tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/science-outreach-18760/articlesScience outreach – The Conversation2024-01-17T13:37:02Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2155722024-01-17T13:37:02Z2024-01-17T13:37:02ZConnecting researchers and legislators can lead to policies that reflect scientific evidence<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569604/original/file-20240116-21-149ew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C104%2C1919%2C1455&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Legislators make policy based on the information at hand, which isn't always the latest scientific findings.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/scenes-from-the-halls-of-the-state-house-as-senators-head-news-photo/1370192889">Stuart Cahill/Boston Herald via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Like most kids of the 1990s, I attended a school that used the original DARE program as a cornerstone initiative in the war on drugs. Congressional funding for this Drug Abuse Resistance Education program surged to over <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/12/a-brief-history-of-d-a-r-e-the-anti-drug-program-jeff-sessions-wants-to-revive/">US$10 million</a> per year by 2002, <a href="https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.94.6.1027">despite studies</a> published in the prior decade demonstrating the original program was ineffective at preventing substance use. Following mounting political pressure and declining government investments, the DARE program was retooled.</p>
<p>This scenario exemplifies how a disconnect between research-based information and decision-making can lead to ineffective policies. It also illustrates why scientists often <a href="https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180">bemoan that it can take over a decade</a> before their work achieves its intended public benefit. </p>
<p>Researchers want the results of their studies to have an impact in the real world. Policymakers want to make effective policies that serve the people. The public wants to benefit from tax-funded research.</p>
<p>But there’s a disconnect between the world of science and the world of policy decision-making that keeps information from flowing freely between them. There are hundreds of <a href="https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/research-translation-platform/results-first-resources/clearing-house-database/">evidence-based programs</a> that receive minimal public investment despite their promise to curb social ills and save taxpayer dollars.</p>
<p>At the <a href="https://evidence2impact.psu.edu/what-we-do/research-translation-platform/">Penn State Research Translation Platform</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=61NeK5gAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I work</a> with a team that studies policymakers’ use of research evidence. Legislators and other decision-makers tend to prioritize certain solutions over others, largely based on the kinds of advice and input they receive from trusted sources. My team is developing ways to connect policymakers with university-based researchers – and studying what happens when these academics become the trusted sources, rather than those with special interests who stand to gain financially from various initiatives. </p>
<h2>Forging researcher-policymaker relationships</h2>
<p>Our Research Translation Platform team has found that policymakers assess in different ways how credible someone is. They generally consider <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Evidence-Based-Policymaking-Envisioning-a-New-Era-of-Theory-Research/Bogenschneider-Corbett/p/book/9780367523855">university-based researchers to be more reliable and impartial</a> than special interest groups, lobbyists and think tanks. Academic researchers can be key <a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-political-donations-reflect-polarization-in-academia-with-implications-for-the-publics-trust-in-science-196691">trusted messengers</a>, and their information is most credible when it’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-at-risk-if-scientists-dont-think-strategically-before-talking-politics-63797">not advocating particular political agendas</a>.</p>
<p>But scientists and lawmakers don’t usually have each other on speed dial. Building these connections is a promising way to improve policymakers’ access to credible, high-quality information. </p>
<p>Drawing on these principles, I co-developed a service that matches state and federal legislators with researchers who share their interests. Called the <a href="https://trestlelink.org/models/research-to-policy-collaboration/">Research-to-Policy Collaboration</a>, it involves a series of steps that starts with identifying policymakers’ existing priorities – for instance, addressing the opioid crisis. Then we identify and match them with researchers who work on studies relevant to substance use. The ultimate goal is to facilitate the meetings and follow-through that are critical for developing mutually beneficial partnerships between politicians and scientists.</p>
<p>Working closely with prevention scientist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=IEjjoBAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Max Crowley</a>, we designed the first experiment of its kind to measure whether our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012955118">model was useful for congressional staffers</a>. We found that legislators we randomly assigned to receive researchers’ support introduced 23% more bills that reference research evidence. Their staffers reported placing a greater value on using research to understand problems compared with staffers who were not matched with a researcher.</p>
<p>This experiment showed that researcher-policymaker partnerships can be effective not only for bridging research and policy, but legislators and their staff may find value in the service for honing empirical evidence pertaining to their bills. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="seated state legislators face an audience at a public hearing in an auditorium" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569608/original/file-20240116-27-bebp9s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">State legislators tend to hear from many different stakeholders as they design policy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/boston-ma-the-joint-committee-on-public-health-hears-news-photo/1557184909">Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Getting research into the hands of policymakers</h2>
<p>While research-policy partnerships can be effective, they’re also time-consuming.</p>
<p>When the world was turned upside down by the COVID-19 pandemic, routine handshakes disintegrated into social distancing. As a flurry of congressional activity tried to triage the catastrophe, pandemic conditions provided an opportunity to experiment with a way for researchers to communicate directly with policymakers online. </p>
<p>Our team created what we call the <a href="https://trestlelink.org/models/scope/">sciComm Optimizer for Policy Engagement</a>, or SCOPE for short. It’s a service that directly connects lawmakers with researchers who study timely policy issues. The researchers author a fact sheet in their area of study by summarizing a body of research pertaining to a national policy issue.</p>
<p>Then the SCOPE team sends an email on their behalf to lawmakers and staffers assigned to relevant committees. The email invites an opportunity to connect further. This effort is more interpersonal than a newsletter, providing a direct connection with a trustworthy source of science-based information. </p>
<p>As part of this <a href="https://research2policy.org/category/covid-19/">effort, scholars produced</a> over 65 fact sheets as well as several virtual panels and briefings relevant to various policy domains during the pandemic, such as substance use, violence and child maltreatment. These were disseminated over the course of a year and typically prompted about two researcher-policymaker meetings each. </p>
<p><iframe id="DQKp5" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/DQKp5/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>To investigate the value of this service, we looked at the language that state lawmakers used in social media posts pertaining to COVID-19. We found that those we had randomly assigned to receive our SCOPE emails produced <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-023-01268-1">24% more social media posts</a> referencing research than those we didn’t contact. We particularly noticed increased use of technical language related to data and analytics, as well as more language pertaining to research concepts, such as risk factors and disparities.</p>
<p>Legislators receiving SCOPE material also used less language related to generating more or new knowledge, which suggests they were less likely to call for more studies to produce new evidence. Perhaps their access to evidence decreased their need for more.</p>
<h2>Capitalizing on timely and relevant research</h2>
<p>These studies show some promising ways to connect legislators with timely and relevant research, and how doing so might improve the impact of research translation.</p>
<p>More work is needed to study other types of science policy efforts. Most research translation initiatives have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16420918447616">very little data for evaluating their impact</a>.</p>
<p>It’s also worth considering the possibility that some efforts may unintentionally damage these political relationships and the credibility of scientific institutions. For instance, partisan efforts <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-march-for-science-participants-advocate-without-losing-the-publics-trust-76205">advancing specific political agendas</a> are apt to reduce the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-political-donations-reflect-polarization-in-academia-with-implications-for-the-publics-trust-in-science-196691">perceived credibility of academic scientists</a>.</p>
<p>And if educational outreach merely preaches science in the absence of interpersonal connections, scholars not only risk perpetuating the out-of-touch, eggheaded stereotype of academia, they risk squandering resources on ineffective programs, similar to the original DARE program. </p>
<p>The bridge between science and policy is a two-way street. Not only must the parties meet in the middle, but science policy and communication practice should be held to the same rigorous standards we expect in evidence-based policymaking. The world needs solutions to innumerable real-time crises. How to forge these connections is a critical area of study in itself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215572/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Taylor Scott has received funding from the William T. Grant Foundation, National Science Foundation's Science of Science Program, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and Penn State's Social Science Research Institute and the Huck Institutes at Penn State. She directs the Research Translation Platform in Penn State's Evidence-to-Impact Collaborative and serves on the boards of TrestleLink and the National Prevention Science Coalition. </span></em></p>Researchers want real-world impact. Lawmakers want programs that work. The public wants to benefit from taxpayer-funded research. Building a bridge from academia to legislatures is key to all three.Taylor Scott, Associate Research Professor of Human Development and Family Studies and Director of the Research Translation Platform, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1849972022-06-22T13:01:15Z2022-06-22T13:01:15ZCitizen science volunteers are almost entirely white<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470115/original/file-20220621-12-t6qrv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=160%2C140%2C5583%2C4325&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many citizen science projects rely on volunteers to collect data in the field.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/little-boy-taking-pictures-of-flowers-royalty-free-image/1226977756">Marko Geber/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470191/original/file-20220622-7584-5nvfvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470191/original/file-20220622-7584-5nvfvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=255&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470191/original/file-20220622-7584-5nvfvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=255&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470191/original/file-20220622-7584-5nvfvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=255&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470191/original/file-20220622-7584-5nvfvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470191/original/file-20220622-7584-5nvfvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470191/original/file-20220622-7584-5nvfvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Every day, volunteers around the world contribute to scientific studies through “citizen science.” Citizen science can be anything from <a href="https://ebird.org/">counting migrating birds</a> to <a href="https://cocorahs.org/">measuring precipitation</a> or even <a href="https://outbreaksnearme.org/">tracking outbreaks of COVID-19</a>. Citizen science helps researchers collect more data than they could working on their own. The people who participate in these projects also benefit by <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2780">gaining knowledge about the fields they are working in</a> and learning <a href="https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED519688">skills</a>.</p>
<p>We are <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KjQjwXwAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">two researchers</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DjJZRlAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">who study</a> biology, the environment and the role of citizen science in these fields. In a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/biosci/biac035">new paper</a> published on June 22, 2022, in BioScience, we used survey data from 2016 to 2019 to better understand the demographics of citizen scientists.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470118/original/file-20220621-21-7a8o7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A graphic of many colored silhouettes of people." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470118/original/file-20220621-21-7a8o7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470118/original/file-20220621-21-7a8o7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470118/original/file-20220621-21-7a8o7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470118/original/file-20220621-21-7a8o7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470118/original/file-20220621-21-7a8o7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470118/original/file-20220621-21-7a8o7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470118/original/file-20220621-21-7a8o7h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Citizen science volunteers tend to be white, well-educated and work in science, technology, engineering or math.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/geometric-illustration-of-multi-coloured-royalty-free-illustration/1357830750?adppopup=true">ajijchan/iStock via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A few <a href="https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25183/learning-through-citizen-science-enhancing-opportunities-by-design">small studies</a> have found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.369">citizen science volunteers</a> tend to be white, well-educated and have high incomes. But this homogeneity of participants is common knowledge among researchers, and few collect detailed demographic data on participants in citizen science.</p>
<p>In our survey, we collected data about race, income and other demographic information. Overall, we received 3,894 responses. Most of the responses – 3,191 – came from the 2016 Christmas Bird Count, the <a href="https://auduboncnc.org/christmas-bird-count-longest-running-citizen-science-project-world/">world’s longest-running bird-related citizen science project</a>. Since 1900, thousands of people in the U.S. and abroad have counted birds around Christmas and reported the results to the Audubon Society.</p>
<p>We also collected data from 280 contributors to Candid Critters – a project that uses trail cameras to study wild mammals – and from 423 members of SciStarter.org, an online inventory of citizen science projects. </p>
<p>Overall, 95% of respondents identified as white. The lack of racial diversity was striking for each sample, with 96% of participants in both the Christmas Bird count and Candid Critters identifying as white and 88% of respondents from SciStarter saying the same. While only <a href="https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/educational-attainment.html">14% of the U.S. population</a> has a graduate or professional degree, about half of our survey respondents held these degrees. Additionally, while only <a href="https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2017/science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem-occupations-past-present-and-future/home.htm">6% of the U.S. population has careers in science, technology, engineering or math</a>, almost half of our survey respondents from all three data sources worked in STEM fields.</p>
<h2>Problems from a lack of diversity</h2>
<p>Participating in citizen science is linked to personal benefits like learning new skills and building community. If citizen science is only reaching educated white science professionals, then it’s concentrating the benefits of participation among this group.</p>
<p>Additionally, if one of the goals of citizen science is to boost science literacy and trust in science, it can’t achieve that goal if it’s preaching to the choir by only reaching people who already work in science.</p>
<p>Finally, a lack of diversity in citizen science could even compromise the quality of the research. For instance, <a href="https://theoryandpractice.citizenscienceassociation.org/articles/10.5334/cstp.320/">one study</a> found that volunteer water monitors – who were mostly well-educated and white – undersampled areas where environmental concerns disproportionately affected poor communities of color.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470116/original/file-20220621-19-uyqupb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black man holding binoculars in a forest." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470116/original/file-20220621-19-uyqupb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470116/original/file-20220621-19-uyqupb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470116/original/file-20220621-19-uyqupb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470116/original/file-20220621-19-uyqupb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470116/original/file-20220621-19-uyqupb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470116/original/file-20220621-19-uyqupb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470116/original/file-20220621-19-uyqupb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many organizations and initiatives, like Black Birders Week, are trying to bring people from diverse backgrounds into citizen science projects and science generally.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BlackBirders/19032351514642b5a62dbab35b8e8d58/photo?Query=black%20birders&mediaType=photo&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=970&currentItemNo=4">AP Photo/Jacqueline Larma</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Initiatives like <a href="https://www.blackafinstem.com/bbw2022schedule/events">Black Birders Week</a> seek to increase the visibility and concerns of people of color interested in the outdoors and science. <a href="https://scistarter.org/">SciStarter</a>, where one of us volunteers as the director of research collaborations, is undertaking a long-term effort to design inclusive citizen science programs. By partnering with community-based groups, schools, churches, companies and libraries, some recent SciStarter initiatives have engaged more than 40% nonwhite participants.</p>
<p>Reforming citizen science with inclusive and equitable practices would not only make the science better but also spread the benefits of these projects more equitably and eventually <a href="https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10276553-inclusion-citizen-science-conundrum-rebranding">help bring more diverse perspectives into science generally</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184997/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bradley Allf receives funding from the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Caren Cooper receives funding from the National Science Foundation. She is affiliated with SciStarter, as unpaid director of research collaborations. </span></em></p>The homogeneity of citizen science volunteers undercuts the ability of these projects to bring science to underserved communities.Bradley Allf, PhD Candidate in Conservation Biology, North Carolina State UniversityCaren Cooper, Associate Professor of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/906922018-02-11T19:11:09Z2018-02-11T19:11:09ZScience Meets Parliament doesn’t let the rest of us off the hook<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205612/original/file-20180208-180813-1vtvmkw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Science Meets Parliament offers scientists a rare glimpse inside Australia's parliamentary system. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/P-t9yap_20M">Social Estate on Unsplash</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/event/science-meets-parliament-2018/">Science Meets Parliament</a>, scheduled to take place this week in Canberra, is now in its nineteenth year. </p>
<p>Over February 14 and 15 2018, around 200 scientists and technologists will meet with parliamentarians, hear from key figures in Australian science and undergo professional development. </p>
<p>Positive outcomes from previous events <a href="https://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/science-meets-parliament-creating-vision-beyond-party-and-policy/">are clear</a>, both for attending scientists and members of the parliament. But that doesn’t let the rest of us off the hook. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/science-is-important-but-moves-too-fast-five-charts-on-how-australians-view-science-and-scientists-82752">Science is important but moves too fast: five charts on how Australians view science and scientists</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Science Meets Parliament focuses on building understanding and connections between federal parliamentarians and those working in science and technology to ensure that science stays on the political agenda. It promotes the idea that science is important for economic and environmental reasons, but also that science has sociocultural value. </p>
<p>There is no doubt in these politically and socially turbulent times that this type of activity is more important than ever, even here in Australia where <a href="https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP145330&dsid=DS1">trust in science and scientists has remained relatively high</a>. Globally science is under threat. It faces not only <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/nih-doe-office-science-face-deep-cuts-trumps-first-budget">budget cuts</a>, but also <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/health/cdc-trump-banned-words.html">censorship of data, language</a>, and <a href="https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/50712/title/Anger-Flares-over-EPA-s-Perceived-Science-Censorship-/">researchers</a>, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/donald-trump-plans-to-abolish-environmental-protection-agency">pressures to abolish science-related governmental agencies</a>. </p>
<p>However it’s important to examine what needs to happen during and after Science Meets Parliament for impact to occur and be sustainable. And that requires all of us to step up. </p>
<h2>Information is not enough</h2>
<p>The field of science engagement and public understanding of science stresses that simply conveying information is not sufficient. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_deficit_model">The deficit model</a> – where experts explain the science to people to change their beliefs or behaviours – has long been discredited. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/bored-reading-science-lets-change-how-scientists-write-81688">Bored reading science? Let's change how scientists write</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The deficit model tends to persist in action because <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963662516629749">simply talking “at” people feels more comfortable or familiar than other approaches</a>. But <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/23/scientific-literacy-leads-to-more-politically-polarized-opinions-on-climate-change/">research shows</a> that providing information and increasing scientific literacy in fact can contribute to polarisation. It can make people more sceptical or conflicted, especially about emerging technologies or complex policy decisions with scientific underpinnings. </p>
<p>True engagement must involve not only a focus on facts and technical details, but also the underlying values. Scientists can be encouraged to present their discoveries and success stories, but also to tell us about the bumps, warts, and complications of science as a human practice. Our understandings of the world have evolved over time, often in non-progressive and unexpected ways – and the history of science has repeatedly shown this. Consider stomach ulcers, which <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html">were thought to be caused by stress but are now known to be linked to bacterial infection</a>.</p>
<p>It is essential to deliberately design interventions that catch the attention of parliamentarians not only over the two days of Science Meets Parliament, but also over longer time frames and through engagement with local, community-based initiatives. Scientists need not just provide information, but also wrestle with deeper issues associated with people’s fears and hopes about what science and technology can contribute.</p>
<h2>Trust me, I’m an expert</h2>
<p>There are some risks in speaking publicly as a scientist. Scientists need to be cautious about positioning themselves as experts on everything, as being seen as <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-at-risk-if-scientists-dont-think-strategically-before-talking-politics-63797">politically or socially superior</a>, or as somehow more well-placed than others to dictate how society should shape itself. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/who-are-you-calling-anti-science-how-science-serves-social-and-political-agendas-74755">Who are you calling 'anti-science'? How science serves social and political agendas</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Science Meets Parliament is tricky territory, as scientists become lobbyists for their field, and may risk being viewed and treated as just another <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/the-elephant-in-the-room-we-can-t-ignore-1.19561">interest group which is rent-seeking</a> rather than promoting the broader social good. The answer to this dilemma is <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/march-for-science-trust-me-im-a-scientist-wont-cut-it/news-story/f8d6b3206ee56116e5436db1446b1f35">not to stress how science is special or different, or why scientists are objective authorities and hence more deserving than other causes</a>. Instead, scientists need to be honest - to talk about what science is, and isn’t. The outside or even the inside observer can have a rarefied view of science, which can result in overblown expectations.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205613/original/file-20180208-180821-162tric.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205613/original/file-20180208-180821-162tric.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205613/original/file-20180208-180821-162tric.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205613/original/file-20180208-180821-162tric.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205613/original/file-20180208-180821-162tric.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205613/original/file-20180208-180821-162tric.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205613/original/file-20180208-180821-162tric.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Science is good! But it doesn’t exist in isolation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/nKNrOZ5MXZY">Vlad Tchompalov on Unsplash</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Not an island</h2>
<p>Science is a form of knowledge which often competes with other forms of knowledge, but ideally collaboration should be the goal here. </p>
<p>Some groups (for instance, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples) have <a href="https://industry.gov.au/science/InspiringAustralia/ExpertWorkingGroup/Pages/Library%20Card/IndigenousEngagementwithScienceTowardsDeeperUnderstandings.aspx">unique knowledge systems</a> and experiences which can fruitfully contribute to science-based activities including management of Australia’s natural resources. </p>
<p>Scientists are engaged in a practice which is simultaneously scientific and social. The norms which govern it have been negotiated over time and evolved since the professionalisation of scientific fields, including everything from <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/peer-review-not-old-you-might-think">peer review</a> to <a href="http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2016/12/05/reproducibility-crisis-timeline-milestones-in-tackling-research-reliability/">standards of reproducibility and statistical significance</a>, which also differ across particular subspecialities. </p>
<p>Various fields within science use different techniques and approaches, and even have diverse ways of weighing up evidence or considering risks (and benefits): <a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">consider views of public health practitioners as compared to plant scientists on genetic modification</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">Perceptions of genetically modified food are informed by more than just science</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Parliamentarians and indeed members of the public should be encouraged to confidently view science as a heterogeneous undertaking. This will will not weaken the status of science in society, but should allow it to maintain and indeed build public trust.</p>
<h2>We’re all in this together</h2>
<p>The average scientist – that is, she or he who will not be at Science Meets Parliament – is a critical part of this picture. </p>
<p>We tend to focus on those who are professional scientists, without considering scientists in training, those involved in various scientific and technological applications, or even everyday people who use science in their jobs, homes, and communities. Instead of making science special, technical, and inaccessible, all who use and depend on science need to be encouraged to engage with it. </p>
<p>The growing <a href="https://biocollect.ala.org.au/acsa#isCitizenScience%3Dtrue%26isWorldWide%3Dfalse%26max%3D20%26sort%3DdateCreatedSort">citizen science movement</a> presents one strategy, particularly when used to help to solve <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-citizen-science-empower-disenfranchised-communities-53625">pressing community problems in which there are likely to be shared interests</a>, for instance in the case of the <a href="http://flintwaterstudy.org/">Flint water crisis</a>. </p>
<p>In turn, involvement in these sorts of initiatives allows members of the public to participate in decision-making and priority setting for their communities, build community capacities (not just in science and technology but important sociocultural skills), and more generally empower communities. </p>
<p>To truly achieve the goals of Science Meets Parliament, we need “Science Listens, Engages, and Collaborates with the Public” not only for two days in February, but every day.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90692/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel A. Ankeny works for the University of Adelaide, and receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>Starting February 14, the Science Meets Parliament event brings clear benefits - but there’s a case to be made for an ongoing effort in “Science Listens, Engages, and Collaborates with the Public.”Rachel A. Ankeny, Professor of History, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/652842016-09-20T18:13:30Z2016-09-20T18:13:30ZAfrica’s universities can shrug off history and stage science revolutions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138073/original/image-20160916-6342-1c5hkqx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The sky is the limit for African science when universities work together.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah/Reuters</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>South Africa’s <a href="https://www.uwc.ac.za/Pages/default.aspx">University of the Western Cape (UWC)</a> has been ranked <a href="http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2016/09/07/Sky-science-sees-University-of-the-Western-Cape-beat-big-names-in-Nature-ranking">number one</a> for Physical Science in Africa by top journal <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html">Nature</a>. Nico Orce, an associate professor with UWC’s nuclear physics and nuclear astrophysics group, tells The Conversation Africa what lessons there are for other universities on the continent – and why there’s more work to be done.</em></p>
<p><strong>UWC still serves a historically disadvantaged community and is less well-funded than many previously white universities in South Africa. Against this backdrop, what did it take for you, your colleagues and your students to get this far?</strong></p>
<p>Being ranked number one on the continent is strongly linked to the <a href="https://www.ska.ac.za">Square Kilometre Array (SKA)</a> telescope being built in South Africa. A number of UWC’s scientists are very involved in this project. </p>
<p>Smart strategic planning and a real push for funding helped to stimulate the physical sciences at UWC. That energy attracted more and more talented researchers, including post-doctoral candidates. This is a crucial way to speed up transformation: bringing in highly skilled researchers from all over the country and the world to train a new generation of local scientists.</p>
<p><strong>The sciences have had a good year at UWC. Your group is also about to become the first from an African institution to <a href="http://www.netwerk24.com/ZA/Tygerburger/Nuus/uwc-students-on-the-way-to-cern-20160830-2">lead an experiment at CERN</a>, the <a href="https://home.cern/about">European Organisation for Nuclear Research</a>. How did that happen?</strong></p>
<p>When I was finishing my degree in Fundamental Physics back in Spain I convinced some of my friends to attend a summer school at CERN. We asked the professor in charge of international exchange programmes to sign our applications. He told us with malicious pleasure that, “Only the crème de la crème goes to CERN – students from Harvard, Oxford or Cambridge. You come from the University of Granada. I cannot believe you even thought of it.” He wouldn’t sign it, so there went our slight chance of working at CERN.</p>
<p>Since then, I promised myself that one day I would go to CERN through the big door and open it up to the ones behind me: young hopeful students.</p>
<p>That promise came to fruition in September 2013 when our group’s proposal to run an experiment at CERN was approved. Our work, which will finally be conducted in November 2016, involves measuring the nuclear shapes of very rare nuclei. Some of our postgraduates have already received training, and did so well that they were awarded a prestigious CERN fellowship.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138236/original/image-20160919-11108-es00iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138236/original/image-20160919-11108-es00iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138236/original/image-20160919-11108-es00iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138236/original/image-20160919-11108-es00iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138236/original/image-20160919-11108-es00iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138236/original/image-20160919-11108-es00iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138236/original/image-20160919-11108-es00iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138236/original/image-20160919-11108-es00iq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">UWC students (bottom from left to right) Kenzo Abrahams, Makabata Mokgolobotho and Craig Mehl. They are with CERN employees, including (back, second from left) Professor Maria Garcia Borge.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Supplied</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This experiment will open the doors of CERN to all African institutions. We walked through first. Now others will be able to follow.</p>
<p><strong>Enrolling more women students, as well as those who are not white and those from poor backgrounds, is a huge imperative for South African universities. Are you getting that right in the Physics department?</strong></p>
<p>One of the Physics and Astronomy Department’s highest priorities is to attract and enthuse South African students. We have strong outreach programmes to achieve this. One that I like very much is when we give talks to high school students; those in Grades 10, 11 and 12 who are close to finishing school. Our staff members and postgraduates present examples of the work we do.</p>
<p>It’s especially amazing when one of our postgraduates returns to their own school. You should have heard the eruption when one postgraduate, Sivuyile Xabanisa, told kids at his Khayelitsha high school that he was studying the oldest stars in the universe – and going to Oxford University as part of his training.</p>
<p>We also invite high school groups to events organised at the university. In 2013 <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2012/haroche-facts.html">Serge Haroche</a> visited our Science Research Open Day. He was the 2012 Nobel Laureate in Physics. The auditorium practically shook with excitement when he handed over a new microscope to pupils from a high school in Wallacedene, a poor area quite close to UWC.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-ipl6CLiLnc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Nobel Laureate Serge Haroche visits the University of the Western Cape.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another really valuable initiative has been the MaNus/MatSci programme for Nuclear Science and Material Science. In the same way that the SKA is driving strong growth in astronomy, this Honours and Masters programme is attracting growing numbers of future nuclear physicists. It trains about 25 South African students each year, most of them black and from poor backgrounds. These students are drawn from historically disadvantaged institutions like the universities of Fort Hare, Venda, Limpopo and the North West – and from UWC’s undergraduate programmes.</p>
<p>All of this work and outreach has produced impressive results. Today there are more than 100 postgraduate students in the Physics and Astronomy Department. Most of them are black South Africans from historically disadvantaged backgrounds. </p>
<p><strong>What are the lessons other African institutions’ science faculties and individual departments can learn from UWC’s recent successes?</strong></p>
<p>We need to break history to change things dramatically. And we must do it the South African, or African way – using our own strengths and methods, not adopting European approaches.</p>
<p>Universities need to work harder to make sure women and all races are equally represented in their science classrooms. At UWC we’ve got a number of postgraduate women students who are doing great science, winning awards and raising the bar for everyone. Having women there makes other women realise the door is open for them. In the same way, having postgraduates like Sivuyile Xabanisa visiting schools in poorer communities makes pupils realise they also have a place in science labs. Role models are so important.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138237/original/image-20160919-11090-sfbdlu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138237/original/image-20160919-11090-sfbdlu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138237/original/image-20160919-11090-sfbdlu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138237/original/image-20160919-11090-sfbdlu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138237/original/image-20160919-11090-sfbdlu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138237/original/image-20160919-11090-sfbdlu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138237/original/image-20160919-11090-sfbdlu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138237/original/image-20160919-11090-sfbdlu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">UWC’s Dr Nico Orce with pupils from Khayelitsha’s Zola High School.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Supplied</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ultimately, UWC wants to be number one for physical science not just in Africa but in the world. To do that, we cannot constantly fight among ourselves as individual researchers or with other institutions on the continent. The only competition we need is the healthy sort that improves everyone’s performance. </p>
<p>Collaboration is really crucial. UWC applied for about R30 million from country’s the National Research Foundation and its Department of Science and Technology to build a new detector system called <a href="https://www.uwc.ac.za/Faculties/NS/NuclearPhysics/Pages/Gamka.aspx">GAMKA</a>.</p>
<p>The construction will happen at iThemba LABS in Cape Town and involves a consortium of both wealthy and less well resourced universities. We’ll all have to work closely together, with the same aim, to be successful. That’s the key to making African science soar: knowing that if you try to do it alone, you won’t have all the skills or equipment. Together we can lead science worldwide through work done right here on the continent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65284/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nico Orce receives funding from the National Research Foundation (NRF), the South African-CERN Collaboration (Department of Science and Technology) and the University of the Western Cape.</span></em></p>Collaboration is one of the keys to making African science soar: when the continent’s universities work together, they can produce amazing results.Nico Orce, Associate Professor in the Department of Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Astrophysics, University of the Western CapeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/576522016-05-12T05:10:36Z2016-05-12T05:10:36ZThe danger of overselling science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122205/original/image-20160512-18128-muwqfv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There's a lot of incentive to hype scientific findings but in the end nobody wins. Overselling findings can undermine the authority of scientists as well as the credibility of the sources and ultimately deceive or even endanger the public. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine seeing this headline: </p>
<h1>A zap to the brain could make you a genius</h1>
<p>The story might go something like this: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Neuroscientists have proven that zapping your brain with an electrical pulse can make you three times smarter. </p>
<p>In a recent study, researchers scanned the brain before and after applying a state-of-the-art technique, known as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and found an increase in brain size that allowed individuals to solve a significantly greater number of challenging questions. </p>
<p>Based on this evidence, a future in which it will be possible for each of us to unlock our inner genius is not far away. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>What’s the problem here?</h2>
<p>You’ll be disappointed to hear that, in reality, significant improvements in a scientific study don’t necessarily mean significant life improvements. Nor do we know if the effects extend past the one-hour duration of the experiment. They sure won’t make you an all-round genius anytime soon.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119393/original/image-20160420-25631-7b5pxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119393/original/image-20160420-25631-7b5pxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119393/original/image-20160420-25631-7b5pxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119393/original/image-20160420-25631-7b5pxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119393/original/image-20160420-25631-7b5pxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119393/original/image-20160420-25631-7b5pxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119393/original/image-20160420-25631-7b5pxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119393/original/image-20160420-25631-7b5pxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A user tries ‘Thync’: a stimulating device that claims to use scientifically proven methods to improve cognitive function, induce relaxation and reduce stress. Evidence for the success of devices like this is still very tenuous, but individuals and companies alike are being drawn to the scientific allure.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sfslim/23285644425/in/photolist-BtF1Q2-Bj6kqN-BtEcCB-ve3X6gtjat">Aaron Muszalski/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Almost every time we read about the latest scientific findings, they claim to be profound and life-changing. But they’re often about isolated effects that have rarely been tested in real-world contexts. </p>
<p>It is the essence of good experimental design to allow researchers to control for confounding variables, such as those found in the real world. But, as a result, the applications are often left for speculation.</p>
<p>Researchers understand this. But when it comes time for these findings to be broadcast to the public, it can be akin to a game of Chinese whispers. </p>
<p>The message, originally so meticulously portrayed in the carefully worded journal article, has not only been turned into a sales pitch but interpreted by somebody who doesn’t even speak the same language. </p>
<p>Why does this happen? </p>
<h2>The three sources</h2>
<p>The problem of exaggerating scientific findings stems from the interactions of three groups of people: scientists; the media; the public. Each of these groups has its own motivation to make findings seem as widely applicable as possible. </p>
<p><strong>Scientists</strong></p>
<p>Scientists are typically reserved with the claims they make about their research. In fact, if they’re not, <a href="http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/video/how-to-spot-pseudoneuroscience-and-biobunk.html">you should be worried</a>. </p>
<p>They’ve often slaved away for many hours in the lab and know firsthand the limitations and pitfalls of their research. Many would be happy to sit inside their bubble of expertise and patiently continue building on knowledge that may one day lead to the betterment of humankind. </p>
<p>However, there is increasing pressure for scientists to <a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-need-to-prove-their-research-is-worth-it-14618">prove their worth to society</a>. This means finding, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/">or creating</a>, ways in which their research will “save the world”, and then doing their best to communicate this in the hopes that their funding continues. </p>
<p>The pressure from a culture of “<a href="https://theconversation.com/predicting-who-will-publish-or-perish-as-career-academics-18473">publish or perish</a>” results in an increase in practices like “<a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120911172302.htm">spinning</a>” data, or <a href="https://theconversation.com/trolling-our-confirmation-bias-one-bite-and-were-easily-sucked-in-42621">dubious practices</a> like “<a href="http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800">p-hacking</a>”.</p>
<p><strong>The media</strong></p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122230/original/image-20160512-18132-1ucbejc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122230/original/image-20160512-18132-1ucbejc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122230/original/image-20160512-18132-1ucbejc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122230/original/image-20160512-18132-1ucbejc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122230/original/image-20160512-18132-1ucbejc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122230/original/image-20160512-18132-1ucbejc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/122230/original/image-20160512-18132-1ucbejc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Super Brain Yoga claims to increase synchrony between the two neural hemispheres, and went viral, even being used in many schools for students with special needs. Despite high media attention the study wasn’t even based on scientific findings.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kelsey Palghat</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The role of the media in science communication is to sell findings to a public audience, which often translates to “how far can we <a href="http://www.itsokaytobesmart.com/post/69213660275/this-week-in-misinterpreted-scientific-research">inflate the implications</a> of what’s been said?” </p>
<p>Using <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4522609/">ambiguous language</a> is a key culprit for misinterpretation of findings. A modest scientist reporting on a small but “significant” (meaning “statistically unlikely to have occurred by chance”, as opposed to “highly important”) recovery in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease suddenly finds it reported that he’s discovered the next cure. </p>
<p>Journalists under time pressure or those without a scientific background are also more likely to rely on summaries of studies written by other media outlets. Even worse, some viral “brain-based” practices, such as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSwhpF9iJSs&feature=youtu.be">super-brain yoga</a> (which claims that squatting while holding your earlobes will make you smarter) were <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/cns/2/4/452/">never based on peer-reviewed studies to begin with</a>. Believe us, it’s as ridiculous as it looks.</p>
<p>In the worst case, “sexing up” the results not only angers the researchers but ultimately deceives the public.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/118488/original/image-20160413-3600-l9auop.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/118488/original/image-20160413-3600-l9auop.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118488/original/image-20160413-3600-l9auop.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118488/original/image-20160413-3600-l9auop.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118488/original/image-20160413-3600-l9auop.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118488/original/image-20160413-3600-l9auop.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118488/original/image-20160413-3600-l9auop.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Products like these <em>neuro</em> drinks capitalise on the popularity and trust that comes with neuroscience.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jason Tester Guerrilla Futures/flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>The public</strong></p>
<p>The public is on the receiving end of the transmission and is often unaware of the embellishment the findings have gone through. </p>
<p>Neuroscientists, in particular, are seen as having <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25390208">unquestionable authority</a>. Without reading articles critically, many people on the internet blindly buy into the claims that are being made: “Oh! This app trains my brain so I can be a rocket scientist!” </p>
<p>The second contributing factor is that members of the public are often all too enthusiastic to find ways in which the data is relevant to their own lives. This becomes an issue when the void created by scientists being unable to turn their claims into real applications is filled by ambitious, yet naive, individuals. </p>
<p>For example, take the latest trend in <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27343047">homemade tDCS systems</a>, which continues despite <a href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00600/full">warnings from scientists</a>.</p>
<h2>Where do we go from here?</h2>
<p>Scientists need to take more care in how they report their results, the media needs to stop overselling, and the public needs to be trained in critical thinking. </p>
<p>But we’ve all <a href="https://theconversation.com/thinking-critically-on-critical-thinking-why-scientists-skills-need-to-spread-15005">heard this before</a>. In reality, the problem is only likely to become greater as access to advanced technology becomes mainstream. </p>
<p>All we can do is give people a basic tool for digesting research - ask yourself: “Does this sound too ‘sexy’ to be true?” </p>
<p>Understand that science works slowly and, as attractive as that new research sounds, its full impact will only be seen in future generations. </p>
<p>Most importantly, do not place blind trust in findings that claim to be based on science. Just because it’s “neuro” doesn’t mean you should strap a battery to your head.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57652/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natalie Rens receives funding from The Science of Learning Research Centre (Special Initiative of the Australian Research Council). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kelsey S. Palghat receives funding from The Science of Learning Research Centre (Special Initiative of the Australian Research Council). </span></em></p>Sometimes scientists, the media and the general public inadvertently conspire to oversell science, and that is bad for us all.Natalie Rens, PhD Candidate in Cognitive Neuroscience, The University of QueenslandKelsey Perrykkad, Senior Research Technician in Cognitive Neuroscience and Autism Research, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/466752015-08-31T20:07:08Z2015-08-31T20:07:08ZWhat has science ever done for us? The Knowledge Wars, reviewed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93414/original/image-20150831-25771-bce6kz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=455%2C93%2C2835%2C1991&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Electricity is only one of the marvels brought to us by science. But even that's not enough to convince some of its value.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Wyszomierski/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The deadbeat boyfriend at the centre of Janet Jackson’s 1986 hit <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9uizdKZAGE">What Have You Done For Me Lately</a> used to take Janet out to dinner almost every night. He used to do a lot of nice stuff for her. But – as the title asks – what had he done for her lately?</p>
<p>Like Janet, many people ask the same question of science. </p>
<p>Sure, since the 16th century, science has given us electricity and anaesthetics, the internet and statins, the jumbo jet, vaccines and good anti-cancer drugs, the washing machine and the automobile. But what has it done for us lately? </p>
<p>In fact, for many people, what science has done for us lately hasn’t been dancin’ till one thought one would lose one’s breath. Rather, it has delivered emotionally-charged fights over issues such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/vaccination">vaccination</a>, whether everyone should be taking <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/statins">statins</a>, anthropogenic <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/climate-change">climate change</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/gm-food">genetically modified foods</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/wind-power">wind farms</a> and high-tension <a href="https://theconversation.com/experts-criticise-study-linking-magnetic-field-exposure-to-asthma-risk-2626">power lines</a>. </p>
<p>Indeed, while most of us are happy with most of the products of science – not least our <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOH15_pqWZ4">iPods, white goods and light bulbs</a> – when it comes to some of the more contentious issues of science we’re not such a happy bunch. </p>
<p>You only have to look at comment threads on this site on articles about these topics to see just such unhappiness and disgruntlement. In such discussions, science isn’t a benign tool for understanding the natural world, but a villain intent on unleashing industries and technologies we don’t want, or forcing us to give up our SUVs or eat our broccoli. </p>
<p>In this sort of world you can understand why, when considering the state of things, many scientists have taken on slightly exasperated air.</p>
<h2>Warts and all</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=934&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=934&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=934&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1174&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1174&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93417/original/image-20150831-25742-le945l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1174&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Science is under attack from some quarters.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Melbourne University Press</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And so Nobel Laureate and National Living Treasure <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-c-doherty-169">Peter Doherty</a> has stepped into this breach to make the case for science. His new book, <a href="https://www.mup.com.au/items/160807">The Knowledge Wars</a>, rests on the argument that we are in the midst “of a potential deadly conflict between the new knowledge based in science and the established power”. </p>
<p>That is, while science has often been in conflict with established dogma – from Charles Darwin to <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/marshall-bio.html">Barry Marshall</a> and <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/warren-bio.html">Robin Warren</a> – for the first time in a long time science finds itself pitted against powerful economic and political actors.</p>
<p>In this space, Doherty’s work seeks to provide a practical discussion of the nature of modern science with the hope that we can all take on a more evidence-based view of the world. </p>
<p>Thankfully, this isn’t a ra-ra hagiography that just drums into us that science is the best thing that’s ever happened to us since our ancestors discovered the paleo diet (though there is some of that). </p>
<p>Rather, Doherty seeks to explore how science works in modern times, warts and all. This means instead of a recitation of a high school definition of science, Doherty provides a nuanced, thoughtful discussion of the limits of peer review; the economics of publishing; the scientific culture of critique; fraud, errors and outright criminality in scientific work; and the nature of modern data collection.</p>
<p>This makes it a valuable “behind the scenes” examination of what actually happens in modern science.</p>
<h2>Renaissance again</h2>
<p>The goal in much of this is not to directly convince those who, for example, reject the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a>’s position on climate change, but to provide ammunition to those of us who find ourselves stuck in a conversation with such people. </p>
<p>We’ve all heard lines about “global conspiracies of scientists”. Yet no one who has a passing understanding of how science works could imagine getting a global community to agree on anything remotely doubtful.</p>
<p>Doherty’s central target (very much in keeping with the history of science, really) is blind acceptance of dogma based on the pronouncements of authority. Here he connects centuries of science from Galileo and Copernicus to Charles Darwin, Richard Feynmann, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren. </p>
<p>We might even point to an earlier trajectory of empirically minded iconoclasts, from <a href="http://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-the-Navigator">Prince Henry the Navigator</a> to <a href="https://youtu.be/nYcSrMEngHU?t=1458">Heraclitus the Paradoxographer</a>. Importantly, though those who reject the idea of anthropogenic climate change might point to such iconoclasts as rejecting scientific dogma, Doherty very much highlights such revolutionary work as part and parcel of the process of science. For him, <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-research-is-good-but-not-if-wind-experts-are-told-what-to-find-43625">the solution to any of the ills of science is more science</a>.</p>
<p>At times The Knowledge Wars feels like a Wikipedia binge, ranging widely and wildly through invention and events of the last 500 years (although, to be fair, that’s often how I spend my Saturday nights). And, perhaps more fundamentally, it sorely misses a nuanced take on the economic sociology and history underpinning that period. For example, although central to much of scientific and social history of the last half millennium, “capitalism” doesn’t make it to the index. </p>
<p>But the bigger lament I have after reading The Knowledge Wars is one perhaps I share with Doherty. Modern science began with the birth of Renaissance men; with individuals who understood that wise governance requires an embrace of statecraft as well as high art and the latest advances in science. </p>
<p>Yet now, the very idea of Renaissance men and women seems anathema, a foolish dream that could never happen in this crazy mixed up world we now live in. But is that really so foolish?</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The Knowledge Wars by Peter Doherty is published by Melbourne University Press and is available for A$29.99 in paperback and A$19.99 in ebook.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46675/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Will J Grant receives funding from the Department of Industry and Science.</span></em></p>Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty’s new book explores why so many people today selectively reject science, and in the process gives a behind the scenes look at how science really works.Will J Grant, Researcher / Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/444642015-07-22T20:11:31Z2015-07-22T20:11:31ZEngaging the public with science can yield unexpected rewards<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88955/original/image-20150720-21027-1397e0o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1233%2C622%2C2654%2C1967&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sometimes the audience can be a font of illuminating questions.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">hackNY.org/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As a young(ish) female, I have been cautioned many times over the years that if I want to be taken seriously then I shouldn’t make jokes about my work <a href="http://angelacrean.com.au/?page_id=40">on sperm</a>, and that it is probably better to avoid talking about my research in public. </p>
<p>But I don’t see the point of doing the research if nobody knows about it. Plus, it’s pretty hard to talk about sperm without cracking a joke or two.</p>
<p>My research investigates how a male’s environment influences his sperm quality, and whether changes in sperm quality can influence offspring health and development. I think it is essential to inform the public about this research, because most people are not aware that, just like females, a male’s age and diet can influence his reproductive success and offspring health. </p>
<p>Currently, I use flies as a model system to test these ideas. It is not that I have a secret love of flies; it is the ideas that fascinate me.</p>
<p>I am trying to understand how variation is transmitted from parents to their offspring, and hope that the knowledge gained through my fundamental, curiosity-driven research may eventually lead to practical applications in reproductive health. To me, science is asking questions and seeking answers.</p>
<h2>From amazement to horror</h2>
<p>Recently I discovered a particularly startling pattern of inheritance: the size of flies was influenced by what their mother’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/flies-give-another-twist-in-the-evolving-story-of-heredity-32509">previous mating partner</a> (not their father) ate during development. </p>
<p>As an evolutionary biologist, I was excited by this finding, as it changes the way we view inheritance. Evolution is fundamentally about explaining variation, and we had discovered a new source of variation in offspring traits. </p>
<p>But not everyone has shared the same enthusiasm in my findings, and reactions have ranged from amazement to horror.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88956/original/image-20150720-21056-prze3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88956/original/image-20150720-21056-prze3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/88956/original/image-20150720-21056-prze3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88956/original/image-20150720-21056-prze3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88956/original/image-20150720-21056-prze3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88956/original/image-20150720-21056-prze3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88956/original/image-20150720-21056-prze3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/88956/original/image-20150720-21056-prze3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">My research touches on issues that resonate with many parents.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">OakleyOriginals/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When I took my story to the media, most <a href="http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/how-your-children-may-end-up-looking-like-your-ex-partner/story-fnet09p2-1227077625663">had fun</a> playing up the shock aspect. Naturally, some of the headlines and media articles about the study were more sensationalist <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/ghosts-of-mothers-sexual-past-show-up-in-fly-offspring-study-shows-20141001-10onn3.html">than others</a>. </p>
<p>Even though (generally) reporters were careful to mention that the research was on a fly, this was often hidden below dire warnings about ex-boyfriends coming back to haunt us.</p>
<p>As expected, I received some negative trolling and attacks on both my own personal characteristics and my research integrity. What I didn’t expect was a regular stream of emails from interested public, wanting to know more. Even 10 months later, I am still receiving emails asking questions about the study. </p>
<h2>Back to basics</h2>
<p>It has genuinely surprised me that so many people took the time to seek out my contact details and write me an email to find out more. </p>
<p>I have received many queries asking for clarification about different aspects of the study, questions about my experimental design and why I did it that way, suggestions for alternative explanations and follow-up studies, and even offers to participate in future experiments. It has been like a second round of peer-review!</p>
<p>This correspondence has forced me to think about my research from a wide variety of different perspectives. Often, when scientists discuss our research, it is with other scientists who have been trained in similar backgrounds, and therefore have similar ways of thinking. </p>
<p>Discussing my research with people from a variety of different backgrounds has helped me to clarify my arguments, and uncovered some assumptions and biases in my thinking. </p>
<p>One benefit of chatting about your work with people outside of your field, I’ve found, is that they’re free of expectations and pre-conceived notions. Sometimes their questions are naïve, but often they highlight underlying ideas that are taken for granted as true. It’s a good exercise as a scientist to deconstruct an argument to first principles. </p>
<p>There are many pros and cons for scientists engaging in communication with the press and the public. The greatest concern is that once we release a story into the wilds of the media, we lose control of the message. </p>
<p>However, after the initial tornado of media interest swept through, instead of destruction I was left with a trail of interest. It’s been rewarding to see that my work has generated enthusiasm, ignited debate, and initiated a discussion with a diverse group of interested people.</p>
<p>I have been pleasantly surprised about how keen the public are to engage with scientists, and want to thank everyone who took the time to engage in scientific debate. </p>
<p>I could not answer many of the questions that I was asked, particularly about whether this pattern of inheritance is possible in humans. Many of the queries about how the process works are questions that I have been grappling with myself. </p>
<p>What made me so happy was that people were asking questions. It was brilliant to know that so many people have an inner scientist, and are actively seeking answers to satisfy their curiosity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44464/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Angela Crean receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>I sometimes forget that people can feel embarrassed listening to me talk about my research on sperm. But often those same people can also be a source of amazement and inspiration.Angela Crean, Senior research associate, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.