That’s a very ambitious title for a talk and it’s carried through in the description. From a November 12, 2019 Café Scientifque announcement (received via email),
Our next café will happen on TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26TH 2019 at 7:30PM in the back room at YAGGER’S DOWNTOWN (433 W PENDER). Our speaker for the evening will be science journalist Koby Michaels who teaches science communication to scientists and students.
BUILDING A BETTER WORLD THROUGH SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
Science communication is in the spotlight in recent years as science realizes the power of well-communicated science. As science-focused issues like climate change become more central to everyday life, science communication is an increasingly important field of practice and study.
But science communication is still finding its footing in the modern world and has big questions to answer. What is the best way of communicating science? What’s the role of science communication in solving pressing global issues? Can science stories change attitudes and correct misconceptions?
Join Koby as he screens recent work. Learn the basic principles of science communication, explore a case study of science communication done right (and wrong), and try your hand at communicating science.
Koby Michaels is a science communicator, educator, and filmmaker. Despite his best efforts to become a scientist, The Ubyssey {student newspaper at UBC] hooked Koby on storytelling, where he founded its science section. Koby has travelled across Canada and the Arctic, filming and editing stories about science, education, and Indigeneity for Canada’s leading STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] outreach organization, Actua. Koby teaches science communication to scientists and students through SciCATS, a Vancouver-based science communication collective. Koby has worked with WBUR, NPR [US National Public Radio], UBC [University of British Columbia], and the University of Alberta.
Science communication is probably as close as anything I have to an area of expertise so I’m fascinated by Michaels’s approach to the topic. A little grandiose for my taste, I would have gone the cranky route with ‘Science communication: What the Hell?!?’
As for science communication being in the spotlight: huh? I wish Michaels had built his case for that statement. I do believe there is more interest but it’s difficult to know how far that extends past the usual suspects.
In checking out his bonafides, I see he founded Koby Michaels Communication in September 2019 according to his LinkedIn profile. He also has a website featuring his work, which is strongly focused on video while some writing is also featured.
There’s a strong whiff of self-promotion in the description for the talk. Hopefully he buttress that with some good content and, if nothing else, you can get a beer while you’re listening and watching. Who knows? Maybe you’ll witness the beginning of a new and exciting talent in science communication.
For anyone curious about Actua, their website is here. BTW, it seems to me that Let’s Talk Science has an overlapping mandate with Actua. That said, choices are good when you’re looking for programs. Finally, I can’t access the SciCATS website at this time.
No, this talk does not not involve CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindormic repeats). This is about ‘old fashioned’ genetic breeding techniques with some ‘fancy pants’ words being thrown around. Also, somebody or other wants to patent this work on bees.
From a September 30, 2019 Café Scientifque announcement (received via email),
Our next café will happen on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29TH at 7:30PM in the back room at YAGGER”S DOWNTOWN (433 W Pender). Our speaker for the evening will be DR. LEONARD FOSTER from the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at UBC [University of British Columbia].
BREEDING STRONGER BEES BY SHORTCUTTING NATURE
Dr. Leonard Foster’s laboratory at UBC has been involved in a Canada-wide project aimed at bringing modern molecular technologies to bear on the selective breeding of honey bees that are better able to resist disease and stress. They use molecular fingerprinting and genomics to identify stronger bees, enabling their selective breeding. This brings up several controversial topics, including whether these bees are “natural”, whether selectively bred bees could/should be patented and how far away direct genetic modification of honey bees will be. Dr. Foster will describe the state-of-the-art in bee genetics and where the future may lie here.
Dr. Leonard Foster is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Foster comes from a family of beekeepers and got his introduction to academic bee research at Simon Fraser University while doing his Bachelor’s degree in biochemistry – at SFU [Simon Fraser University] he worked with Drs. Winston [Mark Winston] and Slessor [Keith Slessor] on honey bee pheromones, particularly the components of queen mandibular pheromone. He then did a Ph.D in Toronto a post-doctoral studies in Denmark before starting his current position in 2005. The first independent operating grant that Dr. Foster secured was to study how bee pathogens were able to manipulate the protein machinery within bee cells. Since that time he has led three very large-scale projects that have investigated some of the molecular mechanisms behind disease resistance in bees. This effort has recently moved into trying to apply this knowledge by using the information they have learned to guide selective breeding for hygienic behavior in honey bees. He is very active in extension and frequently engages the public on various aspects of honey bee biology. He currently lives in Richmond and keeps bees himself.
We hope to see you there!
– Your Café Sci Vancouver Organizers
You can find out more about Leonard Foster and his work on this profile page on the University of British Columbia website, where I found this video,
One final comment, how are they going to patent a bee? For long time readers, it should be evident that I’m not a big fan of patents. They tend to impede research.
I don’t know what’s happened but either there are way more science type events or I’ve changed some pattern of internet use and am stumbling across more of them. I vote for the former.
In any event, this is the third ’roundup’ of science type things and/or events that I’ve published this October 2019. *ETA October 23, 2019: The events are in one or other of the science museums in Ottawa, the internships (part-time) are in Washington, DC, and Sci_Tunes is aimed at teachers in the UK although I imagine anyone is free to enjoy them.*
Ingenium
All three of the museums that are included in the Ingenium portmanteau (formerly the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation) have events and Ingenium itself is announcing a science type thing (a video game).
AI (artificial intelligence) and climate change at the Canada Museum of Science and Technology
From an October 16, 2019 Ingenium announcement (received via email),
Canada Science and Technology Museum Oct. 24, 2019 (6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.) Fee: $10 for non-members, $7 for members and students. Registration required. Language: English presentation with simultaneous translation into French, and a bilingual Q & A.
Climate Change and Artificial Intelligence – two topics essential to the future of our society, each with their own inherent challenges. What if they could work together for the greater good?
Join invited speakers from Watergeeks.io and BluWave AI for a discussion that will explore the potential to use AI to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, build climate resilience,and help Canada lead in the clean tech economy. Don’t miss this essential evening, the first in the thematic series “Living in the Machine Age.”
For anyone who may be confused about the museum name (as I was for so very long): The corporation is the governing entity for three museums, Canada Science and Technology, Canada Agriculture and Food Museum, and Canada Aviation and Space Museum. Changing the corporate name from Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation to Ingenium was welcome news (to me, if no one else).
Sky High Magic at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum
From an October 16, 2019 Ingenium announcement (received via email) ,
Canada Aviation and Space Museum
Jan. 5, 2020, Feb. 17, 2020, and March 8, 2020
Fee: $8 per ticket, $6 for members (with the discount code)
Language: Bilingual
Mark your calendar…the Sky High Magic
Series is coming back to the Canada Aviation and Space Museum! With
shows running through March 2020, this year’s line up features talented,
high-energy magicians who will dazzle you with amazing illusions —
mixed with a whirlwind of comedy.
Reserve your tickets now to avoid disappointment! For full details, visit Sky High Magic Series.
StarBlox Inc. at Ingenium
StarBlox is a video game and one of the more peculiar initiatives that I’ve seen. From an October 16, 2019 Ingenium announcement (received via email),
StarBlox Inc. is a mashup of a puzzler and a brawler — in space! Ingenium’s experts worked on the science in the game to immerse players in a realistic world. For example, when playing on the Jovian moon Io, you’ll need to dodge waves of lava. In real life, these can measure over 50 km high!
The game includes 72 unlockable photobook entries about the planets, moons, and asteroids in the game, with images from NASA. Check out the StarBlox Inc. trailer.
…
I’ve included a copy of the trailer here,
It seems more like a entrepreneur’s starter kit than a game. The overarching theme seems to be that the business of transportation and delivery is a zero sum game. Philosophically, they seem to be espousing capitalism as a form of the ‘strongest survive’ tenet.
OTTAWA, ON, September 30, 2019 – Nintendo Switch players can now join the team at StarBlox Incorporated – where sorting cargo is a contact sport!
A unique mash up of a puzzler and a brawler, Ingenium – Canada’s Museums of Science and Innovation – developed the game for Nintendo Switch in partnership with Seed Interactive. Crafted for scientific accuracy by Ingenium’s expert science advisors and curatorial staff, StarBlox Inc. features stunning planetary backdrops which have been meticulously designed to ensure that players are fully immersed in a realistic world.
As players deliver cargo to the far corners of the solar system, each of the planets, moons and asteroids presents new challenges – from black holes to gravity to waves of lava. This interactive game tests quickness and ability to efficiently to beat the competition. But watch out – the shipping world is fierce! An opponent can sabotage work by stealing blocks, delivering punches or even throwing someone in the incinerator!
Game features include: Two local competitive multiplayer modes for up to four people Single player “Career mode” Seventy-two unlockable photobook entries about the planets, moons and asteroids in the game, with images provided by NASA
StarBlox Inc. is now available for pre-purchase in North America, and will launch in the Nintendo eShop on Nintendo Switch later this fall.
…
QUOTES
“As science communicators, Ingenium is proud to create digital experiences that reach beyond the four walls of our Museums. This latest foray into the world of gaming is just one of the many ways in which we are leveraging our world class collection and team of experts to engage people regardless of where they are – nationally and internationally.” – Christina Tessier, President and CEO, Ingenium – Canada’s Museums of Science and Innovatio
“Seed Interactive creates entertainment with a purpose. As digital innovators we utilize games and interactive technologies to create exciting and accessible education, health and wellness and entertainment products.” -Aaron McLean, Founder and C.O.O, SEED Interactive Inc
-30-
The game was released October 18, 2019.
Hercules and the last straw at the Canada Agriculture and Food Museum
From an October 21, 2019 Ingenium announcement (received via email),
Hercules and The Last Straw
Friday, November 8, 2019 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Canada Agriculture and Food Museum
We are pleased to invite you to join us at the Canada Agriculture and Food Museum at 5:30 p.m. on Friday, November 8, 2019 for a special evening of art and inspiration.
Ingenium is thrilled to partner with celebrated artist Elaine Goble as she shares her artistic perspectives on the fascinating connection between the STEAM subjects of Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics, and personal wellness. The Canada Agriculture and Food Museum is one of three museums of Ingenium – Canada’s Museums of Science and Innovation.
For the first time, three of Ms. Goble’s large-sized animal portraits will be on view simultaneously. The vernissage and presentation will be held in the museum’s Learning Centre, where guests will be welcome to view the artworks and meet the artist before the presentation. Ms. Goble’s pieces will be complemented by several other agriculture-related artworks from Ingenium’s national science and technology collection.
Light refreshments and a cash bar will be offered.
In honour of Ms. Goble’s commitment to using art as a catalyst for curiosity and expression, a $20 donation to the museum’s art programming is requested. A tax receipt will be issued to all ticket holders and donors. If you cannot attend but would like to make a donation, please visit the Ingenium Foundation’s website .
Please RSVP using this link before November 3. As space for this event is limited, please reserve early to ensure you don’t miss out on this evening devoted to art, ingenuity, and the human spirit. A reminder with more information, including detailed driving and parking directions, will be emailed to all registrants several days before the event.
Here’s the image they’re using to accompany the publicity for the event,
Presumably, that is either Hercules or a stand-in for him.
Perimeter Institute and ‘Homes away from home’ with Elizabeth Tasker
I tried but these Perimeter Institute (PI) events are very popular and they are already at the wait list stage mere hours after making tickets available. However, there are other ways to attend as you’ll see.
Here’s more from an October 18, 2019 announcement from PI (received via email),
Homes away from home WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6 [2019] at 7 PM ET Elizabeth Tasker, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
Since the discovery of the first exoplanets in the early 1990s, we have detected more than 4,000 worlds beyond our solar system. Many of these are similar in size to our Earth, leading to an obvious question: could any be habitable?
On November 6 [2019], astrophysicist and author Elizabeth Tasker will take audiences for a speculative stroll through a few of the alien worlds we’ve discovered in the galaxy, and ponder whether someone else may already call them home. Read more ➞
Become a member of our donor thank you program! Learn more.
Here’s a bit more detail from the event’s ticket page,
PI Public Lecture Series:
Title: Homes away from home – the hunt for habitable planets
Abstract:
Since the discovery of the first exoplanets in the early 1990s, we have detected more than 4,000 worlds beyond our solar system. Many of these are similar in size to our Earth, leading to an obvious question: could any be habitable?
For now, we typically only know the size and orbit of these planets, but nothing about their surface conditions. Although we cannot know for sure if these worlds could support life, we can use models to speculate on what we might find there.
In her Nov. 6 [2019] talk at Perimeter Institute, astrophysicist and author Elizabeth Tasker will take audiences for a speculative stroll through a few of the alien worlds we’ve discovered in the galaxy, and ponder whether someone else may already call them home.
Elizabeth Tasker is an astrophysicist at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). Her research explores the formation of stars and planets using computer simulations. She is particularly interested in how diverse planets might be and what different conditions might exist beyond our Solar System. Elizabeth is also a keen science communicator and writer for the NASA NExSS “Many Worlds” online column. Her popular science book, The Planet Factory, was published out in paperback in Canada last April.
Wilson Center Spring 2020 science and technology internships
From an October 21, 2019 Wilson Center announcement (received via email),
The Science and Technology Innovation Program (STIP) is currently welcoming applicantions for the spring semester of 2020. Our internships are designed to provide the opportunity for current students or recent graduates for practical experience in an environment that successfully combines scholarship with public policy. We recommend exploring our website to determine if your research interests align with current STIP programming around emerging technologies, i.e.:
5G * Artificial Intelligence * Big Data * Citizen Science * Cybersecurity * Disinformation * Marine Debris/Ocean Plastics * One Health * Open Science * Public Communication of Science * Serious Games
We offer two types of internships: graduate-level research and undergraduate-level research internships. All internships must be served in Washington, D.C. and cannot be served remotely. Internships are unpaid unless otherwise stated.
Tools like Foldscope, a $1 microscope, and Arduino, a microprocessor for creating customized scientific instrumentation, show how low cost hardware (including open, proprietary, and mixed solutions) can accelerate research while making it more transparent and participatory.
These tools have the potential to change how, and by whom, science is done, within professional spaces and broader communities. But more work is needed to understand the capacity and future potential for low-cost hardware to accelerate and broaden participation in scientific research. We are seeking a research intern with an interest in exploring democratized scientific research and technological development through the lens of low cost hardware.
Our world is drowning in plastic pollution. Humans produce about 300 million tons of plastic waste every year, equivalent to the weight of the entire human population in 2018. Nowhere is this crisis more visible than in our oceans, which by 2050 could contain more plastic than fish. Further complicating this issue are city-state actors, such as the United States, EU and China, who have vastly different approaches in how to negate the issue area. The global public needs to understand the impact of plastic pollution and how to end its leakage into the ocean.
We are seeking a research intern with an interest in exploring the ocean plastics issue in a shared role between the China Environment Forum and Science and Technology Innovation Program’s Serious Games Initiative.
The deadline for Spring 2020 internships is November 15, 2019.
Cosmic Shambles and Sci-Tunes
Cosmic Shambles (officially, The Cosmic Shambles Network) is a science blog network that rose from the ashes of the Guardian science blog network. These days they have podcasts, videos, blogs, and more. This latest project is described in an October 21, 2019 posting on the Cosmic Shambles blog,
In association with The Stephen Hawking Foundation and science troubadour Jonny Berliner, The Cosmic Shambles Network is proud to present Sci-Tunes.
…
Coming soon, a series of educational music videos on GCSE [General Certificate of Secondary Education examinations in the UK] Physics, written and performed by Jonny Berliner, funded by The Stephen Hawking Foundation, and produced by The Cosmic Shambles Network. The full videos will be released in November [2019] and accompanied by free resources packs for both teachers and students. …
I’ve already written about October 2019 science and art/science events in Canada (see my Sept. 26, 2019 posting), but more event notices for Octoberhave come my way. These events are all art/science (or sciart as it’s sometimes called).
… on the future of life forms … a two-night (Oct./Nov.) discussion in Toronto, Canada
Here’s more from the ArtSci Salon’s October 3, 2019 announcement (received via email)
“…now they were perfecting a pigoon that could grow five or six kidneys at a time. Such a host animal could be reaped of its extra kidneys; then, rather than being destroyed, it could keep on living and grow more organs, much as a lobster could grow another claw to replace a missing one. That would be less wasteful, as it took a lot of food and care to grow a pigoon. A great deal of investment money had gone into OrganInc Farms…” (Margaret Atwood – Oryx & Crake 2003)
In Oryx and Crake Margaret Atwood describes a not-too-distant future where humans have perfected the art of fabricating and modifying a variety of creatures to improve and prolongue their own lives and wellbeing.
As Atwood has stated in various occasions, this is not science fiction.
It is in fact already happening. New forms of life appear not only as the product of lab fabrication or gene editing, but also as the result of toxic pollutants and climate change induced adaptation.
what to make of them?
how to cope with a world where extinction, adaptation and mutation risk to make traditional categories and taxonomies obsolete?
or not?
Join us to this two-parts series to discuss the ethics and implications of these transformations with artists, scientists and bioethicists.
this is a “double date”! Please, note the two dates please, RSVP here https://bit.ly/2AH1Pe8
Part 1 Thursday, October 17, 6:00-8:00 pm The Fields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
Altered Inheritance: extinction, recreation or transformation? a dialogue and discussion on the implications of genome editing on humans and other organisms
with Francoise Baylis – Research Professor, Bioethicist, Dalhousie University
Karen Maxwell – Dept. of Biochemistry, Maxwell Lab, University of Toronto
emergent artists from OCADU [Ontario College of Art and Design University] and YorkU [York University, Toronto]
——————-
Part 2 Thursday, November 21, 6:00-8:00 pm The Fields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
Classifying the new? why do we classify? what is it good for? what is the limit of taxonomy and classification in a transforming world?
with Richard Pell – Centre for PostNatural History, Pittsburgh, PA
Laurence Packer – Mellitologist, Professor of biology and environmental studies, York University
Stefan Herda – earth science artist
Cole Swanson – artist and educator (Art Foundation and Visual and Digital Arts, Humber college)
Anna Marie O’Brien – Frederickson, Rochman, and Sinton labs, University of Toronto
—————————
BIOS
Françoise Baylis is University Research Professor at Dalhousie University. She is a member of the Order of Canada and the Order of Nova Scotia, as well as a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and of the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences. Baylis was one of the organizers of, and a key participant in, the 2015 International Summit on Human Gene Editing. She is a member of the WHO expert advisory committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing. Her new book “Altered Inheritance. CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Genome Editing” is published by Harvard University Press
Karen Maxwell is a research professor in the dept of biochemistry at the university of toronto, where she runs the Maxwell Lab. Among other topics, the lab’s three branches “Anti-CRISPR”, “Phage morons” and “Anti-Phage defences” study the interplay of phages with their bacterial hosts, with a focus on phage mediated bacterial virulence mechanisms and inhibitors of anti-phage bacterial defenses.
Richard Pell works at the intersections of science, engineering, and culture. He has worked in a variety of electronic media from documentary video to robotics to bioart to museum exhibition. He is the founder and director of the Center for PostNatural History (CPNH), an organization dedicated to the collection and exposition of life-forms that have been intentionally and heritably altered through domestication, selective breeding, tissue culture or genetic engineering. The CPNH operates a permanent museum in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and produces traveling exhibitions that have appeared in science and art museums throughout Europe and the United States, including being the subject of a major exhibition at the Wellcome Collection in London.
Laurence Packer is a mellitologist, ie a scholar whose main subject of study is wild bees. his research primarily involves the systematics of the bee subfamily Xeromelissinae – an obscure, but fascinating group of bees, restricted to the New World south of central Mexico. he has also expended considerable energy leading the global campaign to barcode the bees of the world. his work is concerned with promulgating the importance of bees: for genetic reasons, it seems that bees are more extinction prone than are almost all other organisms
Stefan Herda‘s practice explores our troubling relationship to the natural world through drawing, sculpture and video. Inspired by the earth sciences, Herda’s work navigates the space between truth and fiction. His material and process-based investigations fuse elements of authenticity, façade, the natural and the manufactured together. He received his BAH from the University of Guelph in 2010. His work in both sculpture and video has been included in exhibitions nationally and has been featured by CBC Arts and Daily VICE. Recently, Stefan has held solo shows at Patel Projects (Toronto) and Wil Kucey Gallery (Toronto), participated in group shows such as Cultivars: Possible Worlds at InterAccess (Toronto) and was featured as one of 12 artists in the Cabinet Project at the University of Toronto
Cole Swanson is an artist and educator based in Toronto, Canada. He has exhibited in solo and group exhibitions across Canada and throughout international venues in North America, South America, Europe, and Asia. At the heart of recent work is a cross-disciplinary exploration of materials and their sociocultural and biological histories. Embedded within art media and commonplace resources are complex relations between nature and culture, humans and other agents, consumers and the consumed. Swanson has engaged in a broad material practice using sound, installation, painting, and sculpture to explore interspecies relationships.
Anna Marie O’Brien is a post doc in the Frederickson, Rochman, and Sinton labs at University of Toronto, working on duckweeds, microbes, urban contaminants, and phenotypes.her PhD work was at Davis, with thesis advisors Dr. Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra and Dr. Sharon Strauss. she also collaborated closely with Dr. Ruairidh Sawers at LANGEBIO-CINVESTAV in Guanajuato, Mexico.
The first highlighted speaker, Françoise Baylis, has been mentioned here twice before, in a May 17, 2019 posting (scroll down to the ‘Global plea for moratorium on heritable genome editing’ subheading) and in an April 26, 2019 posting (scroll down to the ‘Finally’ subheading, the second paragraph). Both postings touch on the topic of CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) and germline editing (genetic editing that will affect all of your descendents).
Cartooney in New Westminster (near Vancouver, Canada) starting October 18, 2019
I like physics but I love cartoons Stephen Hawking
There you have it from one of the 20th/early 21st century’s most famous physicists. The quote is the opening line for the New Westminster (near Vancouver, Canada) New Media Gallery’s latest event webpage, Cartooney,
The impact of animated cartoons has been profound. In the early 20th century, we began exploiting the possibilities of the animated frame. The seven artists in this exhibition don’t create cartoons, they deconstruct those that already exist; from Looney Tunes, to The Simpsons to Charlie Brown. They exploit this potent material to reveal the inner and outer workings of our human world. The original cartoon is ever-present, haunting us with suggestive content.
The artists in this exhibition reframe our world. Here we are asked to consider the laws, systems and iconographies of the cartoon world while drawing parallels with our human world; physical laws, the laws of gravitation, matter + light, the physics of motion, and societal psychologies & behaviours. We are presented with fascinating catalogues and overlaying systems of symbolic language. The purposeful demolition of expectation in these works, mirrors the instabilities and dreams of modern life. They remind us that the pervasive medium of the cartoon can reflect and influence how we navigate the world. If there is a paradox here, it might be that dismantling a cartoon can throw open the doors of perception.
Artist Andy Holden becomes a cartoon avatar in Laws of Motion in a Cartoon Landscape.
Photograph By contributed [downloaded from https://www.newwestrecord.ca/entertainment/what-can-cartoons-tell-us-about-the-state-of-the-universe-find-out-in-new-west-1.23969740]
An Oct. 7, 2019 article in the New Westminster Record provides a few more details about the show,
The New Westminster New Media Gallery’s next exhibition is exploring the impact of animated cartoons.
Cartooney opens at the gallery on Friday, Oct. 18 and runs until Dec. 8 [2019], then again from Jan. 7 to Feb. 2 [2020].
Artist Kevin McCoy, one-half of the duo of Jennifer and Kevin McCoy, will be on hand for an artist talk on opening night, Friday, Oct. 18. The talk will run from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m., with a reception and open exhibition from 7:30 to 9 p.m.
…
Laws of Motion in a Cartoon Landscape, by Andy Holden (U.K.):
In his two-channel audiovisual installation, 57 minutes long, Holden becomes a cartoon avatar, giving both a lecture on cartoons and a cartoon lecture, describing how our world is best now understood as a cartoon. The project incorporates Greek philosophy, Stephen Hawking, critical theory, physics, art, the financial crisis and Donald Trump, while adapting 10 laws of cartoon physics to create a theory of the world and a prophetic glimpse of the world we live in.
…
CB-MMXVIII (I’ve been thinking of giving sleeping lessons), by Patten (U.K.):
In this multi-screen audiovisual installation, the artist duo Patten subjects Charlie Brown to all the digital stresses, distortions and manipulations available in 2018, testing his plasticity.
“Sampled texts from philosophy, science and critical theory criss-cross the screens and are linked with scrolling images related to the natural world, DNA, systems, multiples; all serving to influence our reading of the cartoon character and the texts,” says the release. The ambient soundtrack is a dramatically slowed down Linus and Lucy theme.
You can find the New Westminster New Media Gallery on the third floor at the Anvil Centre, 777 Columbia St. See www.newmediagallery.ca for more details.
Collisions Festival: Invasive Systems in Vancouver, November 2019
Curiosity Collider, a Vancouver-based not-for-profit organization, will be hosting its inaugural art-science Collisions Festival: Invasive Systems at the VIVO Media Arts Centre from November 8 to 10, 2019. The festival features an art-science exhibition showcasing independent works and collaborative works by artist/scientist pairs, a hands-on DNA sonification workshop, an opening reception with performances, and guided discussions and tours.
Curated by Curiosity Collider’s Creative Director Char Hoyt, the theme of the festival focuses on the “invasive systems” that surround us – from technology and infections, to pollution and invasive species. “We want to create a space to explore the influence of the invasive aspects of our world on our inner and outer lives” said Char. “We will examine our observations from both scientific and artistic perspectives- are these influences beneficial, inevitable, or preventable?” Attendees can anticipate a deep dive into the delicate and complicated nature of how both living and inanimate things redefine our lives and environments – through visual art, multimedia installations, and interactive experiences.
“I am not a scientist and do not come from a family of scientists, but I have always appreciated knowing how things work, how things are connected and how things evolve – collaboration between art and science feel natural to me,” said Vancouver artist Dzee Lousie. “Both artists and scientists are curious, perform experiments and are driven by questions.” Dzee’s work Crossing, an interactive puzzle painting that examines how microbial colonies can impact our behaviours and processes in our body, is the result of a collaboration with UBC PhD candidate Linda Horianopoulos. “As scientists, we often want people to take notice of our work and engage with it. I think that art attracts people to do exactly that,” said Linda.
The sculptural work Invasion by Prince George artist Twyla Exner explores the remnants of technology. “My artworks propose hybrids of technological structures and living organisms. They take form as abandoned technologies that have sprouted with new life, clever artificialities that imitate nature, or biotechnological fixtures of the not-so-distant future,” Twyla shared. Like Dzee, she feels that artists and scientists share the sense of curiosity, experimentation, and creative problem solving. “Both art and science have the ability to tell stories and shape how people see and interpret the world around them.”
The festival is hosted in collaboration with the VIVO Media Arts Centre (2625 Kaslo Street, Vancouver, BC V5M 3G9). It will open on the evening of November 8th, with a reception and a live performance by local sound artist Edzi’u, during which her sculptural installation Moose are Life will be brought to life. On Saturday, artist Laara Cerman will co-host a DNA sonification workshop with scientist Scott Pownall. Their work Flora’s Song No. 1 in C Major – a hand-cranked music box that plays a tune created from the DNA of local invasive plants – will be on exhibit during the festival. The festival will also include tours by the curator at 3:30pm and guided discussions at 4pm on both Saturday and Sunday. Visit https://collisionsfestival2019.eventbrite.ca for festival tickets and http://bit.ly/collisionsfestival2019 for festival information.
Other participating artists and collaborating scientists include: Christian Dahlberg (Photography/ Painting / New Media Artist), Chris Dunnett (Multidisciplinary Artist), Garth Covernton (PhD Candidate, University of Victoria), Joanne Hastie (Artist / Mechanical Engineer), Kathryn Wadel (Interdisciplinary Mixed Media Artist), and Katrina Vera Wong (Artist / Writer / Editor).
Curiosity Collider and VIVO Media Arts Centre gratefully acknowledge the support of BC Arts Council, Canada Council for the Arts, City of Vancouver, Metro Vancouver Regional Cultural Project Grants Program, UBC Faculty of Science, and our printing sponsor Jukebox, for making Collisions Festival: Invasive Systems possible.
About Curiosity Collider Art-Science Foundation
Curiosity Collider Art-Science Foundation is a Vancouver based non-profit organization that is committed to providing opportunities for artists whose work expresses scientific concepts and scientists who collaborate with artists. We challenge the perception and experience of science in our culture, break down the walls between art and science, and engage our growing community to bringing life to the concepts that describe our world.
Are you curious about data sonification? Wondering how music theory and DNA sequences could converge to create a work of art and science? Join us to explore more!
In this DNA sonification workshop, participants will learn the process of DNA barcoding of invasive plant species, and how to sonify DNA sequences with basic music theory and MIDI freeware. Participants will also get hands-on experience in amplying specific genetic regions in plants through polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a step necessary in preparing samples for DNA barcoding.
This workshop will be led by artist Laara Cerman and scientist Scott Pownall, whose art-science collaborative work “Flora’s Song No. 1 in C Major” will be on exhibit during Collisions Festival: Invasive Systems. Laara and Scott will also share their process of working together, and how decisions were made to arrive at their collaborative work of art and science.
We acknowledge that Collisions Festival and its events take place on the traditional, ancestral, unceded territories of the xwməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), Stó:lō and Səl̓ílwətaʔ/Selilwitulh (Tsleil- Waututh) Nations. We are grateful for the opportunity to live and work on this land.
I asked the Curiosity Collider folks (@CCollider on Twitter) if you needed to bring any equipment or have any knowledge of music. The answer was: no, you don’t need to bring anything (unless you want to) and you don’t need to know about music.
Uncorked at Science World at TELUS World of Science in Vancouver on November 14, 2019
This is not a cheap night out. An October 10, 2019 article by Lindsay William-Ross for the Daily Hive website gives you reasons to go anyway (Note: Links have been removed),
A new wine-themed event will have Vancouverites swirling with nerdy glee. Uncorked: A Celebration of the Science of Wine is an evening of sipping and learning that will bring together world-renown winemakers, chefs, and science experts for an unforgettable event.
…
Participating wineries are:
Mission Hill Family Estate CedarCreek Estate Winery CheckMate Artisanal Winery Martin’s Lane Winery Road 13 Vineyards
The wines will be paired with bites from Chef Patrick Gayler from Mission Hill’s Terrace Restaurant and Chef Neil Taylor from CedarCreek’s new Home Block Restaurant.
Programming for the evening includes seminars on the science of blending wine, the science of aging wine, the role of technology at modern vineyards, and the science of soil and terroir.
…
Proceeds from Uncorked will support Science World’s On the Road program, which last year brought live science performances to 41,500 students throughout B.C. who otherwise might not have had a chance to visit TELUS World of Science.
Tickets are $89 and can be purchased here. You may also want to reserve some money for the silent auction. Don’t forget, it’s November 14, 2019 from 7 pm to 10 pm at Science World in Vancouver. You can find directions and a map here.
Points to anyone who recognized the Cher reference and, for those who don’t, (from the Believe [Cher song] Wikipedia entry),
“Believe” is a song recorded by American singer Cher for her twenty-second album, Believe (1998), …
“Believe” departed from Cher’s pop rock style of the time for an upbeat dance-pop style. It featured a pioneering use of the audio processing software Auto-Tune to create a deliberate vocal distortion, which became known as the “Cher effect”. The lyrics describe empowerment and self-sufficiency after a painful breakup.
“Believe” reached number one in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Hungary, Switzerland, Poland and the Netherlands. It earned Cher a place in the Guinness Book of World Records as the oldest female solo artist to top the Billboard Hot 100 chart, and became the highest-selling single by a solo female artist in the United Kingdom. It is one of the bestselling singles, with sales of over 11 million copies worldwide.[3] Reviewers praised its production and catchiness and named it one of Cher’s most important releases. It was nominated for the Grammy Award for Record of the Year and won Best Dance Recording.
… Scholars and academics noted the way in which Cher was able to re-invent herself and remain fresh and contemporary amidst the more teen pop-based music of the period. They also credited “Believe” for restoring Cher’s popularity and cementing her position as a pop culture icon.
…
At the end of this posting you’ll find a video of Adam Lambert transforming the song into a ballad and, in the process, moving Cher to tears as she sits in the group of recipients wearing their 2018 Kennedy Center Honors medal.
As for believing in science
A September 26, 2019 Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania news release (received via email) announces some research into science, communication, belief, and trust,
Public confidence in science has remained high and stable for years. But recent decades have seen incidents of scientific fraud and misconduct, failure to replicate key findings, and growth in the number of retractions – all of which may affect trust in science.
In an article published this week in PNAS, a group of leaders in science research, scholarship, and communication propose that to sustain a high level of trust in science, scientists must more effectively signal to each other and to the public that their work respects the norms of science.
The authors offer a variety of ways in which researchers and journals can communicate this – among them, greater transparency regarding data and methods; ways to certify the integrity of evidence; the disclosure of competing or relevant interests by authors; and wider adoption of tools such as checklists and badges to signal that studies have met accepted scientific standards.
“This absence [of clear signals] is problematic,” write the researchers, including Kathleen Hall Jamieson, professor of communication at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania and director of its Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC). “Without clear signals, other scientists have difficulties ascertaining confidence in the work, and the press, policy makers, and the public at large may base trust decisions on inappropriate grounds, such as deeply held and irrational biases, nonscientific beliefs, and misdirection by conflicted stakeholders or malicious actors.”
In addition to Jamieson, “Signaling the trustworthiness of science,” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, was written by Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences; Veronique Kiermer, executive editor, Public Library of Science (PLOS); and Richard Sever, assistant director, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, and co-founder, bioRxiv. The order of authorship was determined by a coin toss.
…
The American public and trust in science
The authors write that “science is trustworthy in part because it honors its norms.” These norms include a reliance on statistics; having conclusions that are supported by data; disinterestedness, as seen through the disclosure of potential competing interests; validation by peer review; and ethical treatment of research subjects and animals. Adherence to these norms increases not just the reliability of the scientific findings, but the likelihood that the public will perceive science itself as reliable. The article cites a 2019 survey of 1,253 U.S. adults conducted by APPC, which found that in deciding whether to believe a scientific finding, 68% of those surveyed said it matters whether the scientists make their data and methods available and are completely transparent about their methods. In addition, 63% said it matters whether the scientists involved in the study disclose the individuals and organizations that funded their work, and 55% said it mattered whether the study has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (Fig. 1). For further details, see the article.
Communicating norms
To support trust in science, the authors suggest that scientists need to communicate practices that reinforce the norms, among them:
Have scientists explain the evidence and process by which they came to reconsider and change their views on a scientific issue;
Have journals add links back and forward to retractions and expressions of editorial concern to more clearly indicate unreliability, and to studies that replicate findings to emphasize reliability;
Adopt nuanced signaling language that more clearly explains the process now often called “retraction,” using terms such as “voluntary withdrawal” and “withdrawal for cause” or “editorial withdrawal.” Similarly, replace “conflict of interest” with a more neutral, broadened term such as “relevant interest.”
The authors also call for steps to show that individual studies adhere to these norms, such as:
A more refined and standardized series of checklists should be used by journals to show how they protect evidence-gathering and -reporting, including more detailed information about each author’s contributions to a manuscript;
Badges such as those used by the Center for Open Science should be more widely adopted to show, for instance, whether scientists on a study have preregistered their hypothesis and met standards for open data and open materials.
.....
The recommendations were developed following an April 2018 conference called “Signals of Trust in Science Communication” which was convened by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory at the Banbury Center and organized by McNutt, Sever, and Jamieson.
“Science enjoys a relatively high level of public trust,” the authors write. “To sustain this valued commodity, in our increasingly polarized age, scientists and the custodians of science would do well to signal to other researchers and to the public and policy makers the ways in which they are safeguarding science’s norms and improving the practices that protect its integrity as a way of knowing.
“Embedding signals of trust in the reporting of individual studies can help researchers build their peers’ confidence in their work,” they continue. “Publishing platforms that rigorously apply these signals of trust can increase their standing as trustworthy vehicles. But beyond this peer-to-peer communication, the research community and its institutions also can signal to the public and policy makers that the scientific community itself actively protects the trustworthiness of its work.”
Comments about confidence and trust
I like the recommendations about more openness and clarity in science communication.
Here are my caveats. (1) This research and the recommendations seem more oriented to the science community and very serious science hobbyists. Most people (regardless of that survey, which I’d like to look at) outside the range I’ve described are unlikely to hear of these changes let alone express any interest or appreciation. (2) It’s also a little difficult to identify which sciences are included. E.g., what about the social sciences? (3) I don’t like this recommendation: ” replace ‘conflict of interest’ with a more neutral, broadened term such as ‘relevant interest’.” An author who is being funded by a pharmaceutical company doesn’t have just a ‘relevant interest’.
Interestingly, there’s a May 24, 2019 paper (link and citation to follow), ‘Health Misinformation and the Power of Narrative Messaging in the Public Sphere‘ covering some of the same ground about science, trust, and communication but with a primary focus on misinformation, health, narrative, and social media. The folks being considered here are the ‘general public’ not the specialized audiences envisioned by the authors of the first paer,
… The power of social media and the impact of narrative are prevalent and strong, so there is an imperative to strategically draw on their advantages to counter some of their more problematic applications. For example, research has shown that narratives presenting the ramifications of not vaccinating – specifically children’s suffering from preventable illness – can have a real impact on intention to vaccinate [Shelby and Ernst, 2013; Capurro, Greenberg, Dubé and Driedger, 2018]. Additionally, clear and definitive statements with a narrative component, made by respected and trusted voices will prove highly useful, and also provide dependable resources upon which journalists can rely.
Opinion editorials offer another useful pathway for narrative communication – indeed, recent research has found them to have an influence on public perception [Coppock, Ekins, and Kirby, 2018]. That said, science writing could also benefit from narrative style, if applied in a manner that does not compromise the truthfulness and comprehensiveness of the content [Perrault, 2013]. We shouldn’t use narratives to fight anecdote with anecdote. Rather, narratives can serve as a vehicle to communicate science and relevant science-informed policy in a more engaging and digestible manner. The spread of misinformation causes real harm. Unfortunately, countering this noise is growing increasingly more complex and challenging. It will require the use of a host of science communication tools and strategies, including the creative use of narratives.
This paper appears to be a roundup of documents supporting the authors’ perspectives with no critique of their own ideas/perspectives offered. The journal has placed the paper is a section known as ‘Critical Commentaries’.
The approaches offered by the authors of these two papers are compatible with each other. As in all aspects of communication, much depends on your audience. And, a member of an expert audience can be a member of the general public in an area where (s)he has no particular expertise.
The papers
Here’s a link to and a citation for the first paper mentioned here,
Signaling the trustworthiness of science by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Marcia McNutt, Veronique Kiermer, and Richard Sever. PNAS September 24, 2019 116 (39) 19231-19236; First published online: September 23, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913039116
Here’s a link and a citation for the second paper mentioned here,
Health Misinformation and the Power of Narrative Messaging in the Public Sphere by Timothy Caulfield, Alessandro R. Marcon, Blake Murdoch, Jasmine M. Brown, Sarah Tinker Perrault, Jonathan Jerry, Jeremy Snyder, Samantha J. Anthony, Stephanie Brooks, Zubin Master, Ubaka Ogbogu, Joshua Greenberg, Amy Zarzeczny, Robyn Hyde-Lay. Canadian Journal of Bioethics, Vol 2 No 2 (2019): Open Issue Published May 24, 2019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1060911ar
The first article appears to be open access while the second is definitely open access.
Believe
Quite the performance, eh? Adam Lambert turned the song into a ballad and even brought Cher to tears. I wonder what it would be like to hear it with the lyric changed to, ‘Do you believe in science?’
This piece of research reminds me of being in a mall explaining data communications to people who’d come to shop. We were part of a nationwide, annual Canadian federal government science promotion effort and the Vancouver region contractor had decided to put science and technology in the malls.
It was very well received and we were busy answering questions throughout the day,, surprising the engineers I worked with. They hadn’t thought anyone would be interested.
We never went back to the mall as things changed a year or two later and the federal government took a more traditional approach to science outreach. I still mourn the loss of an exciting and engaging science promotion initiative.
Bring science to people where they are. That’s the driving philosophy that propels U biology professor Nalini Nadkarni to stretch the possibilities of science communication and bring the beauty of science to people and places that others have overlooked.
Building public trust in science is about more than just providing information and improving science literacy, she says. It’s about building relationships between scientists and communities that are founded on shared values. It’s called the “Ambassador Model”, and Nadkarni now has the data to say that the approach works, at relatively low cost and with high effectiveness.
In two recent studies, one published today in BioScience and another published in 2018 in Science Communication, Nadkarni and her colleagues present evidence-based conclusions about the effectiveness of science engagement in two programs: The INSPIRE program, which brings science lectures to prisons, and the STEM [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] Ambassador Program, which trains scientists to engage members of the public in discussions about science.
“Our goal is to help people realize that all citizens are interested in, capable of understanding and full of wonder at science, if it is presented in places and ways that are accessible to them,” Nadkarni says.
A corps of science ambassadors
In the past, the thought went that science and society could be bridged by researchers simply conveying facts to improve science literacy, a one-way communication approach termed the “deficit model”. Communication researchers theorize that a better approach is to consider how people build relationships and enter into productive dialogues. Nadkarni’s STEM Ambassador Program puts these ideas into practice by training scientists to both present the processes of science and to facilitate activities that promote the two-way exchange of ideas, perspectives and experiences with members of the public.
“Just as the U.S. Foreign Service trains ambassadors to represent their home country and build positive relationships abroad,” the STEM Ambassadors homepage says, “scientists can represent their ‘home country’ of science to engage as ‘STEM Ambassadors.'”
Find photos of STEM Ambassadors at work here and here.
Launched in 2016, the STEM Ambassador Program (STEMAP) is funded with a $1.3 million grant by the National Science Foundation. Each year, STEMAP, based at the U with Nadkarni as its director, trains cohorts of scientists in the Ambassador Model and helps them develop and implement public engagement of science activities. Since the program began, STEMAP has trained more than 65 scientists in the Ambassador Model. Here’s how it works, step by step:
Scientists first take a close look at themselves and distill their research, personal interests, hobbies and experiences to brainstorm novel connections with a particular community or “focal group”. They learn about the focal group and build relationships by carrying out an “immersion event”. in which they visit group gathering spaces and meet with group representatives. They then apply what they learn to design engagement activities that align with the group’s shared interests, values and practices. They present activities for feedback and ultimately carry out the activities in the focal group’s venue. Finally, scientists reflect on their efforts and evaluate outcomes.
Engagement activities have been as varied as the scientists and focal groups who’ve participated in the program. One ambassador, a microbiologist with an interest in fermentation, served as a co-chef at a local fermentation cooking class and showed participants the microscopic organisms responsible for turning cabbage into sauerkraut. A hydrologist turned her field expedition to Greenland into a book for the children of Kulusuk, a Greenlandic village near her field site. An engineer shared his research to develop more efficient air quality monitoring devices with citizens at a community council meeting and invited them to participate in an air-quality monitoring project [this activity is also known as citizen science]. A mathematician accompanied a group of at-risk youth on a ski trip, and explained the geometry of moving skis to maximize friction.
The assessment of STEMAP’s effectiveness shows strong results. Ninety-seven percent of ambassadors highly valued their participation in the program. More than half went on to plan and carry out additional engagement activities.
The effect on activity participants was also dramatic. Eighty percent said they’d engage in similar events in the future. Seventy-six percent said they were more interested in seeking out scientific information after meeting with an ambassador. And two-thirds said they more strongly considered themselves as someone who can understand and do science.
INSPIRE-ing the incarcerated
Since 2003, Nadkarni has applied the principles of the Ambassador Model in multifaceted efforts to bring the power of science into the lives of the incarcerated. In 2013, she launched the Initiative to Bring Science Programs to the Incarcerated program, or INSPIRE, in which University of Utah faculty and graduate students present monthly lectures to inmates at the Utah State Prison, the Salt Lake County Jail and five juvenile detention centers in Salt Lake Valley. Topics have ranged from the genetics of pigeon feathers to mathematical modeling of the common cold.
“Our premise is that all people have interest in science, and incarcerated adults and juveniles would probably be no different,” Nadkarni says. And interest has been high–inmates have requested additional lectures, Nadkarni says, and researchers have mentioned feeling that their participation has real impact. But to expand such an approach around the country and catch the attention of correctional institutions and researchers alike, Nadkarni and colleagues would need to publish evidence-based results of INSPIRE’s impact in the scientific literature. And for that, they would need data.
“Without evaluation, we could not publish our findings in the peer-reviewed literature,” she says, “which is necessary if we are to have this work accepted as evidence-based and therefore of interest to other scientists and other corrections institutions.”
With the cooperation of prison staff, Nadkarni and colleague Jeremy Morris surveyed inmates before and after they attended monthly science lectures to assess their knowledge of the science topic as well as their attitudes toward science and math. They also surveyed jail and prison staff and general inmate populations to compare inmates’ attitudes toward science with the general population.
The results offered a surprising glimpse into the science-readiness of inmates. For Nadkarni and her fellow INSPIRE presenters, it was no surprise that inmates displayed a high interest in science (up to 92 percent expressed interest) and an eagerness to learn–even higher than prison and jail staff, who were considered a proxy for the general population.
“They are also interested in meeting with and talking to scientists, and do so with respect,” Nadkarni says. “Their comments and questions indicate that even though many of them have poor formal educational background in science, many have been able to gain knowledge of science and maintain a curiosity about science from other sources.”
The positive impacts of the lecture series–greater science content knowledge, improved attitudes about science and scientists, and increased likelihood of communicating science they have learned with others–were similar to those of formal prison education programs, but required much less of the scientist-instructors.
Based on this past success, INSPIRE is now providing lectures and workshops at youth detention centers as well. Other studies have shown that prison education programs can lower inmates’ chances of returning after release and raise their chances of gaining employment. It’s a model worth sharing.
“We can now bring this to academic and corrections administrators as ‘evidence-based best practices’ with far greater impact than we have been able to muster with only anecdotal or subjective information,” Nadkarni says.
Continuing engagement
Both studies show that achieving the goals of science communication–increased positive views of science, content knowledge and a desire to share with others–are attainable at relatively low cost and in populations that are much more receptive and interested than many might have thought.
And by reaching out to such a wide diversity of groups, both the STEMAP and INSPIRE programs have shown that no one need be considered unreachable by and unengageable with science. After all, Nadkarni writes, there are 6.5 million scientists among the 325 million people in the United States. If every scientist talked about science with just one new person every week, they could reach every single American–in just one year.
Here’s a link to and a citation for Nadkarni’s latest paper,
For the interested, Dr. Nadkarni has her own website where she has organized and made her academic research and interests, her public engagement work, and her work with incarcerated population accessible.
I remember reading somewhere that historically the field of astronomy has been the most inclusive of amateurs (or citizen scientists as we call them now).
If you think about it, all the sciences were started by amateurs. The notion that one should go to school and learn about science came much later after the pioneers, some of whom were philosophers such as Lucretius, developed theories to be passed on and codified the concept of scientific research.
It was Lucretius who helped to popularize ‘atomism’ and other physics concepts (eventually) in his multi-volume poem ‘De rerum natura’, known in English as ‘On the Nature of Things’. From the Lucretius Wikipedia entry,
… Lucretius’s scientific poem “On the Nature of Things” (c. 60 BC) has a remarkable description of Brownian motion of dust particles in verses 113–140 from Book II. He uses this as a proof of the existence of atoms.
From searching for extraterrestrial life to tracking rainfall, non-experts are increasingly helping to gather information to answer scientific questions. One of the most established hands-on, outdoor citizen science projects is the University of Washington-based Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team, COASST, which trains beachgoers along the West Coast, from California to Alaska, to monitor their local beach for dead birds.
With about 4,500 participants in its 21-year history and roughly 800 active participants today, COASST’s long-term success is now the subject of scientific study in its own right. What makes people join citizen science projects, and what motivates people to stick with them over years?
A UW-led paper published in the July issue [June 2019 issue?] of Ecology and Society explores the interests and identities of participants who join and remain active in citizen science. Results could help other science projects aiming to harness the power of large teams.
Previous research led by the UW has shown that people who join online-based citizen science projects generally try it just once, and fewer than 1 in 10 remain active past one year. The rates for hands-on, in-person efforts are much higher: COASST, for example, has 54% of participants still active one year after joining.
But what separates those who stay from those who go? Years of responses to surveys from the COASST team’s recruitment and engagement efforts provide a unique window on citizen science.
“I came to the UW to analyze a gold mine of social science datasets accumulated by COASST,” said social scientist and lead author Yurong He, a postdoctoral researcher in the UW School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. “Over a four year period, hundreds of participants responded to survey questions about why they were joining – or continuing – with the program. This represents an unparalleled opportunity.”
She analyzed answers to two freeform questions posed to project participants: “Why did you join COASST?” and “Why do you continue to be involved in COASST?” Some 310 new participants chose to answer the questions during their initial training. Another 623 seasoned participants, who had been involved for more than one year, completed a mail-in survey
“People’s memory can be a bit tricky,” He said. “You may think that two or five years ago you had a particular motivation, but is that really so? With this study we can definitively answer the motivation question at two different times: at the moment of joining the program, just after they finish being trained, and once they have spent at least a year on the beach collecting monthly data.”
The analysis shows that new participants wanted to be outdoors on the beach, learning about birds. Many listed their scientific degrees, previous occupations and birding expertise. But responses from longer-term contributors displayed a slightly different pattern: Although birds and beach remained dominant interests, seasoned volunteers were more likely to mention interests such as the desire to monitor and observe their beach, help in making scientific discoveries, and the importance of project data and results for environmental conservation. Moreover, their “science identity” became focused on their data-collection team and the project collective, rather than on their personal traits.
One important finding, He said, was the value of place. Volunteers often mentioned the importance of continuing to visit their beach even if they hadn’t found any birds washed ashore after several months.
“We thought they would talk a lot about birds, and they did, but they actually talked more about the coastal environment, the beach and the ocean,” He said. “Place was either equally important or even more important to them than birds.”
Another surprising finding is the degree to which participants consider citizen science to be a social activity. Of the five tasks volunteers listed as most important in defining their work for COASST, two – “communicating project results” and “recruiting others to participate” – were social. The other three tasks were “collect data,” “make measurements” and “enter data.”
“Activities that help connect family members and friends, and provide opportunities to meet new people who share similar interests, can also be scientific in nature,” He said. “COASST fulfills both science and social interests for coastal residents.”
he study’s conclusions based on the surveys included some take-home messages for organizers of hands-on citizen science efforts:
Long-term participants tend to be motivated by a project’s mission and goals, and successful programs communicate scientific findings back to participants so that they can see their individual contribution as part of the big picture of project results.
Experienced participants focus on where they conduct their project activities, indicating that sense of place is important to volunteers.
Both new and long-term participants focused on their social interactions as a central part of project activities, suggesting that successful hands-on, citizen science combines high-quality scientific activity with building and maintaining social relationships.
A July 22, 2019 announcement (received via email) features an upcoming talk hosted by the local Café Scientifque community,
Our next café will happen on TUESDAY, JULY 30TH [2019] at 7:30PM in the back room at YAGGER’S DOWNTOWN (433 W Pender). Our speaker for the evening will be DR. VAHID RAEESI.
TARGETING HEAT FOR DISEASE TREATMENT
Vahid is a nanotechnologist specializing in the design and development of functional platforms for disease detection and treatment. He holds a PhD in nano-biomaterials from the University of Toronto during which, he engineered nanoscale heat generators for precise destruction of different cancer types and antibiotic-resistant infections. He pursued this concept during postdoctoral studies under a nanoparticle-aided radiotherapy program for advanced prostate cancer at Grand River Cancer Centre, Waterloo. His research has been published in high profile scientific journals and featured in UofT News, “The Varsity” newspaper and NatureAsia.
We hope to see you there!
As per usual I searched for more information about Dr. Raeesi and his topic. First, I was a little curious as to how someone based in Toronto was recruited for talk in Vancouver but it all became clear after seeing Dr. Raeesi’s LinkedIn profile which lists his current employer as Precision NanoSystems Inc. (PNI). The company has its corporate headquarters here in Vancouver and I’m guessing that employees from other offices come here from time to time.
While I was looking for more information about Dr. Raeesi and his work I found that PNI is part of something called the Nanomedicines Innovation Network (NMIN), which is currently being hosted by the University of British Columbia (UBC; Vancouver, Canada). NMIN’s About page includes a history of the organization (scroll down the About page to Vision and Mission where you will see Two buttons, Fast Facts and History on the right side of your screen) ,
NMIN is based on R&D efforts to develop nanomedicines that began in 1980 at the University of British Columbia (UBC). Funding from UBC Excellence Funds in 2016 allowed UBC-based scientists to establish links with investigators across Canada to develop a national nanomedicines program. This resulted in the successful NMIN application to the federal NCE program.
In 2019 NMIN was awarded five years of funding (2019-2024) from the Government of Canada through the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) Program.
NMIN researchers are located at 17 universities across Canada. Team members have contributed to the development of five of the 13 systemically-administered nanomedicines approved by the US FDA, the European EMA and Health Canada to treat human disease.
NMIN researchers, together with Canadian companies Arbutus Biopharma and Acuitas Therapeutics, developed the lipid nanoparticle technology (LNP) incorporated into a gene therapy nanomedicine (Onpattro) that was recently (August 2018) approved by the US FDA to treat an incurable hereditary disease known as hereditary amyloidogenic transthyretin (hATTR) amyloidosis. Onpattro is the first RNAi gene therapy drug to be approved by the US FDA.
The world-class capacity of the network is also illustrated by the strong commercialization record of NMIN researchers. NMIN researchers have co-founded more than 20 companies that now employ more than 500 people across Canada. As a result, Canada has become a leading global hub for the development and commercialization of nanomedicines.
Hope you have a good time at the talk should you be inclined to attend.
They’re usually called apostates; those people who switch from one belief to its opposite. In this case, an advocate who opposed genetically modified foods switched sides as a January 17, 2019 news item on ScienceDaily explains,
What happens when a strong advocate for one side of a controversial issue in science publicly announces that he or she now believes the opposite? Does the message affect the views of those who witness it — and if so, how?
Although past research suggests that such “conversion messages” may be an effective persuasion technique, the actual effect of such messages has been unknown.
Now, a new study from researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center shows that such a conversion message can influence public attitudes toward genetically modified (GM) foods.
Using video of a talk by the British environmentalist Mark Lynas about his transformation from an opponent of GM crops to an advocate, researchers found that Lynas’ conversion narrative had a greater impact on the attitudes of people who viewed it than a direct advocacy message.
“People exposed to the conversion message rather than a simple pro-GM message had a more favorable attitude toward GM foods,” said Benjamin A. Lyons, a former postdoctoral fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania. “The two-sided nature of the conversion message – presenting old beliefs and then refuting them – was more effective than a straightforward argument in favor of GM crops.”
“Conversion messages and attitude change: Strong arguments, not costly signals” was published in January 2019 in the journal Public Understanding of Science. The study was done by Lyons, now a research fellow at the University of Exeter, U.K., with two other former APPC postdoctoral fellows – Ariel Hasell, a research fellow at the University of Michigan, and Meghnaa Tallapragada, an assistant professor of strategic communication at Clemson University – and APPC Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson.
How the study worked In 2013, Lynas, a journalist and activist who had opposed GM crops, spoke at the Oxford Farming Conference about his change of belief. In the current experiment, APPC researchers used video excerpts from Lynas’ talk to more than 650 U.S. adult participants, who competed a survey about it.
The respondents each were shown one of three video clips: 1) Lynas explaining the benefits of GM crops; 2) Lynas discussing his prior beliefs and changing his mind about GM crops; and 3) Lynas explaining why his beliefs changed, including the realization that the anti-GM movement he helped to lead was a form of anti-science environmentalism.
The researchers found that both forms of the conversion message (2 and 3) were more influential than the simple advocacy message. There was no difference in impact between the basic conversion message and the more elaborate one.
Measuring how the conversion narrative worked, the researchers found that it enhanced Lynas’ “perceived argument strength,” rather than bolstering his personal credibility, which they found an important distinction. The fact that argument strength served as a mediator on GM attitudes supports the idea that “the unexpected shift in the position of the speaker … prompted central or systematic processing of the argument,” which, in turn, implies a more durable change in attitudes.
GM foods: A low-profile issue on which minds may be changed? Unlike other controversial issues in science such as evolution or climate change, Americans’ views on GM crops do not seem to be related to political ideology or religious beliefs. Nor are Americans especially knowledgeable about GM foods – one prior study found that only 43 percent of Americans know that GM foods are available for human consumption and only 26 percent believe that they have eaten food that was genetically modified. In another earlier study, 71 percent of Americans say they have heard little or nothing about GM foods – yet 39 percent think GM foods present a risk to human health.
Given that many Americans’ views on genetically modified foods aren’t yet fixed by group values and motivated reasoning [emphasis mine], their minds may be more easily changeable on this issue. Lyons said it may be possible to present scientific evidence through a conversion narrative to people on such low-knowledge, lower-profile issues and affect their views.
“After completing this study, I’m more optimistic about our ability to change minds on the issues that haven’t been totally polluted by ideology,” Lyons said.
The researchers cautioned that the findings may not extend beyond an American audience, and said that their audience included many who did not have strong pro- or anti-GM attitudes. They said conversion messaging should be tested with people who do have strong pre-existing views on GM foods. They also noted that this research tested a conversion in only one direction – from anti-GM to pro-GM foods – and said it would be valuable to explore the opposite case.
This June 11, 2019 announcement (received via email) features an upcoming talk hosted by the local Café Scientifque community,
Our next café will happen on TUESDAY, JUNE 25TH at 7:30PM in the back room at YAGGER’S DOWNTOWN (433 W Pender). Our speaker for the evening will be DR. LARS MARTIN.
FROM ALPHA TO OMEGA – PARTICLES AND HOW WE DETECT THEM
Ever since the discovery of the electron in the late 19th century, physicists have used detectors to measure and identify particles. While today’s detector systems – like ATLAS at the Large Hadron Collider – are complex (and expensive) systems that detect obscure particles, the underlying principles of these detectors are relatively straightforward. The goal of this talk is to give attendees a basic understanding of what these machines actually do.
Lars Martin works as a detector physicist at TRIUMF, most recently supporting the ALPHA-g antimatter gravity experiment at CERN.
