The Science Project

Sustainable information design: check your flip-flops at the next station?

2010-06-24T11:26:16Z

Not long ago, Alice tweeted about a couple of new artistic re-conceptions of the famous London tube map. The map itself has been subject to countless interpretations, to the point that the graphic idolisation of its aesthetic is becoming tiresome. Examples range from those that play on the medium (such as the links above, or this cross-stitch version), to others that toy with the map's distinctive visual syntax (keeping it sciency: like this view of human anatomy or the milky way). There have been too many parodies, spin-offs and visual-metaphor-borrowings to mention. Thinking constructively, these experimental formats hold a promise of being more than fanciful re-interpretations of that iconic piece of graphic communication.

]]> Graphic designers have a responsibility towards the environment. Paper leaflets used in galleries, museums and in tube systems worldwide are usually free and treated disposably. Why not try to minimise waste and the energy required to produce these by re-interpreting the format altogether? To cite very conventional examples, a map printed on a silk handkerchief, or a tote bag, or a shawl has obvious functions beyond being a printed guide. Though this approach may not be practical for very complex or extensive maps, I think that it probably depends on the format itself and the resolution allowed by the technology used to create it. The idea of integrating the display of useful, relevant information with different products could be pushed to its limits.

Thinking about sustainability in this sphere of information design, the well-stocked London tourist shops full of 'tube map tat' such as flip-flops, beach towels and mugs may be the way forward. Imagine a reusable mug printed with the full tube map, one that you might actually fill with coffee or tea and use on the way to visit a gallery! The idea seems so obvious. And why not, since the map has been completely aestheticised anyway. Random everyday objects can, when sensitively and intelligently rethought, become vessels for information that could displace the traditional paper forms of ephemera.

And yes of course maps are also accessible on mobile devices. Different technologies present their own environmental costs however. A comparative life-cycle assessment would confirm whether a map accessed on a mobile device (that uses energy and creates hazardous waste) would be more or less efficient than say, a carryall, a piece of clothing, or a pushchair cover. The idea of 'sustainable' information design could push information designers further into the field of product design than they have previously gone.

The NCBE at Reading

2010-06-21T11:32:17Z

The Department of Typography at Reading takes up most of an old wartime edifice which also houses some music pratice rooms (not a bad thing, most of the time) and the small but highly acclaimed National Centre for Biotechnology Education . To the staff in Typography right next door, the NCBE is seldom seen, seldom heard; there are however some fascinating areas of overlap between the two entities, and plenty at the centre to interest several of us graphic communication people next door, especially the ones interested in science, education and diagrammatic representation!

The NCBE is a longstanding (and since the early 1990s, entirely self-funding) research centre at the University of Reading that specialises in the development of educational materials to teach areas of biology such as evolutionary biology and biotechnology. They develop and run workshops, produce (international) literature, and create kits for experiments and activities involving everything from splitting up DNA with various enzymes to growing mushrooms on loo roll (toilet paper for us crass North Americans).

]]> The NCBE's extensive (and non-University branded) website seems to be an important resource. Its pages include full access to publications relating to practical workshops, including well-illustrated teacher and student guides. And there is an interesting though aged commemoration of the discovery of the double helix, which includes a page of DNA ephemera, enough to get the Typography pulse racing in itself! Unfortunately, though the writing is congenial and accessible, navigating through the site feels a bit like wading through porridge. Like many 'mature' websites it contains some legacy components. This probably reflects the NCBE's somewhat oddball status within the University.

Science Hoaxes

2010-03-04T16:50:16Z

A week or so ago I asked my students and the wonderful world of twitter for examples of websites showing some sort of science-themed hoax, or at least a bit of artistic play with credulity and/ or realism in talk about science. I promised I'd compile a short blogpost with some of the best ones, so here it is.

]]> Several people mentioned Dihydrogen Monoxide, a hoax which played with public fear over "chemicals" by using the unfamiliar name for water (see more background on the wikipedia entry). There were sites developed by artists interested in issues of belief and attitudes to new technologies: malepregnancy.com, now slightly dated perhaps, and the rather spooky GenPets. It was especially interesting to see a spoof sites set up as publicity for health information campaigns. For example, the site advertising a downloadable tan (see also Nursing Times article about it). Also, the Sense About Science/ Office for Fair Trading "miracle cure" sites for Fat Melting Pads and an "all-natural" diabetes breakthrough (see also SAS press release).

There is arguably a big difference between these sites and satire done for a more straightforward laugh, although there are also overlaps. A lot of the humour on satirical sites such as the Onion stem from the fact they are a mix of the believable and the unbelievable: they depend on an ability to reproduce and twist the real. Projects like malepregnancy.org or the Sense About Science spoofs are also different from sites which we might happen to simply disagree with, have accidentally got things wrong, haven't bothered to check their sources, or even deliberately aim to deceive in order to, for example, dupe people into buying things. Although, again, if such sites didn't exist, many of the spoof ones wouldn't either. In some respects, the diversity of wikipedia-alikes is illustrative of this. Uncyclopedia, Scholarpedia, CreationWiki, Conservapedia, Wikipedia itself, and Britannica for that matter: all very different entities, and yet also (self-consiously) similar.

To give a little background as to why I was looking for such sites: it was for a class on realism, science and the web. An awful lot of traffic on the web, especially science-themed traffic, is a matter of shifting information around, often shifting it quite far from its material points of origin. What's more, we use visualisations and mashups and embedded media and metaphors to communicate. This can make the information easier to understand, but sometimes decontextualises it too. It can be easy to loose a sense of where, who and how it came about, which in turn can make its validity hard to assess. Arguably, lot of modern life is about (a) symbols (b) trust and (c) shifting quite immaterial information along giant production lines. Social theoriests have been banging on about these issues for years. People seem to get especially worried about it online though, perhaps because there is so much information there, or simply because of fears of the immaterial 'virtuality' of the web. People can get especially worried when it comes to science-themed information too, again perhaps because there is a lot of it, perhaps because it's seen as especially important, or perhaps because of the history of associations between science and truth, openness and honesty (or perhaps all these reasons).

To boil bookloads of social theory into something simple: We do not have time to learn how to build a computer, programme it and do brain surgery. Instead, we do one of these skills (or another entirely), trading our own specialisation for the products of other people’s. In some respects this is very efficient; we get to utilise a lot of very specialist knowledge and skills this way. Many of the key advantages of modern life are built on such a model. However, it does mean we end up spending the bulk of our lives in ignorance. We are all very stupid most of the time. Personally, I think we should accept, even embrace, this. Ask questions: wear our ignorance and curiosity on our sleeves. This means we shouldn't be put off by other people's questioning either and, in accepting ignorance, hold off from too much pointing and laughing when people get something wrong and/ or are quicker to trust than they necessarily should.

If you are interested, but would rather avoid too much pomo theory, I can recommend Howard Rheingold's short essay on online 'crap' detection, and this week's Guardian Science podcast includes some thoughtful chat about trust and incredulity around scientific expertise. If you are really keen on science-themed fake sites, you might like this compendium, and, just to underline that crisis over public trust of the promises of science and technology isn't exactly a new issue, one of my students sensibly added this story of an 18th century chess-playing machine to the mix.

Media Coverage of Science Education

2010-02-25T17:04:44Z

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have just published a report on the state and possible future of Science and Maths Secondary-School Education. From a group headed by Sir Mark Walport of the Wellcome Trust, it is one of a series interrogating issues in science and society (see also one on engagement from Roland Jackson of the British Science Association, and another on the media from Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre).

I've been in and out of meetings most of the day, so haven't had time to read any more than the executive summary. Well, the executive summary and the news coverage, which was pretty interesting in itself. So, I thought it was worth putting off reading the full report for a bit longer, and doing a quick blogpost pulling out the issues that the press seems to have decided to pull out of the report.

If you want to read the report itself, for yourself, you can download it here, complete with cover-pictures of hair-raising play with a Van der Graaf generator. Ah, where would science education imagry be without Robert Van der Graaf.

]]> First up, BBC online news, with Science and maths exams 'need shake-up' . They start by reiterating the report's point that science and maths education have clearly been priority issues in recent years, but that nonetheless, people are still worried about it. They emphasise the report's call for specialist teachers and more maths to be taught within science teaching. They also pick up on concern that the science and maths community want a greater say in school science. This is significant, considering a recent trend in science education to curricula that aims to serve the needs of "the public" before professional science. Note it was the director of the Wellcome Trust (which funds scientific research and some education and engagement), not a full-time educationalist, asked to lead this report. But I'm editorialising.

Next, The Times: Science lessons need more explosions and pyrotechnics, report says. This starts: "Science lessons should be more hands-on and exploratory, according to a new report that criticises a dangerous obsession with results that has stripped science teaching of explosions and pyrotechnics". According to my rather rough Ctrl-Alt F research methodology, the word "pyrotechnics" doesn't actually feature in the report. They then go onto reflect on the way "teaching to the test" has pushed out more "exploratory learning". As they quote Walport, the "danger that assessment becomes the tail that wags the dog". They cover the smaller issue of the report's call for science and maths specialists to be paid more, before running through quotes from various stakeholders in the area.

I would now like to pause for a little rant. This is directed at the world in general, not the Times in particular, although they inspired it. Exploratory does not equal explosions. Similarly, just because an activity is hands-on, or demonstrated live in the classroom (as opposed to described in a textbook), it doesn't mean it is an "experiment". It certainly doesn't make it investigative or "exploratory". Simply being hands-on doesn't necessarily mean the student is allowed to explore. Quite the contrary, some of the most explosive demonstrations are not only done by a member of staff for students to watch, but have exceedingly tightly defined and predicted/ predictable outcomes. The point of an explosive demo is generally that we know what's going to happen (i.e. it'll explode - a brilliant big bang of a dramatic ending). They are used to demonstrate why and how science already knows something. They can be exciting, inspiring and explain some aspect of science with immense clarity. By they allow little space for creative exploration. There is difference between expository and exploratory, explanation and experiment. I know they all start with the same three letters people, but get a grip.

Ahem. Rant over, onto The Telegraph: School science undermined by 'easy' exams. Their lead paragraph, interestingly I thought, stresses a language problem; that multiple choice questions leave students unable to express their understanding of scientific concepts. They also highlight, early-on, the ways in which examination boards sell their own textbooks to schools (and therefore fuel an exam-driven bite-sizing of curriculum). Like the BBC, the Telegraph are keen to note that science education has been a priority. They also pull out the report's insistence that science courses have remained popular among young people. The focus of the piece though is (what I read the focus of the report to be...): problems endemic in the curriculum, qualifications and the structure of exams.

Next, the Daily Mail, who's How Labour's 'reforms' of A-levels have dumbed down exams pulls no punches. Apparently the report is "devastating [...] a damning indictment of the exam system". Content-wise, their emphasis is again on the way the structure of exams and associated bite-sized curriculum effects (/prevents) understanding, referring to worries about the "use of the English language". They make liberal use of the phrase: "dumbing down". They also quote schools minister Iain Wright. As with some of the other pieces, this places Wright in a rather defensive position, as if he is only brought in for journalistic balance, to defend himself. I thought this was an interesting positioning: these BIS reports come from groups led by independent(ish) experts, but they are basically government publications, reflecting government desires for change (though they are also from BIS, not the DCSF...). The Mail's piece ends with a reasonably tame quote from Malcolm Trobe, of the Association of School and College Leaders, underlining the distaste for modular assessment within teaching communities.

Finally, The Independent: Make maths and science exams tougher, says report. A relatively short piece, heavily reliant on quotes from the report itself. As their headline implies, their emphasis is a lack of challenge in the current curriculum (they aren't clunky enough to use the "dumbing down" phrase, but they breath the sentiment nonetheless). They note complaints that the current system dose not give students enough of a chance to display or develop their depth of knowledge of the subject, that a "tick-box approach" to teaching and assessment lacks depth, and finish with a call for examiner to "devise searching questions for pupils".

The Guardian haven't at time of blogging, bothered. Which I thought was odd seeing as they have such strong science and education pages. I'm oscillating being saying this is probably because the issue is just a way to bash Labour (so the Guardian are avoiding it) or that they prefer more nuanced expert analysis on these topics (so are waiting to have a more thoughtful comment is free piece later in the week). Either prediction is largely (rather ridiculous) guesswork on my part though. They've likely just got other things to worry about. It's easy to get your knickers in a terribly self-important twist about science education, especially worries that it's just not as hard as it was in my day. Whether this generates anything more than rhetoric is another matter.

Before I sign off, I'd also like to note that none of these pieces quotes a child. There are all sorts of very understandable reasons for this, to do with press reporting as much as cultural norms (not to mention legal issues) surrounding education and/ or the voice of children. Still, I hope that as/ if the report's reccomendations are developed, young people are used are more than just cover- boys and girls.

Science Bites

2010-02-20T10:08:17Z

There was an interesting blogpost at the Guardian this week by Simon Underdown, an anthropology lecturer at Oxford Brookes: Teach the bigger story of science.

Underdown asks why so many young people become bored by science, and suggests an answer might be found in the way we have built our curriculum:

The "Google generation" is taught in bite-sized chunks throughout their school lives [...] the same old examples makes for boring lessons and unmotivated students (not to mention teachers). Perhaps if bite-sized subject syllabi were to be replaced with broader subject descriptions that rely on linking well-developed core principles, we could develop a much wider range of illustrations and examples to really motivate students.

]]> Similar points were made about US school-science in a Scientific American this week (see page 2). It's not exactly a new critique of the UK system either. In 1998, the highly influential Beyond 2000 (pdf) report argued:

The heart of the cultural contribution of science is a set of major ideas about the material world and how it behaves [… but] in focusing on the detail (for example, by setting out the content as a list of separate ‘items’ of knowledge as does the English and Welsh National Curriculum), we have lost sight of the major ideas that science has to tell.

Instead Beyond 2000 advocates a curriculum built upon a set of ‘explanatory stories’. The word 'story' here used to denote structure, development and coherence. It isn't a suggestion that science is fictional. This might sound as if they just want to simplify the curriculum even more (I'm not going to use the phrase 'dumbing down', it brings me out in spots). But to say these explanatory stories are reductive and deliberately eschewing detail would, I think, be a misreading. Rather, they advocate a coherent structure to a curriculum, one that demonstrates links and connections and around which teachers can slot in a rich set of examples. Influential as Beyond 2000 was, however, the speed of curriculum change being what it is in this country (i.e. slow), twelve years on, its criticisms still stand.

For me, the emphasis on bite-sized science isn't just a problem because it is boring, it also distills knowledge into something you report back on, for credit. This is fine when you are faced with an exam the next morning (e.g. BBC Bitesize), but it cannot be the basis of a science education system. Bitty science alone isn't especially fulfilling or useful - for future scientists, future 'publics', or the young audiences of school-science as they interact with science right now (because childhood isn't just prep for adulthood).

I'm young enough to have had most of my education structured by the National Curriculum. I adored my secondary school science teacher, who was a bit of an eccentric. She told us Ohm's law was beautiful, biology only pretends to be science, our media is as ideological as the stuff she'd grown up with in Moscow, and how best to play the system. Under her suggestion, we ordered syllabi for a couple of quid direct from the exam board (roughly what is now sold as revision guides). We learnt its bitesized science, regurgitated and promptly forgot it. We left with the best science grades that school had ever seen, but uninspired.

A bite-sizing of knowledge is something I've noticed in the course of my research on the Horrible Science books (major UK-based non-fiction brand for 8-12s). As with a lot of non-fiction books for kids, they celebrate short sharp 'facts', often delivered as quick fire trivia quizzes or simply bullet point lists. This in itself doesn't upset me. A good little factoid can be enormous amounts of fun. Moreover, I should note that Horrible Science does surround its list of facts with a bit of background, activities and discussion. However, what it does do with its facts, and the instructions for 'experiments' for that matter, is present them as material for showing off. The emphasis on learning science for personal success, one-upmanship even. A few examples from some of the books' introductions:

Now’s your chance to learn a few key words. And afterwards you can sound off and amaze your friends and silence your teacher (Sounds Dreadful, p8-9)

actually they’re [the laws of thermodynamics] horribly easy to understand. (Don’t tell anyone how easy, and with luck your friends will think you are a scientific genius!) (Killer Energy, p14)

Your new-found knowledge of light science is sure to put your teacher in the shade. And afterwards, who knows? You might even become a leading light in science – then you’ll really enjoy the limelight! (Frightening Light, p7).

In many respects Horrible Science offers knowledge as a source of power for the child. I can see why this might be very appealing (indeed, Sue Blackmore suggests we promote the idea that scientific learning distinguishes you). I don't mind it too much in a set of popular science books or the odd bit of revision, but as a whole education strategy, it's not enough. Bite-sized science is something you take in so as to re-deliver for a reward. You don't explore, you don't critique, you don't unpick, you don't develop. You catch, repeat, dispose. It's competitive and individualistic. It's bat and ball science.

The style of Horrible Science sits within a history of non-fiction publishing which stretches a lot further the National Curriculum. There are also broader issues of knowledge in 21st century (digital) media hinted at by Underdown’s reference to the ‘Google generation’. But I can’t help wondering if Horrible Science’s success is in some part down to the school-science culture of post-Thatcher Britain. The first Horrible Science was published in 1996, eight years after the Education Reform Act which brought in the National Curriculum, key stage tests and league tables.

Does popular science have sub-genres

2010-02-12T13:12:51Z

My central question her is if popular science books are sold in categories (natural history, astronomy, history), are they consumed the same way?

Below is a screen-grab of the science page on the website for a large UK bookselling chain. It's cropped to show off the categories the books are presented in (click on pic for link to flickr to see larger version). Obviously, bookselling websites categorise/ cross-categorise in different ways from door-and-window-bookshops, but seeing as I didn't have my camera with me, I think it'll do as an illustration of the way we sort science publishing.

]]> Gower Street Waterstone's has one of the largest Popular Science sections in London: a little room located after bays and bays of textbooks (it's a campus bookshop), just before you hit the coffee shop. I know it pretty well, but today noticed something I hadn't registered before: Astronomy, Natural History and Birdwatching all have their own special set of shelves, just next to those emblazoned 'Popular Science'.

I thought this was significant. If you want a popular science book, you go to the shelves marked 'Popular Science'. But the booksellers seem to think that if you specifically want popular astronomy, you'll go direct to their sub-section. It's a bit like the distinction between 'general fiction' and 'crime' or 'science fiction and fantasy', and just as problematic. I wondered if this related in some way to my years of thinking 'space is boring'. As with sci fi, or about any hobby/ special interest, it's special spaces can feel a bit off-putting to outsiders (Ooo, "the spaces of Space", there's a title for a cultural studies paper in there somewhere).

Arguably, a lot of Astronomy, Natural History and Birdwatching books aren't really 'popular science', just non-professional science. 'Hobbiest science' if you will. Still, many bookshops theme within their pop sci shelves - not just by author, but 'evolution', 'history of science', 'cosmology', etc - and I think the general attempt to categorise is worth noting. It reminds me slightly of when I worked in an Oxfam shop briefly as a teenager and we were told to display stock by colour, because that's how they thought customers looked for second hand clothes.

There are similar categorisations implemented for children's science books; noticeably largely around what Basil Bernstein would call the 'collected codes' of school-science. Bookshops have to sort things into one place or another. We all do. Without getting too philosophical, it is a function of contemporary life. The increasingly anachronistic categories we use for science frustrate us in a vareity of contexts (see, for example the fascinating debate between the Nobel Committee and New Scientist).

This relates to something I've been wondering a bit about over the last week: the noticeable absence of astrobiology books for kids. Even a book entitled ‘Space, Stars and Slimy Aliens’ largely uses aliens as a sort of joke from which they can contrast their ‘serious science’ (see Brian Clegg's review). I'd put this down to astrobiology being a relatively new field, combined with children's publishing being so infamously conservative. However, maybe part of the problem is that astrobiology is somewhat interdisciplinary: just as inter/ multi-disciplinary researchers can find it hard to locate themselves in the academy, they can also stumble within the sub-genres of popular science? Are there other interdisciplinary science subjects that don't get covered in children's publishing? (Even though, popular science for adults is arguably a space for interdisciplinarity).

This is largely a side-point though.To reiterate the question at the top of this post: if popular science books are sold in categories (natural history, astronomy, history), are they consumed as such? Are there sub-genres to popular science books, and fans for each genre? I wish someone could do some decent audience research on what people like about popular science, when, and why. For now, I can only guess at answers, but I'm interested to know other people's guesses too.

Does anyone else think Space is REALLY boring?

2010-02-10T11:12:19Z

On Saturday morning I read this blogpost and it's sent me into a bit of a rant. As I've put directly in a comment there, what annoyed wasn't so much the content of the post, rather the general discourse of space science it sampled. E.g:

The inspirational power of space and rocket ships [...] captivated and fired the scientific and technological imagination of a generation of young people. Some became the scientists and engineers of the Golden Age

When we talk about space in popular culture, we often use such lofty language. The sense that space, especially space exploration, can provide some 'inspirational power', ready to fuel a whole generation of scientists is also a familiar tune. There's been some controversy over manned spaceflight vs other space science recently, and this post isn't about that debate. What I want to pick out is the dependancy on superlatives.

It's not just rocket-science, astronomy similarly bangs on about the majesty of the night sky (and let's just draw a line under cosmology now). All this talk of how space is awe-inspiring/ exciting/ wonderful/ simply-just-the-most-amazing-thing-ev-er just makes me roll my eyes. I'm tempted to say its self-aggrandising, but I think I'll just settle on calling it boring. Mind-numbingly boring.

]]>

I respond to space hype similar way that I do to a lot of religion (and um, football, HD telly, some music, the odd film, several books, particular brands of chocolate...). I feel like I'm told I should be inspired, as if that's enough and no one needs to show me why. Lacking a solid and explicit basis for inspiration, I tend to think "that's must be something other people get", a matter of taste. I also get a tad wound up at the assumption that its all A Good Thing. You earn my respect; don't assume it. So, I shrug and turn my back. I have plenty of other things to play with.

Recently, I've become more aware that my stubborn refusal to drink the space-flavoured kool-aid means I've been missing out. So, I've been trying to engage with space news a bit more, and have to admit, am finding the various UK and USA funding issues fascinating. I've been listening to the Naked Astronomy podcast, and dragged myself to a public lecture on astrobiology last week. Aside from realising there's a lot more to space science than just the rockets, sparkly bits and big numbers I have previously written it off as, I might have, despite myself, noticed my jaw dropping slightly.

I'm not the only one who shrugs at space. Chatting with some friends a few days ago, one piped up with "You know, I think space is a bit dull" Then, after a pause: "Why do I feel like a dick for saying that?". I should note, this guy has a PhD in the politics of translating Zola. He isn't stupid. Aside from the intellectual-sounding thesis, he's a generally well-informed, opened-minded and thoughtful chap. He's not scared of talking about science, and even likes the odd bit of sky-gawping: he ran outside with me last week to stare at the Moon and Mars. I think it's telling that he feels a bit embarrassed about finding space a bit dull. There can be an implication in a lot of this hype that if you don't get it, you are somehow lacking a soul, or at least some understanding. It's a shame he lumps the whole of space together, but I can see how he might have got there, after years of being told "OMG! Spaceship!" or "See here children, the great inspirational majesty of Our Night Sky", and all he can do is nod politely. So, no: I don't think he is being a dick. It is just that other stuff has caught his attention.

If nothing else, I wish someone would cite more than anecdote when they bang on about about how we could solve all the problems of declining number of trained physicists if we sent more people into space. No one has, to the best of my knowledge, done any (reliable) work on this causal link between sending the odd astronaut into space and getting young people to sit through maths exams. It seems rather expensive, as education programmes go. You can throw all the biographies of scientists/ engineers at me that you like. I want to know about today, for 21st century kids.

Until such data is forthcoming (which I doubt it will be, though if anyone wants to give me a large research grant...) space-hypers should acknowledge that their rhetoric can dis-enchant as much as it may also act as a call to arms. You do yourself and your audiences no favours if you assume they already share your enthusiasm, or assume wonder is self-evident. The language of space science needs to extricate itself from its religious and military histories: cut all that bleeding reverence, loose the superlatives, inject a bit more piss-taking and get on with showing us some specifics of how great you are.

Call for Papers: Science and the Public 2010 UPDATED

2010-02-01T13:27:43Z

Call for Papers: Science and the Public 2010

Imperial College & Science Museum, London.
3rd and 4th of July 2010.

Now in its fifth year, the Science and the Public conference aims to bring together the various strands of academia which consider science’s relationships with groups generally called ‘the public’. Delegates come from a wide range of disciplines: science and technology studies, history of science, geography, psychology, cultural studies, media studies, sociology, development studies, English literature, science policy studies and more.

Keynote Speakers: Professor Mike Michael, Goldsmiths, University of London, and Professor David Edgerton, Imperial College, London.

]]> The range of topics covered may include (but are not limited to):

* PUS, PEST, PR.
* Surveying public knowledge and attitudes.
* Science and the arts (including science fiction).
* Science, publics and personal identity.
* The role of industry and/ or the third sector in public engagement and scientific research.
* The challenges of ‘upstream’ engagement.
* Popular science and professionalization.
* Specific public-science issues: e.g. climate change, MMR, energy policy, GMOs.
* Studies of specific media: e.g. film, books, the internet, museums, radio.
* Science, religion and the ‘New Atheism’.
* Politically engaged scientists.
* Churnalism vs. investigative science journalism.
* Edu-tainment.
* Scientific advisers, spin and secrecy.
* Patients and publics in health services.
* Science and the sceptics.
* Amateur science.

Potential contributors should email a 300 word abstract to scienceandpublic@googlemail.com by 1st March 2010. Please include full contact details (name, affiliation, email) of all authors.

Panel proposals should include a panel abstract and individual abstracts for each of the papers on the panel as well as contact information (name, affiliation, email) of the presider (moderator) and all panel members.

Tech-nostalgia and Making Things: The Oxford Steampunk Exhibition

2010-01-31T14:02:43Z

This weekend I finally got to the Steampunk exhibition - on at the Oxford Museum of the History of Science till the 21st February.

]]> Steampunk, if you don't know what I mean, is probably best described as retro sci fi. Imagine if HG Wells wrote The Time Machine today, but exactly as it was in 1985. In some respects, it turns the futurism of science fiction inside out, or least aims to pull us back to older versions of it. It's heroes are people like Charles Babbage, Isambard Kingdom Brunel and TH Huxley. I first came across it a few years ago when I was researching images of progress in children's books (published as the anachronistic fantastic). As the Guardian books-blog puts it, Steampunk tells us that "it's the Industrial Revolution we've got to look forward to". Alongside 19th century maths, science and engineering, there can be a fair few literary allusions too (most noticeably, perhaps, in graphic novels). It's also very British, with empire and colonialism a key theme alongside industrialisation, modernisation and mechanisation.

Some find Steampunk's origins in 1971, some say it all kicked off in 1990 (see Cory Gross' history of of Steampunk if you are interested). Wherever it came from, as with its sister-genre, Cyberpunk, Steampunk has extended across media, into film, television, art, craft, fashion and costuming, club nights. There's been a lot of it about the last few years. Even if you haven't heard the term much, you've probably seen something Steampunk-ish: Dr Who, WALL-E, the recent Sherlock Holmes movie. If anything, all this retro-sci fi is a bit passe these days.

A sign of how establishment Steampunk has become is the fact there is a museum exhibition about it. According to the MHS's director, Jim Bennett, talking on the accompanying youtube video, liked that the aesthetics of his museum had inspired Steampunks, and felt they should engage with the movement. Arguably, a museum for the history of science is a very fitting place for a Steampunk exhibition. Personally, I'd say the Oxford MHS is a bit too much on the 'ornamental instruments' side for Steampunk; it'd be better off in the London Science Museum, MOSI, or Kew Steam Museum (which has a whole wall of bits of toilets and a wind-up radio signed by Trevor Baylis). Still, from the looks of Steampunks dressed up for a fashion event at the museum that day, the Lewis Carrol references of Oxford were thoroughly appreciated.

Significantly, the large explanatory panel as you enter the exhibition introduces Steampunk as a celebration of the "unqualified pleasure of making". This is not how you would necessarily describe Steampunk in books or films, but Steampunk as a genre of arts and crafts is primarily about building and taking apart and enjoying seeing the insides of things. Reading the smaller panels which describe each of the featured artists in turn, it was interesting to see Lego mentioned as an inspiration, and amongst the impressive range of tie-in events (pdf) the museum's been running, was a workshop from the Henley Society for Meccano Engineers. It's all very hands on compared to literary/ filmic Steampunk, aspects of which could be read as the epitome of post-modern play with surfaces and symbols.

Exhibition curator Art Donovan (again on the youtube vid) describes Steampunk as "a celebration of the arts and sciences of Victorian era". Part of me wants to shout "not really" at him, simply because in many respects Steampunk in general (and this exhibition in particular) is more a celebration of the fantasies of science of that era. As Donovan himself emphasises, a lot of Steampunk is obsessed with "what ifs". What if we'd had access to digital technology, what would it look like? No sleek iPods here, but computers made of brass, full of rivets and displaying an exposed mechanical element. It's make believe. Still, it is make-believe in a deliberately realist mode. Many of the Steampunk crafters feel it is important that their pieces do actually work. The best example of this in the exhibition perhaps being the Fin de Siecle 'candlestick' mobile phone. It's also worth mentioning exhibitor Jos de Vink who spent 32 years working in computer technology before finding Steampunk-ish engineering art in retirement, and hopes his works inspire a love and understanding of technology in today's youth.

To me, however, there was something slightly pathetic of Steampunk in context of a museum for the history of science - all these recent fabrications amongst the actual bits of sci/tech detritus which inspired it. I'm not normally one to cite the authenticity of primary referents against fantastical reinterpretations, but here, to me, the comparison made everything look a little like a sad parody. Which is a shame, as several of the artists were intending parody, just in a more positive way. This comparison was noticeable in the museum itself, but I also felt it after I'd left, when I took the opportunity of being in Oxford to walk around the Pit Rivers museum and the Natural History Museum next door. Especially the latter, perhaps. If you've never been, the building could be straight out of a Steampunk movie set - a sort of cross between the London Natural History Museum and Paddington station. In comparison, the Steampunk exhibition seemed boring and silly. Unnecessary even.

I suspect this feeling was exacerbated by the fact that Steampunk is a bit, well, "old", for the want of a better world (by which I mean, maybe it's a bit 1990s, or at least naughties, obviously it's trying to be "old" in an 1890s/ 1900's way...). Even BBC prime-time shows like Dr Who have been there, done that, sold millions of tshirts and are reinventing themselves for the next aesthetic. A few years ago, a Steampunk exhibition might have been really fresh and exciting. Now, there is a huge audience for it, but it just seems, to me, a little dull. I'm probably just being snobby though, having spent too much time working around/ studying retro-tech. Reading the panels on the influences of featured artists, I noted references to Dr Who and Back to Future III as well as classic Steampunk heroes of HG Wells and Jules Verne. Maybe this exhibition reflected a form of second generation Steampunk then, as the kids of the late 20th century work through the ideas thrown up in the media culture of their youth: an extra layer of tech-nostalgia to be aware of too.

So, ignore my grumpiness: Steampunk is a fascinating movement. It reflects creatively on our feelings towards technology in (post/ late) modern society. It shows us how much of an impact science and technology have had on our cultural identity; celebrating industrial junk as a key part of British heritage, at least as any green rural idyll. In particular, this exhibition's emphasis on craft and invention goes to what I think is at the heart of today's relationships with new (media) technology: a matter of making things. As a thoughtful piece in the Boston Globe puts it, "in their embrace of the toothy cog and the sooty pipe" Steampunks may represent a rebellion against the magical sleekness of today's technology, but key to the anachronistic aesthetic of Steampunk craft is a fusion of the Victorian spirit of invention with a do-it-yourself mentally heavily embedded in cultures of the web.

If you can't get to the exhibition yourself, check our the galleries at WIRED-uk or New Scientist. Read their commentary and specially commissioned comic (pdf). Explore the movement more broadly: read The Difference Engine (and/ or Larklight, which I really can't recommend enough) watch Steamboy, The Prestige and the odd Dr Who. Then get your sewing machine out, and make your own costume.

Science, Technology and Paper Engineering

2010-01-24T15:41:21Z

This video is achingly beautiful. A product of the high-low tech group at the MIT Media Lab, it shows a "pop-up book that sparkles, sings, and moves". You can find out a bit more here. Aside from the simple prettiness of this MIT project, I thought it was significant that the topics they choose to illustrate might be considered those of science and technology books: plants, fishes, clouds, planets, a city-scape, and plants again. On the whole, the effect here is to add sparkles to illustration, but the techniques they've developed could readily be applied to some of the challenges of communicating science inside the pages of a book.

]]> I wonder if this is especially true when it comes to physics, where ideas about the very large or very small challenge communicators to come up with inventive ways to visualise their point. As I've argued for years, this is one of the reasons you get so many instances of semi-fictionalised physics. Not that biology communication is beyond such things, as Nick Sharrat's Chewy, Gooey, Rumble Plop will happily show you, with its pop up digestion system (or, there's place-the-poo stickers from Horrible Science, if you like that sort of thing).

As this Smithsonian blog about pop-up books emphasises, books with moving parts have been used to educate for years, especially in science and medicine. They cite an overlay of several layers of engraved images of body parts and organs as seen in 17th century Descartes, or the inner workings of a steam locomotive in Moderne Technik (1912). I also remember a fantastic meeting of the Society for the History of Chemistry and Alchemy a few years back, where the ever-enthusiastic David Knight along with an archivist from the Royal Society of Chemistry pulled out some fascinating examples of centries-old books with all sorts of additions to the printed page, employed to communicate calculation tables, 3-D diagrams, optical illustions, the effects of dyes on fabrics...

As well as allowing hard to grasp concepts to be explained, I suspect that an allusion to a sense of discovery and finding the hidden in science makes the various bouncing objects and lift-the-flap devices of a lot of paper engineering attractive to children’s science books.

Whatever the reason(s), there's been a fair bit of non-fiction pop-up recently, from grammar to palaeontology. An ecology one even won the Science Book prize, and I have to mention this amazing piece of pop-up big bang, even if it's perhaps less of a kids book (there is a bad physics joke to be made somewhere about steady state not working in pop-up, but I'll refrain). From the US, the Klutz books also provide some particularly interesting examples of hands-on literature; especially the Explorabook, which, marketed as the Exploratorium Science Center in book form, includes mirrors and movable optical illusions within the pages and a magnet hanging off the (spiral bound) spine. In particular, I think this last example shows the ways in which science books poke at the limits of what we might as well call 'traditonal' textual communication, aiming to be emphatically empirical within a book form.

For some reflections on the use of book-bound artistic devices to explain abstract ideas, see also this post on science cartoons. Or for those with access to academic libraries, Jon Turney's (2001) piece on popular science 'More than Storytelling' (in Bryant et al, Science Communication in Theory and Practice) is a must-read.

Thanks to twitter users @rpohancenik and @Enrico_Poli for several of the links used on this post.

Turning old popular science into kid's clothing

2010-01-19T13:52:02Z

Earlier today, Roy Greenslade posted a short piece on his Guardian's media blog about what he dubbed a 'new revenue stream' for magazine publishing. 108-year-old US science magazine Popular Mechanics has sold off a load of its old cover images to Old Navy (part of Gap) to be used on children's tshirts.

I think this is FASCINATING. Firstly, I was amused by Greenslade's slightly sardonic take on it as a matter of new media business models. Arguably, Popular Mechanics and its ilk have particular competition fromWired and other similar electronics-orientated publications, but ALL magazines are suffering in the age of the web. We consume media differently these days, as well as technology. Faced with a 21st century 'crisis' in the magazine business, publishers have decided to cash in on the nostalgia market. Still, I think the history of technology issue (in terms of the content of the magazine, not just media tech) is a really key aspect of this story.

I was also interested to see that it was kid's clothing that are going to carry the images. It seems weird, perhaps, that the market is a generation who were born nearly 100 years after some of these covers were first published (more to the point, it's a fair few decades before the parents who buy the tshirts were born). Arguably, there is something particularly youthful about this sort of tech-nostalgia A sense of youthful enthusiasm for technology, even when the youths pictured would, today, be OAPs.

Follow Greenslade's link to larger coverage of the story, over at the New York Times' media blog, and we can see that the publishers want to 'revive the days when children dreamed that flying cars were just around the corner'. Note, it was children who were dreaming: surely the magazines were produced for adults, or at least a multi-generational audience? (I don't actually know much about the history of this magazine... I am just guessing). It's noticeable that there is a lot of this sort of tech-nostalgia in kid's culture already. Phillip Reeve, anyone?

The NYT post also quotes the publisher as saying that the T-shirts represent a revival of efforts to interest children in mechanics. This is, I'm sure, nothing but PR fluff. However, I do think it is interesting to see the selling of tshirts articulated in connection to science education. For one thing it reflects the history of technology issue I flagged up at the start - kids' media is largely designed around the use of technology today, rather than building, understanding, making and controlling it (at least that's what colleagues researching kids science fiction tell me).

Glancing at some examples in the huge (and addictive...) gallery of Popular Mechanics covers, I found this one from December 1925 which really reminded me of Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. It's also worth noting the reference in this cover, from February 1939, to 'Davy Jones Locker' (not exactly kids books, but a story we associate with kids nonetheless), and the use of images of families too.

cartoons and science

2009-11-08T10:27:25Z

History of science manga. Really. There's a whole series (well, of historical figures, a few happen to be scientists inventors). See the large-eyed child Einstein? I also love how in the Einstein as young man pictures, they manage an illusion to the sorts of images of old-Einstien we all know so well.

Found at the museum-shop at the Exploratorium. I also managed to pick up a few Max Axiom comics - big in the USA, haven't really figured over in Blighty yet. These feature a super-hero scientist (the Max Axiom of the title), thus applying a *completely* different culture of comics-style illustration to science communication from the Horrible books (Axiom really is a super-hero scientist in a superman mould. The much more British Horrible Science would just take the piss out of such an image). You can't con me with your pic of a semi-naked hunk, you're talking about the importance of variables.

To finish on a slightly more conventional type of science in cartoons (i.e. fictional science stories), I saw a great talk from Bryan Talbot at the London Comica Festival this weekend. Talbot was talking about his new book Grandville, a historical scientific detective romance, with badgers: a sort of mix of steampunk and comic art's tradition for anthropomorphic-animal characters. In the talk Talbot discussed several of his key influences, which included Beatrix Potter, Rupert the Bear and Wind in the Willows. (I should add that it is a 'grown-ups' book, even if he does draw upon kid's media.) One of the points I found especially interesting was that, with Grandville, Talbot seems to be juxtaposing a steampunk aesthetic for technology with (via the anthropomorphic animals) more Romantic aesthetics of nature in children's literature. However, I asked Talbot if this was intentional, and he said it wasn't. He also emphasised the rather un-romantic way Beatrix Potter saw nature (e.g. Tying up kittens for accurate drawings. Talbot knows about Potter, see his Tale of One Bad Rat). All interesting stuff. The Comica festival goes on till the 26th of November.

Update: Research on Climate Change

2009-11-04T10:32:27Z

A quick update on this post (about research cited in climate change ad).

I emailed the Department for Energy and Climate Change suggesting I might put in a freedom of information request for the data. The reply was again speedy and helpful, and yet missing the point. They directed me to a much larger piece of research into public attitudes towards the environment. As the guy emailing me suggests, this is more detailed and in many ways more useful to me. I'm thankful for the link. But, I still don't see why the small scale Yougov survey remains hidden from public view? I emailed a reply saying so. I'll post more if I get more.

I'd also like to underline that I am, personally, broadly in agreement with a lot of the DECC campaign. I am in no way a climate change sceptic, in fact I find such people a bit worrying. I don't have a problem with politicising climate science (indeed, I think we should acknowledge the politics of it). Further, have no real problems with the notion of government PR, environmental or otherwise. I just want it to be good campaigning which respects its audience, not 9 out of 10 cats stuff. I also think this sort of government data should be open.

Update to the update (13:40, 4th Nov) - two more emails from the DECC. Credit where credit is due: they've submitted my email as an official FOI request and an offer to discuss the work over the phone. Good stuff.

Update to the update (11:10, 6th Nov) - Just had very interesting, useful, intelligent and (most important) open phone conversation with a DECC press officer. She clarified that they had no problem emailing me the survey (it is already in my inbox) - any appearence of it being hidden was just the marketing team being careful. She was happy to admit that the small yougov survey in question was entirely commissioned for PR purposes (still over 1000 respondents, so in area of credible national research, but basically designed to produce newsworthy information).

So, yes I'm right that it's '9 out of 10 cats' style stats for PR, but (a) they are open about this, (b) they had built the advert itself on more detailed research conducted over the previous eight months, and (c) this smaller yougov piece simply aimed to draw out talking points. Personally, I'm quite happy with the use of slightly rough social stats to inspire debate. As long as it doesn't replace more detailed work or present itself as something it's not. After this morning's conversation with the DECC press officer, I don't think it was either.

Call for Papers: Booms of popular science publishing

2009-10-26T15:49:24Z

Call for Papers: Booms of popular science publishing

We are seeking contributions to a one-day symposium on 20th century popular science: the morning devoted to the apparent post-Einstein boom in popular science publishing, the afternoon considering post-Hawking works.

We are keen that this event should help foster connections between the wide range of people who study and think about popular science: historians, science communication researchers, professional scientists, science writers and literary critics.

]]> The event is to be held at Imperial College London on 31st March, 2010. It will comprise of a series of extended 30 minute talks, plus time for discussion.

The mention of Einstein and Hawking should not suggest an interest purely in the popularisation of physics, nor should it imply a focus on biographical details of their lives, celebrity-science, or challenges of relaying especially abstract ideas in text. We are merely using these two iconic names in the history of popular science as a starting point for broader discussion in what can be a very diffuse topic of inquiry and a prompt to interrogate the reality of
so-called 'booms' in popular science publishing.

Papers might explore the impact of other iconic scientists, popular science audiences, marginal scientists publishing through popular texts, the role of journalists and science-writers and/or the role played by publishers, reviewers and bookselling contexts. We should also note that we welcome papers which reflection on both the background context and long-term consequences of 20th century popular science. Papers on 19th or 21st century popular science publishing are still of interest, as long as they speak to themes raised by a 20th century focus.

The broad range of topics potential papers might discuss include (but are not limited to):

* Relationships between scientists and their publics.
* Celebrity, public intellectuals and popular science authorship.
* Marketing and the role of consumer culture.
* Issues of culture and social class.
* Writing for children.
* Implied epistemologies.
* Publishing processes and cultures.
* Outsider-scientist writers.
* Science and Religion.
* The audiences of popular science.
* Popular science's impact on and reflection of science policy issues.
* Humour and comedy in science writing.
* Wonder and the sublime.
* Metaphor.
* Literary renderings of mathematics.
* Illustrations, diagrams, graphics and design.

Potential contributors should email a 500 word abstract (including, if necessary, bibliography) along with a 150 word biography to popularsciencebooms@gmail.com by 11th December, 2009.

We are planning a special issue for a scholarly journal, such as the Public Understanding of Science, based on the event. If you are unable to join us on the 31st of March, but interested in submitting a paper for such a publication, it is worth dropping us an expression of interest. These, and all other queries to popularsciencebooms@gmail.com.

Dr Hauke Riesch, NearCo2 Project, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
Dr Alice Bell, Lecturer in Science Communication, Imperial College, London.

Open access, research in advertising and the politics of climate change campaigns

2009-10-21T14:27:29Z

UPDATE: see this post.

Have you seen the new advert from the government's ACT ON CO2 campaign? A lot of people have. It premiered during Coronation Street on the 9th October, and quickly prompted a slew of complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority.

The ad is called ‘bedtime stories’ and features a chap reading a picture-book to his wide-eyed young daughter: 'There was once a land where the weather was very, very strange. There were awful heatwaves in some parts, and in others, terrible storms and floods'. This is illustrated with animated picture-book animal characters drowning and crying with starvation. The man goes on 'The grownups realised they had to do something [...] maybe they could save the land for the children.' The girl looks a little scared. 'Is there a happy ending?' she asks, biting her lip and looking expectantly up at her father. The voice-over answers them both: 'It's up to us how the story ends. See what you can do. Search online for ACT ON CO2'.

Cue complaints about scaring children, over hyping climate change and/ or being the wrong approach to cutting CO2 emissions. Glance quickly at the Daily Mail and one might even imagine the Labour party had been drowning puppies in the name of environmentalism. One American climate change sceptic news site actually likened the project to Hitler Youth (I’m not linking to either of these sources, I stumbled across them through googlenews easily enough. If you’re really interested, so can you).

I followed this fuss over to the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) press release for the campaign. Interestingly, this starts not with a reference to the advert, but the line: 'Research published today from the Department of Energy and Climate Change reveals that over 50% of people questioned don’t believe climate change will affect them and only 1 in 5 (18%) respondents think that climate change will take effect during their children’s lifetime'. It goes on to state that over 55 year olds are least concerned than the under 24's and 74% of people would take immediate action to change their lifestyle now if they knew that climate change would affect their children’s lives.

Fascinating stuff. I'd love to see this research in more detail. I looked around the press release: all I found was a link to the advert, not even contact details for a press officer and certainly no reference to where this research had been published. I clicked ‘contact us’ to try to track down more. After a good ten minutes of ping-pong between the DECC and the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs, during which I spoke to two very kind and helpful, but ultimately confused and frustrated telephonists and repeatedly listened a computer voice asking me if I wanted to report a dead bird or learn more about bluetongue, I was spoke to someone who gave me a direct line of someone who had an email address of someone who could pass my message onto to someone who could deal with it. The process was rather maze-like, but reasonably quick.

The reply itself was, I think, pretty rubbish though:

Timely research was carried out just prior to the launch of the new ACT ON CO2 campaign – with over 1000 people responding to a Yougov survey – the results of which included the 52% figure.
This survey carried out was developed with earlier creative development research in mind that had been carried out by DECC which tested the chosen creative route for the campaign. Unfortunately, we are not able to publish this set of research findings.

The results of the survey which you saw in our press notice for the launch of the campaign included all of the topline results so there isn’t really anything you haven’t seen already.

So, it appears that the publication of research which the press release is ostensibly about was, in fact, the bullet point summary provided by the press release itself. How very postmodern.

The cynical sociologist in me suspects this 'timely research' (conducted days before the ad's launch) is just window dressing. Costuming a press release to look like a notification of research, rather than the ad-for-an-ad it really is, lends the project some credibility and provides content which, at least at face value, is slightly more newsworthy than what's going to be on telly during Corrie's commercial break. It is nothing more than a '9 out of 10 cats prefer' marketing exercise; a shampoo-advert ‘science bit’.

Moreover, such stats on social research rhetorically appeal to another idea UK government marketing teams seem to be recently enamored by: the public are influenced much more by each other than any message you might put up on the telly. Read in the newspaper that 74% of the population feel similarly to you, and the experience of watching the advert becomes attached to a bit of social context; the desire to save those puppies is given a small sense of social movement. Again, this is all '9 out of 10 cat prefer' stuff.

This may well be a very unfair analysis. I can’t tell: the details of the research aren't available.

This is research which is about public opinion, it is publicly funded and used to justify the use of further public funding of making and distributing of a (controversial) advert. Arguably, by any of those criteria alone, it should be publicly available. In Open Access Week and everything.

I want to emphasise that I’m largely on the side of ACT ON CO2. I even quite like large parts of the advert. However, if we’re not transparent in our own campaigning style, how on Earth can we successfully critique the rhetoric of our opponents?