Public Engagement
-
Winners of the Euroscientist journalism competition
At ESOF 2010, we launched the Euroscientist journalism competition. We are pleased to announce that we have three winners. Their articles can be found here on the Euroscientist.
1st Place - Martin Enserink - “Italian scientist provide food with thought”
2nd Place - Venna Patwardhan - “Dear ESOF”
3rd Place - Dino Trescher - “Vikings get ahead in science”
Congratulations to our winners and thank you to those who entered.
posted by Leila SattaryCategories
Keywords
-
Dear ESOF
Dear ESOF,
"It's important to be polite, but it's more important to be honest", said Professor Holger Wormer, one of our mentors at our last feedback briefing before the curtains swung down on ESOF 2010. Sound advice, don't you think? I for one agree with him 100%. Honesty is the best policy, especially when you sincerely want to help make things better.
At ESOF 2010, everything was well organised. The event was well planned, the credentials of the speakers were impeccable, and the sessions were varied, multidisciplinary and all that.
I attended at least three or four sessions each day. With one or two exceptions, my experience was the same every time. I think I'll give you a re-cap of "When scientists read literature", one of the few off-the-track topics, one you wouldn't normally find featured in a science conference. Congratulations for selecting such an intriguingly innovative theme.
They say "we are what we read", and that is why this topic peaked my curiosity. I wondered which literary works had shaped the thinking of scientific greats like Faraday, Owen, Humbolt and Maxwell. What a wonderful treat this session will be, I thought as I ticked it on my copy of the sessions program. In the seemingly long line up of heavy-duty scientific talks, here was one that would be refreshingly buoyant, or so I thought.
And so I almost skipped all the way to Sala Parigi in joyful anticipation, joining the hordes streaming into the venue. Smartly turned out, well-fed science journalists, some with their designer jeans fashionably on the verge of slipping down their plump hips, were literally rubbing shoulders with eager young scientists, including a sprinkling of Einstein look-alikes, obviously potential "madly-in-love-with-science" scientists of the future, as they tried to find a seat in the crowded hall. The place was packed with attendees of different hues and nationalities within minutes. Soon people were jostling for space even in the aisles along the length of the hall. The topic was clearly a popular choice. Not surprisingly, an enthusiastic round of applause greeted the organiser as she strode to the dais to open the session.
Did the proceedings that followed enrapture us? Frankly speaking, no. Were we disappointed? YES!
Coming back to the session that's the focus of this letter, we had four speakers that day, each of them eminent professors who had made their mark in European academic circles, but chosen more for their knowledge of the reading preferences of the scientists I named earlier rather than for their eloquence. Agreed, it must be terribly intimidating for speakers to face a bunch of sombre-faced science geeks or smart-ass, smirking journalists. But on the other hand, (don't know if repeating this favourite phrase of mine makes me sound like Topol in Fiddler on the Roof), did they have to strut their stuff in that dreadful monotone? That too, barely looking up from their written notes? To be fair, I have to admit this was a common feature at almost every session I scurried to. At some, the drone of the speakers was accompanied by complex graphics flitting across the screen behind them, disappearing even before we could scan them, leave alone grasp their significance.
Like most ESOF speakers, our four learned professors took care to see they imparted information in the most complex way as possible. The experience was like having water described to us as liquid dihydrogen monoxide. To be honest, the speakers did manage to draw a chuckle or two from us, but surely, given a topic with so much potential, they could surely have done a much better job. A tad more science-centric humour would have given the almost lifeless session a vitalising shot in the arm. And what a let-down it was to see our speakers were not enthused enough about their subject to be able to speak extemporaneously even for a few minutes here and there.
The result? Even before the session was half-way through, people were grabbing their belongings and rushing out of the hall like wild animals fleeing from a forest fire. The formerly jam-packed hall was soon half-empty. Those who didn't have the nerve to stomp off were struggling to stay awake. The few who had been diligently trying to jot down notes at the speed of light (that was how fast the speakers were zipping through their notes), had long since given up doing the impossible. Speaker after speaker was letting loose facts the way a trigger-happy soldier fires bullets from a gun. Wouldn't it have been better if they had trained their sights on delivering a crisp and concise talk, making it both informative and stimulating? I think even you would agree it's possible to make people think and smile at the same time, right?
The bottom line? If the distinguished speakers had even passable public speaking skills, it would make your sessions not only livelier but also more productive. You know, I had actually sat in on one session where they talked about making science more fun for kids to induce a greater number of them to choose scientific careers. But how about making ESOF more fun? That's the only way forward if your aim is to be the best science-related outreach program in Europe.
I love science, and I love what you're trying to achieve. And that's the only reason I think I have a right to be frank with you. Politely frank.
by Veena Patwardhan
Veena Patwardhan is a Mumbai-based science journalist, freelance writer, and special correspondent for Chemical Industry Digest, India's leading chemical and engineering journal.
This article was submitted to the Euroscientist journalism competition 2010 and came in 2nd place
Categories
-
You are the Organisation!
Yes, you are the Organisation. It doesn't matter if you are a member of Euroscience, the European Society for Evolutionary Biology or of the European Association for Music in Schools - you as a member define the organisation from within.
When you apply for a membership, you have something in mind. Even if it is the simple fact that you want to join a special conference or you want to receive the newsletter. You join organisations because you want some benefit through your membership. But have you thought about getting involved too? Have you thought about actively contributing to the organisations services? After you visited the conference or read the newsletter you could start to communicate your thoughts about what you have heard or read. You could start a discussion or maybe submit a talk at the next-years meeting to stretch the topic a bit further.
Getting involved with organisation is easy and it doesn't have to consume all your time.
If you do not know how to get involved, Alyssa Thomas from ASAE (American Society of Association Executives) has some really good ideas. She wrote a nice summary on Ways to get involved. And she developed the "Get Trilogy" project: Get Started! Get Connected! Get Involved!"Get Trilogy" is tailored to the ASAE, but nevertheless, it is a great way to look at your engagement with Euroscience or other organisations.
One of the most sustainable ways to enrich an organisation is to become a volunteer within a Section or Workgroup.
The Regional Sections of Euroscience are the representative bodies of the wider Euroscience organisation in a region or country. The aim of a Regional Section is to provide opportunities and activities for all members, but in a certain locality. This might include workshops or topical conferences as well as assiting press and media relations. One of the major issues for a Regional Section is to conduct a public affairs program within a region or country. So, take a look at the Regional Sections of Euroscience right now!
The Workgroups assemble engaged members, to discuss and develop strategic plans for special themes. Currently there are eleven workgroups. At the ESOF2010 most of the workgroups conducted meetings and discussions.
By getting involved in an organisation you will be able to develop it in a meaningful and sustainable way while expanding your own personal skill set.
by Simon Schneider
Categories
Keywords
-
Is it better to be an academic in the US or Europe?
Europe lead on public engagement while the US enjoy the science stimulus package – on which side of the Atlantic is it better to be a scientist?
Delegates of the EuroScience Open Forum 2010 in Turin, Italy were reminded today that while social attitudes will always trump science, there are distinct differences between practice in scientific advice for policy in the US and Europe. Values typically win over hard science and this is hard to accept for many scientists working on the cutting edge in controversial areas like stem cell research and climate change.
Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) gave the perspective from the US emphasising that the attitudes of policy makers and the public matter greatly.
“The last decade has been very rocky in the US,” he said. “Science advisor positions were downgraded so they were no longer assistances to the President under George Bush’s administration.” However with President Obama in power, distinguished scientists have been appointed to leadership positions. Base research funding in the US has increased, not counting the stimulus package.
However, scientists in the US find themselves battling against teaching methods where creationism is often taught alongside evolution. Leshner believes the answer is public engagement over public education. “Scientists often take an education approach – ‘the poor people out there don’t understand.’ Often the public understand the science, they just don’t like it.”
Europe is leading on public engagement, the conference was told by the American. However it is an uphill struggle as “the public are free to ignore, distort or deny science at will.”
While Europe leads the way on public engagement and scientists appears to have a better relationship with the public, European countries are “good at scientific knowledge creation but not so good at innovation” said Roland Schenkel, Director General of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.
“The commissioner has made innovation her personal priority,” said Schenkel who also commented that Europe needs to start taking more risks to be at the forefront of innovation.
While Europe enjoy good relations with better engaged policy makers and public, the US steam ahead on innovation with increased budgets for science. Take your pick?
by Leila SattaryCategories
