The Royal Society of Medicine hosted the Sense About Science Annual Lecture yesterday evening. The lecture, entitled ‘Epidemics and refuseniks: the birth of state responsibility’ was led by Professor Richard Evans, a historian from the University of Cambridge and attended by 250 delegates from relevant disciplines. Prof Evans talk discussed the most effective way to “contribute to the communication of common sense about science” and noted the mistrust between scientists and politicians by using a number of illustrative case studies on public health.

The first example was that of the 19th century cholera outbreak, which was facilitated by the opposing beliefs about the cause of the disease. Some were convinced cholera was caused by an infection, while political influence led others to believe it to be the result of a vapor. Prof Evans then went on to discuss the failure of South African government to acknowledge and tackle Aids by initially claiming that medication actually caused Aids, invoking public skepticism and hindering treatment. Since then, the number of retro-viral treatments given to those infected can be indicative of political circumstances and beliefs. In Britain, Evans explored how those advising action on BSE (Mad Cows Disease) in the 1980’s were slow to respond due to the demand for a high level conviction in their research results from politicians, which was at the time, not possible. This created a “massive public distrust in scientific opinion”, and created scope for future misplaced opinions such as the perceived health risks associated with being given the measles, mumps and rubella (MRR) vaccine in 1990’s. The case of MMR was exuberated by media reports which focused on worst case scenarios that were still scientifically uncertain, and have since been showed to be false. The result was a decrease in the number of children being given the vaccine, and a subsequent increase in MMR (1348 cases) resulting in 2 documented deaths which may have been preventable.

These case studies demonstrated that scientific uncertainty, political agenda, and the media’s pursuit of a good story often hinder attempts to explain scientific research. The complex relationship between government, science and society can result in politicians choosing to support science that suits their own ideology, scientists that expect people to trust them despite uncertainty, and society being caught between the two. The influence of the media on the public also contributes to a lack of trust and understanding as journalists are most likely to base their reports on the worst case scenario of a predicted event, making for a more high impact story which can sometimes lead to unnecessary panic. It was clear from the lecture that scientists need to continue to improve communication between science, policy and the media, and that the way in which those parties deal with uncertainty needs to be addressed.

After two days of exciting policy engagement training in London, the Policy Training Workshop organised by British Ecological Society (BES) and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) has come to a close.

The event was attended by thirty NERC funded PhD students and early career scientists working in policy relevant research areas who wanted to further their skills in order to influence environmental policy through the effective communication of scientific information.

The workshop met these needs by providing participants with useful knowledge about how the policy-making process works, how scientists can engage with policy-makers and helped improve personal communication skills in order to influence decision-makers.

Training was packed with discussions, questions, networking opportunities and presentations on how to link science with policy, and the challenges and opportunities scientists face in doing so. Participants were also assigned a number of skill building tasks, culminating with the group exercise of creating a hypothetical policy briefing and then presenting the idea to a decision-maker. This exercise proved to be very helpful, giving participants a real insight into the do’s and don’ts of science communication, and preparing them for future interactions with politicians.

The BES and NERC knowledge exchange learning and development workshop on science policy interactions commences today. The workshop will involve participants from a variety of backgrounds including government, academia, and focus on improving science policy communication within ecological and environmental disciplines.

The two day workshop will feature presentations, case study exercises and group working with the overall aim of improving policy development within the participating organisations, and forming a network of “ambassadors” from the scientific community for policymakers to approach. The policy workshop is also an opportunity for scientists to share their experiences from the policy environment. This is the third annual policy training workshop aimed specifically at early career researchers (no more than 12 years since finishing their PhD).

This was the question asked by Dr Adam Hart, University of Gloucestershire, in the Society of Biology’s annual Charter Lecture this morning. Through an enhtusiastic presentation, Dr Hart concluded that engaging those interested in science with science festivals and similar events is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact, but that in communicating science, we must recognise how varied people’s understanding, motivation and willingness to engage with science is.

Dr Hart characterised the audience for science communication as a ‘complex market’; in terms of age, motivation, religion and culture and enthusiasm, amongst other factors; therefore it’s too much of a simplification to see people as falling into either ‘converted’ or ‘uncoverted’ camps when it comes to engaging with science.

Science Festivals attract thousands of people each year, with the 2010 Cheltenham Science Festival, for example, attracting 28,000 people to 158 events over six days, with thousands more attending the Festival’s free ‘Discovery Zone’ events. Dr Hart suggested that Science Festivals are great for those who enjoy science, and that we shouldn’t be scared of organising events which reach out to those with an already developed interest and enthusiasm for science.

Yet of course neither should we shy away from engaging those harder to reach. Dr Hart characterised people’s levels of scientific understanding as a ramp, or escalator, with different messages and activities appropriate for people at each stage; the aim being to move people along from lower to higher levels of scientific understanding and appreciation. ‘Hooks’ are very effective, he said, to get people involved in science, with major hooks being the natural environment, natural history and sustainability. The key, Dr Hart said, was to get the science in to projects focusing on these, giving the example of an ‘Enviroschools’ project, which engaged students first in improvements to their school grounds, before stimulating discussion of ecology through the involvement of an ecologist explaining why the interventions – such as bat boxes – were important.

Dr Hart was emphatic that ‘the basics’ of science could be just as effective a communication tool as ‘whizzes and bangs’. Engaging people through insect specimens for example, or simply going into schools to talk to children about science, could be very effective – although relying on people’s time, often in short supply, which he acknowledged as a major constraint. Fundamentally, communicators should emphasise science as ‘method’, not gimmick or trivia, in order to gain the maximum benefit from engagement; introduce people to how science works and they can go away and explore for themselves, as oppose to scientists simply imparting facts.

Dr Hart, as an entomologist, drew on his own experience of the Bee Guardians project, which was successful recently in securing funding from the Big Lottery Fund to turn Gloucester into the first ‘Bee Guardian City’. Dr Hart and colleagues have worked with allotment and garden societies to communicate and build an awareness of the importance of bees as pollinators, whilst engaging people in science through ‘citizen science’ projects.

It’s clear that ecologists are in a privileged position when it comes to public engagement (in contrast perhaps to biochemists and cell biologists, where Dr Hart suggested ‘hooks’ were not so readily available). Projects which focus on ‘nature’ or ’sustainability’ are a good first step in catching the public’s interest, but with the help of ecologists such projects can really be used to communicate the importance of science itself to those participating.

Today the Royal Academy of Engineering hosted this months PolicyNet event, bringing together those working in science-policy to discuss the subject of how the new media has affected science conversation.

The talk was led by Andrew Cohen, Head of Science at the BBC and Michael Kenward OBE, Science Writer and former Editor of New Scientist. Both speakers talked on the subject before addressing questions from the audience.

Andrew Cohen began the talks by highlighting the powerful impact the new media has had on science communication over the past decade. In a positive light, science issues can now be broadcast to a far greater audience. The use of BBC iPlayer for example, can generate up to one million extra viewers post broadcast, while the development of interactive applications engage wider audiences with science. Social media networks such as Twitter and Facebook also facilitate discussion, allow for the creation of media hype and provide immediate feedback. Cohen ended by speaking of the importance of ‘old journalism’, and reminding that science needs charismatic and engaging spokesman like Prof. Brian Cox to represent science to the public more than ever before.

There is however a downside; many conversations about science via the new media can be sensationalized and misleading. Those responding to stories represent only a small sub-set of society – yet broadcasting these views over the internet can distort reader opinions of science as they tend not to provide a balanced argument. Responding to such criticism represents a challenge for organsisations which is further complicated by the merging of people’s personal and professional opinions that are often best kept separate.

Michael Kenward supported Cohens views of ‘old journalism’ and spoke of the frustrations associated with the abundance of poor quality information becoming so widely available via new media streams. Kenward pointed out the need to develop new ways to improve our usage of new media in order to obtain relevant information. The science writer recommended that to tackle this issue we should start by encouraging scientists to provide input into widely used resource websites such as Wikipedia. Scientist input to such sites to check for quality and accuracy would then provide correct information to those seeking it. He also warned of the lack of people older than 35 using new media technology and the need to engage them.

To follow the British Ecological Society, and stay updated with science-policy developments on Twitter search BESPolicy.

The Guardian, Observer and the Wellcome Trust have launched a new prize for budding science writers. In an article on the Guardian’s website, journalist Alok Jha launches the prize and gives a few tips on how to get started in writing about science.

Introducing the award, Alok Hja says, “in summary, we’re looking for an 800-word article from non-professional writers suitable for publication on guardian.co.uk, in the Guardian or The Observer. There will be two prizes, one for professional scientists and another for everyone else.”

“As long as you’re not already a professional writer or journalist you can enter this competition. To encourage more people to discuss and think about science, we want to bring brilliant new writing to the attention of all our readers.”

Full information about how to enter is on the Wellcome Trust website. The closing date is 20 May and the prize will be awarded in October.

Last week the University of Cambridge hosted the BES Annual Symposium, this year titled ‘Forests and Global Change’. The event was a huge success with 370 delegates attending the three day symposium which was called “the best symposium yet” by one of the speakers, Adrian Newton.

A number of experts gave presentations on the latest research into the effect a changing climate has on forest ecosystems, and what this might mean in the future. The talks covered a range of subjects from carbon storage to biodiversity conservation, and expanded on how we can implement action through the development of new strategies such as ‘Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation’ (REDD).

By bringing together so many experts to showcase this information it is hoped progress can be made towards the creation of an informed approach to climate change and its impact of forest ecosystems, and further help to bridge the gap between science and policy.