Creating Community Conversations - Gallomanor

SCC2011

It's good to present on the first day of a conference. You get it out of the way and can start to enjoy the social (read liquid) elements in much more depth. The danger is that on the second day you might get asked to step in for an ill speaker. I wasn't feeling too bright myself but with the Science Communication Conference having an online engagement theme I could hardly leave the Future of Online Session a speaker short.

Needless to say I thoroughly enjoyed myself at the conference and well done to Alice, Toby and the King's Place staff for a very smooth running conference.

What follows are some thoughts, links and comments that I didn't bring up at the time.  It's as much for my own benefit as anyone elses.

We kicked off the Online Engagement themed conference with a keynote from Tim Radford. Tim can tell a story or two and he's been around since Yuri Gagarin went into space so he's got a few to tell.  You can tell why he is so revered as a science journalist.

Tim made some very good points calling upon the science community to "get your protests in early" and to engage with the public because without that engagement science will be vulnerable to the whims of politicians. What he said had resonance with our Science Is Vital work. My favourite part of the session was the question from a PhD student researching the use of sensational headlines by certain parts of the media. Tim's riposte was that "all headlines have to be sensational. If they didn't create a sensation then no-one would read them." It was a well put reminder that a hyperbolic headline might be sensationalism (in a derogatory sense) to a New Scientist reader, but that an academic geeky headline in the New Scientist is also sensationalist, but just for a different audience's sensations.

However all was not perfect with Tim kicking off the online conference. He only refered to online engagement twice.  Once to declare Twitter a waste of time and secondly to lament that people getting their news online were not subject to the diversity of opinions that someone buying from the newstand would get. We can argue about Twitter (and it can be a waste of time if not used well) but not being able to see that a Google search can provide immense diversity is strange. Try Nuclear Power. You get Greenpeace and the World Nuclear Association on the same page.

Whilst Tim was a great speaker I'm not sure it was wise to have him kicking off the conference because it did not start a discussion of online engagement at all.

The day continued with some speed networking which as before works very well. If I can find the name of the person who works out who meets who I'll post it in an update.

After a swift lunch Sophia and I spoke about I'm a Scientist.  We'll write up that session sometime soon, but I just want to thank Dan Hannard from Woodkirk High School who blew me and the audience away with his talk. Thank you Dan.

The final session of the day was Democratising Technology. I went to hear Cory Doctorow and he didn't disappoint. You can follow him @docotorow. The other two speakers showed us some fun stuff that has come out of the Maker Faires such as the exhilirating looking Jet Ponies, but I couldn't help feeling that the Maker Faires were really a modern version of Steam Rallies that are common place out here in the West Country. Interesting but not exactly a new concept.

Post-event drinks courtesy of the BSA Crest Awards were swiftly downed followed by more at the very nice The Fellow pub with roof terrace.

Day Two started with copious quantities of orange juice and the request to step in for Jonathan Druro in the first session. Vicky Reeves was on the original line-up and took the brunt of the questioning. In the few minutes preparation I had, I felt that speaking about the AlphaGov experiment and the trend towards open data in government might add the most value. 

Government isn't normally seen as a bastion of web innovation and the behemoth of Direct.gov.uk doesn't inspire confidence. However the Alpha.gov.uk team (and many other lower profile govt webbies) are changing that, treating Google as your homepage and creating a very flat heirarchy site that cuts the extraneous content and delivers transactions quickly. The other defining aspect of the experiment is how much of their work is being done in the open, in full view of their potential critics.

The other trend I spoke about was open (and interlinked) data. My theme was that people are making data available and letting others decide how to use it. By publishing data you are engendering trust even if no-one actually looks at the data. Take Civil Servant and MP expenses. The vast majority are so dull and mundane and honest that very few people would ever read them. But it is the fact that they are published that leads to people trusting them. At least more than they used to.

And once your data is published make sure that others can use it easily. Councils in England now are required to publish all spending over £500. Sites such as OpenlyLocal have aggregated that data so you can see who's paying who. That site links though to OpenCorporates which use Companies House (and similar in other countries) data to build a database showing the links between companies and the revenue they derive from governments. When linked to the Who's Lobbying this will show either the wonderful efficiency of the private sector or the corrupt nature of the private sector depending on who you view and your viewpoint. David Waldock has written up the session in more detail.

The Tyranny of the Web followed with the ever excellent Ed Yong and a talking dog from Jonathan Sanderson alongside Pippa Hyam from Dialogue by Design. Ed reminded us eloquently that we need to distinguish between the Tool and the Tool User. It is wrong to blame the internet if it is the people mis-using it that are the problem.

Jonathan, perhaps too subtlely drove home the message that you to select your audience online. Broadcast TV perhaps does that for you by scheduling. The internet perhaps lulls you into a false sense of security, a Fields of Dreams, Build it and they will come mentality. The power of Google makes you think the right people will find you. If only. His talking dog with 35 million views reminds us the difference between mass audiences and an echo chamber.

Pippa was playing the devil's advocate. She professed to be shocked by her discovery of "astro-turfing". I'm sure she must realise that it happens in the "real-world", it's just that online it is easy to track and prove using IP addresses. As evidence of the tyranny of the web, astro-turfing is fairly poor.

Two more sessions beckoned. Kathy Sykes, Paul Manners and Robert Winston took to the stage with the ever-present Sue Nelson to discuss the future of public engagement. It was a wide ranging conversation with questions from the floor. Some of them might have been leading.

My key quotes (paraphrases more accurately) were:

Kathy Sykes: Include the public in your research governance

Robert Winston: Industry needs to be more involved in public engagement and there needs to be more spent on online engagement.

The final session of the day before I caught the early train home was on CitizenScience. With our work on I'm a Scientist, Decipher My Data I thought this would be useful. And it was. Karen Bultitude chaired with knowledge and authority while Marek Kukula and Chris Davis spoke in detail about their SolarStormWatch projects. But the star of the show was Julia Wilkinson who is a very dedicated citizen scientist indeed.  Julia told us she is motivated by:

• Getting feedback from the scientists on the discoveries being made
• Getting her name on an Academic Paper
• Being thanked by the scientists
• Her general interest in the subject

I don't think Julia is atypical. Her motivations are really simple and it highlights the importance of the two-way communication in this type of project.

I'd have liked to have made Bright Club, but it'll happen one day...

I make no apologies for the length of this post. I hope there's a useful reminder or anecdote in here for me at least. But to finish with a summary:

• SCC2011 was excellent - in organisation, in delegates, in balance between sessions and networking
• There were many excellent sessions with knowledgable speakers

However

• Some chairs were not knowledgeable, particularly on online matters
• Kicking off with the excellent Tim Radford was probably not the right idea

And if it had been over 5 days I might just have met all the people I wanted to but with so many I did want to catch it was never going to be the case. As it was an excellent two days. See you next year.

 

UPDATE: Ben Craven is the master of speed-dating algorithms.

Another effect of Science is Vital campaign

I spent the train journey along the gorgeous Limpley Stoke Valley going to Bristol reading the 2011 Public Attitudes to Science Summary Report.

It is a great read. 24 pages stacked full of information about how the UK public view science.  It's a positive story full of improvements, but without a sense of Mission Accomplished.

It demonstrates that most of the public don't understand how science is conducted, and nor how it is funded. It tells us that although use of the internet for gathering information about science is still quite low (only 19% put it in top 2 sources of information), it is more important for 16 -24 year olds.  And it is this age group that are least engaged with science.

I recommend anyone interested in the area has a read.

I can't finish though without explaining what made me chuckle and grin.

On page 21 & 22 the report addresses the issue of public funding of science.

76% in their surveys agreed that "even if it brings no immediate benefits, research which advances knowledge should be funded by the Government".  

Later in their workshops that support was quite as apparent. The difference was enough for the report authors to insert a footnote saying

"that the fieldwork took place when the Govt announced its Comprehensive Spending Review. During this period, there was considerable media coverage as well as an online campaign in favour of public funding of science, which may have affected responses to these questions"

I love the fact that the Science Is Vital campaign might have distorted MORI's findings. We just need to make those attitudes stick.

 

FOOTNOTE:

Jenny, Richard & I have been invited to give a talk at OpenTech at University of London Union on Saturday (21/5/11) about the campaign. Feel free to give a standing ovation if you're going to be there ;)

Let's have a conversation about the funding of science

Throughout the Science is Vital campaign I was aware that whilst we were fighting to retain science funding, no-one really had an accurate map of current funding. We managed fine because we concentrated on funding through BIS and that was reasonably clear. If we had to enter into a wider conversation about where other funding comes from and where that money goes we would have struggled to provide an accurate and detailed picture.

I don't believe the issue of science funding is going to go away and I believe the need for an accurate picture of science funding is going to become vital.

Yesterday the NewScientist reported on the latest efforts by the Republican Party in the US to get the public involved in reducing their deficit (yes, I agree that they have ulterior motives).

 

"OMG, terrifying" tweeted Jenny Rohn in response. It is pretty scary what the consequences might be. 

Some people might argue that we should fight against the public playing a role in determining science funding. Whilst they might (hopefully) succeed in having scientists keep the final decision about which projects get funded, they will not be able to stop the public influencing decisions through programmes similar to YouCut.

It's my view that instead to trying to keep the public away from conversations involving science funding we need to engage with them. We can start by creating an accurate picture of what is currently funded in the UK. We have a very efficient science research sector in the UK (see point 3) so let's be open about what we spend and why.

We can choose not to join in the conversation about science funding, but as the YouCut programme shows, it doesn't mean the conversation isn't happening, it just means that the science community is not part of the conversation. If we want that conversation to be informed, to be rational, and to be intelligent then we need to be part of it.

 

Science is Vital - and so is the campaign strategy

 Last Saturday I listened to Evan Harris talk about some failures, in his keynote at the Science Online London conference.  He wasn't trying to be negative, just making very valid points about the complexities and subtleties of changing government policy.

Two particular gems stood out:

• Simon Singh failed paradoxically because he won his libel case before the law was changed.
• Winning public opinion isn't necessarily important

I hope Evan has explained the first one elsewhere, but I want to return to the second issue because already this week his words have become more relevant.

On Wednesday morning Business Secretary Vince Cable implied on Radio4 that severe cuts in science funding were on their way. Plenty of people have commented already on this and the myopically-challenged Jenny Rohn has leapt into action with a Facebook group to gather support for a march to protest against the upcoming cuts.

I applaud the effort and it is the right starting point to try and get some changes made. Rather than putting my thoughts on the Facebook group and dissipating the energy that is building there I wanted to write some notes here about what the campaign needs to consider based partly on my experience working on the Robin Hood Tax campaign earlier this year.

1. Choose the enemy wisely - cuts are going to come. A campaign might have the chance to influence where, when and how those cuts are implemented. Some of the arguments that Cable gave have been well refuted. 

2. Hearts and Minds - every campaign needs to work on both levels. The Robin Hood Tax Campaign excelled at winning hearts. It had 300,000 supporters within a fortnight. Superb. But it didn't have the minds sorted from the outset. The economic arguments were not watertight, the consequences had not been thought through fully. So when criticism came, and it did, the campaign wasn't fully prepared.  As Evan said at the weekend policy-makers will react to a sound rational argument and if public opinion is behind the argument all the better. 

3. Coalitions - they're helpful for gathering support for a cause, but they make decision-making unbearably slow. Also make sure you're in with the right people. It was suggesting on the Facebook group that there might be arts groups that could be campaigned with. I think the reality is that science needs to fight for itself. Cuts are coming. It is about prioritisation. If that means science comes above arts then so be it.

4. Timing - The Comprehensive Spending Review is published on October 20th.  I don't know when the final changes get made but there isn't much time.  Let's not leave it too late.

5. Opportunity - Is the inevitable cutting of funding an opportunity for change, for the better? What needs changing? Funding processes? Publication process? Peer review? Career advancement? Can positive changes be forced through by the science community as part of cuts package?

So what should be done:

1. Clarify the campaign objectives - make them realistic, yet aspirational. Make Poverty History was aspirational, but the main targets were solid feasible figures of development expenditure. The campaign isn't going to stop a programme of cuts, but it might affect the amount of cuts, how the cuts are implemented and get some changes made.

2. Create a central space for the solid rational arguments against the cuts. They have been made already.  Bring them together in one place. Create an overview (get a really good writer to spend a few hours polishing it if possible), find some case studies showing what would be lost, illustrate the damage that happened previously, highlight what other countries are doing. Bring together all the collateral you need in one place. Don't expect the site to be the centre of the public campaign but make it a place for policy makers and journalists to get the information they need.

Keep the Facebook group and Twitter campaigns going. To win the hearts (public opinion) you need to be where the people are, but don't lose sight of the need to influence the policy-makers in BIS and the Treasury.

3. Make it easy to take part. Make Poverty History mobilised 3 million people in the UK. My 75 year old aunt went on a demonstration in support. They succeeded because they made it easy for people to be involved. Whether it is through wearing a white band, red nose, or twibbon, find ways for people to demonstrate their support. At the next level encourage people to do something more: display a real world badge or poster; write to their MP or member of the House of Lords or even better visit an MP surgery. Supporters might then write something for their local paper; join a march; wear a T-Shirt; help write case studies and arguments to convince treasury officials of the benefit of science.

4. Decisions need to be made if the campaign is to present a unified face. If funds are needed then some governance is needed to look after them. A few of the more passionate people need to step forward and form a decision-making unit (or committee as they are usually known).

5. Move quickly. BIS want to "work together" with the Science Community. Grab the opportunity, not to appease them and agree to cuts, but to influence how the cuts get made and to get changes that you want in place. As President Jed Bartlett once said, "Decisions are made by those who show up."

6. Get some celebrity support - it might not do much for the rational argument, but celebrities sell papers and improve ratings. Make sure they are NOT scientists. You want to get non-scientists supporting the campaign so it is not seen as a job protection.

I'm not a scientist but I care deeply about how this country regards science. I don't want to tell this nascent campaign what to do, but I hope that those who stand up to run it do find something useful in what I have written here.

TalkFest: more ambition needed

 I can't recall who was speaking when the #GingerNinja struck last night, but I felt sorry as I joined half the room in coughing and laughing at the same time.

#Talkfest was an evening for science bloggers to get together and talk about their blogging.  It was fun, funny and interesting. We had discussions on the Twitterwall about whether scientists had a duty to engage with the public. Discussions in the room about whether bloggers (in particular science bloggers) should be paid to blog - yeah, why not, worrying trend is those paying to blog without due disclosure. Credit to @alicebell, @beck_smith and the Biochemistry Society for putting it together and hosting it. (And kudos to the cake maker.  I'm an expert on cakes and I have to say the ones last night were very good.)

However I came away slightly disappointed, and that feeling hasn't gone away this morning. I felt that despite the eloquence of the community, their wit, their intellect, they were not being very ambitious with what could be achieved with the medium. There was a focus of being heard: by more people, more clearly and in different ways that couldn't be achieved on paper.  Perhaps that was the design of the event or the limitations of the community.

My background is with govt and civil society bloggers. We've seen some incredibly innovative uses of the internet to improve our democracy, to change the way it has been reported on, to hold our politicians and governments to account.

So where in the science world are the equivalents of Guido Fawkes questioning the clsoed shop academic hierarchies.  Where are new uses of twitter? The science equivalents of #uksnow or EyeSpyMP. Who is shining Sunlight on how funding operates or making the data available in an easy to use way? I'm sure there are some examples, but I wasn't hearing them last night. Let's not just think about the web and blogs as a new medium with which to communicate about science, let's think about it as a medium to communicate in radically new ways about science.  Let's use it to make things better.  Unless of course they are already perfect.