Roi Cezana took part in a delegation of young Israeli scientists who won high places in the Famelab finals in an event where they learned how to better explain science to the public as a universal human achievement, and even as a beautiful thing
The morning started at four in the morning, which is not a time I usually get up at. But this time was special: today I am flying to Istanbul to participate in a science communication conference on behalf of the British Council. I wake up, peel the cat off my leg, take a quick shower and catch a train to Israel. On the train I meet Viktor Chernov, a rocket scientist and Ph.D. student at the Technion in aeronautics and space engineering, and we spend the rest of the ride staring at each other with tired, tired eyes, too tired to even fall asleep. Have I mentioned that I don't usually get up at such hours?
At the airport we meet the rest of the delegation to Istanbul: Michal Dekal and Adi Yaniv are the two winners of the Famelab competition in Israel in the last two years. They are joined by the competitors who advanced to the national finals: Victor Chernov, Alexey Amontes, Adi Natan, Orlev Levy-Nissenbaum, Yifat Ofir, Naomi Ziv and your faithful servant. And in addition to all of them Dr. Eitan Crane, who is responsible for the link between the British Council and the national Famelab competition and Hamda (the center for scientific education in Tel Aviv) and Mrs. Karon Sathil, the deputy director of the British Council branch in Israel. Together we were going to fly to Istanbul in order to take part in establishing a network of scientists, educators and media people who are engaged in scientific communication. The Beautiful Science network is designed to provide tools and create collaborations in order to bring science to the general public.
Perhaps we should preface and tell a little about Famelab, a scientific communication competition that started in England and spread to various European countries, largely thanks to the funding and support provided by the British Council. As part of the competition, the contestants are asked to give short three-minute lectures on science topics of their choice, before judges from the fields of science and media. The competition has been held in Israel for the past two years and produced two national champions, as well as a bunch of 'finalists' - competitors who were good enough to participate in the national final. The competitions were organized in Israel by the energetic and efficient Sonia Feldman, who is responsible for science and education issues at the British Council.
Many of the participants in the competition are enthusiastic about the idea of sharing science with the public and their enthusiasm for science, and are actively engaged in giving lectures, shows and plays on science topics. In Israel, the 'Science on the cutting edge' group is particularly active, consisting mainly of competitors from the two previous competitions and passing Short and entertaining shows For all ages in science. The extensive activity of the former competitors was also the reason they were invited to Istanbul to participate in the writing of the joint statement, funded by the British Council.
Unfortunately, we spent almost all of our time in Istanbul in the scientific communication conference building, in the hotel where we slept and in the buses that mediated between the two. I can say with certainty that I am now an expert on Turkish buses from the inside, and while there is definitely a certain charm to be found in them, I can hardly wait to return to Istanbul for a more comprehensive trip.
The conference itself was a success above and beyond expectations. Almost 150 representatives came from European countries where the Famelab competition was held, such as Croatia, Great Britain, Turkey, Greece, Romania and others. Most of those present had a doctorate in science, or were during the research for a doctorate. Everyone unanimously agreed that there is an urgent need for high-quality scientific information to the public, and the transfer of knowledge in a better way that will eliminate the fears of science - or make it possible to confront them with a true understanding of the subject.
Frank Burnett, professor of biochemistry in the past and scientific communication in the present, interpreted the state of science in the world at the very beginning of the conference. In many parts of the world there is concern that there will not be enough young people who want to study and research science. Many universities are desperate to find students for chemistry and physics, and in England many departments in scientific subjects are closing, due to a lack of people. We, the members of the network, also feel this lack and one of the goals is to bring the public closer to science and thus encourage more future students to choose research or science teaching as a future career.
Surveys conducted in Europe, America and Australia show a lack of trust in scientists. 75% of the public in Europe agree that they are amazed by science. 68% agree that science and technology make our lives healthier, easier and more comfortable. But 70% of people also agree that the laws will not stop investigators from doing what they want behind closed doors. Even those who trust the scientists believe that science and technology are too specialized for most people to understand (66%), and therefore do not invest effort in trying to learn or understand science.
The results as a whole indicate that most people are amazed and impressed by science, but are also afraid of it and do not trust the scientists to do their work according to the will of the public. There is a feeling that science is out of control and that people can no longer control science. One of the main roles of science communicators is to communicate science to people, so that they can make informed decisions about how the world should use science.
Frank's last advice, which marked the opening of the first scientific communication conference of the 'Beautiful Science' network, represented the spirit of the entire conference. Frank emphasized that the public is already amazed by science, and if the scientific communicator is only trying to amaze the audience, he misses the point. Awe and wonder don't make people feel more confident about the way science is changing their lives.
"When you take science to the public, try to remember that it is a discussion and try to find ways in which the public can meet you and talk to you about science and the future and feel that they have control over what is happening." Frank said, emphasizing that every time a scientist meets with the public, it doesn't really matter what he is talking about - the really important thing is to be with the public. "And that," Frank finished, "is why you are so important."
After the opening remarks, we were divided into groups of 15 people, and each group took on a topic, about which they had to give a fifteen-minute presentation on Saturday. The main goal of the conference was to create links and friendships between the scientific communicators from the different countries, and to create a network of scientific communication whose members could support and help each other in their activities. Although the groups took their tasks seriously, the stated goal of the activity was to bring about the creation of friendships, friendships and even romantic relationships (some of which did materialize), which would last even after the conference.
The day ended with a dance party at the university, with a strictly Turkish DJ and immersive music. Anyone who thinks that scientists must be gray and dreary must have been amazed at the sight of a hundred or so young scientists dancing, enjoying themselves and sipping glass after glass of ouzo, arak and any other alcoholic drink offered to them. The party ended around midnight, when the buses arrived to take the participants back to the hotel.
The next two days flew by, paved with group activities of all kinds. Professionals held workshops and master classes on various topics: from science in the media and preparation for interviews, through science in street theaters to the organization and establishment of science festivals. Even during the breaks between the workshops and activities, the people challenged each other and talked, over a cup of coffee and cookies, about how to cooperate in the future and bring about integrated activities between the countries. At least some of the ideas for the plays and shows were fleshed out during the conference, and are almost ready to be presented to the general public.
The conference was concluded on Saturday evening, with the reading of the statement written and prepared by the participants before the Turkish and Bulgarian television photographers. Lord Robert Winston, professor of medical sciences and well-known BBC science presenter, read the statement, in front of an audience and the media. Unfortunately, the Hebrew translation cannot convey the dramatic tones of the English language in which the statement was written, but here it is:
"We, young scientists and science communicators, long to convey the enthusiasm and importance of science. Convened by the British Council, we hereby establish the 'Beautiful Science Network', with the aim of bringing about a deeper appreciation of science around the world. Science plays a vital role in every aspect of our lives, but it is often misunderstood and underappreciated. We are committed to securing the future of science, which will directly benefit democracy, and enrich our culture and our democracy.
"Good education and good communication encourage more people to choose a scientific career. We strive for more informed involvement in making political decisions and to improve open dialogue with the public in order to encourage mutual trust and understanding, and to celebrate science as an expression of human wonder. Our goal is to establish an international network of science communicators. Governments and businesses are called to support and invest in scientific communication."
The statement was drafted by members of the "what next" group - a think tank whose purpose was to outline the future direction of the network. The team members represented all 10 participating countries and began defining the network itself. The network was defined as open to anyone who is interested and engaged in scientific communication: scientists, students, media persons and educators with the aim of creating as broad a basis as possible for collaborations between academic institutions, schools, science centers and the media. In addition, even though it is based on Famelab competitors, the ambition is to become an independent and global network - in as many countries as possible. In addition, ideas were put forward for new and wild projects, which will certainly make skin and tendons grow in the coming year.
In the morning of the next day, we were already driven to the airport in Istanbul and we arrived at the Ben Gurion airport towards Sunday evening, satisfied and satisfied. Although I can only speak for myself, I feel that I have had an extraordinary experience, which encourages me to continue lecturing, writing and explaining science in all forms of media. I am convinced that many more participants feel the same way as I do, and already in these days activities for scientific communication in Israel and Europe are beginning to be organized, which are the first fruits of this blessed conference.
17 תגובות
There is a film on Google VIDEO that explains nicely about technology, progress, economy, ecology and society.
called zeitGeist addendum.
It speaks English and is divided into several parts.
I highly recommend it to anyone interested in futurism, progress and technology.
The bottom line: progress = technology = quality of life
Roy, when I say science, I don't mean knowing the facts. Most people see or at least know the facts.
Science, for me, is unique in its principles, beginning with the same casting of doubt by Descartes and breaking away from prejudices until acquiring the tools for correct logical thinking.
Already the first stage is rejected by the public, it is more convenient to believe in the familiar and what we have grown to believe in.
To Roy, you are offering a different approach here, an approach of creating an impression through effects, which is somewhat reminiscent of the same miracles and wonders approach of the Exodus that was intended to impart religion to the people (which ultimately did not succeed).
And to Michael, it seems to me that children are more enthusiastic about an interesting computer game than abstract and difficult scientific thinking.
point:
I think differently and I base this on my extensive experience in giving private lessons.
I have no doubt that every person will be enthusiastic about science if it is presented to them in the right way.
As I mentioned in a previous comment - the renewal of enthusiasm was one of the most important steps I took in raising my students to success (and there is no arguing with success, as I recall).
It worked with all students down to one!
Michael,
You're right. The problem is well known, and it even has a name - Preaching to the Converted. to preach to the converted.
point,
I think you are wrong here. Every housewife, regardless of who she is, will be delighted with a kitchen pot that never rusts. Any handyman will be excited to hear about wire cutters that don't lose their edge. These things are science, plain and simple. You just need to know how to present them correctly, start with the useful explanation and progress from there to the more basic science.
I don't think I've ever encountered a group of adults who were bored by a science lecture I gave, and that includes a lecture on nanotechnology in front of 500 beauticians, who asked intelligent questions and were attentive throughout the lecture.
The problem is getting people to these meeting places in the first place.
Michael, it seems to me that there may be a few who are lost souls. The majority will not be enthusiastic anyway, neither by science nor by any other knowledge. It does not excite the majority.
Another clarification:
For the avoidance of doubt - I repeat and emphasize that the work done by the group of scientists in question is sacred work.
The problem is that the audience that comes to their lectures is an audience that is enthusiastic about science anyway.
It is good to excite this audience even more but it does not solve the problem of those who have fallen off the wagon.
The return of those lost souls is, in my opinion, the real challenge.
point:
I think like you about the value of a person, but not everyone thinks so, and telling someone who values a person based on his intellect that he is stupid is an insult that should be avoided if it is not necessary (sometimes it is necessary, but not always).
On the other hand - I don't think that science has to be difficult to understand.
It also depends on the teaching method.
According to my experience in private teaching, almost anyone can understand science at the level taught in high school, and if a student fails to understand - it is most likely the fault of the educational framework.
High school is not supposed to make a person a scientist, but it is supposed to and can provide the student with the insights needed to appreciate science and be enthusiastic about it (and in my opinion there is nothing more exciting than science and it's just a shame that so many people miss it)
To the cool commenter, to be clear, being an idiot does not mean that the person is worthless, the value of the person is not derived from his level of intelligence (you can argue about that), the fact that a disabled person appreciates a game or a good basketball player, does not make that disabled person a good player. And at the same time does not make that disabled person defective.
Your mistake and that of most people comes from the notion that a more limited person is of lesser value. Therefore, it is "unacceptable" to point out a person's shortcomings.
So one of 2 either the perception of value is correct (and then a person is measured according to his abilities), then in total we are lying to ourselves (because we are all limited wherever he is). Or the perception of value is incorrect (and all people are equal) and then it is just a mistake that has taken root not to say about a person A certain one that is limited…
The cool responder.
Everyone has a disability of one kind or another, who is more and who is less. And my argument is that this should be brought to the attention of the individual.
In my humble opinion, this is a culture - a destructive and dangerous culture.
Science is at the beginning of an interest and at the end is knowing. Not knowing means humiliation!
To live a whole life inside a body and not understand how you see, how you breathe, how a muscle moves and why the body ages - this is self-humiliation and misery.
To walk on the earth and not bring what it is, where it came from and where it is going - this is humiliation. To walk under the sky without asking and trying to understand something about what is there - it is not flattering.
Unless what determines your quality as a person is how small your cell phone is and how big your car is and what label is on your pants. Then why should you be upset that the resources of a rare and special world are being depleted. A fuel-guzzling and unnecessarily polluting Jeep looks fine on the sidewalk of a Tel Aviv cafe. The fact that the next generation will not have any aromatic molecules left for the plastics industry, medicine, food (in short, all modern materials) seems very far-fetched.
2 billion Asians are knocking forcefully on the door of the super consumer society (they deserve it too!). Limited resources are depleting: iron prices have risen 10 times, fuel prices with them, electronic consumer products that are replaced every year consume the precious metal reserves on the planet but who cares, who already knows? The fact that surfing the Internet and writing work in WORD is enough for a 1/4G computer is not the point at all, because an 8,000G computer means that I am progressing and that I have succeeded in life.
How we will build a pacemaker or an insulin pump in the future without tungsten is not a question that will be decided in the next election. The fact that infant mortality will return to what it was 100 years ago when the ambulance will be harnessed to a donkey (well, the gas is running out) is less disturbing than when Shushi will fly from "Big Brother". And walking around the mall with a Billabong shirt is true happiness.
A twisted American culture, of super-consumerism and super-shallowness. Living within the fiction of ideologies written in a publishing office turns the distinction between man and animal into a farce. Now go swim against the current, how will you swim against the current?
to the point,
Your reaction is quite extreme.. It's not that everyone can study physics and theoretical sciences..
There are many people who really and sincerely find it difficult to learn and understand physics and theoretical sciences, even though they spend hours and hours on it. Many of them also really appreciate the profession and the thinking style. Likewise in computer science.
I have had the opportunity many times to help friends with real issues in the style of mathematics, physics and computer science. There are those who, after a brief explanation of the theory behind the method, are already able to master the subject without any problem, and there are those who make an effort, but still even after several step-by-step explanations, they will have difficulty with the subject.
Remember that everyone has a possible disability, both you and me. It is a fact that neither you nor I manage to keep up with the thinking of a pocket calculator even if we are told a thousand times how it works and how it calculates
And more,
It must be mentioned that to the same extent that the beauty of science must be brought to the public, the ugliness of religion must be brought to human knowledge, and it is impossible to separate.
In my opinion, everything starts with the early suppression of the desire to know the truth, the truth about yourself (most people think about themselves things that are very far from their true reality), about your immediate environment (all the politically correct), and about the world in general (stems directly from the previous 2).
The simplest example that explains the result of this is exactly what A. Ben Ner brought, but in the opposite direction. Indeed, science is not an easy knowledge (the most difficult there is), antics and graphic effects that are presented in museums do not bring the public closer to science as such. After all, it can equally be said that computer games bring the public closer to the virtual world (and every game developer knows that there is no such world).
In short, the first thing that needs to be taught is to know the truth, a child who thinks that science is hard should be explained to him that he is probably an idiot because it is something that other normal people can learn and that he is probably abnormal in his stupidity, and if he has a problem with being an idiot then let him prove that he is not.
A note to Mr. Ben Ner
Master's degree science communication studies are held at several universities in Great Britain, for example at Imperial College London and the University of West England. There is also a very good program in Trieste in Italy.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing in Israel, and this is a challenge for our universities.
Michael and Avner gave me optimism, thank you...
In my opinion, with all the importance of public relations of the type presented in the article and those proposed by Avner - the most important thing that is missing is precisely an improvement in the teaching of science in school.
Science is the most exciting human creation and most people just miss it.
Have you ever asked yourself how it is possible that a person can enjoy a work of art without being an artist but has trouble enjoying science without being a scientist?
The graduates of the contemporary education system - not only do most of them not understand science and are not interested in it - a large part of them are also proud (yes! really proud!) of their lack of understanding of science and their absolute lack of access to mathematics.
Something is really wrong with the approach to teaching the subject in schools.
It starts, of course, with teachers who themselves do not understand the material and are not enthusiastic about it.
In my ancient past, I had the opportunity to give many private lessons - both to high school students and college students.
Students came to me with an average grade of 4 out of 10 and after 4 to 5 lessons they settled on an average of 9 or 10.
The main help I gave them was not in imparting knowledge but in restoring their enthusiasm and confidence in their ability.
How can it be?
In my opinion - beyond the lack of enthusiasm of the teachers, the students see the science subjects as a kind of intelligence test and when they realize that there are better ones than them, they simply decide to stop "competing" (and as mentioned - even turn the reluctance from science into an ideology - just to compensate for the damage to the self-image created by the failure in studying the scientific subjects) .
The solution should come from the development of ways that will soften the competitive sting of the science professions and emphasize its beauty.
Apart from that, as I have already written before in my letter to the Minister of Education, in my opinion there is a real need to integrate the subject of philosophy of science in schools and this not only to encourage interest in science but also to train better citizens - those who know the meaning of the word "to know".
After reading Roy's article, I came to the conclusion that science suffers from extremely bad public relations. For many people, science is seen as something difficult, related to mathematics, which also, in itself, constitutes a black, occluded and threatening cloud in the consciousness of many, intended only for an exclusive "club" of arrogant, "flying" "geniuses" who managed to arrange life for themselves with a good job At the university, "without doing anything...".
Consequential symptoms of this situation are, as stated in the article, a lack of science students in many universities in Europe and, in contrast, in our country, a lack of budgets for universities due to politicians hostile to higher education.
The conclusion I reached is that it is extremely essential to establish a new discipline of research, study and teaching
It will be called: "Explaining science to the general public". The scientific explainer or propagandist will be a person with a broad general academic education who will be qualified for this in academic faculties for candidacy. He will have a general orientation in most of the main academic fields, and he will specialize in studying and imparting scientific information and ideas to the general public, through advanced aids such as presentations-internet-movies-TV. Educational programs will be taught in schools, both at the elementary and high school level, as well as in many and varied frameworks for the transfer of knowledge to adults, in experiments, cultural sabbaths, certificate courses by the universities, journalism, etc., etc.
This activity will increase and diversify the interaction between the general society and science and will be a source of mutual fertilization.
For science - plus sympathy and support from society as a whole (including financial support). And for society - with easier and more available access to scientific and cultural information, content and interest that are so lacking and required by many media.
In conclusion: it turns out that the scientists cannot bear both the burden of research and the burden of candidacy. The new candidate as a formal-professional-academic-discipline will be the necessary connecting link between society and science.
D.A.N.B.
Interesting to the interest in the same matter. In my opinion, the field of law also needs a professional promotional function
- Legal Advocacy, which communicates between the field of professional law, on its various and many branches,
and the company.
Thanks.