When it comes to science storytelling, animation is a filmmaker's best friend. It engages symbolic and imaginative thinking, taking your story to places where photos, video demonstration, and verbal explanation can't go. Motion graphics, 3D modeling, stop motion (done with illustrations, live actors, or models), data visualizations—all of these can be highly effective methods for communicating a difficult concept, process or mechanism, and making it approachable. Whether you generate animation yourself, work with animators, or would like to get started, this session will address the basic components of successful animation and provide guidelines for thinking in pictures. We'll look at examples of different types of animation—from science videos and elsewhere—to analyze the effectiveness of different styles and techniques. Even non-science animations from popular movies and television utilize visual elements that can be applied to science stories. The goal is to become more comfortable constructing sentences out of images, not words. Want to get started? You don't need expensive tools or software—anyone can animate sequences of still images stitched together in free software like iMovie (Mac) or Microsoft Movie Maker (Windows). iMovie is also available on iPhone and iPad, as are other stop-motion apps (Stop-motion Camera, iMotion HD, Stop Motion Cafe). There are other free downloadable options for Windows and Mac, and free online editing programs. But if you don't want to animate for yourself, the session will help you prepare for collaborating with animators. Even a non-animator will benefit from understanding what makes animations successful, and how to prepare the content for visual translation.
Questions:
- Why use animation to tell science stories?
- What can animation communicate that footage, stills, or text explanation can't?
- What are the steps for preparing and creating animation for your story?
- How can you get started animating, either alone or through collaboration?
Coffee causes cancer – no wait, it prevents it. Early detection is always better – but maybe screening is not always a good idea after all. There is a constant barrage of this kind of message about cancer in research, the media and awareness campaigns. Those messages often conflict. It’s no wonder people get confused, or become totally fatalistic and dismiss the important cancer-related messages along with the less valuable. How can science writers and scientists cover research on cancer causes, prevention and screening without increasing fear, false hope or confusion?
Questions:
- Cancer prevention, the worried well and fatalistic high-risk groups: what is the role of the science writer?
- How do you balance science’s dynamic process with engaging the public about diseases as complex and highly feared as cancer?
- What role for cancer awareness-raising in communities that already overestimate their risk?
- How can journalists and scientists improve news coverage about cancer causes and prevention?
Many discussions of science journalism are increasingly focusing on the need for investigative reporting -- deep digging that exposes something someone wants to hide. This is important. But it isn't the only type of science writing with value. Is really good explanatory science writing becoming a poor relation here? You don't have to expose a scandal to create original, well-crafted content that has real value to the reader/viewer/listener. Sometimes, to explain something really well is enough. Yet with newsrooms cutting back, and focusing the limited resources they have for off-diary research on investigation, good explanation of science for general audiences is taking a back seat. It's time consuming and expensive, but doesn't either carry the kudos or attract the eyeballs that makes news organisations take notice. The Wellcome Trust (where Mark is Head of Communications) is about to launch an online project that will commission high-quality explanatory content (including infographics, animation, video as well as long-form writing) about the areas of science the Trust funds -- but not restricted to its actual scientists. An alpha or beta version of the site is likely to launch soon after Scio 13. Meanwhile, Ed has been writing a column for the BBC that tries to take a more detailed explanatory look at the more far-flung promises of typical news reports. He's also found that his explainers, like an oxytocin piece for Slate, and an ENCODE mega-post on his own blog, have been some of his most popular work this year. Ed and Mark will argue for the value of explanatory content, and explore what makes it good. Mark and Mun-Keat Looi will introduce the Wellcome project, explain what we're looking for, and canvass for improvements -- and of course ideas we might commission.
Questions:
- What makes good explanatory science writing?
- Who should it be aimed at, and what are the differences between aiming at specialist and general audiences?
- Who's supporting good explanatory science journalism, and why?
- Is explanatory science writing just PR for science?
Both scientists and science writers are trained to be skeptical, both prioritize evidence-based knowledge over intuitions and premoninitions, and both believe the scientific method is the best tool we have for understanding the world we live in. This creates unique opportunities for collaboration and cooperation -- witness ScienceOnline -- but also present unique challenges. What is the appropriate border between writing about a topic and advocating for a cause? Does writing passionately about biological diversity and its losses automatically make one an environmental activist? Does writing about the harmful effects of vaccine denialism mean it's appropriate to partner with the CDC on communication strategies? What do science writers risk when they use their knowledge and connections to influence public policy? This session, led by two writers who have dealt with these issues in their own work, will be structured as a lively discussion on a topic about which there are few clear answers and many strong opinions.
We've all faced the difficult task of writing or speaking about evolution, climate change, or any number of scientific topics that lack public understanding and unanimous support. In this session, Melanie and Cara will bring their combined experience in social/cognitive/personality psychology and persuasion/science communication to the table while we discuss the best practices for persuading science deniers without turning them off from the conversation. Other topics include how to tell the difference between ignorant-yet-innocent commenters and trolls, whether or not some people are simply beyond reach, how to effectively communicate with difficult-to-reach people, and if & when the "no apologies" approach to science communication is an effective strategy.
Questions:
How can we persuade science deniers without turning them off from the conversation?
What can social, cognitive, & personality psychology teach us about science denialism?
How do you differentiate between innocent ignorance, curiosity, and trolling?
Are some people simply beyond reach? What can persuasion psychology teach us about reaching the unreachable?
Is it effective to take the "no apologies" approach, or do we end up simply preaching to the choir?
How can we use "persuasion tricks" to effectively get scientific messages across to a stubborn audience?
Many large-scale citizen science projects excel at generating public excitement about their work and engaging participants in data collection. Yet, increasingly project organizers aim for much more than a one-off data contribution by participants – we want to engage citizen scientists in the whole process of science, from hypothesis generation through analysis and development of next steps, including future projects. Unfortunately, the process of science can be slow, twisted and even arduous, with long lag times between initial participation and return of results. How do we keep participants interested and engaged during the interim? Can we build communities of interest around projects as a means for maintaining long-term engagement with our citizen scientists? We hope to draw diverse voices into this conversation, hearing from participants and organizers of other engaged online communities (#NASAsocial; Personal Genome Project; DIY, maker and gaming communities come to mind…)
Questions:
- What are the hallmarks of an engaged community rallied around citizen science? Or do we just know it when we see it? (Useful to consider for evaluation of projects)
- How can we improve dialogue with citizen scientists? Are social media and blogs enough?
- What lessons can we learn from other science (and non-science!) organizations who’ve successfully engaged communities? (Think community groups, political campaigns)
- What tools do you use for building community and effectively fostering communication among members of your group?
- Grassroots or top-down? What’s the best way to facilitate community-building within citizen science organizations?
- What can we do in the interim (specific examples!), during the lag time between steps in the scientific process, to sustain participant interest?
