vogue as educators feel they have to pander to today’s tech-savvy and social media-immersed students.  So inspired by Sol Kahn, I’ve been looking at ways of combining this approach with new online tools to provide teaching resources that extend what can be achieved in the classroom.

My first approach was to look at Kahn’s setup – essentially using a drawing tablet and software as a digital blackboard, and recording short videos to teach specific concepts and skills.  But after just a few minutes, I realized that this was a learning curve that was too steep for me (put it down to age!) – tablets have a remarkable ability to make everything look like it was drawn by a 3 year old, until you get the hang of it!

Then I came across pencasts.

Imagine working through a maths or science problem with a student, and sketching out your workings on a sheet of paper as you do.  Now imagine that you can give that student a digital document that replays your scribbles and your verbal commentary on their computer in real time.  And finally, imagine that the student can skip to any part of the document to see and hear how a particular step was developed, and replay this until they get it.

This is a pencast.  Using a Livescribe Smartpen and a dedicated notebook, it’s possible to develop concepts or work through problems using pen and paper, and then to create a dynamic digital document from this that replays the pen strokes and the accompanying commentary.  The resulting pencasts can be viewed online.  But the real beauty is that they can saved as PDFs, and replayed using the latest version of Adobe Acrobat – so, for instance, it’s possible to email someone a solution to a maths problem as a PDF that takes them through it step by step, as if they were working through it with you by their side – apart that they can rewind and repeat the hard bits.

I was intrigued – is this the ideal combination of old tech “chalk and talk” with new tech “digital replay”?  To explore further, I grabbed myself a Smartpen and started to play.

My first attempts at using the technology are basic to say the least (see below).  But the learning curve is shallow compared to using tablets and YouTube videos, and the resulting file format potentially much more versatile.  Having got to grips with some of the possibilities and limitations (the software for pencasts only works effectively on PC’s at the moment for instance, and the audio quality isn’t that great), I think I will be experimenting with augmenting next semester’s lectures with pencast documents.

But in the meantime, I would be extremely interested in comments and feedback on the technology.

Nanomaterial specific surface area and number concentration – three crude explorations of using pencasts to explain concepts

To play each pencast, simply click on the “play” button.  They typically look better displayed full screen.  By default, you can see all of the material on the page but it is greyed out until those pen strokes are reached.  When in full screen mode though, you can choose to hide stuff until the pen strokes are reached, using the button in the bottom left hand corner.

I’ve been up to my eyeballs this past few weeks in stuff, and haven’t had as much time as usual to post here.  So this weekend I thought I would take the easy route and post a couple of videos from the recent Symposium on Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation.

These were back to back panel discussions that were designed to set the scene for the symposium by helping to distinguish technology reality from technology hype.  They make interesting viewing, as well as providing what I thought was a rather interesting take on significant areas of technology innovation – especially the second panel.

The full set of symposium videos can be viewed here.

Enjoy

Techno-hype or techno-reality?

Mark Banaszak Holl, UM Associate VP, Office of Vice President for Research.  Thomas Zurbuchen, Associate Dean for Entrepreneurial Programs, UM College of Engineering.  Paula Olsiewski, Program Director, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.  James Bagian, Director of the UM Center for Healthcare Engineering and Patient Safety.

How are new technologies changing the world?

Gil Omenn, Director of the UM Center for Computational Medicine & Bioinformatics.  James Baker, Director of the Michigan Nanotechnology Institute for Medicine.  Ann Marie Sastry, CEO and Co-Founder of Satki3.  Jörg Lahann, Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan.

Two years ago, I wrote a piece about ten things that inspired me to become a scientist. One of those was my high school teacher.  We never kept in touch, but through the miracle of the web, that post eventually came to his attention, and we connected again.

The other day he unearthed a photo harking back to the year we overlapped at Pilgrim Upper School and emailed it to me – bringing memories flooding back:

The occasion was Mr Tranquada’s – Tim’s – last day teaching us, as he prepared to move on to another appointment.  As a class of 14 year olds we were gutted, and bought the only gift we thought suitable for such a great physics teacher – a Newton’s Cradle.

You can get a sense of how inspirational Mr Tranquada was by looking at the comments on the back of the photo – remember, this was a physics class:

Tim moved from Bedford in the UK to teach in Milton Keynes in 1981, and then on to Chelmsford in Essex.  From there he became a National Strategy Secondary Science Consultant for Essex – a job he says really enjoyed and during which he felt that he was giving something back to the system through supporting Schools and their Science Teachers.  He is currently enjoying his retirement!

It really was a blast from the past seeing the photo and the comments, and remembering what it was like being young and inspired.

But what really got the nostalgia flowing – I was the student who took that photo, thirty years ago.

Blockbuster movies aren’t usually noted for their scientific accuracy and education potential.  But since its release last week, Steven Soderburgh’s Contagion seems to be challenging the assumption that Hollywood can’t do science.

The other day I posted a piece about how director Steven Soderburgh and screenwriter Scott Z Burns’ attention to detail and plausibility left me with a sense of optimism after watching the movie, despite its disturbing theme.  This was due in large part to the involvement of three science experts – Ian Lipkin (Professor of Epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columblia University), Laurie Garrett (senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations) and Larry Brilliant (President of the Skoll Global Threats Fund).

Larry Brilliant is well known for his work on eradicating the smallpox virus.  He was also a past Executive Director of the philanthropic arm of Google, and is currently President of the Skoll Global Threats Fund. Yesterday afternoon, I had the chance to chat with him on the phone about the movie, his involvement, and his thoughts on its importance.

What was quickly apparent in our conversation is that the idea of using film as a medium to help people better understand the threats epidemics and pandemics present is one that Brilliant has long been interested in.  While Executive Director of Google.org, he supported production of the Oscar-nominated documentary The Final Inch – a film about the historic global effort to eradicate polio. Given the success of the documentary in bringing a global issue (and public health success story) to the attention of millions of people, Larry was interested in how the medium of film could be further used – in particular to alert people to the plausible threat presented by pandemics, and the measures that are necessary to curtail their global impact.

And in Steven Soderburgh and Scott Z Burns, he found the ideal partners.

Well before he became President of the Skoll Global Threats Fund, Brilliant was interested in exploring how humanity can prepare for low probability high impact events like pandemics.  As he explained, he is particularly concerned over how we go about developing expertise and resources to tackle such events, especially where short term and local thinking does little to prepare society for eventualities that demand a globally coordinated and informed response. Brilliant emphasized that devolving responsibility to local communities and private organizations just doesn’t work here – you need the resources and reach of national and international government organizations, together with long term investment in expertise and people, in order to respond rapidly and globally to a fast-moving viral infection.

But how do you get that message across – especially at a time when long term strategic measures against catastrophic risks are being ditched in favor of short term economic and political gains?

Movies, according to Brilliant, are part of the toolbox for raising awareness and helping people understand how some challenges are just too big to be privatized. Unfortunately, films that build on fantasy rather than plausibility have led to the medium being marginalized as a vehicle for science-based communication and education.  But in the case of Contagion, Larry felt that with the combination of a “brilliant” director and screenwriter, together with a cast of dedicated and engaged actors (on whom Larry lavishes praise and admiration – especially for Matt Damon and Kate Winslet), the scene was set for a movie which was was emotionally engaging yet grounded in plausible reality.

The scenario developed within the movie is clearly fictional – it hasn’t happened yet.  But as Larry noted, because of the science that went into the movie, what emerges is a series of events that are not beyond the realms of possibility – and in fact, given enough time, are highly probable. As fellow consultant Laurie Garrett wrote the other day on the CNN website,

‘Contagion’ is part reality, part fantasy, totally possible

When asked whether he was pleased with the results, Brilliant gave an unqualified and very enthusiastic affirmative.  As well as high praise for the cast and production team, he was pleased with the way that the response to the pandemic was portrayed in the movie.  As he pointed out, the White House and UN are notable by their absence.  Rather, the heroes – the people who identify, track and eventually tackle the pandemic – are government-employed public health professionals.  To him, this is a highly realistic portrayal of how a pandemic is likely to play out, and a stark warning against cutting investment in public health because of short term thinking and a potentially catastrophic lack of understanding.

At a time when public health agencies in the US are facing significant cuts, this was a key message for Brilliant. Contagion is plausible reality wrapped up in a strong narrative – to Brilliant and others, it’s not a case of if such a pandemic will occur, but when.  And what Burns and Soderburgh have done is provide us with glimpse of our best hope for surviving this eventuality – assuming we haven’t abandoned our trained and prepared public health professionals in the meantime because we didn’t have the intelligence and foresight to recognize their importance.

This is a key message that Brilliant hopes will come through loud and clear as people watch and talk about the movie.  And it’s one that he hopes will have sticking power – with the movie stimulating conversations and action for many years to come.

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/09/14/contagion-plausible-reality-and-public-health-in-conversation-with-larry-brilliant/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2011/09/11/cool-science-the-charlie-mcdonnel-effect/ http://2020science.org/2011/09/11/cool-science-the-charlie-mcdonnel-effect/#comments Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:38:06 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4383

There’s been quite a bit of chatter about the “Brian Cox Effect” in the UK recently, as interest in science seems to be on the rise.  But I haven’t heard anyone talking about the “Charlie McDonnell Effect”.

Maybe it’s because Charlie appeals more to a growing movement of teens who just want to immerse themselves in awesomeness, rather than science advocates on the lookout for the next Carl Sagan.  Maybe it’s because Charlie doesn’t fit the mold as science communicator extraordinaire – he didn’t even go to University for goodness sake!  But like it or not, 20 year old Charlie McDonnell is reaching out to millions of teens when it comes to science, and engaging with them in ways few others are even getting close to!

Charlie McDonnell was lauded in today’s Sunday Times as the first Brit to hit 1 million regular viewers on YouTube (the story’s behind a paywall I’m afraid).  You may remember that I highlighted him as someone to look out for in the recent roundup of Science and VidCon.

Amongst the many things he talks about on his YouTube channel, the Sunday Times piece specifically mention his interest in science.  To quote the article,

“Among his latest releases is a four-minute video called Fun Science, in which he plays his ukulele while singing in rhyme about how sound works. It has had 1.7m hits.”

Here is that video, which at the time of writing has has 1,804,281 views, and received more than 21,000 comments:

This is pretty significant when it comes to connecting teens with science (it was only posted two weeks ago).  Charlie’s YouTube channel – charlieissocoollike – currently has 1,194,000 subscribers, and has received over 172 million views.  More importantly, there are millions of teens the world over who listen to what he says, are inspired by it, and act on it – actively engaging in a growing community, rather than passively absorbing received wisdom.

Charlie McDonnell may not fit middle class expectations of an educated yet hip science advocate.  But believe me, he’s the one your kids are more likely to be listening to.  Which means I expect that the “Charlie McDonnell Effect” is alive and kicking – albeit hidden down in the grass roots of a science-hungry on-line community.

This morning I sat down with my 14 year old son and asked him what area of science caught his interest especially.  He answered “the future of space exploration”. We carried out a search on the Web of Science for “future + space + exploration”, and the fifth article returned was “Comparing future options for human space flight” by Sherwood Brent (Acta Astronautica 69 346-353, 2011).  We downloaded the article and he read it.  When asked, he said the paper was understandable and interesting – he was glad that he’d read it, and wanted to know where he could read more stuff like this.

There’s a myth that only people who have ready access to peer review papers have any real need or desire to read them, and it’s a pernicious myth.

George Monbiot stirred up the debate on access to scientific publications recently in his Guardian piece “Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist“.  In response, Kent Anderson – a long-time publisher and editor of scientific journals – set up this straw scenario, using it to justify limited access to journal publications:

Let’s assume everyone with a beating heart is interested in cardiology topics. Let’s search PubMed for a paper on “cardiac.” Let’s take the first one we find. Let’s read the conclusion from the abstract:

Intrathoracic herniation of the liver (“liver-up”) is associated with predominant left heart hypoplasia in left diaphragmatic hernia but not right fetal diaphragmatic hernia. Our observations indicate that this difference may result from different ductus venosus streaming sites in these conditions.

So my layperson understanding of intrathoracic heart hypoplasia is vital to my ability to function in a democracy and make informed political decisions? I think I sense a herniation just from the stretch that takes to achieve plausibility.

Let’s assume I can read the whole paper. Like 99.9% of the population, I’m not going to know what to make of it. It’s for specialists, or better, subspecialists (cardiologists who specialize in neonates, I suppose). It was published early online, so it’s likely free. Most journals make their content published early online free for a limited time. We have the English abstract, but it’s a German journal. Who paid for that translation, assuming there was one?

Economics have nothing to do with accessibility of this information. Specialty knowledge is a prerequisite, and German language expertise would help.

There is no price in the world that’s going to make that scientific paper, or thousands of others, intelligible, relevant, or meaningful to me in any way that’s going to affect my ability to function in a democracy. And people who do need to see those papers can see those papers, probably know the authors, probably heard the poster session or talk at a meeting, and will know about the published report if it’s at all worth reading.

This is a shockingly disingenuous scenario – especially coming from a publisher – that seriously misrepresents that value of some publications to people who don’t have ready access to them, as well as how scientific publication tends to work these days.  It was what led to my impromptu conversation with my son, highlighting the existence of academic papers that are accessible to a broader audience.  But it also fundamentally misses the point that there are many, many people outside major academic institutions who would benefit from ready access to a broad range of peer review papers, but who are restricted by the high costs of institutional subscriptions and one-off par per view fees.

For a start, consider these groups:

Smaller academic institutions:  Library subscriptions are often limited in smaller institutions, meaning that if you want access to papers in less cited publications, or in areas outside your immediate discipline (yet still relevant to your work), you have a problem.  This is a major hurdle to interdisciplinary research.

Government research labs: The same applies here as for smaller academic institutions – subscription fees severely limit access to the broad scientific literature.

Independent research labs: Even worse.  You may have subscriptions to the big general journals (Nature and Science) and the top specialist journals in your area.  But access across disciplines, to cross-disciplinary publications and to lower impact journals, is limited.

The medical profession:  Unless you are affiliated with a large research institution, access to the peer review literature is likely to be limited to mainstream publications in your field.  Too bad if your interests are more wide ranging.

Industry:  The case is easy to make that industry should pay for access to publications.  But my experience talking with colleagues in industry has always been that there comes a point where the costs of subscriptions and one-off fees are prohibitive, even when the knowledge gleaned could be valuable.

The legal profession:  Even lawyers need access to academic papers sometimes – believe it or not!

Not-for-profit organizations: Think Tanks and NGO’s have major problems paying for access to the scientific literature, despite their work often being highly dependent on this literature.

The media [added 3:02 PM 9/5/11 - how could I have forgotten them first time!]: How are science reporters to report on the science, not just what the press releases say, without access to the original papers.  Sometimes possible, but by no means always without forking out $$

Schools: I’m not aware of many school districts that can afford broad access to the peer review literature, despite clear benefits to this for teachers and students.

The “public”:  OK so many papers are so esoteric that they will only be meaningful to a small minority of experts.  But there are also large numbers of publications that are understandable and relevant to people who’s only qualification is an interest in the world they live in.  And don’t forget that the “public” also includes people who are retired, between jobs or no longer in academic positions, but who nevertheless have the capacity to understand and benefit from highly specialized publications, and who don’t have the means to pay publication access fees.

Publishers aren’t the enemy here – wider access to the results of research is a systemic challenge that is going to require cooperation and innovation from everyone involved in the process.  But if progress is to be made, we cannot afford to kid ourselves that only the academic elite need access to academic papers, or that publications are beyond the ken of the public.

If I wasn’t at the University of Michigan, it would have cost my son $31.50 to read Brent’s paper in Acta Astronautica – he was gobsmacked when I told him!  I somehow can’t see his monthly allowance going on more articles like this – despite his clear interest in reading more.  And this is just one anecdotal example – how many more people do not have access to information that could enrich their lives, impact their community and improve society, simply because the cost of entry is too high?

I’d prefer to live in a world where my son is not prevented from reading papers that interest and enthuse him, or poor decisions are made because people can’t afford to read about research that mattered.  Public access journals, researcher-funded publications and access requirements for government-funded research are beginning to push us in the right direction.  But it seems we still have a way to go before we break down the misconception that access to peer review publications should be limited to a privileged few.

[Update 4:42 9/5/11 - I also meant to mention Martin Robbins' piece on "Open science, Freedom of Information and the Big Journal monopoly" over at The Guardian blog - worth reading in the context of pey-per-view publication]

Is social media messing up today’s teens?  Adults, it seems, love to pontificate on the benefits and ills of emerging internet-based communication platforms  on young people. But how often do they bother to listen to the teenagers they claim to be concerned about?

Well, this is their chance.

Over this past week, the members of my daughter’s YouTube collaboration channel Fellowship of the Ning have recorded their thoughts on camera, and provided a candid and personal perspective of how social media is affecting their lives.

This is essential viewing for anyone who speaks or writes about teenagers and social media.

There’s quite a lot to get through – you need to set aside some quality time to watch all the videos (remembering of course that each video maker set aside an awful lot more quality time to make these for you to watch).  And you have to remember that these are teens talking about their own concerns in their own voice to their peers – you are a guest in their world. You also have to remember that this group only represent a subset of teen internet users.

Nevertheless, the videos paint a very different picture of social media and teens that you get from many supposedly expert commentators.

By way of background, last week, my daughter Jade posted this short video, asking the channel’s subscribers to share their thoughts on social media:

She asked three specific questions:

1. Why is social media important to you?
2. How has it changed you or your life?
3. What is your response to these articles:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/24/social-networking-site-changing-childrens-brains

http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-facebook-teens-20110806,0,7575848.story

[I pointed her toward the articles and talked with her about the questions, but that was pretty much the limit of my involvement here]

Over the next week, her five collaborators responded, each with their own unique style and perspective – followed by Jade’s own response.

I have my favorites of course. But without exception, each one leaves me humbled by the honesty, insight and sophistication expressed.  No-one – no-one – who talks with assumed authority on social media and teenagers should do so without first viewing these, and the many other videos out there made by teens for teens on what is important to them, and why.

Sam (USA)

Ella (UK)

Andrew (Canada)

Francisco (Argentina)

Kieran (UK)

Jade (USA, with a UK bias)

If you know of other YouTube videos of teens talking to teens about social media, please post in the comments. Thanks!

Update 8/25/11 – Link to LA Times piece now working!

In 2000, I moved to the US with my wife and two children to take up a research job here – becoming part of the migration of science, technology and engineering expertise out of the UK.  Eleven years on, my kids want to go back to the UK to university.  But the costs of re-entry are proving to be a major obstacle.  And I have to wonder whether this disincentive for students to return to the UK is preventing a flow of expertise back into the British knowledge economy – effectively a second generation brain drain.

I was privileged to be amongst the last generation in the UK to have the cost of my university education completely covered.  Those three years studying physics – not because it was financially lucrative, but because it opened up an incredible new world of awareness and insight – have influenced deeply everything I have achieved since. Even as fees began to creep in and student grants were cut from the late 1980′s on, I believed that the relatively low cost of admission to higher education in Britain was critical to investing in a strong, sustainable society.  And like many Brits, I learned to look with distain on the money-driven US education market, where students (we were told) studied to make money, and invariably graduated with debts that beggared belief.

So it’s rather ironic that I now discover it will probably cost us more to send both our children to UK institutions than to universities in the United States.

Because we as a family will not have been resident in the UK for the three years leading up to my kids entering college, they will have to pay international tuition fees. For somewhere like Bristol University for instance, the 2011/12 tuition fees for a science-based subject are £15,550 ($25,640).  For in-state tuition at the University of Michigan (our local state University), the comparable tuition fees are around $14,000 (£8,500).  At Michigan State – just down the road – the tuition fees are around $12,000 (£7,300).

Things look a little different if you go out of state or head to a top private university.  The University of Michigan out of state fees for 2011/12 are over $40,000 (£24,000), and Michigan State around $29,000 (£17,500).  If you head for somewhere like MIT, you are also looking at around $40,000 (£24,000) per year for tuition.

In other words, paying full in-state tuition fees and going out of state or private in the US costs less per year than sending my kids back to a British red brick university.  Going out of state or private is still more than going back to the UK (although not by as much as you might imagine). And going in-state (noting that the University of Michigan was ranked 15th in the world in 2010 by QS), we would even be paying less in tuition than British families sending their kids to a british university in 2012.*

That shocks me profoundly.

But the real shocker is that here in the US, we have the chance to curb those US fees through scholarships. And they are surprisingly numerous!  Finding an organization to cover all your tuition fees may just be for the best students, but there are plenty of opportunities to have them partially covered. Meaning that even sending our kids to somewhere like MIT, we could be looking at the equivalent of £10,000 – £15,000 per year. With scholarships, even going out of state or private compares favorably to paying international UK university tuition fees.*

As UK citizens living in the US, we don’t have the same options when applying for universities in the UK.  Which means that we are stuck with paying £25,000+ per year.

In other words, there is a huge financial barrier to our two children returning to the UK to study and work, and an equally large incentive for them to stay here in the States.  It’s a second generation brain drain – these kids can’t get back into the UK knowledge economy, even when they want to!

Part of the problem it seems is that education in the UK is still seen as a personal privilege rather than a social investment.  It’s a divisive bit of misguided thinking that devalues the importance of education to sustainable social and economic growth, and presents a significant hurdle to future British prosperity.  And it is preventing students who want to be a part of that society and ultimately contribute to its growth from doing so.

I live in hope that the UK government will come to realize the importance of attracting overseas kids back to the UK, and will at least allow them to pay domestic tuition fees.  In the long-term it’s a no-brainer in terms of boosting the knowledge economy – even though those domestic fees are shamefully high.  If they don’t, I’m afraid there may well be two more casualties of the second generation brain drain in a year or so’s time.

*Update 2:20 PM 8/20/11.  In the first edition of this piece I got embarrassingly mixed up between $ and £, leading to some dubious claims!  These have now been corrected.

Would You Lick Jam Off An Old Man’s Foot Or Drink Toilet Water For An Hour? Can you explain how gravitons can escape a black hole?  Or do you have a good answer to the question “why are people annoying?”

This is just a sampling of some of the more entertaining and challenging questions from the hit UK teen science-engagement competition “I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here”.

Now, the team behind I’m A Scientist… is asking for your help to find the best question from the competition so far.

The process is simple:

1. Have a nosey around the website, and read some of the the questions teens have posed to participating scientists over the years.  If you are stuck for somewhere to start, try the questions from this June’s Brain Zone or Quantum Zone (there were 23 zones in the latest competition – don’t forget to look at some of the others!)
2. Once you’ve found a question that tickles your fancy, simply tweet the link to it, with the hashtag #iasbestQ
3. Or if you are Twitter-challenged, email the link to admin@imascientist.org.uk, with iasbestQ in the subject line.
4. And finally, don’t forget to spread the word around – the more votes for the best question, the better!

The competition closes on September 5.  The five students with the top questions will receive a selection of science books, and a highly coveted I’m A Scientist mug – just like mine in the picture below!

For further details, please check out the I’m A Scientist website.

And don’t forget to vote!

Registration is now open for the 2011 Risk Science Symposium, and as I’m chairing it, I thought it worth giving a bit of a plug here.

The symposium brings together a fantastic cast of experts from very different backgrounds to explore the intersection of technology innovation and human health risk – with the aim of stimulating new thinking and ideas.

If you are grappling with emerging risk issues in industry, government, academia or the non-profit sector, this will be the place to be in September (not that I’m bias!).

A warning thought – space is limited to around 220 participants, so early registration is highly recommended.

Further details on the speakers, program and registration can be found here.

Some of the highlights include:

• An opening keynote by John Viera, Ford Motor Company Director of Sustainability Environment and Safety Engineering
• Insights from Paul Anastas, Science Advisor to the US EPA
• A UK perspective on technology innovation, risk and policy from James Wilsdon, Director of The Royal Society Science Policy Centre
• Cutting edge discussions on developments in science and technology that are pushing the boundaries of what is possible.
• Insights into emerging risk issues and innovative solutions
• A unique symposium dinner experience with designer Rodrigo Martinez from IDEO
• A chance to interact with some of the leading cross-disciplinary thought leaders on addressing emerging risk challenges.

Draft Program

Confirmed Speakers

Registration

Back in August, the American Academy of Arts & Sciences published a collection of essays under the editorship of Donald Kennedy and Geneva Overholster on the (seemingly) increasingly strained relationship between science and the media.  I was too embroiled in the move to Michigan at the time to pay it much attention, but a news release sent out by the Academy yesterday promoting the publication prompted me to sit down and browse through it.

At first, I was worried that this would be just another piece from scientists bemoaning the sorry state of a society that doesn’t “think right”.  This wasn’t helped by the title of the press release: “Science and the Media” Explores Challenges to Scientific Literacy in U.S. Fortunately, I was wrong.

Certainly, there are places here where there are overtones of a community frustrated by a “public” and especially “journalists” who don’t see and understand the world as they presumably should, and who don’t give due deference to experts who do understand things.  This is reflected to a certain extent in discussions around science literacy, which tend to overshadow more difficult questions of how anyone makes informed decisions about the impacts of science and technology in a complex world where multiple factors beyond just the science come in to play.  Interestingly, many of the contributors are in the business of science communication rather than science practice, suggesting that these perspectives are not limited to scientists.  But this emphasis on science contributors also gives the collection considerable value – especially as it reveals a science communication community that is far more diverse than is often thought.

The collection is short enough to read through relatively quickly at just 109 pages long.  And it’s well worth taking the time to read.  Browsing through it this morning, three essays in particular grabbed my attention:

In your Own Voice – Alan Alda

Alda writes a beautiful piece from the perspective of someone fascinated by science on how scientists can communicate more effectively.  His question is the archetypal “dumb question” – the one that seems so obvious that no-one dares ask it, but in consequence is too often ignored or brushed aside:

“…if scientists could communicate more in their own voices—in a familiar tone, with a less specialized vocabulary—would a wide range of people understand them better? Would their work be better under- stood by the general public, policy-makers, funders, and, even in some cases, other scientists?”

Alda goes on to talk about how the actors tool of improvisation might be one tool that can help scientists begin to find that personal voice that connects with people they are attempting to communicate with.

This piece is well worth reading as it represents someone who is hungry for information from scientists, but needs them to communicate, not just lecture.  But the essay is also a model of communication itself.  Alda is engaging, exploratory, humble and passionate – all qualities that draw the reader in and feel as if they are having an intimate conversation with the writer.  And most importantly, it’s short – just three pages.  An excellent lesson in eloquent brevity!

Managing the Trust Portfolio: Science Public Relations and Social Responsibility – Rick Borchelt, Lynne Friedman and Earle Holland

This is probably the most controversial essay in the collection.  Borchelt and his co-authors tackle the sometimes contentious and often misunderstood role of public relations in science communication.

I suspect that most people – scientists and others alike – have a somewhat skewed perception what modern day public relations is all about.  There’s often a sense that it’s a bit of a dirty profession in a bit of a dirty world – selling an image, irrespective of whether the subject of that image is deserving.  But Borchelt et al. do a good job of deconstructing this myth, and presenting a very different perspective on PR.  They write:

“…for some time now, many scientific institutions have unadvisedly relied on retooled scientists and former reporters to crank out an increasing blizzard of peppy news releases, driven by the axiom—now rejected by communications theorists—that “to know us is to love us” … This new Madison Avenue–driven approach has a dim chance of regaining public trust. The scientific community needs to understand what ethical practitioners of public relations have long known: trust is not about information; it’s about dialogue and transparency.”

They go on to add that “As practitioners use the term, public relations is the art and science of developing meaningful “relations” (or relationships) with the “public” (or publics) necessary for the continuing work of an organization or the scientific enterprise itself.”  This seems a useful approach to science communication that begins to open the door to engagement between different groups, and a two-way flow of information rather than top-down instruction.  Indeed, Borchelt et al note that “many corporations have moved away from one-way communication approaches toward more fully symmetrical models.”  In the context of science, they suggest that the goal of such two-way engagements is the mutual satisfaction of scientific organizations or groups and their publics with the relationship that exists between them.

The essay then goes on explore this two-way approach to science public relations in the contexts of trust and social responsibility.

Whether you agree with the construct of science PR that is developed here or not, this is an important piece from the perspective of science communication and engagement, and reveals a more complex relationship between the generators and receivers of information and their intermediaries.  It is controversial – as is reflected in a response from NBC Science and Health correspondent Robert Bazell in the collection.  But it does reveal another side of the dynamic between science and the media.

The Scientist as Citizen – Cornelia Dean

The final essay I wanted to highlight was Cornelia Dean’s piece that turns the spotlight back on scientists.  Through her extensive experience as a science reporter, Dean writes that she came to realize

“…if we journalists were going to improve the coverage of science, scientists would have to help us. But two problems existed. First, many scientists are not good at talking about their work in ways ordinary people—and journalists—can understand. Second, many scientists do not believe they have any reason, still less obligation, to do so. This belief is by far the more serious problem.”

Rather than try and summarize the piece, I would encourage you to read it directly – Dean writes clearly and pointedly on the need for scientists to understand and learn to be comfortable and effective in communicating what they do to a wider audience – including journalists.  And specifically, she notes the need for scientists to receive training on communication.  She concludes with this account:

“A number of students have told me that the issues we discussed and the hints I offered helped them when their publications in scientific journals brought them to the attention of the lay press. One of them recently sent me an email message describing his first encounter with a journalist. “It was just awful,” he wrote. “I fumbled, said the wrong things, contradicted myself a dozen times, you name it.” He contrasted this experience with one he had later, after sitting in on one of my short seminars: “I asked [the journalist] to give me a few minutes to get ready. I went to my office to have a good quiet spot to talk, stood up while talking, and tried to follow your guidelines. It went a lot better this time!” Needless to say, he made my day.

I believe all scientists should encounter this kind of training—a short course, a semester-long program if they want it, or even an internship in a news outlet or policy-making venue. I would not give students advanced de- grees in science until they had heard the message this kind of training offers.

Is this enough to solve the problem? No. But it is a start. Seeding the nation’s scientific establishment with researchers who understand the impor- tance of communicating with the lay public, and who are willing to take the time to communicate, can only be good. More important, the establishment of university programs to advance this goal tells scientists-in-training that their institutions value the effort and regard it as a worthwhile use of their time. That is perhaps their most important lesson.”

Science and the Media is freely available as a download from the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology – PCAST – has just released a new report on US K-12 education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (the STEM subjects).  The report provides, in the words of the President’s Science Advisor John Holdren, “a strategy for improving K-12 STEM education that responds to the tremendous challenges and historic opportunities facing the Nation”.

In a covering letter to President Obama, PCAST co-chairs John Holdren and Eric Lander explain that they

“ envision a two-pronged strategy for transforming K-12 education. We must prepare students so they have a strong foundation in STEM subjects and are able to use this knowledge in their personal and professional lives. And we must inspire students so that all are motivated to study STEM subjects in school and many are excited about the prospect of having careers in STEM fields. But this report goes much further than that. It includes specific and practical recommendations that your Administration can take that would help bring this two-pronged strategy to fruition. These recommendations fall under five overarching priorities: (1) improve Federal coordination and leadership on STEM education; (2) support the state-led movement to ensure that the Nation adopts a common baseline for what students learn in STEM; (3) cultivate, recruit, and reward STEM teachers that prepare and inspire students; (4) create STEM-related experiences that excite and interest students of all backgrounds; and (5) support states and school districts in their efforts to transform schools into vibrant STEM learning environments.”

“Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) for America’s Future” is a thoughtful report which captures many of the concerns that have been expressed by scientists and educators in recent years.  Reading the report, it’s clear that the group writing it were guided by four overarching ideas.

• Science, engineering and technology will be increasingly important in determining economic success in the future;
• An effective STEM education at the K-12 stage is essential to ensuring the US has an educated workforce and a strong foundation of innovators;
• Increasing science, technology an math literacy is essential to building a citizenship that makes informed decisions in a technology-driven age; and
• Everyone can appreciate the wonder of science, technology, engineering and math, if they are enabled through education to do so.

I should be clear that this is my articulation of the underlying ideas and not PCAST’s.  But these perspectives are woven into the fabric of the report, and are reflected in the analysis, conclusions and recommendations that result.

This isn’t surprising – speak to scientists and engineers in the US, or attend a large conference like the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, and you will find similar ideas permeating the air when it comes to science in society and STEM education.

But I wonder whether this perspective, while leading to a relatively conventional and no doubt widely applauded assessment of STEM education in the US, prevented PCAST from thinking more innovatively about the challenges being faced by STEM education in an increasingly complex world.  In particular, I wonder to what extent the report overlooks the aspirations of the students it is aimed at, or new thinking on the relationship between science, technology and society coming from the social sciences.

For example, a different mix of working group members contributing to the report might quite legitimately come up with this alternative set of overarching ideas:

• Science, engineering and technology will be increasingly important in underpinning economic and societal sustainability in the future;
• An effective STEM education at the K-12 stage is essential to ensuring US citizens can contribute to and participate in the emerging science technology-driven economy;
• In the future, citizens will need to be better equipped to make informed decisions on the role and impacts of science, technology and engineering within society; and
• Everyone should have the opportunity to enrich their lives and experiences through a greater understanding and appreciation of science, technology, engineering and math.

These four alternative ideas reflect my own perspective admittedly.  But they also draw on broader conversations within the US, Europe and beyond on the roles of science in society.  More importantly, they place society and the individual at the heart of the issue, rather than economic growth.

Reading the PCAST report through the lens of these alternative ideas, it begins to look a little limited.  This isn’t really a criticism – the task at hand was clearly how to ensure US economic leadership through STEM education, rather than how to build a sustainable society.  But my fear is that if you take society too far out of the equation, economy-driven actions on STEM education will not be sustainable in the long run.

For example, the following four areas are not emphasized in the report, yet are areas I would consider are important to building a citizenship that is equipped at all levels to succeed in a technology-dependent and interconnected society:

Social enrichment through science and technology. The word “society” appears five times in the PCAST report (six if you include the executive summary).  Here’s the context in each case:

“[STEM education] will ensure our society continues to make fundamental discoveries and to advance our understanding of ourselves, our planet, and the universe”

“Although opinion polls show that most of the public believes science has a positive and significant impact on society, the general public’s comfort with STEM subjects is much more limited”

“ a basic understanding of technology and engineering is important if our children are to contribute to and compete in a rapidly changing society and an increasingly interconnected global community.”

“Technology has the potential to transform K-12 education, just as it has many other sectors of our economy and our society.”

“… teachers and schools must connect students with the dynamic world of STEM. In turn, this requires that teachers, schools, and school systems have a deep understanding of STEM activities in American society and business and that they maintain direct connections to appropriate STEM expertise.”

With the possible exception of the first instance, there is no sense of STEM education enriching and equipping society directly.  Yet if the US is to remain competitive in a science and technology-dominated world, science and technology will need to become part of the very fabric of society – and that means ensuring there is clear and personal social value attached to STEM education.  Students are not simply empty vessels waiting to be filled with a STEM education by smart teachers and fancy techniques (an idea that comes perilously close to the deficit model of science education, which assumes – erroneously – that filling people with more knowledge is the key to fostering “right” thinking).  Rather, they are individuals that need to be engaged in an education contract, where they see the value in what they are being offered.

Experiential science. For many people – myself included – the key to learning STEM subjects has always been experience.  By that I mean physical, messy, hands-on experience – where you try something, you see what happens, and you begin to get a better idea of how the world works and how you can use that knowledge.  This is lab work (or field work or kitchen science) – not book-learning, or even learning in a digital environment.  And it should be a critical part of any strategy for engaging and training students in STEM subjects.

The PCAST report does mention on a number of occasions the importance of individual experiences in STEM education.  But for an effective country-wide STEM education strategy, I would suggest that formal opportunities for experiential science need to be pushed much further up the agenda.

Here’s a quick example:  Going to a reasonably good but certainly not high-flying comprehensive school in the UK as a kid, I had physics, chemistry and biology labs every week.  Between three and six times a week I would be experiencing science in a very real and personal way.  Without a doubt this had a profound influence on my understanding and appreciation of science, and on my future career as a scientist.  As a result, I naively assumed that this is what science education is like for everyone.

Fast forward now 25 plus years.  My daughter recently graduated from ninth grade in a highly respected school in Northern Virginia.  She has an interest in science, but at the age of 15, she has never been taught in a proper lab, or had the opportunity to learn consistently through experiment and experience.  When I discovered this, I was deeply shocked.  Her science lessons consisted of book learning!  But the real tragedy is that my daughter could easily become engaged in science given half a chance.  This last year her class was scheduled to dissect a frog at the end of the year – she spent nine months anticipating the event (we had regular updates as a family on how long there was to go before the eventful day arrived).  This was pretty much going to be her experiential science-event of the year.  But when the day came, the teacher cried off with the excuse there were not enough rubber gloves to go around.

So much for experiential science, and so much for inspiring kids to get into science!

What worries me is that this was a high-achieving school in a leading school district.  If this is what’s happening there, what is the state of experiential science elsewhere in the US?

If STEM education is to get better in the US, students have to have regular and meaningful experiences of doing hands-on science.

Engaging the marginalized. If the purpose of STEM education is to ensure economic leadership, you can get away with nurturing the best and forgetting the rest.  But if the aim is a stronger, more sustainable society, STEM education must be for everyone.

There is a STEM elitism in the US, reflected in the PCAST report, that focuses on the few that can excel in STEM subjects. To be fair, the PCAST report highlights the need to engage girls and minorities.  But I get the sense that this is more to tap into their economic potential.  Yet if society as a whole is to benefit from STEM education, there needs to be an emphasis on reaching out to the marginalized – those who aren’t turned on by science and technology, those who struggle with or are intimidated by it, those who don’t cope with conventional learning styles or opportunities; those who don’t have access to effective teachers and good resources; those who always seem to get overlooked.

Going back to my daughter’s experiences, until we moved to Michigan she was in the catchment area of Thomas Jefferson High School – possibly the country’s top STEM specialist school (and highlighted in the PCAST report).  TJ has a highly competitive and intense STEM program that is designed to equip the next generation of scientists and engineers – the subjects taught, the methods used and the experiences gained far surpass any other school in the school district.  Yet it is only the intellectually elite that manage to get into to TJ – everyone else has to put up with book-learning (at least until 10^th grade, unless they were lucky enough to dissect a frog!).  I can only imagine the impact TJ-like experiences would have on students like my daughter who aren’t in the highest tier, yet have the potential to become engaged in science and technology give half a chance chance.

Another example:  Neither of my kids are particularly competitive, but they do like doing stuff that interests them.  Both of them have had opportunities to get involved in competitive science and math at school – but have not taken them because they don’t get on well with the emphasis on achievement (and beating others) rather than experience.  They represent a huge community of kids in the US who are marginalized because they just want to do cool stuff, not compete with their peers.

And one final example.  Where do special education students fit in with the US STEM education strategy?  On the economic competitive front, there’s little incentive to engage them.  But from a societal perspective, there is every reason.  This was brought home to me in the recent highly innovative and successful UK I’m A Scientist event, where I found myself engaging with teenagers from a special education school.  It made me realize that there are groups of kids out there who tend to be forgotten, but who have as much right to be exposed to and engaged in science and technology as everyone else.

A socially-relevant STEM educations strategy must be capable of reaching out to students who otherwise fall between the gaps.

Fostering a culture of learning. Another PCAST report word-count:  How many times does the word “parent” appear?  Six.  How many times is the need to support STEM education through parent engagement and involvement mentioned?  None.

Many educators would consider parental support and involvement as a major factor in a child’s education.  Parents are one of the primary contributors to a culture of learning, and can have a strong influence on the subjects their kids gravitate toward or away from.  Yet many parents struggle with STEM subjects, leaving a gap in the tapestry of inputs that will help students explore and even excel in these subjects.

I would expect a comprehensive and socially-responsive STEM education strategy to emphasize engaging with parents and equipping them to support and inspire their children.  But this is part of a larger need to develop a culture within which children are given every opportunity to explore and excel in areas that are not only of interest to them, but important to the society they are a part of.

The PCAST report gets some of the way there to supporting a culture of learning.  The emphasis on inspiration clearly reflects this, as does the recommendation to create opportunities for inspiration through individual and group experiences outside the classroom.  But there is so much more that is needed here – in the classroom, in the home, within peer groups and in the places where kids go – if a culture of learning is to be developed that gives students the opportunity to explore and embrace science, technology, engineering and math on their own terms.

This assessment probably comes across as being more down on the PCAST report than is warranted.  Certainly, the Council has done a good job of capturing mainstream concerns in the US.  But I do wonder if this has been a lost opportunity to be more innovative in rethinking STEM education in the US, and to move way from a top-down approach to education and towards a more integrated and socially-responsive approach.

But then I guess it all comes down to whether you see education as an engine of economic prosperity that leads to a better society, or education as a means to a better society that leads to economic prosperity!

I love books – the old fashioned kind, printed with ink on paper.  As a kid, books were my source of education, inspiration and entertainment.  As an adult, I still find there’s something oddly satisfying about picking up a sheaf of printed and bound pages and immersing myself in them.

So it’s perhaps not surprising that, when it came to using my prize money from I’m A Scientist, get Me Out Of Here, I ended up turning to books.

Knowing how to use the £500 prize for being the last scientist standing in the Silicon zone on I’m A Scientist was something of a challenge in itself.  The rules of the competition stated that “The money must be for publicising or communicating the scientist’s research (or research area).” It sounds simple. But £500 lies in that awkward region where it’s too little to do something really big with, but too much to just fritter away.  I suspect the organizers in their wisdom realized this – it’s a sum that forces you to think creatively!

And there was certainly some creative thinking amongst the scientists taking part in I’m A Scientist.  Tom Hartley (runner up in the Imaging zone) came up with the great idea of scanning a teacher using fMRI (an idea he’s still pursuing) for instance, while Stephen Curry – the winner of the Imaging zone – has plans for a follow-up to his “What Science Is Really Like” movie trailer.

But I really struggled with this.  I toyed with the idea of buying an iPad (“I’m sure it’ll get used for communicating science someday…”), or covering the costs of running 2020 Science (a little more legitimate maybe, but hardly creative).  In the end though, it was my love of books that won out.

So the £500 is going toward sending each class that participated in the Silicon zone of I’m A Scientist a copy of a book.  And not any old book – each class is getting a copy of Felice Frankel and George Whitesides’ No Small Matter: Science on the Nanoscale.

Preparing to mail copies of No Small Matter off to classes participating in the I'm A Scientist Silicon zone

The beauty of sending each class a science-related book is that it’s a long term investment.  Hopefully the students that took part in I’m A Scientist will get a kick out of it.  But then, the book will (hopefully) find it’s way to the class or the school library – where it will be a source of inspiration for future generations.

Okay so maybe fewer and fewer kids pick up books these days and read them.  But it’s still easier to flick through an attractive book that is within arms reach than stumble across it while browsing online.

And this is an attractive book.  Not just because it has high production values and contains some great photos, but also because it irresistibly draws the reader in as they browse through it.

What I love about Frankel and Whitesides’ book is that it isn’t patronizing and it doesn’t set out to instruct.  Rather, it opens a window into what it’s like to see the world as a scientist.  This – together with the beautifully written short essays and gorgeous pictures – makes it accessible and engaging to almost anyone who starts looking through it I suspect – whether they are into science or not.

I do hope the students enjoy the book.  And I hope it inspires them – not to become scientists necessarily, but to see and appreciate the world in a different way.

And of course, there’s always the possibility that they will come to appreciate that the printed page isn’t obsolete – quite let!

Last September regular readers of 2020 Science will recall that I was somewhat taken aback at having to fork out $100 for a Texas Instruments graphing calculator as my son started 7th grade math.

One academic year on, was the purchase worth it? (Yes, despite my shock, we did reluctant acquiesce to the school’s dictate and fork out the $100 on a TI-83 graphing calculator).

Did it boost my son’s IQ to dizzying new heights?  Did it make all the difference between genius and dunce in his Algebra I Honors class?  Did it actually help him learn?

I asked him.

Me: So, Alex, how was math with your handy dandy Ti-83 graphing calculator?

Alex: I never used it.

Me? What?!!

Alex: It broke moths ago (exasperated parent look at this point!).  Anyway, we never used them in class.

Me: What, never?

Alex:  We didn’t really do anything that needed a calculator.

A little shocked at this revelation, I turned to my Daughter.  She’s just finished 9th grade pre-International Baccalaureate Geometry, and also has a mandatory Ti-83 graphing calculator.

Me: So, Jade, surely you used your calculator in math this year?

Jade: Sure.

Me: (relieved – this was a $100 investment after all):  Great.  What did you use it for?

Jade: Some addition.  We used the Sin, Cos and Tan keys a bit.  Occasionally I used it to multiply numbers by Pi.

Me:  … (that’s the sound of a gobsmacked parent picking themselves up from the floor!)

Last September, I asked Alex’s math teacher how essential this required purchase was.  His response?  The stuff we do this year, you could do it all on a calculator you got from a bubble gum machine! I liked this guy already! (He also turned out to be a kick-ass math teacher).

As it turned out, Alex doesn’t recall one single lesson where they actually used a calculator – of any sort.

But the TI-83 or TI-84 graphing calculator was still a required piece of kit.  The school supplied list stated categorically that

“ALL Algebra I and Algebra I Honors are REQUIRED to purchase a TI-83 plus or TI-84 calculator”

So I turned to the school principle.

She informed me that the Texas Instruments graphing calculators we essential for the algebra courses.  Questioned about Alex’s math teacher – who actually advised me against purchasing a TI calculator – I was told he was such a smart guy that he didn’t need the calculators to teach math… but that the same couldn’t be said for the other math teachers.

I’m still trying to make sense of that one.

She also pointed out that the TI graphing calculators are essential for the Standards Of Learning (SOL) tests that the students take each year.

That was last September.  This morning while writing this, I asked my daughter whether she had needed the calculator in her 9th grade math SOL.  As it turns out, the 9th grade students taking the math SOL were each provided with a TI-83 calculator.

And what did she use it for in the exam?  “A little bit of addition.”  That’s it.

I asked Alex the same question.  Turns out he was also provided with a TI-83 calculator in his SOL.  He used it for doing sums he couldn’t be bothered with doing in his head or on paper.  That’s it.

In his words, the calculator wasn’t needed.

Both kids passed their SOLs with flying colors by the way, despite not using the TI-83 as anything more sophisticated than a glorified abacus.

So why is Fairfax County VA insisting on kids’ parents forking out for a calculator that is many times more expensive and complex than is needed for the math courses being taken?

Beats me!

In the meantime, the school supply list still states that

ALL Algebra I and Algebra I Honors are REQUIRED to purchase a TI-83 plus or TI-84 calculator.

With over 9,000 students moving up a grade in the Fairfax County school system next September, that’s a bucket load of calculators parents will be purchasing that are, in all probability, not going to be used.

Texas Instruments must be laughing all the way to the bank!

_____________________________________

End Notes

I should be clear that I have nothing against the TI graphing calculators – they have their fan base, and there are plenty of people who get great satisfaction from using them.  But I do object to students being locked in to one make of calculator that, by all accounts is far more sophisticated than is needed (As a number of people have pointed out, there are other makes of graphing calculator, and some rather smart iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad apps now available..  Bot none of these are allowed in school systems that are locked in with Texas Instruments calculators). I also have grave concerns about curricula that depend on an outmoded technology to teach stuff that can either be done with pencil and paper, or on a computer.  And call me old-fashioned, but I thought that good math teaching was all about developing mental skills and understanding, not how to press buttons!

An hour or so ago, the final winners of I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here were announced.  To my surprise, I made it to the last two standing in the Silicon Zone yesterday, and have been on the edge of my seat today waiting to see whether I was going to be ousted by the rather younger and infinitely more hip Marianne Baker.

And who won?

Before I reveal that, I must say that this has been a brilliant event, brilliantly run by the folks at Gallomanor.  I’m sure there has been frenetic activity behind the scenes, but Sophia Collins, Shane McCraken and a whole host of staff and moderators have done an incredible job of coordinating 100 scientists, several thousand kids, an unbelievable number of live chats and a seemingly inexhaustible stream of questions.  And all the while keeping their sense of humor!

Then there are the scientists.  The four other scientists in the Silicon Zone were fabulous – Paula Gilfillian, Emma Pilgrim, Andrew Leitch and Marianne Baker.  Putting the competition aside (and I seriously don’t know why the students ended up voting for me rather than the others), everyone did a wonderful job of engaging with the kids and providing great answers.  Don’t believe me?  Check out their answers to the questions, and I can guarantee you’ll end up thinking “wow – this is so good they should have won!” – many of my answers were plain and mundane by comparison.

And the students?  What a great bunch!  Their questions stretched and challenged all of us – as well as leading to rather more laugh out loud situations than is probably proper in scientific circles!  Okay so there were some who tested our patience (you know who you are…), but what an enriching experience!

And the winner?

Well, to be honest – it’s the students!  What better way to inspire the next generation of science-savvy individuals than by getting them excited about science in the classroom.

Brilliantly done I’m A Scientist!

Oh, and if you really want to know who the last scientists standing were, here’s the full low-down.

Update:  If you’re inspired to take part in I’m a Scientist 2011 – you can already sign up here!

Update 9/6/10 – Oops, a gremlin crept into Marianne Baker’s link!  Now fixed.  You can also read her blog at Purely a Figment of your Imagination.

Today was a tough day on I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here – three live chats almost back to back, followed by the first evictions.  And believe me – even though I live to fight another day, the evictions were traumatic!  But more of that below.  At the end of a long day, I mainly wanted to pull together a few notes on the event as it stands at the moment.

First, there have been some great blogs on I’m A Scientist.  You should definitely check out Stephen Curry’s Science and the Importance of Cheese – especially the video (which I will include at the end of this post – wonderful viewing!).  Then there’s Mark Fogg’s Getting IAS Therapy? – a wonderfully energetic blog about how energizing taking part in I’m A Scientist is.

I’m sure there are other blogs out there – feel free to add links below.

Next, there’s a great quote from Larry Bock – Executive Director of the USA Science and Engineering Festival (the first national science festival to be held in the US!).  In a piece from the University of Michigan (my place), Larry calls I‘m A Scientist

“One of those brilliant British ideas that needs to come to the U.S. Like the X-Factor, The Office, and, yes, the Beatles, we need a British invasion of ‘I’m a Scientist’”

Hopefully this is an idea that will catch on, and we’ll see a repeat run over here one day!

Then there were today’s live chats.

These are unique events – up to 30+ teenagers firing questions off to a handful of scientists in real-time, at a rate of one every few seconds.  It’s one of those exhilarating intellectual and physical bare-knuckle rides where you just have to hang on for dear life’s sake, typing and responding as fast as possible until your brain goes numb or your fingers drop off!

When you have an engaged group of kids, the experience is incredible – mental stimulation so intense it’s probably illegal!  But the experience is also a good learning one.  Today, the Silicon zone had a live chat with a small number of kids from a community special school.  We didn’t know where the students were coming from at first, and so were caught off guard, and had to recalibrate rather rapidly how we responded to them.  The questions were… unusual, to say the least.  But once I began to get the measure of things, I felt humbled to have the privilege of talking with students that could so easily be left out of a “science engagement” event.  So often it’s easy to forget that science is relevant to everyone, not just the bright and the privileged.  So thanks for reminding me folks at I’m A Scientist, and the students from this morning’s chat.

And finally, there was today’s eviction.

I’d been prepared to be voted out myself (although I would have sorely regretted leaving the competition).  But I hadn’t been prepared for the shock of seeing one of my fellow scientists go.  This hit me more than I expected – Paula Gilfillain was a great contributor in the Silicon Zone, and was actively involved in a live chat when the news of her conviction came through.  It was a real shame to see her go.  But sadly that’s the nature of the beast.

The reality is though that, as much as we scientists are finding the whole thing a blast, it’s the students that are the important ones here.  And while we might find the evictions hard, they do give the whole event an edge that keeps the students engaged, and the scientists sharp!

I suspect the following evictions will be easier to handle – the first is always the worst.  Will I be around until the end?  I certainly hope so.  But even if I get trounced by one of my remaining competitors, at least I know that the students will have had a great time, and the winning scientist will be worthy of the prize…

Well, almost worthy

Evictions will be posted every day this week on the I’m A Scientist website around 3:30 PM British Summer Time

And here for your entertainment, is Stephen Curry’s rather excellent “What Science Is Really Like” movie – enjoy

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/06/23/im-a-scientist-a-brilliant-british-idea-that-needs-to-come-to-the-us/feed/ 5 http://2020science.org/2010/06/19/welcome-to-real-science/ http://2020science.org/2010/06/19/welcome-to-real-science/#comments Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:24:07 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3348

The way science is taught, the way it’s portrayed on TV and in the press, he way it’s promoted by science-advocates and science bloggers, often seems to adhere to a rather pompous and hubristic view of science as the ultimate bastion of truth and certainty.  So it’s been rather refreshing this week to see a group of real-world scientists shattering this image in the on-line event I’m A  Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here!

For those of you that haven’t been following this, I’m A Scientist is a two-week UK-based event where up to 8000 teenagers quiz 100 scientists on any and every subject under the sun, before they decide who is worthy of a £500 prize in support of science communication.  It’s an inspired event that puts students in charge of the conversation – and one that I am privileged to a part of this time round.

Half way in, the event has been intense – with over 100 live chats between scientists and classes of students, and literally thousands of questions and answers (scientists in the Cancer Zone – just one of twenty zones – have received over 700 questions from students so far!).

But what has struck me more than anything perhaps has been the honesty and humility of the scientists taking part.

Maybe it’s responding to kids that brings out the honesty (I know I have made a rule of answering questions as openly and as honestly as possible – because you don’t mess around with kids).  Maybe it’s that this is a bunch of real-world scientists, rather than the vocal minority that people are usually exposed to.  But the lack of science romanticism here has been eye-opening.

From subjects spanning global warming to evolution, and religion to animal testing, I’ve repeatedly seen participants lay out their honest opinions – even if they don’t match exactly with established opinion  The responses have not always clean and homogeneous and “politically correct” – sometimes even the science behind them isn’t as robust as some would like.

But this is how real scientists perceive their work, the world, and their place in it.

In other words, the answers to questions emerging on I’m A Scientist are probably a good reflection what the science community is actually like, rather than what we would sometimes like to think it is like.

I suspect the value of this honesty and humility is immense.  Clearly, it provides the students taking part in I’m A Scientist with a realistic view of what science is really like – and probably a more believable and attractive one than some idealized vision of the scientific endeavor.  I also think it is proving liberating to the scientists involved – providing them the opportunity to explore and express their honest perspective on things.

But just as importantly – the event is leading to a unique resource documenting what scientists really think – not just what they think they should think.

In the long run, this may be an incredibly important added-value within what is already an extremely high-value initiative.

Edit 6/19/10 – I meant to note above that many of these thoughts were sparked off by this blog from I’m A Scientist participant Tom Hartley earlier this week.

It’s a quarter to one in the morning Eastern Time, and I’ve just polished off the last question of the day on I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here!  I should be heading off to bed, but I wanted to capture some initial thoughts on this exercise first.

I’ve lost count of how many questions I’ve answered today – hundreds it seem (although it’s probably less).  I did see a note come round earlier that 1000 questions have already been answered by the team of scientists – and it’s just the first day.

Watching the reactions of my fellow contestants on Twitter, I think we’ve all had the same experience – gobsmacked by the volume and depth of the questions, followed by a rather rapid recalibration of how we go about answering them!

In fact this has had me intrigued – so far the event hasn’t so much been about scientists educating students, as students training scientists – training them to listen to what’s being asked, and to reply concisely and in terms that the questioner can understand.  It’s been a fascinating process to watch.  And judging by the speed with which peoples’ style of reply has evolved, it’s been a very successful process!

There’s also been a certain amount of humility in the scientists’ camp today, as we’ve all facing hard lessons in acknowledging what we don’t know!  The thing with teenagers – as we’re discovering first hand – is that they’re not scared to ask questions older people think they should know the answers to.  Which is why questions like “how does magnetism work” have thrown even seasoned physicists into disarray!

Just browsing through the questions I’ve had, they have covered everything from global warming ,to risks and safety, to what it’s like being a scientist, to animal testing.  I’ve even been asked rather personal questions about what I believe, and how much I earn (maybe inadvisedly, I’m adopting a policy of openness and transparency here – it’ll be interesting to see how long it lasts!).

Altogether a tough day, but a good one (and I haven’t even had a Live Chat yet, where the students bombard you with questions in real time!).

Let’s see what tomorrow brings!

And on a slightly different note, I wanted to highlight an article published today by I’m A Scientist producer Sophia Collins.  In it she makes an incredibly important point:

[A]sk me what I think the most important impact of this is and I’ll tell you this: the majority of today’s teenagers are not destined to become scientists, but they will all be people and citizens.

They’ll all have votes to cast, goods to buy, decisions to make. I want them to be doing that with some ability to think about the issues surrounding science. I don’t want them swayed by yuck factors or scaremongering that plays fast and loose with the facts. I also don’t want them making decisions in wilful ignorance, rejecting the evidence out of hand because they feel patronised and belittled by a science they perceive as elite or aloof. I want them to feel entitled to discuss the issues and equipped to do it, because only then will they come to a considered view.

Despite the hard work, this is exactly why I am so excited to be a part of this, and I suspect why a number of my colleagues are.

But more of that later.  For now, bed – before the next onslaught of questions begins!

You can see all of my answered questions here.

If you want to participate in the rather fab science event I’m A Scientist, Get me Out Of Here I’m afraid you are out of luck – unless you happen to be one of the 100 scientists and 8000 teenagers taking part.

But you can still get a thrill from watching the competition unfold on-line while experiencing science as a spectator sport as you’ve never seen it before! And believe me, this is an event you’re not going to want to miss – especially if you have any interest whatsoever in engaging teenagers in science.

So, if you want to watch the fun, where do you begin?

Here are three ways you might start:

1.  Random dipping

Simply open the home page of I’m A Scientist and dive in

You’ll notice the log-in panel to the right – just ignore this.

From this screen you have two options – pick a Zone to browse (there are twenty of them – ten themed zones, and ten general ones), or check out the latest questions (the panel to the right):

If you select a Zone, you can then explore the questions and discussions going on there (see below).  Each has five scientists, and around 400 teenagers pummeling them with questions.

2.  Zone-watching

Given the craziness of 8000 teenagers quizzing 100 scientists, you might prefer the relative sanity of concentrating on just one Zone.  There are twenty to choose from – ten focus on specific areas, while the remaining ones are science free-for-all’s.  You can either select your Zone of preference from the home page of I’m A Scientist, or from the drop-down menu at the top right of each page:

Once you enter a Zone, you can either view the most recent questions asked in that Zone from its home page, or you can check out what the Zone’s scientists have been up to by clicking on the “Scientists” tab .

This is what the Silicon Zone – my home on I’m A Scientist – looks like:

Check out the latest questions and comments under each scientist to see how they are doing.  Or click on an individual scientist to get the low-down on all their recent activity.

From the Zone Home page (accessed from the the top left tab), you can also explore all the questions students in this Zone have asked.  Simply go over to the “Recent Questions” box on the right of the screen, and select “View all answered questions”.  This brings up the full list of questions for this Zone:

3.  Scientist-rooting

Finally, you can opt to root for one of the 100 scientists taking part in I’m A Scientist.  To track their progress – and see whether they survive the week two “expulsions,” simply click on the scientist’s image from the Zone pages.  This is what my page looks like, but of course you have ninety-nine other worthy souls to root for as well

And finally, when you do click on a question, this is what you will get:

As scientists respond to the question and students comment on the responses, a conversation builds up, and the fun really begins!

There are plenty of other ways to enjoy I’m A Scientist – live chats between students and scientists are scheduled throughout the two weeks that you should be able to tap into for instance, and you can follow the I’m A Scientist back-stories on Twitter by using the hashtag #IAS2010.  There’s also a Twitter group of scientists involved in the event.

So log on, tune in, and immerse yourselves in one of the most innovative and exciting teen-science events in recent years.

But be warned – once you get hooked, there’s no going back!

Update 6/13/10 – I should have also mentioned that you can pull up a list of answered questions for each scientist from their profiles.  This is my list – similar lists are available for the other contestants.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/06/13/a-spectators-guide-to-im-a-scientist-get-me-out-of-here/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2010/06/01/im-a-scientist-check-out-the-competition/ http://2020science.org/2010/06/01/im-a-scientist-check-out-the-competition/#comments Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:09:48 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3280

Reading the Twitter feeds, it seems that a number of scientists participating in I’m A Scientist, Get me Out of Here have struggled with their profiles.  It’s one thing to design an elegant experiment or write a smart paper – but describing yourself in three words or telling a joke that’s actually funny isn’t something most PhD’s prepare you for!

However, the participants have risen to the challenge admirably, and most profiles are up now – just in time for the web site going live to teachers.

Browsing through the profiles, there are some pretty smart and interesting people here – the competition’s going to be tough!  Here are just a few entries that caught my eye:

Philip Wadler (Beryllium Zone) was clever enough to add a hot link to his three word description of himself, which is a rather cryptic “Not serial killer” – appropriately, he’s a computer programmer.

Antonia Hamilton’s (Oxygen Zone) description of what she does: “I use brain scanners to see how people understand each other” – rather cool!

Paul Roche (Fluorine Zone) “astronomizes.” Is that a word?  If it isn’t, it should be! He also claims to “teach people about life, the universe and (almost) everything” – astronomers!

Zoe Duck (Neon Zone) studies “the surface of the bacterium that causes bubonic plague” which is rather novel. I also see that her answer to “Tell us a joke” is “Manchester City” – hope she doesn’t have any Mancunian students!

Andrew McKinley (Sodium Zone) wanted to be a Ghostbuster when he grew up – I guess “scientist” was the next best thing.

Sian Foch-Gatrell (Magnesium Zone) epitomizes the quality of the jokes in these profiles: “Q: What is the fastest way to determine the sex of a chromosome? A: Pull down its genes.” Ouch!  But if you want a good source of corny science jokes, this is definitely the place to come!

Paula Salgado (Aluminium Zone) has a great pictorial account of her typical day.  She also has a great idea for how she would spend the £500 if she won – “Meet the scientist” – Scientific speed networking.

Andrew Leitch (Silicon Zone) has what must be the most outrageous suggestion for how he would spend the prize money: “I think it’s about time I had an oil-painting of myself to hang in the office…”  As you can guess, this is a rather cheeky response and his serious plans are very different!

Sarah Burl (Clean Zone) is one of the handful of scientists participating who isn’t based in the UK – she is in The Gambia.  She also has a rather novel answer to “What’s the best thing you’ve done as a scientist?” – “Cloned a sheep!”

I rather liked this answer to the same question from Fiona Randall (Brain Zone): “The best is yet to come!”

Leo Carcia (Cancer Zone) has a number of interesting responses in his profile, including his three-word description of himself: “Short, musical, stinky” – there’s a conversation starter!

Reading the responses to “Favourite thing?” is revealing – I liked Rachel Fox’s (Chemicals Zone) “Make lots of mess, but in a productive way…”

Michaela Livingstone’s (Genes Zone) was also pretty good: “Having those little eureka moments when you put together all the bits of experimental data and finally realise what the big picture is.”

Tom Hartley (Imaging Zone) has what must be one of the more unusual ideas for spending the prize money: ‘“Scan Your Teacher” day…’ – you’ll have to read the profile to see what that entails!

Browsing through the profiles of 100 scientists in 20 zones, this is going to be some event!  You can check them all out by visiting the zones from the I’m A Scientist Home Page – the above is little more than a taster!

Oh, and I almost forgot – my profile is sitting here, in the Silicon Zone.  Not as flashy as some maybe, but then the real competition begins when the questions start to flow

I’m A Scientist runs on-line from June 14 – June 25

Update 6/21/10 – corrected Michaela’s “Favorite Thing” above!

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/06/01/im-a-scientist-check-out-the-competition/feed/ 7 http://2020science.org/2010/05/25/want-advice-never-trust-your-family/ http://2020science.org/2010/05/25/want-advice-never-trust-your-family/#comments Wed, 26 May 2010 01:16:46 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3223

As you’ll have realized from my post last week, I will be competing in I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here in in a couple of weeks’ time.  I’m going to be attempting to capture the event from my perspective through a series of rather shorter, more informal blogs than I usually post – starting here.  It seems a great way to capture the highs and lows as they happen, as well as being considerably less time-intensive than writing the sorts of pieces I usually post – and believe me, less time-intensive is exactly what I need at the moment – as you’ll see below!

So today I got access to my profile page on the I’m A Scientist website (you’ll be able to see it in a few days), and faced the trauma of answering questions like “Who is your favourite singer or band?” and “If you had three wishes for yourself, what would they be?”

But the most difficult question (barring “Tell Us A Joke”) was “How would you describe yourself, in three words?”

My answer: “overworked, underpaid, happy.”

But then I asked my family what they thought I should have answered.  And got:

“Grumpy, tired, occard*”!

Ah.

Think I might have some re-prioritizing to do!

*”awkward” for non-English speakers

I can’t sleep, I’m distracted, I keep breaking out in a cold sweat.  And the reason?  I have a deceptively simple question going my head – and I don’t know the answer!

The question… well, I’ll come to that in a minute.  I’d rather put the moment of embarrassment off for at least a few more lines – because rest assured, I will embarrass myself.   But let me first back up a little…

You may recall me writing about a superb on-line event involving teenagers and scientists held in the UK a few weeks ago.  I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here was an inspirational exercise in getting teens engaged in science.  Built around on-line chats and Q&A, around 1400 kids interacted with 20 scientists on every topic under the sun over a two week period (and I mean, every topic).  The stroke of genius was that the scientists were competing for prizes (£500 to the winners), and the students had the power to decide who won and who didn’t – with contestants being “voted out” on successive days towards the end of the contest until only the winners were left standing.

So enamored was I by the event that I put myself forward for the next round – to be held between June 14 – 25.  Foolish, foolish, foolish!  I’m only just beginning to understand what I’ve let myself in for!

The next I’m a Scientist event is humongous – 100 scientists, 400 classes, and 8000 students.  Eight Thousand!  The scientists and students are divided into twenty groups, each with five scientists battling it out to be the last one standing at the end of the two weeks, and each group engaging with around 400 students.  This has to be one of the biggest events of it’s kind around – 8000 teenagers getting the chance to talk in some depth with real-life scientists on any subject they fancy (8000 – I can’t get that number out of my head. 8000!)

As you’ll have guessed, I was picked to be one of the “lucky” contestants.  Successful applicants were selected by the students and teachers taking part in the event, as well as the organizers and sponsors, based on a one-line descriptions of what they did for a living (I wrote “Helping people to make science-informed decisions about stuff that affects them” – which I thought was a little lame, but clearly not lame enough).

Looking at who I’m up against, the competition’s going to be tough – really tough.  I’m in the “Silicon” group, which is a general science group.  My fellow scientists – whom I suspect will wipe the floor with me, being younger, brighter and funnier than I am (I’m guessing here – a little paranoia creeping in) – are Marianne Baker from Bart’s Institute of Cancer,  Paula Gilfillan from the Royal Navy, Andrew Leitch from the University of Edinburgh and Emma Pilgrim from North Wyke Research (you can see a list of all the contestants here.)

I’m not too worried about the science questions – having a couple of teenage kids of my own, I’ve leaned to field these over the years (although “have you checked Wikipedia?” is probably not the most responsible answer there is).  What really scares the pants off me though is the left-of-field questions – questions like “Pirates or Ninjas?”, “What color is a chameleon sitting on a mirror?” and – the cause of my panic attacks – “Why did the chicken cross the road?”!

I mean, why did the chicken cross the road?  I don’t buy this “to get to the other side” business – how did the chicken know what a “road” was, never mind how it managed to consciously think to itself why it needed to be on the other side of it in the first place?  It’s a chicken.  It doesn’t think.  It just does stuff!

How can a scientist be expected to answer questions like this?!

I think I’m going to fail…

…Actually, you’ve probably worked out by now that I’m going to have a blast with this!

I still suspect that it’s going to be fiendishly tough surviving ’till the end.  But I’m really looking forward to the experience – chicken questions and all.  What really excites me about the whole thing is that there will be 8000 teenagers who discover that scientists are ordinary people, and that the only thing that makes them “special” is that they are doing something they love and that they think has value.

That’s got to be worth an awful lot.

While the event’s running, anyone can check out the on-line conversations – and I would strongly encourage you to do so (you can follow the proceedings on the I’m A Scientist website, which will be updated closer to when things kick off on June 14).  If the last event is anything to go by, you’ll find them inspiring, humbling, engaging, and totally, totally addictive.

In the meantime, I need to get into practice.  Being one of the few participants not resident in the UK, I need to get my body used to the idea of 4:00 AM on-line chats (caffeine – and lots of it – I think).  And I’ve already started my “Google speed-search” exercises for those occasional questions that temporarily stump me (actually, one of the great features of I’m A Scientist is students discovering that scientists don’t know everything).

Now, if only I could just nail that chicken question…

___________________________________

I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here runs between June 14 – 25.  You can follow the questions and answers at http://imascientist.org.uk/.  You can also follow I’m A Scientist on Twitter:  Sophia Collins, the producer, is @imascientist on Twitter; contestants on Twitter can be found here, and I’m A Scientist tweets will be using the hashtag #IAS2010

A guest blog by Sophia Collins, producer of the on-line teen science event “I’m a Scientist, Get me out of Here!”

“itz hometime but we want to stay and ask questions”

These are the words of a 14 year old student, at a school in inner-city London. The school has some of the poorest academic results in the school district, well below the national average. And yet a classroom science activity had the students so gripped that when the bell went for the end of the school day, they insisted on staying for another 15 minutes to ask more questions.

The students were having an MSN-style online chat with some scientists. They’d started with fairly simple questions, ‘How long have you been a scientist?’ and ‘Why is the sky blue?’. But then something happens – the immediacy of the chat format, the inventiveness of teenage brains, the unexpected experience of a grown-up seriously answering their questions – and the chat starts getting richer. You can see the ideas bouncing off each other and going in all directions. By the end of the chat this class had moved from a question about whether science could ever stop aging, to discussing what the world would be like if people didn’t die.

And there were all sorts of other random conversations along the way. Everything from favourite pop stars, to how blood circulates, to what it feels like if another scientist scoops your work. After another chat, one of my staff (a usually cynical young man) brought a tear to my eye by declaring it was “an honour to be associated with the event”.  When I asked why, he said, “The kids are so excited, and they are asking questions I know I’ve never asked or even thought of…”

Live chats like this are part of the event I run, I’m a Scientist, Get me out of Here!, which Andrew blogged so kindly about a couple of weeks ago. We were blown away the first time students insisted on staying after their lesson finished, “when normally they’ve got their coats on before the bell has finished ringing” as one teacher told us. After a while though we started taking it for granted, it happened so often.

As well as these live chats, students submit questions for the scientists to answer on our website. This gives an opportunity to go into more depth, and extend the conversation over days Feel free to have a browse, if you don’t mind getting distracted for the next couple of hours. We’re constantly amused, intrigued and impressed by the questions students ask, from “What is it about humans that led to us inventing science?” to “Do you think that robots will ever rule the earth?”.

One scientist told me that this was “the most science-related fun I’ve had in ages,” while a teacher emailed to tell me her class was splitting into fan clubs for the different scientists, “with the sort of devotion they’ve only had for pop stars up until now.”

Teenagers are notoriously the worst audience to engage, so what is it that gets this response from them? I’ve spent years working on this event format, and naturally I’ve got a few theories.

Doing it online makes it less intimidating and more intimate.

Before you all write in and complain, I’m not saying we should do away with face-to-face. I think that can be a great way of getting kids engaging with scientists. But do you remember people coming in to school to give talks when you were a teenager?

Who put their hands up to ask questions at the end? Usually, the clever kids who can think of questions the teacher will approve of. And possibly the naughty ones who want to be cheeky.

I’ll tell you who didn’t. Not the shy students. Not the ones who got lost five minutes into the talk and really would have liked to ask what the guy was actually talking about. Not the ordinary middling students who can’t think of a smart question but desperately want to know if it’s scary sometimes being a policemen or where astronauts go to pee. Doing it online makes it much easier for kids to ask the questions they actually want to ask, and then they can start getting interested.

Teenagers are actually desperate for the chance to talk to grown ups.

For many kids the only adults they ever get to talk to are their parents and their teachers. They are on the cusp of the big scary adult world, they really don’t know what it’s going to be like and they want people to answer their questions!

Once they realise these real live scientists are actually going to do this, those questions about the adult world start pouring out. “Do you get on with the people you work with?”, “Do you ever get bored at work?”, “How did you decide what to study at University?”.

I also think sometimes they can’t quite believe they’ll be able to pull off being a grown up (I’m 38, and I still have that doubt…). And becoming a scientist? Way too intimidating! Lots of teenagers are convinced that scientists are all Einstein-like geniuses, so they couldn’t become one themselves. When they realise, as one girl put it, that “scientists are just like normal people!” it’s a revelation. The scientists talk about their holidays, their pets, their favourite jokes and suddenly students can see that these are people like them, and they could grow up and be a scientist too.

And lastly, the true secret weapon…

Giving students some power engages them much more deeply.

The scientists are competing for a prize of £500 ($770) to communicate their work and the students are voting who gets it.

This makes the young people feel that they are being taken seriously, for once. Don’t we all get turned off things if we aren’t listened to and feel we don’t have a say? No-one wants to be lectured at, but that is what happens to teenagers all the time.

But it’s not just that they feel less ignored; giving students a vote and some money to allocate makes everything real – it’s not just an essay or a classroom debate about science ethics. It’s not an academic exercise. We’re saying, here’s some actual money – who do you think should get it?

To answer that question for themselves, students have to really think.  And they raise all sorts of issues: How can we know what the outcome of research will be? How can we weigh one kind of knowledge against another? Imagine you had a medical advance that would save a small number of lives, how could you possibly weigh that against a different medical advance that improved the lives of a much bigger number of people? These are thorny issues in science funding and teenagers engage with them, because they are actually being asked to decide.

I’m not pretending that all the teenagers cast their vote for the highest of reasons. Some will vote for the scientist who likes the same band as them. Or whose joke made them laugh. Or who’s got the nicest photo. But I’m prepared to bet they still do that having thought more about complex science and society issues than they were probably going to otherwise. And it leaves them with a sense that these issues are something it’s possible for them to have a say about, so it’s worth them thinking about them.

We need a populace who can engage with science and engage in discussions about science. There are decisions that have to be made as a society, not by experts behind closed doors. Students who’ve cast their vote in I’m a Scientist feel that science is a thing they are part of. And that makes all the difference.

____________________

I’m a Scientist, Get me out of Here! was run in the UK for two weeks between March 15-26.  Around 1,400 teenagers in 70 schools around the UK participated, probing and evaluating the work of 25 scientists through on-line questions, answers and chats.  The next event in the UK is scheduled for June 14 – 25 2010. The event is kindly funded by medical research charity the Wellcome Trust, to promote public engagement with biomedicine. For more information on how to participate as a scientist, check here.  For teachers, further information (including Creative Commons teaching resources which anyone can use) can be found here.

Sophia Collins is producer of the on-line teen science event “I’m a Scientist, Get me out of Here!” and its sister event, “I’m a Councillor, Get me out of Here!” which gets teenagers engaged with local politics. Her background was in science communication, mainly in TV science shows, before getting involved with I’m a Councillor in 2004.

The website “I’m a Scientist – Get me out of here” should come with a government warning – something along the lines of “Visiting this site could seriously disrupt your professional, social and personal live while altering your perceptions on getting kids hooked on science – proceed with extreme caution.”  In fact I would probably say that, unless you are immune to addiction, have no sense of humor or couldn’t give a toss about science, just don’t go there – it’s not worth the risk!

Frivolity aside, I’m a Scientist... is a brilliant concept. For two weeks between March 15-26, around 2000 teenagers in 70 schools around the UK are probing and evaluating the work of 25 scientists through on-line questions, answers and chats.  And one by one they are voting out or “evicting” their least favorite “contestants” – leaving five winners who walk away with a £500 prize – think X-factor, Big Brother or American Idol for scientists, and you begin to get the picture!

Participating kids are free to ask the scientists anything – and I mean anything – as long as it doesn’t contravene the House Rules.  Which means that they clearly have the upper hand here.  But this also breaks down barriers, encourages dialogue, and leads to very effective engagement (for the scientists as well as the kids).  Recent questions have ranged from the bizarre to the deep, including:

• Do you like green eggs and ham? (Both love and cringe at the response given!)
• Pirates of Ninjas?
• Have you ever regretted choosing a career in science or maths? and if so why? when?
• What is the most interesting thing you have ever done?
• What colour is a chameleaon sitting on a mirror? and
• Does the Fibonacci sequence and the golden rectangle appear in genetics? (as it is generally everywhere in nature)

This is only a small smattering of the hundreds of conversations going on – previous warnings aside, I would seriously recommend you check these and others out if you are at all interested in enthusing, educating and engaging kids on science.  The beauty of the event is that, while it is primarily for the participants, anyone can poke around and take a look at what’s going on!

But the questions and answers are only part of the event’s success.  The evictions – hard as they may be on the unlucky scientists – make the thing all the more addictive.  This aspect of I’m a Scientist is clearly grabbing the kids’ attention and pulling them in big-time.  But it’s also holding the scientists’ feet to the fire, and helping them hone their skills as communicators – a perfect win-win!

This particular event finishes on March 26 – so you need to move fast if you want to see it in action.  The first evictions were yesterday, and between now and Friday there will be one set of eviction per day, leaving the winners as the last scientists standing on Friday afternoon.

But be warned – it could seriously alter your perceptions of how to get kids hooked on science!

______________________________________________________________

For more information on I’m a Scientist check out http://imascientist.org.uk/more-info

The event is split up into five zones.  Follow the links to see recent questions in the Brain Zone, the Genes Zone, the Helium Zone, the Hydrogen Zone and the Lithium Zone

If you liked this – and what’s not to like? – the next I’m a Scientist event in the UK is scheduled for June 14 – 25.