Sharing science with the masses

Communicating science to the general public can be an uphill struggle – Leila Sattary investigates the new profession of science communication and how it can make a difference to the next generation of scientists.

I had the pleasure of attending the Geek Pop ’10 music launch in Bristol last month. Geek Pop has been an online science and music festival for a number of years and brings together musicians from around the globe in a gleeful celebration of geek culture. This year, the organisers have branched out into live events with great success. Acts included science rappers who freestyled to science words shouted out by the audience (rapping to five-syllable word ‘photosynthesis’ is quite the challenge) and Jonny Berliner of Guardian podcast fame. I am certain to remember the history of evolution thanks to Jonny’s ‘Evolution of Man’ song. A surprising number of people who attended were non-scientists so the event succeeded in reaching out to the general public.

Geek Pop got me thinking about science communication and how it is a vital and yet undervalued cultural activity and public resource. Many of the school science engagement projects, science festivals and innovative ways for engaging the public with science like Geek Pop rely heavily on volunteers who give their time and expertise to the cause. Winning funding for any type of science communication work is an uphill struggle. Although there are many potential funders out there - research funders like the Research Councils and the Wellcome Trust, publishers, broadcasters and commercial sponsors - the application process for science communication funding varies dramatically. Research funders require a painfully long application processes and treat bids with the full weight of peer review but on the up-side the applicant maintains autonomy. These applications take a lot of effort and there is a high risk of not getting funded at all. On the end of the spectrum, in the world of television, keeping the broadcaster happy and bending to their will is paramount.

Many of these funders have not reacted to the changing landscape of how the public engage with science. Ten years ago, most science communication was done by enthusiastic scientists who took the time to share their passion and experience. Nothing beats talking with a real life scientist who can engage you with their discipline in an understandable and interesting way. Of course, many scientists do not have the time, will or skills to get involved with these projects. This gap has been filled over time by a new breed of science-come-communication experts who have a sound science background overwhelmed by a want and ability to communicate their science to the public. The funders of science communication projects need to recognise that applications are often from this new generation of science communicators who do valuable work and should be supported financially. Perhaps the range of funders will meet one day and change their funding strategies to better accommodate science communicators and their great ideas.

Meanwhile, underfunded science communicators carry on valuable work to engage the public and enthuse the next generation of scientists. Much of the work with schools over the last few years has led to a rise is the number of pupils taking A-level science subject and a better appreciation of the role of science in the society. There is no doubt that taking experiments to schools gets kids excited about science. But I wonder, after the smiley scientists leave, do the kids revert back to their mindset of ‘boring science lessons’ again? It probably depends on whether the teachers take the time to integrate what the kids have learned into the curriculum. People who work with schools should ensure that the teachers are just as engaged as the pupils to guarantee maximised learning.

Of course there are various government interventions to try and address the level of public understanding of science and the lack of pupils studying science. Organisations like STEMNET (science, technology, engineering and mathematics network) have been taking this agenda forward in leaps and bounds. They now provide careers information for school children from real scientists and are in the process of setting up an e-mentoring scheme.

It is still not clear which types of science communication projects have the biggest impact but in times when people commit suicide because they think the Large Hadron Collider is going to destroy the world, I reckon the more good communication, the better. I will have the chance later this month to see the effects of government interventions on science learning for myself. As a judge of the ‘London 2012 STEM Challenges’, run by STEMNET, I will see how school children have addressed real life science problems based on the Olympics like the design of a wet glove for rowing and the environmental issues of  building a new handball arena. If schemes like this make a difference to even 1% of the children that take part then I would mark it as a success.