Aloha, Science Blogs.
14 years ago
Found on the ninemsn news website, this reports on the case of an innocent man who was convicted through DNA testing. The article focuses not on the story itself but on the inquiry that is taking place over the accuracy of DNA fingerprinting, in particular reference to cold cases.
DNA has been used for 17,000 cold cases dating to 2001 and in the inquiry, so far only this one has been proven to have been in error. The cause of this error is also known - a human mistake of placing the wrong sample in the well during gel electrophoresis.
The quotes in the article, and the article itself defend this method, and state that they aim to limit the possibility of human error even more by using robots and the like. It is very clear that the mistake in this case lay with the lab technitions and not the method: "he stressed the science behind DNA testing was not in question".
It draws to a close reminding the public that science is not infallible. It claims that people place too much faith in DNA fingerprinting despite the fact that it is not an "exact science": "People who look at that science - and they are lay people, judges and juries - are disproportionately impressed by it."
This is an important message - people need to be aware of the failings of science as well as the success. They need to have an accurate view, not a glamorised picture. It is good that this article highlights the errors that can occur in a process such as this, but encourages people to keep their faith in science and even in DNA fingerprinting. One mistake should not condone a method (as long as the mistake is human error and not the method itself causing mmajor problems).
The article also says that one form of evidence should not stand alone, which matches my last post. Evidence should appear from all sides and the majority should agree.
So don't throw science out there just to impress people. That is not what it is for. Science is all about truth.
Image from news article.
So this is my catchup post - the internet was being stupidly slow the other night, so I gave up. And so I'm catching up now.
This post is a warning - check your sources. Multiple sources. This is something I am not very good at. I'm a bit lazy in that. But sometimes one source, even though it is normally reputable, is wrong.
Example number one of this: my last Newsflash. The hair solar panel? Apparently it's a scam. Thanks to annon who pointed this out - I had not heard, I had only heard that it was right. Now my reasons for believing this were as follows:
1. It sounded nice and would save the world.
2. It was on the Daily Mail website. I thought that was reputable. I was wrong.
The comments at the bottom of the article do discuss this briefly, however I did not scroll down that far initially and did not read them.
This blog also reported on it and was corrected. The discussion is very good though.
Another good debunking site for this myth is this.
Another good example is this story about dead fish exhibiting brain activity. Of course they don't normally and they are not alive, but if we twist what we find, or only report some of the results, this is what happens.
This is a big trap for reporters - if they don't understand the science, then it is easy to believe fake science, or at least mistaken science, and report on it. Which in turns leads others who also don't understand the science to false knowledge. Leading to widespread untruths.
It kind of comes down to what I said about being science ambassadors - we have a responsibility to ensure the science we pass on is correct and true. If it involves asking experts, or reading different sources to ensure its right, then that is what we need to do. People trust communicators, they trust the media, to give them the truth. So communicators need to ensure they are passing on the real truth, not psuedo-truth.
*Sigh* Me included. No more just trusting news sites.
This post is a warning - check your sources. Multiple sources. This is something I am not very good at. I'm a bit lazy in that. But sometimes one source, even though it is normally reputable, is wrong.
Example number one of this: my last Newsflash. The hair solar panel? Apparently it's a scam. Thanks to annon who pointed this out - I had not heard, I had only heard that it was right. Now my reasons for believing this were as follows:
1. It sounded nice and would save the world.
2. It was on the Daily Mail website. I thought that was reputable. I was wrong.
The comments at the bottom of the article do discuss this briefly, however I did not scroll down that far initially and did not read them.
This blog also reported on it and was corrected. The discussion is very good though.
Another good debunking site for this myth is this.
Another good example is this story about dead fish exhibiting brain activity. Of course they don't normally and they are not alive, but if we twist what we find, or only report some of the results, this is what happens.
This is a big trap for reporters - if they don't understand the science, then it is easy to believe fake science, or at least mistaken science, and report on it. Which in turns leads others who also don't understand the science to false knowledge. Leading to widespread untruths.
It kind of comes down to what I said about being science ambassadors - we have a responsibility to ensure the science we pass on is correct and true. If it involves asking experts, or reading different sources to ensure its right, then that is what we need to do. People trust communicators, they trust the media, to give them the truth. So communicators need to ensure they are passing on the real truth, not psuedo-truth.
*Sigh* Me included. No more just trusting news sites.
Although this story is 10 days old, it is an amazing one.
An 18-year old from a small village in Nepal has invented a solar cell which uses human hair instead of silicon. It is cheap, easy to mass produce and, most importanly it works.
This is a great example of how a young person has seen a need (Nepal has very poor access to electricity) and created a wonderful solution.
Check out the article here.
What makes this story even more amazing is that the village that Milan Karki comes from was skeptical of his inventions, and of science in general. Milan says, "They believe in superstitions, they don't believe in science. But now they believe."
That's pretty cool that he was able to show the people that science is not something to be afraid of. It could be bad if science went barging in to other people's cultures and just threw out all their beliefs. And it's happened before. But Milan is from the village, and has showed, by example, that science can help the village. His motivations were not just progress for the sake of progress, but simply to address a need in his community.
(Internet is being slow. I'll attach a pretty picture later.)
An 18-year old from a small village in Nepal has invented a solar cell which uses human hair instead of silicon. It is cheap, easy to mass produce and, most importanly it works.
This is a great example of how a young person has seen a need (Nepal has very poor access to electricity) and created a wonderful solution.
Check out the article here.
What makes this story even more amazing is that the village that Milan Karki comes from was skeptical of his inventions, and of science in general. Milan says, "They believe in superstitions, they don't believe in science. But now they believe."
That's pretty cool that he was able to show the people that science is not something to be afraid of. It could be bad if science went barging in to other people's cultures and just threw out all their beliefs. And it's happened before. But Milan is from the village, and has showed, by example, that science can help the village. His motivations were not just progress for the sake of progress, but simply to address a need in his community.
(Internet is being slow. I'll attach a pretty picture later.)
Ok, Ok, after all my promises, I skipped a post. And didn't bother to catch up on it. I am lazy and slack and I apologize. The main reason is uni is getting a little hectic at the moment (it being almost the end of semester: next week is the last week of term, the two weeks "holidays" - as if - then only three week, then SUMMER HOLIDAYS! Did you get the excitement and enthusiasm in that?? Particularly because it means that before uni goes back I'll be married. :D ) So I'm going to realistic and not promise to never do it again. Because I will. But maybe it's a good thing because it will make you very eager for my next post! Here's hoping...
So, enough of my lame excuses. To the science!
To be honest, I haven't had a massive brainwave of what to write for this post. I think I'm getting to the point where all my initial brilliant ideas have been used and I need to put in more thought to what I post. The quality of thoughts doesn't seem likely to increase until uni finishes, but I shall try. I will.
There really is alot of science out there. Like soo much. It boggles my tiny insignificant brain. How does one really get a message out there to people who care? If you're only reaching people who don't care, then it doesn't matter. It might influence them to look into science in the future, maybe, but your effect is overall quite small. So one must be thoughtful in selecting an approach to publicising your message.
(Now our guest lecturer last week told us never to use the 'T' word: target. As in target audience. If it is to be a two way communicative relationship, then the audience is no target. They are a 'communication partner'. But I'm going to stick with just audience.)
You are never going to reach everyone, so pick the audience you would like to reach. Now, I would love to run/be involved in science programs in schools. My strategy for approaching this is:
1. Get a science/arts degree. And most likely a Diploma of Education and a Diploma of Science Communication for added experience.
2. Make contacts in the industry. I'm trying to do this now, through uni and Questacon. And I figure if I do a Dip Ed, I can make contact with schools.
3. Get experience. Work for other organisations in a similar role.
4. Find people with the same vision as me to work with.
5. Develop a program of my own to take to schools.
6. Use my contacts to start my program.
7. Promote my program.
I guess my main strategy is contacts. Face to face publicising. But that is for publicising my program. See, my real form of publication is my program itself. I want to market my program, but only so I can 'market' science through it. Show the excitement of science in a live environment. In a face-to-face manner. So face-to-face is my real strategy. (Unless I did a TV program. Now that would be cool...)
But for another aim, another message, a strategy might be using media. But which sort of media? Main-stream media? Industry media (newsletters, etc)? Are you currently using a communication strategy? Is it the right one for your intended audience.
This blog is a strategy to promote science communication. A slightly ineffective one at the moment, as I don't have many readers. I'm trying though. I am. The internet is a hard market to break into.
So take home message: (sorry if it was hard to distinguish from the ramble...) is think, plan, before you do. Evalute your current communication work. Is it working? If not, how can you improve it? Do you need to start a new plan altogether? This works for all areas to, not just science.
What can I do to better my communication?
So, enough of my lame excuses. To the science!
To be honest, I haven't had a massive brainwave of what to write for this post. I think I'm getting to the point where all my initial brilliant ideas have been used and I need to put in more thought to what I post. The quality of thoughts doesn't seem likely to increase until uni finishes, but I shall try. I will.
There really is alot of science out there. Like soo much. It boggles my tiny insignificant brain. How does one really get a message out there to people who care? If you're only reaching people who don't care, then it doesn't matter. It might influence them to look into science in the future, maybe, but your effect is overall quite small. So one must be thoughtful in selecting an approach to publicising your message.
(Now our guest lecturer last week told us never to use the 'T' word: target. As in target audience. If it is to be a two way communicative relationship, then the audience is no target. They are a 'communication partner'. But I'm going to stick with just audience.)
You are never going to reach everyone, so pick the audience you would like to reach. Now, I would love to run/be involved in science programs in schools. My strategy for approaching this is:
1. Get a science/arts degree. And most likely a Diploma of Education and a Diploma of Science Communication for added experience.
2. Make contacts in the industry. I'm trying to do this now, through uni and Questacon. And I figure if I do a Dip Ed, I can make contact with schools.
3. Get experience. Work for other organisations in a similar role.
4. Find people with the same vision as me to work with.
5. Develop a program of my own to take to schools.
6. Use my contacts to start my program.
7. Promote my program.
I guess my main strategy is contacts. Face to face publicising. But that is for publicising my program. See, my real form of publication is my program itself. I want to market my program, but only so I can 'market' science through it. Show the excitement of science in a live environment. In a face-to-face manner. So face-to-face is my real strategy. (Unless I did a TV program. Now that would be cool...)
But for another aim, another message, a strategy might be using media. But which sort of media? Main-stream media? Industry media (newsletters, etc)? Are you currently using a communication strategy? Is it the right one for your intended audience.
This blog is a strategy to promote science communication. A slightly ineffective one at the moment, as I don't have many readers. I'm trying though. I am. The internet is a hard market to break into.
So take home message: (sorry if it was hard to distinguish from the ramble...) is think, plan, before you do. Evalute your current communication work. Is it working? If not, how can you improve it? Do you need to start a new plan altogether? This works for all areas to, not just science.
What can I do to better my communication?
Last night on A Current Affair they ran a story of a man who had a phobia of swallowing solid food. It had come on in the last 18 months, and now he couldn't eat anything, and was practically living on nutrient shakes. My fiance, and my sister's husband were very dubious about the whole thing, although my sister and I thought it was semi-plausible. People do have some very curious phobias.
But then they brought on an expert who sat with the man for a morning, and just by working his way up from liquids to gradually more solid food, he was able to overcome the phobia. In one morning. A severe phobia that had lasted 18 monthes of not eating. Even when he claimed he really wanted to eat, but just couldn't. Cured in one morning.
That was the part we didn't find so plausable. If it had taken a few months, or even weeks, then sure.
They tried to make the segment scientific, by showing diagrams of the brain, highlighting where phobias operate from, and where normal eating function should come from. I thought it was good that they were slotting science into it, although they could have used science in a more legit story. If the public realises how unrealistic the story sounded, and associate that with the science content, then in gives science a bad name.
As science communicators we are responsible for responsible science. (Double word use intended). We are ambassadors for science - so be careful little mouth what you say.
But then they brought on an expert who sat with the man for a morning, and just by working his way up from liquids to gradually more solid food, he was able to overcome the phobia. In one morning. A severe phobia that had lasted 18 monthes of not eating. Even when he claimed he really wanted to eat, but just couldn't. Cured in one morning.
That was the part we didn't find so plausable. If it had taken a few months, or even weeks, then sure.
They tried to make the segment scientific, by showing diagrams of the brain, highlighting where phobias operate from, and where normal eating function should come from. I thought it was good that they were slotting science into it, although they could have used science in a more legit story. If the public realises how unrealistic the story sounded, and associate that with the science content, then in gives science a bad name.
As science communicators we are responsible for responsible science. (Double word use intended). We are ambassadors for science - so be careful little mouth what you say.
Firstly, most sincere apologies for not posting on Friday. My brain was, well, elsewhere. I shall try hard not to get distracted so much again without warning. Hopefully as I get into a rhythm it will be better.
I would like to post about interesting and intriguing science news when I hear it, as it is important to keep on top of current science as a science communicator. So, for today:
The first picture of a molecule has been released!
Scientist have taken a photo (sort-of) of a pentacene molecule. Its sort of a shady image, that looks like an x-ray.
Have a look at the article here at the UK Daily Mail.
They use a very fine point - a carbon monoxide molecule, to detect the molecule underneath. An image is created from the information that the tip gathers.
So it's not really a picture, as advertised. Its a computer image, but generated from the real molecule, not just from assumed molecular structures. Regardless, it is very cool to have advanced to this level. Technology has come so far, and this technique may be able to show us if we have other molecules exactly right. Who knows what we might discover?
This is what science is about: discoveries to further our knowledge of the wonderful world around us.
I would like to post about interesting and intriguing science news when I hear it, as it is important to keep on top of current science as a science communicator. So, for today:
The first picture of a molecule has been released!
Scientist have taken a photo (sort-of) of a pentacene molecule. Its sort of a shady image, that looks like an x-ray.
Have a look at the article here at the UK Daily Mail.
They use a very fine point - a carbon monoxide molecule, to detect the molecule underneath. An image is created from the information that the tip gathers.
So it's not really a picture, as advertised. Its a computer image, but generated from the real molecule, not just from assumed molecular structures. Regardless, it is very cool to have advanced to this level. Technology has come so far, and this technique may be able to show us if we have other molecules exactly right. Who knows what we might discover?
This is what science is about: discoveries to further our knowledge of the wonderful world around us.
So for today's blog: more about making science exciting. I'm keen to find different examples and share them with you, to highlight the many ways in which science can be presented, give you ideas, and make you aware of the science already out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYW50F42ss8
This is a song by Tom Leher, a very funny musician/comedian from the 1950s/1960s called the chemistry element song. It lists all the elements in a fast paced, humous song.
I think this is a great way for students to learn the elements, and have fun. It might take a few listens to learn it though as it really moves at a rapid pace (it's to the tune of 'Modern Major General' from Pirates of Penzance). However I instantly saw it's usefulness in a classroom as a learning tool, even if it is only used to inspire the students.
Have you experienced quirky learning resources? Did they inspire you, or teach you directly? Or just distract you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYW50F42ss8
This is a song by Tom Leher, a very funny musician/comedian from the 1950s/1960s called the chemistry element song. It lists all the elements in a fast paced, humous song.
I think this is a great way for students to learn the elements, and have fun. It might take a few listens to learn it though as it really moves at a rapid pace (it's to the tune of 'Modern Major General' from Pirates of Penzance). However I instantly saw it's usefulness in a classroom as a learning tool, even if it is only used to inspire the students.
Have you experienced quirky learning resources? Did they inspire you, or teach you directly? Or just distract you?
Bonus Post!
Aren't you lucky?!
This is just to let you know that my article has been published on the ANU news website. You can find it here if you want to have a look:
http://science.anu.edu.au/News/NewsStory.php?ID=369
Aren't you lucky?!
This is just to let you know that my article has been published on the ANU news website. You can find it here if you want to have a look:
http://science.anu.edu.au/News/NewsStory.php?ID=369
So, my darling of a fiance took me to the Opera House last night to see the Mikado by Opera Australia (it's an operetta by Gilbert and Sullivan if you didn't know...). It was amazing! I love theatre, I love musicals, so this was brilliant. And, Anthony Warlow was Koko, one of the main characters. So of course it was spectacular! ;)
Now, what does this have to do with science communication? I hear you ask. Is she just blogging about her life, and this site isn't going to all relate to science communication? No - I promise I shall only blog about my life if it has relevance to science communication (however tenuous). Ah, relevance! Now we come to the point...
I have been examining relevance quite a bit lately, and so the topic seems relevant to me. ;) Haha, relevant - get it?
Ahem. Sorry.
So, there is a song in the Mikado that Koko sings about people who he can execute (he's the Lord High Executioner) who won't be missed by society. Such as those with flabby arms, and irritating laughs. It is rather humorous but the comedy is heightened by a tradition to compose extra verses with relevant lyrics. For example last night, Anthony Warlow sung about Kevin 07, Goodwin Gretch, and yuppies who drive around in 4WDs, plus many more references that have currently slipped my mind. But the point was, the audience found it so funny because they related to the song. They understood it. They knew the context. Other versions i have found on You-Tube are full of references appropriate for their audience (One lists Dr Phil...). This is one of the best ones I found for funny references:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJJzGoyKH4c&feature=related
This one is also good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A45xqLHccRo&feature=related
Now, returning to Anthony Warlow for a minute: he did a similar thing in 2007 when he performed a Jack Sparrow version of the Pirate King in the Pirates of Penzance.
You can see him here: (although sorry he's not the main feature in this song)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Y2WZAq8CQ
Again, the audience loved it because it was relevant - they understood it.
Now for the take home message of the day:
Make your message relevant. Make your production relevant. Make the humor relevant. It doesn't matter if you are putting on a Shakespeare play or performing a science show - if you want the audience to connect with you, you need to include something of relevance to them. John Bell, of the Bell Shakespeare Company, strongly believes in relevance. He believes it is the most important thing for allowing the audience to receive the message you are giving them. This is why he sets most of his Shakespeare productions and other plays in modern day - so the audience can relate.
If the audience does not understand, if there is no connection, there is no point. You will not be heard.
Make it relevant.
Now, what does this have to do with science communication? I hear you ask. Is she just blogging about her life, and this site isn't going to all relate to science communication? No - I promise I shall only blog about my life if it has relevance to science communication (however tenuous). Ah, relevance! Now we come to the point...
I have been examining relevance quite a bit lately, and so the topic seems relevant to me. ;) Haha, relevant - get it?
Ahem. Sorry.
So, there is a song in the Mikado that Koko sings about people who he can execute (he's the Lord High Executioner) who won't be missed by society. Such as those with flabby arms, and irritating laughs. It is rather humorous but the comedy is heightened by a tradition to compose extra verses with relevant lyrics. For example last night, Anthony Warlow sung about Kevin 07, Goodwin Gretch, and yuppies who drive around in 4WDs, plus many more references that have currently slipped my mind. But the point was, the audience found it so funny because they related to the song. They understood it. They knew the context. Other versions i have found on You-Tube are full of references appropriate for their audience (One lists Dr Phil...). This is one of the best ones I found for funny references:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJJzGoyKH4c&feature=related
This one is also good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A45xqLHccRo&feature=related
Now, returning to Anthony Warlow for a minute: he did a similar thing in 2007 when he performed a Jack Sparrow version of the Pirate King in the Pirates of Penzance.
You can see him here: (although sorry he's not the main feature in this song)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Y2WZAq8CQ
Again, the audience loved it because it was relevant - they understood it.
Now for the take home message of the day:
Make your message relevant. Make your production relevant. Make the humor relevant. It doesn't matter if you are putting on a Shakespeare play or performing a science show - if you want the audience to connect with you, you need to include something of relevance to them. John Bell, of the Bell Shakespeare Company, strongly believes in relevance. He believes it is the most important thing for allowing the audience to receive the message you are giving them. This is why he sets most of his Shakespeare productions and other plays in modern day - so the audience can relate.
If the audience does not understand, if there is no connection, there is no point. You will not be heard.
Make it relevant.
Greetings everyone!
Well I figured I should hurry up and start my blog, and I'll fix the template to something more exciting later.
So, welcome to Experiments, Explosions and Elephants!
I plan to post regularly to make it easier on my followers. The plan is to post on Mondays and Fridays - a great note to start and end your working week with. So keep an eye (or an RSS feed) open on Friday.
I would like to begin with some thoughts on science presenting, as this is what I am most interested in, and what this blog will primarily be about.
This last week in Australia was National Science Week. It used to be combined with Science Festival, but this year they split them. I'm not sure why, but at least it gave science more publicity - two weeks dedicated to science awareness. :) Although on the other hand, splitting one whizz bang event into two doesn't give two wizz bang events. At least not yet.
As I am doing a science media course this semester, our assignment was to attend a NSW (National Science Week, not New South Wales, in this case) event on assignment (word duplication intended for effect), and write a news article about it.
I attended the 'Just Add Water' presentation by Dr Peter Wothers last Tuesday. Dr Wothers is from the University of Cambridge in the UK and had been presenting public science lectures for 10 years. This lecture was for school students in years 7-10 (he ran repeats for years 11-12, and the general public later in the week) and schools from all over Australia attended (well, I saw at least one from Melbourne and Sydney). It was very good and included lots of explosions (hydrogen balloons + fire = awesome explosion) and fires (sodium oxide and water on rice bubbles), which everyone loved.
From a potential future science presenter, or at least as a person imensely interested in the topic, I felt that he was good at communicating with the audience, particularly for the high school students. The worst elements were the late start (20 minutes) and the cluttered set (which can be excused to a degree given that they were improvising some equipment from the ANU Chemistry department. But I do think a good, well thought-out set will emphasise the presentation, compared to a cluttered set up which distracts). He knew his stuff (as you'd hope he would with such an intense background in chemistry) and knew how to commmunicate it clearly.
Importantly, Dr Wothers made it exciting. I think this is vital for communicating to kids or teenagers. Adults too, but I want to focus on children. I'm sure everyone will agree that there's nothing like a good explosion to attract kids to science. There's nothing wrong with using 'flashy demonstrations' to grab attention. Sure, it's not a totally realistic portrayel of science, but kids will realise that as they become more serious about science. If they start off believeing that science is fun and exciting, then hopefully they will continue to find it exciting, even the parts that aren't so flashy, per-say.
The Excited Particles at Questacon also use this technique. They are very fond of hydrogen explosions, and use them whenever they can get away with it. The slogan of Questacon is 'Making Science Fun', and demonstrating the flashy elements equates to fun, I think.
Its ok to use entertainment when communicating science. People are after entertainment more than straight facts (no matter how much we hope for the contrary), and will remember what they learned better if they can relate the information to explosions and fires. And if all they remember in 2 weeks is that hydrogen explodes, then at least they learnt something.
So go on, explode something. You know you want to.
On a side note: my news report of the event has been accepted by the ANU media centre for publication. It will appear on the ANU website and in the ANU On Campus Newsletter. I'll post a link to it when it appears. :)
Well I figured I should hurry up and start my blog, and I'll fix the template to something more exciting later.
So, welcome to Experiments, Explosions and Elephants!
I plan to post regularly to make it easier on my followers. The plan is to post on Mondays and Fridays - a great note to start and end your working week with. So keep an eye (or an RSS feed) open on Friday.
I would like to begin with some thoughts on science presenting, as this is what I am most interested in, and what this blog will primarily be about.
This last week in Australia was National Science Week. It used to be combined with Science Festival, but this year they split them. I'm not sure why, but at least it gave science more publicity - two weeks dedicated to science awareness. :) Although on the other hand, splitting one whizz bang event into two doesn't give two wizz bang events. At least not yet.
As I am doing a science media course this semester, our assignment was to attend a NSW (National Science Week, not New South Wales, in this case) event on assignment (word duplication intended for effect), and write a news article about it.
I attended the 'Just Add Water' presentation by Dr Peter Wothers last Tuesday. Dr Wothers is from the University of Cambridge in the UK and had been presenting public science lectures for 10 years. This lecture was for school students in years 7-10 (he ran repeats for years 11-12, and the general public later in the week) and schools from all over Australia attended (well, I saw at least one from Melbourne and Sydney). It was very good and included lots of explosions (hydrogen balloons + fire = awesome explosion) and fires (sodium oxide and water on rice bubbles), which everyone loved.
From a potential future science presenter, or at least as a person imensely interested in the topic, I felt that he was good at communicating with the audience, particularly for the high school students. The worst elements were the late start (20 minutes) and the cluttered set (which can be excused to a degree given that they were improvising some equipment from the ANU Chemistry department. But I do think a good, well thought-out set will emphasise the presentation, compared to a cluttered set up which distracts). He knew his stuff (as you'd hope he would with such an intense background in chemistry) and knew how to commmunicate it clearly.
Importantly, Dr Wothers made it exciting. I think this is vital for communicating to kids or teenagers. Adults too, but I want to focus on children. I'm sure everyone will agree that there's nothing like a good explosion to attract kids to science. There's nothing wrong with using 'flashy demonstrations' to grab attention. Sure, it's not a totally realistic portrayel of science, but kids will realise that as they become more serious about science. If they start off believeing that science is fun and exciting, then hopefully they will continue to find it exciting, even the parts that aren't so flashy, per-say.
The Excited Particles at Questacon also use this technique. They are very fond of hydrogen explosions, and use them whenever they can get away with it. The slogan of Questacon is 'Making Science Fun', and demonstrating the flashy elements equates to fun, I think.
Its ok to use entertainment when communicating science. People are after entertainment more than straight facts (no matter how much we hope for the contrary), and will remember what they learned better if they can relate the information to explosions and fires. And if all they remember in 2 weeks is that hydrogen explodes, then at least they learnt something.
So go on, explode something. You know you want to.
On a side note: my news report of the event has been accepted by the ANU media centre for publication. It will appear on the ANU website and in the ANU On Campus Newsletter. I'll post a link to it when it appears. :)
Posts
