Science Communication: State of the Nation 2013

Essays inspired by the annual Science Communication Conference

Registered charity 212479 and SC039236

CONTENTS

Foreword...........................................................................

W(h)ither the future of science communication?.............

One message: many voices: another way of legitimising

censorship?........................................................................

How not to present science...............................................

Science communication – bridging theory and practice..

Working with arts festivals..............................................

Informal science learning and the challenge of

measurement....................................................................

What‟s the true cost of free?.............................................

Ask for evidence................................................................

3

4

6

9

11

14

16

19

23

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 2

FOREWORD

For a community that is founded on the principle of openness, we can get very hung up on

emphasising the divisions and differences in our sector.

For instance, someone recently suggested that the British Science Association should change

this conference‟s name to the Science Engagement Conference, because „communication‟

belongs to the old-school „public understanding‟ crowd rather than these more enlightened

„public engagement‟ times. (Though, how you‟re meant to engage without communicating, I‟m

not sure).

There‟s that science writer on a national newspaper who visibly bristles at me whenever I call

him a science communicator. He insists that he is a journalist first and foremost, and definitely

not in the business of 'communicating science'.

I also see two-way suspicion between some „scientist communicators‟ and some professional sci-

commers. And it remains difficult to have a conversation about the Science Media Centre or

Sense About Science in public without being told they‟re secretly a front for the Illuminati or

Monsanto.

But the Science Communication Conference sees practitioners and thinkers from every part of

our sector come together to debate, plot, and share best practice in a positive, inspiring,

friendly setting. And I think the big part of the reason behind that is that we spend rather a lot

of time doing something unusual for us; talking about motivations, discussing why we do our

brand of science communication, and our methods.

Outside the conference we often make the mistake of assuming everyone should have the same

motives – after all, we‟re all in the same trade. Some funders even acknowledge that we are

diverse but wish we weren‟t – “if only they were all pulling in the same direction”.

But that diversity of motivations is what gives us the breadth of activity in science

communication. In this e-book there are complaints about censorship, tips on presenting styles,

reminders on evaluation, calls for „geek action‟, and much more. Over 80 speakers presented at

the Science Communication Conference that took place in London on 16 & 17 May 2013. The

authors of this publication were selected by delegates of that conference. The full report of the

conference can be read at http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/science-communication-

conference/reporting-2013-conference

Each of them come from a different sci-comm perspective, and as I read them I‟m pleased that

we do have such a complex and varied sector – it‟d be boring if we all wanted the same thing.

Imran Khan,

Chief Executive, British Science Association

November 2013

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 3

W(H)ITHER THE FUTURE OF

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION?

Gail Cardew, Royal Institution

By the show of hands in the audience, only

one or two people had attended the Science

Communication Conference around 10 years

or so ago, so fortunately for me there weren‟t

many present who could disagree with my

reflections of the conference in those early

days. It struck me that to consider the future

of science communication it would be helpful

to reflect on progress we‟ve made. I chose to

mention an example of an issue that had

preoccupied us back then that we‟ve more or

less succeeded in resolving (although has

inevitably highlighted other issues), one that

we‟ve had some success in but could do more,

and one that still continues to be raised to

this day like a bad headache that won‟t go

away.

One of my favourite memories of that

conference was having an energetic

discussion about whether or not the

activities we all run around the UK could

somehow be linked together to collectively

find out what attendees think about a

particular issue and feed those thoughts into

policy. We were of course aware of all the

work taking place in dialogue conferences

and consensus conferences, but we were

curious to see if this kind of „quick and dirty‟

approach could throw up some interesting

comparisons. A few of us organised a small

workshop at the Science Communication

Conference and began planning a project

around the topic of nanotechnology. This

subsequently developed into a successful

funding proposal, et voilà Small Talk was

born[1]. Unsurprisingly we found lots of

benefits from working together, e.g. building

relationships with policy makers which none

of the participating organisations had the

resources to do individually in-house.

We also found that public attitudes to

nanotechnology were similar to the results of

dialogue conferences: that people‟s attitudes

to nanotechnology are not significantly

different from their attitudes to any new

technology, and they were not concerned

about risks arising from the technologies but

instead the regulation of the technologies. At

a personal level, I also found it deeply

satisfying to go to a conference that directly

resulted in an actual project, as opposed to

sitting around discussing endlessly the

issues our community faces. At the time,

Small Talk was one of a number of

initiatives that laid the foundations and

rationale for Sciencewise[2], which has

taken on the mantle of linking policy makers

with public dialogue initiatives. However,

I‟m sure if you talk to anyone involved in

Sciencewise, you‟ll find that there are still

significant barriers to embedding the

practice of public dialogue within policy

making. This therefore falls into the „could

do more‟ category.

In contrast, my head is in my hands every

time I hear people discussing the gap

between practitioners in science

communication and those who study the

relationship between science and society

from a more academic perspective. This was

also recently highlighted in the Wellcome

Trust‟s report on informal science

education[3]. Ten years or so ago

practitioners were initially delighted to hear

of the ESRC‟s (Economic and Social

Research Council‟s) new grants scheme on

Science and Society. Delight, however, soon

turned into frustration and a somewhat ugly

atmosphere seemed to descend on one of the

main sessions.

4 British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013

Needless to say, when the results of the

research were published, very few of us

bothered to read the literature because the

projects didn‟t appear to be directly useful

for developing our science communication

activities. This was also despite efforts of the

British Science Association in organising

some follow up joint workshops with

practitioners and academics. In fact, these

workshops only served to reinforce the gulf

between the two communities. I‟d love to see

this change... to a future when the science

communication community‟s box-ticking

evaluation morphs into something more

meaningful and joined up. When academics

are working alongside practitioners. And

when I can stop rolling my eyes at the mere

mention of this topic and move on to

considering something else.

And finally I move on to the point when we

can all pat each other on our backs, for a

brief moment or two at least. We were

concerned in those days about scientists not

being adequately praised for their efforts at

public engagement, and that engagement as

a whole wasn‟t sufficiently embedded within

our major science-based organisations. At

the time, COPUS (Committee for the Public

Understanding of Science) [4] was on its

death bed, partly because public engagement

was starting to open up beyond the tri-

partite arrangement of its founding

members: the British Science Association,

the Royal Institution and the Royal Society.

However, we were a long way off the

situation we have today. Scientists reported

being side-lined in their careers if they spent

any time on public-facing activities and such

activities were in themselves largely

regarded as insignificant and unimportant

by many of the big cheeses in science-based

organisations. I don‟t think I can single out a

particular initiative that can be credited for

the change in direction.

The University Beacons for Public

Engagement certainly helped, but so have

the prominence of the wonderful science

centres around the UK, the RCUK (Research

Councils UK) Concordat for Public

Engagement, lots of the learned societies

who have embraced this movement by

appointing public engagement officers and

efforts by funders such as the Wellcome

Trust to invest in a plethora of original and

creative ideas. Anyone who subscribes to the

psci-com mailing list will certainly agree

that hardly a day goes by without a job in

this area being advertised.

So, it seems we have achieved our goal of

embedding science engagement.

Or have we? Despite the huge enthusiasm

amongst young scientists at sharing their

results with the wider world, those involved

in public engagement are largely absent

from the governing structures of science

organisations. And there are still reports of

some senior academics at best paying lip

service to public engagement and at worst

stifling the enthusiasm of the young

scientists following in their footsteps. I‟m

confident that we‟ll overcome this, as long as

those young scientists persevere and inspire

those who follow behind, and as long as the

science engagement community as a whole

provides the necessary support and

continues to believe that involving the public

in science, in whatever format and to

varying extents, is inherently a jolly sensible

thing to do.

With thanks to Roland Jackson for his

thoughtful contributions.

To read the full report from this session visit

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013

REFERENCES:

1. Small Talk website

2. Sciencewise website

3. Wellcome Trust Informal Learning Report

4. COPUS – wikipedia

5

ONE MESSAGE: MANY VOICES:

ANOTHER WAY OF LEGITIMISING

CENSORSHIP?

Pallab Ghosh, BBC & Fiona Fox, Science Media Centre

Part 1: Pallab Ghosh

My impression was that the session at the

Science Communication Conference was

organised to help science communicators

present important scientific information

during a national emergency such as a flu

pandemic. The premise is that differing

opinions would serve to confuse at a time

when the public want clarity.

Such thoughts are well intentioned but

naïve, in my opinion.

The underlying intention in the desire for

“one message” is to control the message. This

is the opposite of the scientific process which

requires discourse to develop knowledge and

understanding. It is also the opposite of

science communication which seeks to

empower. The purpose of “one message” is to

quell dissent.

This is what the Canadian government has

done [1] and is what the UK government

seems to be trying to do as most recently

seen in the Department of Environment,

Food, Farming and Agriculture‟s public

presentation of the science behind the

badger cull.

This acts as a brake on the culture of debate

that is necessary to develop effective

evidence-based policies.

Government agencies exist to serve the

public good and usually do. In theory, if they

believe that an area of public policy is going

badly wrong and have the evidence to prove

it, they say so.

In the past, this has worked well, as with the

impact of lead in fuel on child development,

the causes and effects of climate change and

- more recently - the harmful effects of

excessive dietary salt on human health.

Science advisers can act as an independent

voice within government to identify and

challenge bad practice. For research results

to change policy, government scientists need

direct access to the public in order to explain

the policy implications of their work through

the news media.

Without that, it would be tempting for

governments to ignore research results that

do not suit them.

The public understanding of science

empowers individuals and enables an

informed debate from which policy changes

can spring - benefiting society.

In Canada, several government departments

are currently under investigation by the

country's information commission for

allegedly "muzzling" their scientists.[2]

Requests for interviews with scientists

working for the Canadian federal

government have frequently been turned

down as a consequence of a media protocol

introduced in 2008.

This directive explicitly states that press

officers should ensure that the minister is

not surprised by what they read in the

newspapers and that the interview is "along

approved lines".

In the UK, there is no such overt directive.

But more subtle manipulation of some of the

country‟s leading scientists by the UK

government has the same effect. [3]

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 6

During times of crisis they are brought in to

advise government and are told they can‟t

speak to the media. The stated reason is for

national security. Who knows what state

secrets they are privy to but the press and

the public are denied access to their

expertise at times when we most need to

hear from them.

There has been a tightening of restrictions,

and constraints on the open and free

discussion of the science in recent years. It

has been done by governments under the

guise of better coordinating the message.

Stifling the free flow of information about

research findings might reduce ministerial

embarrassment. But for the sake of good

governance, it might be better if there were a

few more surprises for ministers in the news

media.

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013

REFERENCES:

1. Canadian government is „muzzling its

scientists‟, BBC, February 2012

2. Has Canada's government been muzzling

its scientists? BBC, April 2013

3. Call to 'let UK government scientists off

the leash„, BBC, June 2013

7

Most of the science community accept that

politicians have to base decisions on many

things as well as science. As my husband, a

politics teacher, reminds me regularly we do

live in a democracy and politicians have to

listen to other interest groups and voters as

well as 'my scientists'. However that is not

an argument against scientists entering

these debates and robustly defending the

evidence base. It is absolutely essential that

they do so in order to inform that debate

with the best science available. Otherwise

we are quickly back to the bad old days of

BSE where scientists were blamed for

getting it wrong because the politicians

misrepresented advice presented behind

closed doors. This is not rocket science -

openness and honesty on both sides are

needed. Secrecy is not.

Some in government favour a scenario where

scientists bring their influence to bear

through a framework of advisory committees

that take place behind closed doors and

arrive at a consensus that can then be

passed to ministers. Nothing sinister about

that and with a media that often wilfully

mistakes legitimate scientific differences for

a „row‟ I can see why this is attractive. But I

profoundly disagree with this approach and

believe that removing the scientists who

advise government from the media debates

is bad for public discourse. I am also

convinced that it is bad for evidence based

policy – you don‟t have to read every spin

doctor‟s diary as I do to know that Ministers

are just as influenced by the Daily Mail and

the Today programme as they are by science

advice delivered behind closed doors. We

need our best scientists to be engaging with

the media as well as with politicians even

when the science subjects are so messy and

politicised that they run the risk of being

presented as taking sides. Critically we need

our Chief Scientific Advisers to encourage

and support them to do both.

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013

Part 2: Fiona Fox

Ian Boyd, the chief scientific adviser to the

Department of Environment, Food and

Rural Affairs, recently got into hot water

with George Monbiot for arguing that

scientists should recognise the difference

between explaining their science and

advocating for specific government policies.

For Boyd, scientists who express strong

opinions on the latter in public cease to be

independent scientists. I tend to agree that

there is a fine line between science and

advocacy, or as Ian Boyd puts it 'where

authoritative comment stops and political

points of view begin'. Indeed the Science

Media Centre (SMC) often reminds

scientists that when talking about their

own research to journalists they should

avoid being drawn on the policy

implications or the public health advice.

Unlike some good friends in science I

believe that the role of scientists is to

inform society‟s debates not win them!

However I think we need to acknowledge

that sometimes the line between science

and policy is a difficult one to draw. The

scientist who tells the media that the

evidence from field trials on the effects of

neonicotinoid pesticides on bees are

inconclusive may never express any opinion

on the EU ban but can reasonably be

assumed to think it is unjustified. When

the SMC ran our badger cull briefing

several top scientists said that the previous

trials on badger culling had not reduced TB

transmission overall due to perturbation

effects. They repeatedly refused to be

drawn on the proposed badger cull, but

most journalists left that briefing having

concluded that while there may be many

great reasons for a badger cull, the

scientific evidence is too uncertain to be one

of them. Would these experts fall foul of a

plea to avoid commenting on policy? Hard

one to call and sadly I already see far too

many scientists too scared to do media

interviews on these subjects for fear of

crossing the line.

8

HOW NOT TO PRESENT SCIENCE

James Piercy, science made simple

Elin Roberts, Centre for Life

Watch a presentation going well and

everything appears seamless. Yet the

presenter, like the proverbial swan, is often

paddling furiously beneath. Watching good

presenters isn‟t always the most useful

training.

Sometimes it‟s easier to learn by watching

presenters who are struggling or performing

badly. You see first-hand the negative

impact on the audience as a bumbling

performer fails to make eye contact, or an

over-enthusiastic presenter makes their

audiences cringe.

It was with this in mind that a merry band

of trainer/presenters with little regard for

their professional dignity presented „How

not to present Science‟ at the Science

Communication Conference.

Everything was presented badly.

Two of the presenters on the day, James

Piercy and Elin Roberts, share their tips on

how to present science to engage the

audience.

Body language and eye contact

The often misquoted research into

communication by Albert Mehrabian [1] tells

us that we need to be careful to avoid

mismatch between our spoken words and

non-verbal messages. Telling an audience

how glad you are to see them whilst looking

at your feet or fiddling with props won‟t

support your message. Let your stance and

movement reflect the tone of what you are

saying. If you expect the audience to be

surprised or excited, mirror that emotion

yourself as if it were the first time.

It‟s common for presenters to want to hide.

This might be behind something physical

like a desk, but you can also hide behind

demonstrations, crazy costumes or a loud

voice.

Effective communication occurs when you

pair it with a personal connection. Make

good eye contact. Look to the audience, take

time to cover every part of the crowd and

make sure they can see you. Keep those

glasses clean and hair off your face.

Use your body language to help focus

attention where you want it. Audiences will

look where you look, listen if you listen and

match the tone you set for the presentation.

If you don‟t want people to call out, don't

start by asking them to shout „hello‟.

Distractions

Your audience‟s attention is like a delicate

flower. Stamp all over it and it refuses to

flourish. Perhaps you are afflicted by the

two-step-shuffle, buzzword bingo or the

incessant necessity to repeat the word

„anyway‟. Your audience will notice and will

spend the rest of the presentation playing

their own game based on your foibles rather

that listening to what you have to say. Tame

those distracting habits and what you say

will have more impact.

Volunteers

Be nice to your volunteers. Take the blame if

things go wrong. Charm them, banter with

them. They are your audience‟s proxy. Be

kind to them and the audience will repay

you.

Only use a volunteer if you really need them.

Give clear instructions on what to do,

including when to leave the stage. Asking for

applause not only shows your appreciation

but also covers the time it takes them to

return to their seat.

A volunteer should feel good when they leave

your stage. If they don‟t, you‟ll not succeed in

getting volunteers again.

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 9

Honesty

Even young children can easily ask

questions which might leave you stumped.

Be truthful about what you don‟t know.

Have the confidence to admit uncertainty

and offer suggestions of ways to find out.

If you are using a demonstration, it‟s

important not to fake it. If a member of your

audience figures out that you are tricking

them, they‟ll tell everyone around them and

nobody will trust what you say.

Know your audience

This shouldn‟t be an ego trip. The

presentation isn‟t all about you. It‟s about

them, too. Know your audience. Find out all

you can about your audience before you

start. Then, watch them. Are they bored,

engaged, excited or depressed? Can you

accentuate getting a good reaction and

eliminate the negative responses?

Allowing the audience to be clever

The feeling as you figure something out for

yourself is powerful. Being told the same

thing is never as good. Having a speaker

carefully prepare a talk to lead you to a

conclusion before the reveal can be

engrossing and memorable. If you‟re after

engrossing and memorable, it‟s a good tip.

Edit

We often fall into the trap of packing too

much in, but faced with so much information

and so little time we make the mistake of

trying to say everything. Do your audience

need the details? Careful editing shows that

you value your audience, giving them

enough to sustain their interest but without

boring them. Less is more.

Storytelling

Stories are powerful devices in human

culture. They captivate and entrance. They

are much more than „Once upon a time‟. It is

rare to be unable to engage in some kind of

narrative approach to your topic. Perhaps

it‟s the story of your own interest, maybe the

tale of early experiments, a thought

experiment that the audience themselves

conduct? Stories start with an outline, build

to a crisis or question and reach a resolution.

Set up a narrative in the information you are

trying to transmit and the audience will be

longing to hear the end.

Stopping is not an ending

According to Pixar‟s 22 rules of storytelling

[2], endings are hard. Drawing a narrative to

its satisfying conclusion can be one of the

most challenging things about preparing a

presentation. It can be tempting to fall into

the trap of „and that, Ladies and Gentlemen

is all the time I have‟.

Please don‟t.

A short while contemplating the impact of

your ending can pay dividends to how your

presentation is remembered by your

audience. When you have finished,

remember that it may take a moment for

your audience to register this and

acknowledge it. Give the time and avoid the

temptation to speak again.

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013

REFERENCES:

1. Mehrabian, Albert; Wiener, Morton

(1967). "Decoding of Inconsistent

Communications". Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology 6 (1): 109–114

2. Coats, Emma (2011) The 22 Rules of

Storytelling According to Pixar

10

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION –

BRIDGING THEORY AND PRACTICE

Helen Featherstone, University of Exeter

Paul Manners, National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement

Brigitte Nerlich, The University of Nottingham

Huw James, To The Blue

A call to action

There are growing calls for greater

interaction between science communication

practitioners and academics ([1], [2], [3]).

Underpinning this desire for greater

interaction between these two communities

is a sense that science communication could

be improved. In the 25 years since the

Bodmer report there has been a significant

investment in science communication

activities [footnote 1]. The recent move

towards engaged research [footnote 2]

suggests that science communication

activities will continue – yet we often

struggle to articulate what constitutes

success and how to enable successful

communication.

Who’s playing?

The call has been made for practitioners and

academics to work together which suggests

they are the only players in the science

communication game, but it‟s more complex

than that. We can see the practitioner

community comprises two groups: those for

whom science communication is their job,

and research scientists who communicate.

Science communicators are in a near

constant state of change as they compete for

limited funding and innovate to be

competitive. Research scientists who

communicate have other professional

priorities: data collection, teaching, and

publishing papers. Their communication

activities are rarely formally recognised.

Academics who research interactions

between science and society are dispersed

across many fields. For example, education,

social studies of science, mass

communication, psychology, and social

research to name but a few [footnote 3]. As

with all academic disciplines, those looking

at the relationship between science and

society do so with a critical eye, are

grounded in theory and are looking for

something novel. They experience the same

academic pressures as scientists: teaching

and publishing, with communication rarely

formally recognised.

However, there are others in the community:

those who work in the boundaries between

practitioners and academics, funders and

members of the public. Brokers working in

these boundaries understand several

communities, speak multiple languages

(science, communication, engagement,

psychology, sociology, arts etc.), and can

facilitate relationships. They also support

practice, professional development and make

representations on behalf of others.

Funders shape practice through the

constraints they put on the money they

release, and the work that gets

commissioned (and excluded) through

largely competitive processes.

While the public are a diverse group. The

more we know about them, and their

interactions with science, the more we

realise the complex and multiple

expectations and motivations they have to

engage with science ([4], [5]).

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 11

Of course, these descriptors are broad,

unsubtle and cannot accurately reflect the

lived experience of those we are describing.

But we ask that you play along and accept

these, broadly defined, players in the game

of science communication.

How do we learn?

We‟ll make a bold assumption here: that

everyone involved in science communication

wants it to be as good as possible. Clearly we

are likely to have a range of perspectives of

what counts as good and we are constrained

by resources, but let‟s hold this as a common

desire. If we want to make things better we

have to improve practice individually and

collectively which leads us to thinking about

how we learn about science communication

(see box).

Our practitioner groups have different

learning and development needs but they

primarily learn by doing and watching

others. We might consider these groups as

using the apprenticeship model of learning

where the purpose of learning is to inform

the next time, often in the short term.

Academics who study science communication

develop their insight through traditional

academic means which is incremental, may

not be intended to influence the next time,

and may not have an application in practice

for the foreseeable future.

To date, we have seen these cultural

differences prevent collaboration rather than

assist. Science communication practitioners

have asked academics to “prove their long

term impact” while academics have seen

practitioners as participants or data points,

people to do research on, rather than with.

Improving practice

In painting the picture in this way the call to

action is simple, but the practical response is

hard because time and motivation may be

lacking and previous attempts to work

together have been instrumental on both

sides. However, the role of research funders

should not be underestimated. They are

asking for plans for collaboration when

academics bid for research funding and

those activities are being called to account

through the Research Excellence Framework

[6] and other mechanisms; for example the

Office for Fair Access guidance [7] opens

with the call to action:

“Perhaps the single most important

difference between this and previous

guidance is our increased emphasis on the

need for evidence and evaluation. We want

you to build in evaluation of your access

measures right from the start so you can

maximise the effectiveness of your efforts.” P5

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013

Differences in cultures of learning:

practitioners and academics

- insight from the academic world is found in

a diverse array of disciplines and is shared

through traditional academic routes of

journal papers, conferences and teaching,

making it challenging for practitioners to

access collective academic knowledge;

- practice moves quickly and is in a near

constant state of innovation; academia

moves slowly, and learning is incremental;

- many science communicators trained as

scientists which makes the academic

language of non-science researchers opaque

and challenging;

- scientists who communicate cannot spend

years honing their skills, building

relationships with practitioners, nor

digesting large volumes of academic insight;

- evaluation of practice is often undertaken

as a short-term accountability mechanism to

satisfy funders‟ needs for a specific activity,

while academic insight often seeks to

address long term, generalisable effects or

outcomes and aims to develop or critique

theory.

12

The Arts and Humanities Research Council

are facilitating truly collaborative work

involving practitioners and academics (see

Codesign heritage [8] as one example).

These changes in research culture are

opening the door to much more sustained

and practical collaboration. There is of

course a danger that this “impact agenda”

may increasingly institutionalise

engagement, subtly undermining the quality

of science communication. Are there similar

changes in culture happening in the

practitioner community?

Finally, there is an increasing investment in

brokers. Two of the authors (Helen and

Paul) play such a role. We create the

conditions for purposeful interaction

between academics, practitioners and

publics. What was previously left to chance

is now a site for sustained investment and

will help us move towards building shared

understandings and developing a common

language.

Of course the ultimate test will be – does

greater interaction between theory and

practice actually improve the quality and

impact of our work. We believe it does.

What do you think?

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013

FOOTNOTES:

1 To take one example, £800m a year is

spent on widening participation activities,

many of which involve inspiring young

people about science

2 See RCUK‟s Concordat for Public

Engagement [9] and the inclusion of Impact

in this year‟s Research Excellence

Framework

3 Recognition of this diversity can be found

in this recent call for conference papers:

http://stsconference2013.wordpress.com/

REFERENCES:

1. Cavell, S, Dawson, E, Featherstone, H

(2011) Roundtable for advancing the

profession: assessing impacts of science and

discovery centres.

2. Falk, J, Osborne, J, Dierking, L. Dawson, E,

Wenger, M, Wong, B (2012) Science beyond

the classroom. Analysing the UK Science

Education Community: The contribution of

informal providers. Wellcome Trust: London

3. Facer, K., Manners, P., Agusita, E (2012)

Towards a Knowledge Base for University-

Public Engagement: sharing knowledge,

building insight, taking action, NCCPE:

Bristol

4. Barnett, C & Mahoney, N (2011)

Segmenting publics

5. Mohr, A, Raman, S, Gibbs, B (2013)Which

publics? When? EXPLORING THE POLICY

POTENTIAL OF INVOLVING DIFFERENT

PUBLICS IN DIALOGUE AROUND

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

6. Research Excellence Framework (REF)

7. Office for Fair Access (2013) How to

produce an access agreement for 2014-15,

(p.5)

8. Codesign heritage

9. RCUK Concordat for Engaging the Public

with Research

13

WORKING WITH ARTS FESTIVALS

Jen Wong, Guerilla Science

The following chapter outlines the Guerilla

Science ethos and approach for working with

arts festivals. It traces the origins of

Guerilla Science within the intersection

between public engagement with science and

the UK music festival scene, and gives a few

examples of how Guerilla Science has taken

advantage of the opportunities within the

arts festival context to create wonderful

experiences that are inspired by and

incorporate science and scientists.

Since 2008 Guerilla Science has brought

science events to music festivals, art

galleries, and theatrical productions – places

where people least expect to see science. We

surprise people with science in

unconventional places, and celebrate it in

unorthodox ways. We believe that taking

researchers out of the lab and into the

traditional domains of the arts helps us to

reach new audiences that may feel alienated

from and even hostile towards science.

Our aim is to move people using scientific

ideas, with the same emotional colour they

might get from theatre or art. We do this by

placing science where it can be seen as part

of our cultural sphere, and interpreting our

content in a way that transforms the

unfamiliar into a relevant, engaging, and

often participatory experience for our

audiences.

So what better place to take our trade than

to the burgeoning UK arts festival scene?

The diversity of a festival where many

worlds and cultures collide, and where one

can wander from a hands-on foraging

workshop into a crowded mosh pit in the

space of a mere field, affords the science

communicator a multitude of challenges and

opportunities. And it is in this space that

Guerilla Science has let rip with its

collective imagination and thrived,

delivering a program of events that mixes

science with art, music and play.

The work of Guerilla Science within this

field (literally within at least 16 fields over

the last six years) highlights how this mode

of science communication can blow peoples‟

minds: not just the minds of our audiences,

but of participating scientists as well.

Take the Decontamination Chamber at

Glastonbury 2011 as an example. In

partnership with the producers of Shangri-

La Glastonbury and the Wellcome Trust‟s

Dirt season, Guerilla Science conceived the

Decontamination Chamber as a surreal

immersive experience that sat inside a 10 x

10m white inflatable cube, within the overall

narrative environment of the Shangri-La

field – where a mysterious virus outbreak

was infecting and posing a threat to festival-

goers. The chamber offered a means of

cleansing visitors of the virus, presenting

two possible methods of decontamination:

psychological or physical. The first portal

featured a human microbial zoo installation,

and practicing microbiologists who

introduced visitors to their bacterial flora,

before outlining the choice to become either

physically or psychologically „clean.‟

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013

Guerilla Science/Strong and Co.

14

Psychiatrists recruited by Guerilla Science

helped to deliver the „psychological

cleansing‟ route, whilst a biohazard suited

actor and Health Protection Agency inspired

protocols facilitated the „physical cleansing‟

route. On exiting the last room, visitors were

proclaimed „clean.‟ With a final cleansing

shot, they were allowed to proceed to the

skywalk – a suspended, white, shrink-

wrapped walkway that traversed the field –

in order to „survey the unclean filth‟ i.e. the

rest of Shangri-La, which was by then a sea

of mud below.

As one of our participating scientists

remarked, “I was impressed by the amount of

imagination, creativity and effort that went

into creating not only the city, but the story. I

was proud to be a part of it.”

In situations where audiences are used to

suspending their disbelief and role-playing

to a certain extent, the opportunities to

communicate science become endless. And

this kind of environment is often to be found

at arts festivals, such as Glastonbury, or

other similar minded music festivals like

Secret Garden Party where Guerilla Science

was founded.

A smaller scale example of our ethos at work

is the Particle Safari – where we interpreted

the fundamental particles of the universe as

a Safari Tour. Particles, embodied by willing

audience recruits in a mixture of boiler suits,

gold gimp suits and a sumo suit, represented

the various properties of up and down

quarks, electrons and the Higgs Boson.

Audience involvement - as quarks, electrons

and the Higgs – was key to the success of the

tour. Recruits had been briefed to re-enact a

range of particle interactions for the rest of

the audience, who eventually physically

formed a representation of the LHC. The

„particles‟ collided within this space, and the

Higgs was revealed. A host interpreted each

interaction in the style of a safari guide,

injecting more humour into the interactions

unfolding before the eyes of the tour. This

interactive tour was devised in collaboration

with particle physicists Jon Butterworth and

James Monk, and designer Patrick

Stevenson-Keating.

The breadth of professional expertise within

the Guerilla Science team is essential to our

successful work with arts festivals. Most of

the team have at least one science degree,

layered beneath careers in event and

exhibition production, journalism and

theatrical production. This makes us

uniquely placed to work with and within

arts festivals, and together we have 20 years

experience of producing and delivering

events in different environments.

To summarise, here are eight top tips for

introducing science elements into arts

festivals:

- Don‟t be a loner. Work with a trusted team

and build diverse people (personalities,

approaches, backgrounds) into the team to

make yourselves stronger

- Interdisciplinarity provides opportunities

to tackle subjects with more creativity and

sophistication, in order to create a richer

audience experience

- Be collaborative and flexible in your

approach – an open mind will help you make

the most of your people and talent and

achieve greater things

- Know what you want to achieve and what

your arts festival, scientist, or other

collaborators want to achieve

- If you can‟t find have any obvious common

ground with prospective collaborators, don‟t

collaborate

- Know and respect your audience. Who are

you doing this all for?

- Don‟t lose sight of your goals. Delivering at

festivals is often tough! Letting yourself get

bogged down in the practicalities is a fast-

track route to meltdown

- Have as much fun as possible whilst doing

all this – if you‟re enjoying yourself, you‟re

probably creating a better experience for the

audience and your team.

Looking at the festival scene today, six years

on from when we started, it‟s rewarding to

see how science elements are increasingly

being embedded into more and more arts

festival programmes. Science at arts

festivals seems to be trending. Why not come

and join us?

15 British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013

INFORMAL SCIENCE LEARNING AND

THE CHALLENGE OF MEASUREMENT

Stephanie Sinclair, Wellcome Trust

The Wellcome Trust has been thinking a lot

about informal science learning recently,

including the learning that occurs in

exhibitions, debates, games, broadcasts,

theatre productions and other activities that

help with the learning of science. When you

realise that even when young people are in

full-time education, they spend less than

20% of their time in school, it is clear to see

why (Figure 1). There is evidently huge

potential to engage young people with

science experiences outside of the classroom.

In terms of evaluating informal science

learning activities, the Review highlights

that the community is „eager to find out

what its users think of its activities, but less

inclined to measure long-term impact‟.

Practitioners working in informal learning

were surveyed about how they evaluate their

activities and 91% of respondents stated

that they undertook formative evaluation of

their activities, which involves, for example,

testing early prototypes in order to result in

a higher-quality or more engaging end

product. In contrast, only 15% reported

carrying out summative evaluation at the

end of a project, which would provide

evidence about the impacts of the activities.

Our research shows that the most common

methodology used to evaluate informal

learning activities is user surveys, with 98%

of respondents using these. Observations of

participants and discussions with groups of

users are also common with 79% and 76% of

people carrying these out respectively.

Evaluation of non-users is less frequent with

32% of practitioners holding group

discussions and 25% doing surveys with

those currently not engaged with their

informal learning offer. Interestingly, when

users‟ experiences are being evaluated it

tends to be internal staff conducting the

research but when non-users are being

researched, external evaluators are more

likely to be involved.

To better understand these findings, it is

important to look at the obstacles to

evaluation which the community face. Our

findings show that the two largest barriers

which practitioners cited were „difficulties in

finding time to evaluate‟ which was seen as

a barrier by 81% of respondents and „lack of

funding‟ which was a barrier for 76%.

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013

Figure 1 Time spent in and out of school, from the

Wellcome Trust infographic „Evidence for informal

science learning‟

In 2012, Wellcome published a Review of

Informal Learning in the UK [1] which

examines the provision of informal learning

and its value to science education. There are

several issues identified within the Review

including: (i) the difficulty in evaluating

impacts of informal experiences; (ii) the

extent of the gap between research and

practice; (iii) the fact that some audiences

are being under-served; and (iv) the huge

diversity, but limited coordination across the

sector. The first two issues listed here will

now be explored in more detail.

16

These two responses are possibly linked; if

there was funding available to carry out

evaluations then this would allow time and

resource to be allocated to this role.

However, it is hard to unpick what the root

cause of this is. Have practitioners applied

for funding that included long-term

evaluations and been unsuccessful or do

they not include this in proposals because

they do not see it as part of the project?

Equally are funders not demanding grant-

holders to carry out summative evaluations

or are they expecting it but not making this

clear?

Higher-quality evaluations may be one way

to better understand what works, and

importantly what doesn‟t work in informal

learning but this is only one piece of the

puzzle.

There are many fascinating unanswered

questions about the way in which audiences

engage with informal learning experiences

such as how people learn science when

taking part in these activities, how this

learning differs from more formally acquired

knowledge and skills, how informal

experiences may be able to particularly

engage young people turned off by formal

environments and how informal learning

activities may spark interest and

imagination. To better comprehend the

important role of informal learning rigorous

academic research and analysis of datasets

is needed.

The Review found that practitioners within

the community are currently not heavily

engaged with the relevant academic

research, such as it is. A list of the most

cited articles about informal science learning

was compiled and practitioners were asked

which of them they had heard of or had read.

The most common response for how many

people had read an article was zero, and the

most common response for how many people

had heard of, but not read, an article was

two. Even the most well-known article had

only been read by less than half of the

respondents.

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013

People were far more likely to read policy

documents, evaluations and other items

which can be termed „grey literature‟.

The reasons why practitioners are not

reading the academic literature were

explored with participants who attended a

workshop at Wellcome where the Review

was launched. Reasons given were that the

academic literature can be difficult to access

and that it takes time to find the most

relevant articles and to synthesise them and

consider what the findings mean for your

own practice. There are some existing

mechanisms which aim to alleviate these

barriers, for example the website Relating

Research to Practice [2] highlights short

synopses of research relevant to informal

science education. The Wellcome Trust has

also produced an infographic [3] which

collates evidence for the impacts of informal

science learning.

Tools such as these are valuable in terms of

bridging research and practice, but there is

more to be done to facilitate effective

partnerships between researchers and

practitioners.

The Wellcome Trust is aiming to bridge the

gap between research and practice by

launching a new initiative to make a

transformational step to improve the

knowledge bases and practices of informal

science experiences to better understand,

strengthen and coordinate their vital role in

science engagement and learning. It will

involve funding for researchers and

practitioners to work together on new

research programmes and details will be

announced in 2014.

17

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013

As a community there are steps we can all

take to address some of the issues raised in

the Review of Informal Learning. These

include considering how to best grow the

knowledge base around informal science

education, how to share learning and

expertise within the field and how to

strengthen the skills of researchers and

practitioners to ensure that the sector

continues to thrive. By working together, we

can help practitioners of informal science

learning make an even greater impact on

people‟s lives.

REFERENCES:

1. Wellcome Trust, 2012, Review of Informal

Science Learning

2. Relating Research to Practice website

3. Wellcome Trust, 2013, Evidence for

Informal Science Learning Infographic

18

WHAT‟S THE TRUE COST OF FREE?

Deborah Syrop, science made simple

Jamie Gallagher, University of Glasgow

Part 1: Deborah Syrop

Some science engagement activities are

charged at cost, few at a commercial rate

and many provided free to their audience.

What is the relationship between price and

impact? Are we exceeding audience

expectations or do we inadvertedly lose the

market forces that help raise standards?

What are the ramifications of a no-fee

culture on professional development and

long-term sustainability? Does it make us

less professional? This chapter examines the

question of cost from two different angles;

the effect of not charging the audience and

the effect of not paying the presenter.

The true cost for the audience

Science communication doesn't make much

sense as a sustainable business model. The

people we most want to reach are often the

least interested. Not the ideal customer

base. Does it matter? As long as funders

share our aims and want to invest in the

good work, who cares who pays? If we have

external funding, the end 'customer' benefits

from a no-fee activity, the funders can pat

themselves on the back and we get to keep

doing what we love. Everyone's a winner.

The audience end up with a bargain -

everyone loves getting something for

nothing. At least that's what you would

expect. A classical concert must sound

sweeter when you don't pay a hundred

pounds for the privilege.

Apparently not. Joshua Bell is an acclaimed

violin player. As part of a stunt, he stood by

a Washington Metro entrance and gave a 43

minute virtuoso performance. 1,097 rush

hour commuters passed by. The reaction, or

lack of it, was a complete surprise.

Perhaps not paying for an event means you

don't value it.

Perhaps who pays matters.

At science made simple, we present science,

engineering and maths shows to over 70,000

people every year around the world. We do

this in schools, in theatres, in libraries, on

the street. Anywhere and everywhere we

can. Who pays for this? Sometimes our

audience members pay individually,

sometimes the booker pays on their behalf

and sometimes a funder covers part or all of

the cost. We have experience of a wide range

of funding models.

Our science theatre show, Visualise, fits the

Joshua Bell scenario. When we perform in a

prestigious arts venue with full-price theatre

ticketing, the audience perceive it to be even

better than when we do a heavily-discounted

performance for a science festival. You would

expect audiences to be more critical the

higher the price. In reality, it is the opposite.

We can sell more tickets and increase the

audience enjoyment by putting the price up.

What about free schools outreach? Here's a

typical scenario. Teacher sees free offer.

Teacher grabs offer. Teacher carries on with

work. Teacher remembers the week before

and realises they are too busy to fit in an

extra activity. Teacher cancels activity at the

last minute. Alternatively (if the show is

particularly appealing), teacher remembers

the week before, discovers school hall is

booked for exams. Teacher decides to

squeeze a whole year-group into two co-

joined classrooms so that students are

overcrowded and can't hear or see the

presenter properly. The quality of the

activity is severely compromised.

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 19

Perceived lower quality becomes real lower

quality in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking cost

is of paramount importance to teachers.

Certainly it is a factor, but only a limiting

factor. If a wonderful project is aimed at year

groups facing exams, is not tied to the core

curriculum, does not fit easily within the

constraints of the timetable or has an

unrealistic delivery timescale, then it simply

does not matter how little it costs. There are

some schools outreach projects you can't

even give away. 'Free' does not equate to

'schools want it'. I'm not even convinced that

'free' guarantees 'broader reach'. In my

experience, the teachers who make the most

of 'free' projects are the ones who are already

poised to make the most of any project - the

highly-engaged group.

Even if the project is highly desirable for

teachers, offering it for free can actually

degrade its perceived quality. In the eyes of

those you wish to engage, 'free' often equates

to 'not very good'. A violinist can't be that

great if he is scraping a living from the odd

dollar thrown in a hat. A STEM activity

can't be that great if they have to give it

away for free.

If given the choice, we prefer to charge a

very nominal fee. Even a token amount is

enough to ensure that teachers require sign

off from senior staff. This in turn ensures

that they have a vested interest in making

the activity a success, avoiding many of the

common problems. If we stress the real cost

and how much they are saving, they wish to

prove their 'worthiness' to receive such a

huge discount. Care is more likely to be

taken over reading and complying with any

technical requirements. Audiences are more

likely to be the promised target group.

Disruptive behaviour is less likely. Drop-out

rates are vastly reduced.

Some providers operate a cost neutral

system e.g. a deposit returned upon

attendance. In the good old days, this could

be an uncashed cheque, so no cold hard cash

needed to change hands.

The actual price the audience pays is only

important due to its effect on their

perceptions. With our theatre show we can

still offer discounts and giveaways to reach

target groups. Sometimes, payment in kind

can be enough to secure buy-in from the

customer. If a teacher has to enter a

competition, describe why they deserve the

opportunity and complete a compulsory

feedback form, this can be enough to confirm

that they have been given something worth

fighting for.

We don't have 'free show' issues when we do

pilot events. Partly, because the audience

understands the reason why the show is free

and partly because they are often repeat

customers who know us well. If you watch

the online video of Joshua Bell's metro

performance you notice towards the end a

lady stops to watch. She recognised who he

really was and could not believe her luck

seeing him perform live. She alone

understood the true value of that experience.

In a similar way some providers benefit from

their reputation or associations. For

example, if a project comes from a highly-

esteemed institution it may reassure those

booking that this is a free activity worth

having.

Context is important. Context sets the

audience expectations which are hugely

influential on engagement success. When we

busk on the street we can demonstrate our

competence without needing to charge

anything - the audience haven't had to

choose to attend. They have no preconceived

ideas. We are judged right then and there.

However, for any activity which requires

booking in advance, then it's vital we

consider how to reinforce its real value - by

requiring a token investment of time or

money: disclosing the undiscounted rate:

creating special offers for target groups: or

by emphasising our reputation. The bottom

line is if the price is lower than comparable

activities in that particular context, and the

audience are unaware of the true value, the

resulting engagement suffers.

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 20

The true cost on the presenter

Part 2: Jamie Gallagher

When we‟re asking “the true cost of free?” we

are asking a many faceted question. How do

free events reflect upon audience

expectations and enjoyment? How are free

events professionally structured? How do we

ensure successful running? For my part I

would like to question the impact of free

events on the performers and volunteers

themselves.

When an event is to be provided free to an

audience, funding quickly becomes one of the

primary concerns. Event planning is an

expensive business and even small scale

events can quickly tot up to terrifying totals.

What better way to save some money than

by enlisting volunteers?

As the worlds of academia and industry

cotton onto the importance of public

engagement and communications skills it is

easy to find a plethora of volunteers looking

to gain experience. Volunteers will come

from all walks of life and will have different

hopes from the activities they are involved

in. Many will have an interest in science

communication and will be looking to get one

foot on the ladder. They will hope to gain

some experience that they can add to a CV

or perhaps use as a stepping stone to further

their own career in communication.

It was in this vein that I started my own

science communication experience. While

doing my PhD. in chemistry and electrical

engineering I began volunteering at my local

science centre. They were happy to give me

space and let me do my own thing. I took a

little stall and showed anyone who would

listen a little about my research. I gave up

many weekends for this and I was happy to

do so, more for love than experience. Then I

developed a little show, again I didn‟t expect

to be paid or the audience to pay a ticket, it

worked out rather well. Soon I found myself

doing slightly larger shows and somewhere

along the line I started getting expenses,

then a fee and by the time this is published I

will be a full time public engagement officer.

This is directly because I was allowed to cut

my teeth on free events. I was able to gain

vital experience and establish a passion as a

career.

Had I wanted to be part of events in front of

a ticket paying audience I would have

needed a back-catalogue of experience but a

free event provides an excellent training

ground for new enthusiasts. With a free

event where performers or facilitators are

unpaid they are allowed to gain experience,

give that line on the CV and gain good

networking opportunities. Volunteering also

comes with the advantage of often having

flexible working hours and people will have

a choice as to which activities they want to

be involved in and for how long.

But all is not as rosy as it seems as free

events and volunteering can be a double-

edged sword. Where does the fine line

between experience and exploitation lie?

Someone volunteering is by no means taking

an easy path. When volunteering I have

worked myself hoarse and often found to be

somewhat abandoned while the stars of the

show are ferried around with every courtesy.

It is possible for volunteers to be neglected-

something unlikely to occur when a guest

has been transported in at great expense.

This is in spite of the fact that the invited

and paid guest will work for perhaps an

hour while a volunteer may put in an

incredibly long day. There is also a limit to

how much “CV” experience someone can

gather. Someone could fill all their time with

school talks and STEM volunteering and it

is likely that the volunteer may incur an

actual loss after transport, food and

potentially props are purchased.

The ubiquitous use of volunteers can also

impinge negatively on the professional

communicators. When a school is faced with

choices between hiring a professional

communicator at several hundred pounds a

day or inviting in a group of local PhD

students for the price of a bus fare and half a

dozen lunches, it is easy to see how we put

professionals in an increasingly difficult

position. There is a risk that in the cost

becoming the primary concern we run the

risk of not focussing on the quality.

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 21

We need to work hard at ensuring that

professional communicators get the respect

they are afforded as it is an often under-

appreciated area. Communication and

engagement areas are one affected by the

“friend‟s wedding phenomenon” where

musicians are constantly bombarded with

requests to do a gig for free for friends and

friends of friends. Would an electrician get

the same treatment? Would you ask a

lawyer for free representation or a cleaner to

“do a favour” or “gain some additional

experience”?

In the science communication industry we

must continue to use volunteers to increase

the audiences, scale and numbers of

activities we can deliver. We need to ensure

these volunteers are also getting something

from the activity- enjoyment, experience and

encouragement. We must understand the

role of the volunteer and the skills of

professional communicators so that they can

learn and support each other.

Perhaps with the growth and increasing

professionalisation of the science

communication industry we must look to

organising ourselves. As freelancers without

a union or professional body we leave

ourselves in a potentially weak position.

Science communication is still forging itself,

making itself strong. It is establishing the

importance of its own role and we must

continue to grow with it and, like the science

we preach, look objectively at its strengths

and weaknesses. We must ensure each new

project is a fair, welcoming and sustainable

endeavour for all involved.

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 22

ASK FOR EVIDENCE

Síle Lane, Sense About Science

When a patient support group told us recently

that they were battling again with an illegal

stem cell clinic offering miracle cures to people

with multiple sclerosis that they thought they

had knocked back 3 years ago, they wondered

what they should do. Exposing dodgy science

claims has often been effective – stem cell

clinics have been shut down – but as soon as

attention is turned elsewhere they crop up

again. Regulators and science communicators

are making efforts to chase down bad science

but they can‟t be everywhere all the time. And

what is the patient group supposed to do -

police every post that is put on their forums?

That probably wouldn‟t work even if it was

something they wanted to do.

We hear daily claims about what is good for

our health, bad for the environment, how to

improve education, cut crime, improve

agriculture or treat disease. Many of us

wouldn't want the level of regulation and

policing necessary to prevent unfounded

assertions. The only solution is to give people

the tools to make sense of these claims for

themselves. More people need to be evidence

hunters. Everyone has to critically engage with

claims, whether in adverts promoting products,

from scientists exaggerating research or

government bodies announcing policy.

Over the last decade Sense About Science has

campaigned to put scientific evidence higher on

the public agenda. Over 6,000 scientific

researchers and hundreds of organisations

have been working with us to encourage

different communities to engage with evidence

and they have answered thousands of

questions from the public. In doing so we‟ve

engaged people, scientists and non-scientists

alike, in a discussion about evidence. We talk

about what we know and how, about the basis

of claims, and such things as peer review,

replication, fair tests, stability of findings and

levels of confidence. This isn‟t the same as

taking people back to school for a science

lesson. Instead it involves scientists and the

public working together to call people to

account for the claims they make, testing those

claims against evidence and what else we

know.

You don‟t have to study for a Masters in

epidemiology to ask questions about claims

about links between mobile phone masts and

cancer. You can ask whether evidence exists,

how conclusions have been reached, whether

there has been a fair test, whether results

have been peer reviewed, replicated or

challenged. We know that people who don‟t

naturally see themselves as interested in

science can really use the insight that the

status of findings is as important as the

findings themselves. This has become the

backbone of all our campaigning work.

We launched the Ask for Evidence campaign to

start helping people to request the evidence

behind news stories, marketing claims and

policies for themselves. We developed

postcards to make asking for evidence easy

and public figures and organisations joined the

campaign. The campaign has seen people ask a

retail chain for evidence behind its MRSA

resistant pyjamas; ask a juice bar for evidence

behind wheatgrass detox claims; ask the

health department about rules for Viagra

prescriptions; ask for the studies behind

treatments for Crohn‟s disease and hundreds

more. Even in its modest form we have seen

organisations withdraw claims and public

bodies held to account. Medical research

charities are making it their business to take

on claims that hit the headlines; organisations

like Which? scrutinise product claims, and

parenting groups are encouraging their

members to ask for evidence about claims for

fertility treatments.

The claims we all hear daily may be based on

reliable evidence and scientific rigour but

many are not. How can we make companies,

politicians, commentators and official bodies

accountable for whether claims stack up? If

anyone wants us to vote for them, believe them

or buy their products, then we should ask them

for evidence, as consumers, patients, voters

and citizens. This is geeks, working with the

public, to park their tanks on the lawn of those

who seek to influence us. And it's starting to

work.

British Science Association - Science Communication Conference 2013 23