Aug 04 2010

TED talks- A source of inspiration

Category: Communication, Education, Policy, Science and the Media, website — Sara @ 3:41 pm

On June 30th, 2010, the X Prize Foundation (http://www.xprize.org) announced its most recent project, “…a multi-million dollar prize [aimed] at cleanup efforts in the Gulf as a way to incentivize immediately privately-funded innovation and action.”  Francis Beland (VP of X Prize) and Dave Gallo (Oceanographer) made the announcement during the TEDxOilSpill Conference in Washington, D.C.   This is the 5th X Prize to be offered and “will be focused on the development of rapidly-deployable methods to clean up crude oil among coastlines and seas/oceans.”

News of this prize was met with enthusiasm and excitement, but what gave it the extra “wow factor” was its debut at the TEDxOilSpill Conference.  If you have not yet heard of TED, I urge you to check out their website.  TED.com is a non-profit organization (started in 1984) dedicated to “Ideas worth spreading.”  Started as a conference to bring together leaders in their respective fields (beginning with technology, entertainment and design), TED has expanded to encompass experts in all fields and move well-beyond the conference setting.

For those individuals who are not selected to attend one of TED’s 3+ annual events (the application process is highly selective and pricey), TED offers a website chock full videos from their conferences (+700 and counting) from years past to present-day.  Their website reads: “Riveting talks by remarkable people, free to the world.”

A quick perusal brings up well-known names in science such as: UW’s own John Delaney, talking about “Wiring the Ocean”; Clay Skirky, “HowCognitive Surplus Will Change the World”; Carter Emmart, “A 3D Atlas of the Universe”, to name a few.  There are also featured videos by pioneers in economies, politics, policy, art, music, and world health.  The archives are staggering.  And of course, if you aspire to one-day give a TED talk, you’ll have to keep it short.  Talks run about 18-minutes in length and are Powerpoint “lite”.

I urge you to peruse their website, and to listen to talks in areas outside of your realm of expertise.  It is inspiring to see how well the featured speakers use interdisciplinary approaches to communicate to their audiences and to the general public.  And for those of you interested in the progress of the oil spill and the 5th X Prize, be sure to visit:

http://tedxoilspill.com/

Several recently added TED talks featured on TED.com (2010)

Jul 29 2010

Open Science Summit

Category: Communication, Ethics, Policy, Science and the Media — Andy McMillan @ 7:58 pm

I just heard about a conference that’s going on right now in California, the Open Science Summit, with streaming video of the talk also available.  It looks like there should be a lot of topics that may be of interest to people reading here. From the description on the streaming page:

From July 29-31, scientists, hackers, students, patients, and activists will convene to discuss the future of our science/technology paradigm. Topics include: Synthetic Biology, Personal Genomics, Gene Patents, Open Access/Data, the Future of Scientific Publishing and Reputation, Microfinance for Science, DIY Biology, Bio-security, and more.

Jun 17 2010

“Why yes, I am an oceanographer. No, I do not study oil spills.”

Category: Communication, Policy — Sara @ 12:39 pm

In graduate school, I study oceanography.  And within this field, the tiny, single-celled organisms known as phytoplankton.  My favorite 1-liner when in a crowd, “Did you know that 1 in every 2 breaths you take was generated by phytoplankton?”  It’s a definite crowd-pleaser.  What I do not study are whales, dolphins, or seabirds, although I do enjoy learning about them.  And contrary to my family’s popular beliefs, I also do not study oil spills.  When it comes to off-shore drilling, resource management and energy policy, I have my opinions, but am far from an expert.  Last week I headed home for a friends/family Tour de Force.  Although prepared to catch up on weddings, graduations and bonding time, I hadn’t prepared myself to become my family’s source for all things oil spill.

And yet there I was, discussing the environmental impacts, outcomes and tragedies of oil-slicked birds to my relatives.  The first time I was asked about the spill, I stumbled for words.  When my friend asked, “So, how do you feel about the spill?” my first instinct was to say, “I’m horrified, sad, outraged.”  What was I supposed to say?  Truthfully, I had been avoiding reading the news for weeks.  The sight of suffering wildlife, polluted marshlands, and lost livelihoods made my stomach drop.  Of course I was outraged, and so first, came the emotional response.  Not surprisingly, everyone looked at me with blank stares, as if to say, “Well, duh.”

My next approach was to highlight some of the science that I was aware of.  I always threw in a qualifier first, such as, “I study algae, mind you.”  I started by discussing ocean circulation patterns; the possibility of the oil reaching the Atlantic Ocean; the effects on aquaculture; the loss of fish habitat.  I was ad-libbing, learning as I went, and practicing a skill that we often overlook while in graduate school, science communication.   As I continued to visit friends and family, my response became more concise.  But, my audience still wanted something more.  There was an underlying need for hope or some suggestion on how they could help.  Just as they were desperate for information, they also seemed hungry for optimism.

Although I find the Gulf situation extremely upsetting (I don’t expect rainbows and unicorns to appear in the area anytime soon), I forced myself to find something; some sound byte, similar to my phytoplankton 1-liner.  “It was only a matter of time, BP is the unfortunate one; it could have happened to any of them,” I would say, followed by, “Hopefully, this will force us to reconsider our offshore drilling regulations.” This message resonated well with my audience, as they shook their heads ‘yes’.  They also seemed to understand that our relationship to oil and to our environment is extremely fragile, and often taken for granted.  Not only was the science of the spill reaching them, but the consequences, too.  As I drew from the long list of potential impacts, it appeared that everyone was aware of at least 1 tragic consequence: fisheries have been shut down, causing an immense blow to the economy of the Gulf states; 1 of 2 fragile breeding grounds for the threatened blue fin tuna has been tarnished; communities that thrive on tourism have been vacated due to tar balls washing onshore.

The Gulf Oil Spill crosses energy, the environment, policy, and economics with one another, and it serves as an excellent platform for much-needed change through public outreach.  We can’t undo the damage that we have caused in the Gulf, at least not immediately, but we can look to the future and protect what resources we have left.  As scientists, we can educate ourselves on the environmental impacts of the spill, at least enough to provide the public (or our friends and family) with the information they so-desperately seek, as well as with that 1-liner, the small nugget of hope.  It’s not pretty, it is devastating, but sometimes it takes a tragedy to cause the public to reassess its priorities.

Sara Bender is a graduate student studying oceanography at the University of Washington.

For information and insightful blogging on the Gulf Oil Spill:

http://www.nature.org/

http://tedxoilspill.com/expedition/

http://deepseanews.com/


Jun 16 2010

Artificial Intelligence and Society – Review of the Documentary Plug & Pray

Category: Communication, Ethics, Science and the Media, Scientific Advances — Andy McMillan @ 1:16 pm

Last week as part of the Seattle International Film Festival I saw the documentary Plug & Pray which dealt with the development of artificial intelligence and it’s implications for society.

The tone of the film was set in the opening credits showing Joseph Weizenbaum, who was involved in the early development of computers and artificial intelligence, trying to start up his laptop and play some music, saying “you plug it in and it works … except when it doesn’t”. Most of the film went back and forth between researchers explaining their work and how it will improve society, with Weizenbaum coming in to argue that a lot of the benefits are overstated and too few people are thinking about the negative costs. This contrast is particularly striking in the scenes with Ray Kurzweil, about whom it would be an understatement to say he is optimistic about the potential for technology to improve humanity.

I think the film did a good job of presenting the importance for scientists to consider the impact of the work on society. Weizenbaum brought up the fact that when students would come to him for advice about thesis projects he would tell them to imagine being able to push a button to reverse all the work they had done. If a student thought they would want to be able to have that button, then they shouldn’t work on that project. Weizenbaum himself ultimately decided he didn’t want to be involved in the kind of research that was being done and finished his career teaching mathematics instead of computer science. Similarly, in the Q and A afterwards the director told how off-camera one of the researchers told him he couldn’t think too much about the long-term effects of his research, since then he wouldn’t be able to do it. I did wonder if that comment was being misinterpreted, since the director seemed to imply the researcher thought the consequences weren’t good. When I heard Weizenbaum’s advice about the button, I also thought that many people wouldn’t be able to do research if they thought that way; not because we think we’d regret doing the work, but because there are so many unknowns to take into account. Just considering all the possibilities would take so much work that it wouldn’t be possible to actually do the research.

I also saw what might have been a bit of disconnect when the director said that, other than Kurzweil, few of the researchers seemed to have really thought through the philosophical implications of their work. While it may have been edited to show the times they did discuss those issues, I thought several of them seemed well aware of the issues their work could bring about. However they also were often discussing it in terms of the inherent good of learning about how intelligence works. This valuing of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is something I see commonly in my fellow scientists, but often is less recognized by non-scientists – such as the director.

In general Plug and Pray brought up some interesting ideas that I’m still thinking about almost a week later. I’d definitely say it’s worth people trying to track down if it shows near you or once it comes out on DVD.

Apr 26 2010

Course Review – COM 220 Public Speaking

Category: Communication, Education — Andy McMillan @ 11:15 pm

If you’ve walked across Red Square on campus here at UW during finals week you might have seen people giving speeches on a variety of topics, and this last quarter you might have even come across me speaking about the importance of science in our society. These speeches were the culmination of the COM 220 Public Speaking course taught by Matt McGarrity.

I enrolled in this course after being advised by my thesis committee to improve my presentation skills, and while some aspects were helpful for speaking in general, the style of speeches we were making ended up fitting more with my interests with FOSEP than with my scientific work.

The course consisted of Monday, Wednesday, and Friday lectures that went over content like rhetorical techniques and structure as well as viewing examples of speeches. Then Tuesday and Thursday had smaller sections where we would get to apply this instruction to our own speeches. We also had access to the “speaking center” where we could practice our speech with TAs or students who had taken the class before and get feedback and be video taped for viewing at home.

We only had three different speeches with the complexity of the expectations increasing for each one. This limited number of separate talks meant a fair amount of time was spent preparing for each one, which I certainly appreciated and benefited from the opportunity to give the same speech over a period of time and get plenty of feedback.

The first speech was an impromptu speech, where were given two randomly chosen issues and had 6 minutes to prepare a short speech arguing for or against one of these two positions. While the speeches tended to be slightly formulaic in order to be composed in such limited time, it served as a good exercise in learning how to quickly organize my thoughts and layout a coherent argument.

The second speech was a persuasive speech on a topic of our choice – with the restriction that it hard to be some issue that was being considered as a university policy or at one of the levels of government applicable to us and at least some members of our class had to be opposed to our position but open to being convinced. In my case, beginning to read Tomorrow’s Table inspired me to argue against proposed requirements for labeling genetically engineered food products. I found the most difficult part of this was adjusting to shorter time requirements than I’m used to having for a presentation. While this reflected the time constraints of the course, I found it good practice to have to distill a complex topic into a few important points.

The final speech was given on Red Square where we had to advocate for some position, for many people this involved modifying their persuasive speech to appeal to a different type of audience, though I felt like going a little broader – plus it gave me an excuse to plug FOSEP to people who may not have come across us before. This speech was the most different from what I’m used to, and I often found myself needing to remind myself of Randy Olson’s advice to “Don’t Be Such a Scientist”. The outdoor environment also imposed it’s own unique challenges, but it was pretty satisfying to see a few people stop and listen during my speech.

While some of the course material was a little basic (it is an undergrad 200 level course after all) I still got a lot out of the opportunity to spend time being able to focus on my speaking ability and give a different type of talk than a series of slides about my research. Overall I found this course to have been a very worthwhile experience, and would recommend it for those who have an opportunity to take it.

Apr 18 2010

UW Scientists Share their Work at Paws on Science

Category: Communication, Education, Events — Kate @ 8:35 pm

Eric

Last weekend, the University of Washington and Pacific Science Center teamed up for the Paws on Science Weekend.  Several FOSEP members took part to share their scientific research with attendees, most of which were families with children. Two of my colleagues, Dawn, and Laura, and I made a hands on activity to teach people about proteins focusing on structure function relationships.  It consisted of 6 foot long rubber tubes surrounding copper wires that could be bent into folded “proteins.” By following a few basic chemistry rules–most importantly the hydrophobic effect in which proteins fold to hide their hydrophobic “water fearing” sidechains inside, while the hydrophilic “water loving” sidechains are situated on the outside of the protein exposed to water–people folded their own proteins. For the older kids we added electrostatic interactions or “mutations” which would result in a new protein fold. We had a lot of fun with the activity, and I think we interested at least a few people in how the shape of a protein in your own body is important for its function to keep you alive and healthy.  Plus the kids (and adults!) had fun playing with the much much MUCH larger than life “proteins.”

There were two other FOSEP member stations doing Paws on Science outreach.  Eric from the Department of Astronomy had a really cool demonstration about detecting planets that move in front of stars. The kids loved it.  Brad from the Department of Chemistry had a really neat station about solar cells with actual machines and lights running on solar power.

I think the event was as much a learning experience for the scientists as for the kids. Most of the participating scientists took free workshops organized by Pacific Science Center experts on how to best communicate science to a general audience of every age. I learned first-hand how difficult it can be to explain science to non-scientists without using jargon. My friend, Phil, once said that if you can’t explain your science to an 8 year old, then you probably don’t know it well enough yourself.  I certainly got some good practice this weekend and had a lot of fun at the same time.

Brad

Apr 15 2010

Upcoming FOSEP Seminar: Michael Webber

Category: Communication, Events, Policy — Sara @ 11:15 pm

Michael Webber discusses

“The Intersection of Engineering, Energy and Public Policy”

Please join FOSEP in welcoming our invited guest-speaker, Michael Webber (all the way from the University of Texas, Austin), to discuss his work examining the nexus of energy and food policy (and other funny stories in American energy policy).

Date: Monday, April 26th

Time: 10:30am

Location: UW Campus; Savery Hall, Room 264 (click here for Savery Hall location)

Michael Webber is the Associate Director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy in the Jackson School of Geosciences, Co-Director of the Clean Energy Incubator at the Austin Technology Incubator, Fellow of the Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, and Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin.  Through his outreach and teaching endeavors, Webber’s research group (Webber Energy Group ) focuses on energy policy in a variety of facets including: alternative and sustainable energy sources, biofuels, transportation, and water policy.  His expertise has been sought globally.  In fact, Webber has given testimony for a hearing of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, a lecture at the United Nations, and briefings for chief executives at some of the nation’s leading companies.

Michael is one of the originators of the Pecan Street Project (http://pecanstreetproject.org/) which is a citywide, multi-institutional effort in Austin to create the electricity and water utilities of the future by the innovation and implementation of smart grids, smart meters, and smart appliances.  He has also served as a board member for the Hope Street Group (http://www.hopestreetgroup.org) which is a non-profit bi-partisan national organization for young professionals interested in promoting policies that expand opportunity and economic growth.  Webber’s expertise, opinions and research have been featured in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, USA Today, NPR, PBS, The Daily Telegraph, BBC, ABC, CBS, Discovery, Scientific American, Popular Mechanics, MSNBC, Nature Geoscience, and Earth Magazine.

Just a few days after Earth Day, this seminar should offer a breath of fresh air and insightful ideas relating to U.S. energy policy and the future of energy sustainability in the 21st century.

Discussion to follow, starting around 11:30am.  Email fosep@uw.edu for more information.

Apr 15 2010

Toby Smith to speak on The Current Political Climate for Science and Technology Policy

Category: Communication, Events, Policy — Kate @ 6:16 pm

FOSEP is very happy to host Toby Smith.

Tuesday April 27th

10 am

Health Science Building HSB K-wing, room K-069 (that’s on the bottom floor of K-wing down the stairs just southwest of the Rotunda Cafe).

This seminar is sponsored in part by The Cell and Molecular Biology Training Grant.

As Vice President for Policy at the AAU, an organization of 62 leading research universities, Tobin (Toby) Smith has developed and coordinated legislative and executive branch strategies across a wide range of science policy issues. Toby currently oversees and coordinates AAU’s policy activities. He also is responsible for issues relating to innovation, competitiveness and energy and shares responsibility for matters of openness and security, technology commercialization and research costs. Toby has written and spoken widely on science policy issues and is the co-author of a book on national science policy published by the University of Michigan Press titled  Beyond Sputnik – U.S. Science Policy in the 21st Century.

Toby is the perfect person to hear about what’s going on in D.C. recently, including how things have changed with the current congress and presidential administration, the outlook on science funding, and how scientists and universities can play a role in science policy, including the best ways to communicate with policy makers.

Join us for a talk and discussion of these topics and more Tuesday, April 27th, at 10am on the UW campus, in HSB, K-wing, room K-069. For a campus map of HSB K-wing, click here.

Refreshments will be served starting at 9:30am.

Mar 09 2010

One Last AAAS Post

Category: Communication, Science and the Media — Andy McMillan @ 10:38 pm

I’m finally getting a chance to write up my last day at AAAS. This should wrap up our descriptions of the conference.

The day started out with another of a more science oriented panel, and took a slightly different perspective on the conferences theme of building bridges between communities. This session was jointly organized by AAAS’s math and biology divisions and looked at how mathematical modeling can be applied to different levels of biology. The first two speakers dealt with larger scales, the first to model the spread of HIV in Botswana to help determine the most effective way to introduce preventative anti-retroviral treatments to at-risk groups. The second speaker was looking at the spread of the H1N1 flu in Mexico, specifically how it is related to transportation networks. After this the panel switched to a much smaller focus, with Gerda de Vries describing her work figuring out how different ion channels can work together in neurons to result in rhythmic oscillations in electric potentials. This was a nice lead in the the last speaker I saw, Philip Holme, who looked at the physical processes in the brain that are involved in decision making. While there were still two other speakers after this, I left early to make it to another session that was also looking pretty appealing.

This was “Warriors against Claptrap: The New Generation of Civic Scientists” organized by Sense About Science. The panel was made up of Michael Hanlon, a science writer with the Daily Mail, Kiki Sanford, who writes the blog Bird’s Brain and is involved with the podcast “This Week in Science”, and a representative from the Voice of Young Science network, a branch of Sense About Science, Daniella Muallen. This network is meant to help young scientists confront examples of poor science that we encounter all the time because. Examples of their work can be seen on this section of their webpage. This group is mainly based in the United Kingdom, though apparently they’re interested spreading more internationally.

This was listed as a workshop, and as such after short introductory talks by each of the panelists, it was opened up to the audience for discussion about how as scientists can be effective at engaging people about these kinds of issues. The discussion seemed to mostly center around two ideas. First was the question of how much all the new resources that people have available to learn about science actually reach beyond the people who are already interested in the subject. On this subject I fall somewhere slightly on the optimistic side. While I think a lot of people tend to not pay a lot of attention to science, there’s also a lot of opportunity to engage with people once you can get their attention. The second idea that came up in the discussion was what kind of engagement is actually effective. The consensus seemed to be that it’s a mistake to approach people with an attitude of “we’re the experts so you should pay attention to what we’re talking about” and it’s more effective to try and help people develop the ability to critically evaluate ideas. Daniella pointed out that this was the approach that Voices of Young Scientists took with their reports. She mentioned that most of the people involved weren’t necessarily experts in the relevant fields, but are still in the position of being able to explain the scientific process that can be used to evaluate claims. This leads to the reports being presented as what kinds of simple questions lay people should be asking about the products they’re using. I think this panel led to a pretty interesting discussion, and seemed a good way to finish up the conference sessions.

After that I spent the rest of the day at our poster session, shown below. Overall the time spent at AAAS  was pretty informative and enjoyable. Hope you all appreciated the perspective.

FOSEP AAAS Poster

Feb 28 2010

Follow up on AAAS

Category: Communication, Education, Policy, Science and the Media — Kate @ 7:29 pm

As promised, I’m following up with some of the symposia I attended at the annual AAAS conference last weekend. The first one I want to discuss was called Learning Science in Informal Environments. Bruce Lewenstein of Cornell Univsersity began by introducing an NSF funded, NRC consensus study of the same title.  The report is available through the National Academies. The report assessed the evidence for science learning in non-traditional learning environments including science museums, nature walks, zoos, aquariums, etc. They report what they call the Six Strands of Learning: 1) excitement and motivation to learn 2) content and science knowledge 3) questioning and building reasons for phenomena 4) reflection 5) participation in activities 6) thinking of one’s self as a scientist or a science consumer. Dr. Philip Bell of the University of Washington, reported that informal environments may be more effective for diverse audiences, and that incorporation of culture, values, social and lived experiences into science education results in better reception of the material. Kirsten Ellenbogen of the St. Paul Science Museum spoke of “Citizen Science” programs in which people collect data and observations for real scientific research so that they are contributing to scientific knowledge, rather than just being taught science. This provides people with a better sense that science is not just a group of facts, but science is a way of knowing. Dr. Brian Smith of Pennsylvania State University spoke about the role of media in informal science learning remarking that the public lists the media as their major source of science information.  Smith spoke of the “CSI effect” which is changing people’s perception of who a scientist is—students think that scientists can be cool and scientists can be female as opposed to previously held stereotypes of scientists as nerdy men. The CSI effect also gives people a greater expectation for forensic evidence—for example when people serve on jury duty—even if such evidence is not feasible.

The last symposium I want to discuss is called Consequences of Changes in Energy Return on Energy Invested. Dr. Charles Hall from State University of New York, started off the discussion with his definition of Energy Return on Energy Invested or EROI which is basically the energy delivered to society over the energy put into that activity  (or in general terms EROI = [Eout-Ein]/Ein). This concept has very important implications for comparing energy sources, whether they be renewable or fossil fuels. For obvious reasons you  need an EROI value of greater than one for net energy gain, and you likely need an EROI value of somewhere between 3 and 8 (that is for every 1 unit of energy used, 3 to 8 units of energy are produced) for it to be economically feasible as an energy source. One can imagine that oil has a significantly higher EROI value than solar or wind (at this time), because the amount of energy we get from fossil fuels versus the work it takes to drill for them is much greater than the amount of energy we get from solar or wind considering the materials needed to build the solar panels or wind mills. However as we hit peak oil and it becomes more expensive to drill for fossil fuels, these relative EROI should change, but will they change enough? Dr. Tad Patzek from the University of Texas-Austin, followed up by saying that conventional oil peaked in 2004, coal will peak in 2-5 years, natural gas will peak in 20-30 years. He clarified that there are plenty of fossil fuels in the world, but that these fossil fuels are like a huge bank account with a limited daily ATM withdrawal amount. The speed with which we can extract fossil fuels is the limiting factor here, and we are overdrawing everyday. Patzek predicts a very drastic change in our lifestyles will be required soon because of the energy crisis. Dr. Margaret Mann of the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado, spoke of the EROI for renewable energy sources. Her method included not only the energy input versus the energy output, but other implications including greenhouse gas emissions, land use, fossil fuel use, water distribution, mineral consumption, equipment, and transportation which takes into account the Life Cycle Analysis of every energy source. She describes this larger perspective as “energy service” not just energy. She argues (against Hall and Patzek) that renewables can provide more energy than they consume. There were, without a doubt, serious disagreements among the panelists (and strong sense of confusion within the audience), but at the end of the session the panelist all agreed to pair up with the person with which they disagreed the most and reconcile their opinions enough to write a scientific article about an EROI topic of choice as a team.  Pretty cool…

Next Page »

FOSEP is neither affiliated with nor supports political, religious, or other affiliations. We do not support specific viewpoints, pieces of legislation, policies, or political candidates. For more details, please consult our mission and advocacy statements.

We welcome your feedback about the website. Email us at fosep at u.washington.edu