AAAS Thursday - the long notes
I was an overactive note taker today. Hopeuflly tomorrow my session notes will get shorter (and stay interesting.)
Also note these are unedited and typed from my notes while watching the Olympics. There are typos and grammatical mistakes that I don't have the time to fix right now.
Communicating Science: Engaging with Journalists.
Cornelia Dean - Moderator from the New York Times introduces the panel theme of change. Each of the four panelists have won three Kalvi awards (for excellence in science journalism - once you've won 3, you're no longer eligible.)
First up was Carl Zimmer from the NYT and "the Loom" blog. (as well as many books, though I want to point out that he authored "Science Ink: Tattoos of the Science Obsessed.) He starts by talking about Hawking's paper that he posted three weeks ago on ArXive. He had an idea, wrote up a two-page PDF and sent it out to the world - well the physics world. It was quickly picked up by Nature and other journalists. Ten years ago this would have been submitted to a journal, peer reviewed, and only reported on under embargo until publishment. (Heh, I just typed "punishment.")
Every part of the process has changed. Hawkings may or may not publish the paper, the discussion is functioning as peer review right now.
Another change that is gaining momentum is post-publication peer review. I disagree a bit with Zimmer that the comment fields on PubMed (and other places) are effective peer review - but he does seem to be right about post-publication gaining momentum, even to the extent that some organizations are trying to figure out a way of quantifying those comments - comparable to citation ranking.
Zimmer likes that he can now hear clear fast responses to new theories and that there are many more papers than there were. "I can do more than calling people up and hearing them grumble off the record." He ended by noting that there are risks, an active community doesn't mean the reactions are valid. There needs to be trust and accountability.
---
Next up is Lee Hotz from the Wall Street Journal - who has apparently been to the South Pole four times. His title was "Perspective of a Media Survivor." He said that technology hasn't changed the substance of science reporting, but has changed the procedure from begining to end and certainly sped it up. Called it the "centrifuge of media technology."
Noted that he woke up this morning and listened to NPR's Morning Edition streamed out of Bismark North Dakota, "And the traffic in Bismark is really, really, bad this morning."
He noted that more mobile usage has produced more appetite for news, but we still seem to look to the traditional sites - NYT, and of course his WSJ (skm - may be a bit biased on this score.) But of course with the economy lately the number of reporters and science sections has dropped remarkably. Many media centers (including newspapers and tv) are looking towards easy and less expensive stories such as sports, weather, and traffic. Number of produced story packages has dropped by 50% since 2007 while interviews are up more than 30%. Live coverage of events is also way down.
He worries that we are losing the filter of traditional media and will be overwhelmed by unfiltered sources. From his tone of voice- he thinks that is bad. Though notes that non-profit news sites are silling some of the gaps - especially investigative reporting.
---
Paula Apsell from NOVA had a different perspective than the print I'm more familiar with. She talked about how there are now more choices on TV, but even on the "science stations" overall less science instead highlighting what she called adrenaline journalism.
Overall her online viewers are much younger than NOVA's traditional viewer and they are looking for much different content. She noted that they didn't care about premiere dates, most headed straight for the online achives and only 3% are coming from other NOVA prgrams - instead most were searching. NOVA was also surprised that unlike television views the online watchers weren't concerned with length - equally interested in short and long formats.
"Is this an extinction event for NOVA?" But there is an audience there for thoughtful content - if you can produce it, people will come looking for it. There is lots of pressure for ratings that can overwhelm the quest for substance. But don't dumb ddown the content.
---
Last up was David Baron representing public radio (PRI). He mainly talked about the different kind of storytelling on radio in science news. Stories are personal tales - a much more meandering style than traditional reporting that just conveyed results. The new style (as in American Life, and Radio Lab) is more narrative arc, finding "drama in human lives while along the way learning science." It's the story of the science rather than just presenting the conclusions. I have a marginal note about the worry that we'll lose technical knowledge while getting absorbed in the story.
---
Followed by a brief discussion about long form journalism and how surprised they all were that people are indeed reading long form on mobile devices leading to a resurgence of the form (now with added pictures and video.) Possibly because of the convienence of having the mobile with them all the time. Its easier to create soap operas of science instead of dealing with difficult data and details. And news is getting shorter and longer, but losing the middle range - in all formats.
The big take away from this discussion was that long form reporting demands good if not excellent writing "bad narrative stories are sprouting like weeds."
--- Now the questions.
Do the cut backs change the coverage?
Lee - Not in "quality journals" (probably speaking of his WSJ) . He did go on to note that what was once called science/medical journalism has been related as "consumer health." He noted that WSJ's most forwarded column ever was about "How to clean ears of ear wax....don't laugh if you forwarded it."
The moderator noted that the NYT refused to give her the usage numbers on specific topics because of fears that they would bias her as the science editor. Paula noted that the topic is all important and many of the science tv stations have resorted to "TRasH (Transparent Rating Seeking), Weather Porn, and Stupid Adventures."
Lee from the WSJ notes that the users resources are now in play, going directly to the source of the news on their own and generating their own commentary - citing the Curiosity landing. (1.2 Billion tweets, 17 million FaceBook posts, and 3.2 million viewers.)
Carl Zimmer notes that those measurement numbers are good for science and speak to the "general public's" fascination with science.
Question: How do we ensure accuracy of information, should we consider something like the european media center or an embargo?
The panelists all had negative reactions to the idea of the media center. Carl Zimmer said he was suspicious of governments having that much control over the spin and said it was "almost paternalistic." To which Lee chimed in with "I don't think its /almost/ paternalistic, it's insulting. also noting that people in journalism will make fun of others who use press release quotes.
Paula noted that she once had a wrong fact in a broadcast program (noted to Lee that it was pulled from the WSJ), the source called her and claimed to have been misquoted. She claimed it was because of the pressure to put content online before it was fully cooked. " I don't believe anything anymore. I mean the /Wall Street Journal/ let me down."
Lee of course had to reply, "OK, now I feel obligated to step in..." which led to an interesting discussion on errata and I learned that journalists are apparently eager to learn about mistakes so they can correct the record as quickly as possible - "We will correct an error - no mattter the cost -- bu you have to let us know we made them." Lots of resentment for scientists who notice mistakes but don't tell the journalists.
Communicating Science: Engaging with Public Events
Moderator (Ben Lillie from the Story Collider): "I guess we're ready to get engaged, how about we all get engaged to Kishore, he won't mind."
"How do you meet the public, how do you talk to people who don't have the technical background, how do you keep a laptop on a podium without a lip?" He talked about how he realized after a while as a researcher that he loved science, but he didn't love doing it. So instead he started organizing science publicity and fairs.
Most usefully I think he noted that there isn't a gereral public. but rather mutually overlapping subcultures. Of course he came to communication theory from physics and noted that "There is a long tradition of theoretical physists walking into a new field and assuming they can solve all the problems. I'm one of them."
He turned the stage over to Rabia Mayas from the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry who mostly talked about how to connect with school-age audiences. She began by noting that she was surprised "I found, along with all of you, that I'm engaged to Kishore." "If you haven't been to MSI, well you're here in Chicago and your plane is going to be delayed after the conference so you should come see us. I'm sorry, that was mean. Probably true, but mean."
"I'm not going to call my staff out, but if you have questions they are sitting in this area of the room (gestures at a specific grouping of seats.)"
What I found most interesting about her talk was a note about Robert Tie - a UVA researcher whose research has found that a child's grades in classes (middle or high school) is not the strongest predictor of the child going into a STEM career. Rather its the out of school connection to science - or personal connection to a scientist- that was a much stronger predictor.
That along with her comment that "You don't have to have a PhD to be a scientist" led into her description of the kids asking questions at a recent career day event at the museum, "What does your day look like? What classes did you take? Do you have a girlfriend? That question is /always/ asked. Apparently scientists aren't supposed to date."
Kishore Hari (who I'm apparently engaged to as well) went next - talking about the his experience running the Bay Area Science Festival. "I was told I love science by my father as a child, but I fell in love with science at a AAAS meeting during a science cafe." He spoke about connecting with adult audiences.
He feels very strongly that there is a perception that the public is ignorant and doesn't care about science, but he has found that to be wrong. (I will note again though that he's coming from the Silicon Valley and I'm not surprised that his events are always crowded.) He went on to tell several stories and show pictures about his experiences, of which this is my favorite:
So it was a science cafe lecture about neuroscience in a LGTB bar, and this is a nun. Well, nun-ish. This is a transvestite nun of perpetual indulgence with a cigarette in one hand, a glove on the other and touching a human brain. Seriously, if you've never been to San Francisco, you should really come visit. We don't have snow.
Next up was Amy Rowat from UCLA who teaches sciences with food. Most impressive to me was a public even called "Science of Pie" in which they had to formulate a hypothesis and test it - using apple pies. The participants were high schoolers I think (maybe undergrads) and the public was invited to taste the pies. It was judged by teams of scientists, chefs, and food critics. (Scienceandfood.org)
The discussion and questions led into some interesting topics. Why bother getting people excited about science if Congress and government don't care? Does public engagement have a chance to increase funding? The general consesus of the panel was that funding was not their concern - they wanted to bring science into culture - help people understand the role science plays in their lives. Not an ivory tower situation, but real and immediate.
"If people believe science is part of their life hopefully they'll understand that a vote to fund it could improve their lives."
A question from a teacher at the local teacher's college prompted a discussion about the importance of failure to science. And another surprising bit of psychological research - students of all ages are more engaged and have more long-term interaction with science, if their experiments initially fail. Something that works on the first try is boring.
Rabiah noted that her museum designs experiments with risks in them, and don't stop them from failing. They also prompt their visiting scientists to talk about their failures - and not just the minor ones - but the major costly ones. Celebrate and highlight the risks - and especially the creativity needed.
A question about science fatigue - are you only engaging or attracting the nerds - do you have a self selecting group? "The notion of fatique is something that keeps me up at night.... wow that is one of the strangest sentences I've ever said." - Kishore
Ben Lillie talked about wanting to give people a sense of ownership - The way people are enthusiastic and involved in their music or a TV Show. "I want science to be part of the culture."
A question about citizen science brought up enthusiasm but a frustration that the projects aren't going further. They want to know the results. Rabiah noted that these projects are good hooks for those who are already interested and think science is awesome. But for other communities interest and awesome-ness are luxuries that they don't have time for. Instead for them the hook should be "How does science help me get a job? Feed my kids better food?"
Kishore mentioned more community science projects - like monitoring air and water quality. Scientists should go to communities and ask "what do you want to know" and teach them how to find answers and solutions.
</lj-cut
Also note these are unedited and typed from my notes while watching the Olympics. There are typos and grammatical mistakes that I don't have the time to fix right now.
Communicating Science: Engaging with Journalists.
Cornelia Dean - Moderator from the New York Times introduces the panel theme of change. Each of the four panelists have won three Kalvi awards (for excellence in science journalism - once you've won 3, you're no longer eligible.)
First up was Carl Zimmer from the NYT and "the Loom" blog. (as well as many books, though I want to point out that he authored "Science Ink: Tattoos of the Science Obsessed.) He starts by talking about Hawking's paper that he posted three weeks ago on ArXive. He had an idea, wrote up a two-page PDF and sent it out to the world - well the physics world. It was quickly picked up by Nature and other journalists. Ten years ago this would have been submitted to a journal, peer reviewed, and only reported on under embargo until publishment. (Heh, I just typed "punishment.")
Every part of the process has changed. Hawkings may or may not publish the paper, the discussion is functioning as peer review right now.
Another change that is gaining momentum is post-publication peer review. I disagree a bit with Zimmer that the comment fields on PubMed (and other places) are effective peer review - but he does seem to be right about post-publication gaining momentum, even to the extent that some organizations are trying to figure out a way of quantifying those comments - comparable to citation ranking.
Zimmer likes that he can now hear clear fast responses to new theories and that there are many more papers than there were. "I can do more than calling people up and hearing them grumble off the record." He ended by noting that there are risks, an active community doesn't mean the reactions are valid. There needs to be trust and accountability.
---
Next up is Lee Hotz from the Wall Street Journal - who has apparently been to the South Pole four times. His title was "Perspective of a Media Survivor." He said that technology hasn't changed the substance of science reporting, but has changed the procedure from begining to end and certainly sped it up. Called it the "centrifuge of media technology."
Noted that he woke up this morning and listened to NPR's Morning Edition streamed out of Bismark North Dakota, "And the traffic in Bismark is really, really, bad this morning."
He noted that more mobile usage has produced more appetite for news, but we still seem to look to the traditional sites - NYT, and of course his WSJ (skm - may be a bit biased on this score.) But of course with the economy lately the number of reporters and science sections has dropped remarkably. Many media centers (including newspapers and tv) are looking towards easy and less expensive stories such as sports, weather, and traffic. Number of produced story packages has dropped by 50% since 2007 while interviews are up more than 30%. Live coverage of events is also way down.
He worries that we are losing the filter of traditional media and will be overwhelmed by unfiltered sources. From his tone of voice- he thinks that is bad. Though notes that non-profit news sites are silling some of the gaps - especially investigative reporting.
---
Paula Apsell from NOVA had a different perspective than the print I'm more familiar with. She talked about how there are now more choices on TV, but even on the "science stations" overall less science instead highlighting what she called adrenaline journalism.
Overall her online viewers are much younger than NOVA's traditional viewer and they are looking for much different content. She noted that they didn't care about premiere dates, most headed straight for the online achives and only 3% are coming from other NOVA prgrams - instead most were searching. NOVA was also surprised that unlike television views the online watchers weren't concerned with length - equally interested in short and long formats.
"Is this an extinction event for NOVA?" But there is an audience there for thoughtful content - if you can produce it, people will come looking for it. There is lots of pressure for ratings that can overwhelm the quest for substance. But don't dumb ddown the content.
---
Last up was David Baron representing public radio (PRI). He mainly talked about the different kind of storytelling on radio in science news. Stories are personal tales - a much more meandering style than traditional reporting that just conveyed results. The new style (as in American Life, and Radio Lab) is more narrative arc, finding "drama in human lives while along the way learning science." It's the story of the science rather than just presenting the conclusions. I have a marginal note about the worry that we'll lose technical knowledge while getting absorbed in the story.
---
Followed by a brief discussion about long form journalism and how surprised they all were that people are indeed reading long form on mobile devices leading to a resurgence of the form (now with added pictures and video.) Possibly because of the convienence of having the mobile with them all the time. Its easier to create soap operas of science instead of dealing with difficult data and details. And news is getting shorter and longer, but losing the middle range - in all formats.
The big take away from this discussion was that long form reporting demands good if not excellent writing "bad narrative stories are sprouting like weeds."
--- Now the questions.
Do the cut backs change the coverage?
Lee - Not in "quality journals" (probably speaking of his WSJ) . He did go on to note that what was once called science/medical journalism has been related as "consumer health." He noted that WSJ's most forwarded column ever was about "How to clean ears of ear wax....don't laugh if you forwarded it."
The moderator noted that the NYT refused to give her the usage numbers on specific topics because of fears that they would bias her as the science editor. Paula noted that the topic is all important and many of the science tv stations have resorted to "TRasH (Transparent Rating Seeking), Weather Porn, and Stupid Adventures."
Lee from the WSJ notes that the users resources are now in play, going directly to the source of the news on their own and generating their own commentary - citing the Curiosity landing. (1.2 Billion tweets, 17 million FaceBook posts, and 3.2 million viewers.)
Carl Zimmer notes that those measurement numbers are good for science and speak to the "general public's" fascination with science.
Question: How do we ensure accuracy of information, should we consider something like the european media center or an embargo?
The panelists all had negative reactions to the idea of the media center. Carl Zimmer said he was suspicious of governments having that much control over the spin and said it was "almost paternalistic." To which Lee chimed in with "I don't think its /almost/ paternalistic, it's insulting. also noting that people in journalism will make fun of others who use press release quotes.
Paula noted that she once had a wrong fact in a broadcast program (noted to Lee that it was pulled from the WSJ), the source called her and claimed to have been misquoted. She claimed it was because of the pressure to put content online before it was fully cooked. " I don't believe anything anymore. I mean the /Wall Street Journal/ let me down."
Lee of course had to reply, "OK, now I feel obligated to step in..." which led to an interesting discussion on errata and I learned that journalists are apparently eager to learn about mistakes so they can correct the record as quickly as possible - "We will correct an error - no mattter the cost -- bu you have to let us know we made them." Lots of resentment for scientists who notice mistakes but don't tell the journalists.
Communicating Science: Engaging with Public Events
Moderator (Ben Lillie from the Story Collider): "I guess we're ready to get engaged, how about we all get engaged to Kishore, he won't mind."
"How do you meet the public, how do you talk to people who don't have the technical background, how do you keep a laptop on a podium without a lip?" He talked about how he realized after a while as a researcher that he loved science, but he didn't love doing it. So instead he started organizing science publicity and fairs.
Most usefully I think he noted that there isn't a gereral public. but rather mutually overlapping subcultures. Of course he came to communication theory from physics and noted that "There is a long tradition of theoretical physists walking into a new field and assuming they can solve all the problems. I'm one of them."
He turned the stage over to Rabia Mayas from the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry who mostly talked about how to connect with school-age audiences. She began by noting that she was surprised "I found, along with all of you, that I'm engaged to Kishore." "If you haven't been to MSI, well you're here in Chicago and your plane is going to be delayed after the conference so you should come see us. I'm sorry, that was mean. Probably true, but mean."
"I'm not going to call my staff out, but if you have questions they are sitting in this area of the room (gestures at a specific grouping of seats.)"
What I found most interesting about her talk was a note about Robert Tie - a UVA researcher whose research has found that a child's grades in classes (middle or high school) is not the strongest predictor of the child going into a STEM career. Rather its the out of school connection to science - or personal connection to a scientist- that was a much stronger predictor.
That along with her comment that "You don't have to have a PhD to be a scientist" led into her description of the kids asking questions at a recent career day event at the museum, "What does your day look like? What classes did you take? Do you have a girlfriend? That question is /always/ asked. Apparently scientists aren't supposed to date."
Kishore Hari (who I'm apparently engaged to as well) went next - talking about the his experience running the Bay Area Science Festival. "I was told I love science by my father as a child, but I fell in love with science at a AAAS meeting during a science cafe." He spoke about connecting with adult audiences.
He feels very strongly that there is a perception that the public is ignorant and doesn't care about science, but he has found that to be wrong. (I will note again though that he's coming from the Silicon Valley and I'm not surprised that his events are always crowded.) He went on to tell several stories and show pictures about his experiences, of which this is my favorite:
So it was a science cafe lecture about neuroscience in a LGTB bar, and this is a nun. Well, nun-ish. This is a transvestite nun of perpetual indulgence with a cigarette in one hand, a glove on the other and touching a human brain. Seriously, if you've never been to San Francisco, you should really come visit. We don't have snow.
Next up was Amy Rowat from UCLA who teaches sciences with food. Most impressive to me was a public even called "Science of Pie" in which they had to formulate a hypothesis and test it - using apple pies. The participants were high schoolers I think (maybe undergrads) and the public was invited to taste the pies. It was judged by teams of scientists, chefs, and food critics. (Scienceandfood.org)
The discussion and questions led into some interesting topics. Why bother getting people excited about science if Congress and government don't care? Does public engagement have a chance to increase funding? The general consesus of the panel was that funding was not their concern - they wanted to bring science into culture - help people understand the role science plays in their lives. Not an ivory tower situation, but real and immediate.
"If people believe science is part of their life hopefully they'll understand that a vote to fund it could improve their lives."
A question from a teacher at the local teacher's college prompted a discussion about the importance of failure to science. And another surprising bit of psychological research - students of all ages are more engaged and have more long-term interaction with science, if their experiments initially fail. Something that works on the first try is boring.
Rabiah noted that her museum designs experiments with risks in them, and don't stop them from failing. They also prompt their visiting scientists to talk about their failures - and not just the minor ones - but the major costly ones. Celebrate and highlight the risks - and especially the creativity needed.
A question about science fatigue - are you only engaging or attracting the nerds - do you have a self selecting group? "The notion of fatique is something that keeps me up at night.... wow that is one of the strangest sentences I've ever said." - Kishore
Ben Lillie talked about wanting to give people a sense of ownership - The way people are enthusiastic and involved in their music or a TV Show. "I want science to be part of the culture."
A question about citizen science brought up enthusiasm but a frustration that the projects aren't going further. They want to know the results. Rabiah noted that these projects are good hooks for those who are already interested and think science is awesome. But for other communities interest and awesome-ness are luxuries that they don't have time for. Instead for them the hook should be "How does science help me get a job? Feed my kids better food?"
Kishore mentioned more community science projects - like monitoring air and water quality. Scientists should go to communities and ask "what do you want to know" and teach them how to find answers and solutions.
</lj-cut