This happened
Viewing entries in
Science Communication
I was delighted to give the keynote at this year’s Luxembourg National Research Fund science communication conference, speaking about artificial intelligence and immersive worlds. Such a fantastic community with some incredible work. Find more about them here
The movie Oppenheimer was a fantastic insight into the complexity of pursuing science in the expectation that it will be used for good by humanity. Take a look at this review for the Times Higher Education
Here is the pre-edited verison:
The movie Oppenheimer depicts its protagonist with a classic narrative about the scientist’s vocation; the relentless pursuit of a world-changing idea, which begins as a nucleus of thought, developing into an all-consuming, compelling, and noble mission.
Admittedly, there are elements of this that are more complicated when the science leads to the creation of a bomb, but leaving that aside for a moment, what academic wouldn’t wish for their niche, fringe beliefs about how the world really works to gradually, but surely, inspire students to join seminars, peers to defer to their intellect, and heads of state to recognise the importance of their work in forms of national decorations, where each of these symbolises the broad public good that is derived from what they do by, predominantly, just thinking?
Oppenheimer is a story about being heard and being acknowledged for the most intimate facet of our humanity - the merit of our ideas and our ability to demonstrate their worth. The film inspired me to think about what and how I teach. Do each of my lectures or seminars present ideas that will confront students with new ways of thinking about the world, to challenge their assumptions and confront them with difficult, sometimes uncomfortable ideas? Do I go into every classroom and prioritise challenging the views of my students and bringing out the best of their views, cognisant of the fact that this opportunity for interaction is also the place where my own views can be remade and improved by theirs? Does the curriculum I have written prioritise this form of thinking and demonstration of intellectual achievement? The film also made me think about the function of teaching in the pursuit of knowledge, at a time where we seem often to be struggling with the division between teaching and research.
What we don’t see of Oppenheimer is the endless administrative tasks that now fall upon most academics, dealing with student wellbeing, progression rates, and any number of tasks which take the academic away from their core, unique capability, which must surely be to lead the development of new intellectual traditions through inquiry born out of scholarship, research, and teaching. While those forms of welfare are in the service of inclusive and supportive learning experiences, they can easily overwhelm the kind of singular conviction that we see as necessary in Oppenheimer’s pursuit of a complex problem, free from the burden of distraction, other than to wrangle with the crucial consideration as to whether our work is, indeed, good for humanity or not.
From what I have observed, very few scholars have the kind of academic life that is depicted by Oppenheimer’s journey through academia, in terms of that vocational conviction. Very few are able to maintain - or even to establish - a core sense of purpose about their pursuit of a subject or an idea and for this to sustain their entire career. While I have known researchers who are in pursuit of the answer to one question, that question is elusive for most. The singularity of purpose that was depicted of Oppenheimer - or who we often depict as being the most accomplished minds - is a rare presence in the academic community, but is it desirable that all should experience or pursue this kind of career?
To its credit, Oppenheimer did well at showing how he approached progress as a matter of collegial collaboration, encouraging others to pursue their ideas, even when he could not see their merit. Oppenheimer was portrayed as quite self-effacing at times, noting his own incompetence at experimental physics and demonstrating clear value at the need for both theory and experimentation. This helps to dispel the idea that genius is best understood as the work of an individual, working alone with their thoughts.
Back to the bomb
The uncomfortable tension amidst all of this inspirational discovery is the application of Oppenheimer’s science to what became the most destructive discovery humanity has ever created through its pursuit of knowledge. The bomb wasn’t just any bomb, but was an idea that could set the world on fire, to paraphrase the film.
It’s not an unfamiliar tension in an intellectual’s life to grapple with how their passion for the pursuit of knowledge might, later, be applied to grotesque situations and a vast amount of experimental research will find itself in this position, even if the separation between the science and the situation is significant. While not every academic’s work could be quite as destructive, the creation of new ideas, methods, or insights, is often a disruptive force with unexpected and undesirable consequences, whether these are realised immediately or over a longer period.
Oppenheimer did not enjoy the benefit of this separation; there was no cognitive dissonance possible, even though he convinced himself that realising the method would be enough to dissuade the world from the pursuit of creating the weapon. The film describes this as naivety and may be a forgivable assumption, when faced also with the prospect of other nations seeking to do the same and who are perceived to lack any such moral compass.
However, the error that the movie invites us to consider is Oppenheimer's belief that the USA were the good guys, the trusted nation, who would deploy the bomb for justifiable means or use it to deter others from its pursuit,
In the end, the film depicts a catastrophic failure in understanding what global peace diplomacy requires, but also fails to reveal that, in fact, we don’t really know what it requires - especially when the ‘we’ is the academic, who remains blissfully absent from the political sphere. And this is the problem. In the absence of a better idea, or even expert political judgement, the best available approach taken by even capable and established democracies is to stay ahead of one’s enemies and it’s a conclusion that many nations, in many ways, pursue through their entire investment in science and technology.
Perhaps the greatest wisdom found in Oppenheimer is that the mindless pursuit of STEM for their own sake, without attention to how intellectual journeys must be forged via critical moral and social insights, puts the world in a persistent state of tension. If we look at our learning curriculum today within our most advanced science and technology subjects, we see a gaping hole in this component of the learning process. How many courses on artificial intelligence have space in the curriculum for ethical debate? This needs urgent and immediate rebalancing to ensure our intellectual institutions protect and service the pursuit of intellectual endeavour for human prosperity, rather than its further demise.
This week, I discovered that an article I published for the Times Higher Education made it into their top 15 articles of 2022. My contribution focuses on the future of knowledge, following 30 years of investment into the STEM disciplines. Here’s the article
and here’s a video piece which speaks to the main thesis:
Over the COP26 fortnight, I hosted A LOT of online live sessions for the University of Salford. We brought expertise from around the university
I was absolutely honoured to host a series of conversations during the world’s first Climate Exp0, an event orgnanized through the COP26 Universities Network. I was even more proud to co-host it with Anna-Maria White, a student in Salford University’s Wildlife and Practical Conservation programme.
We’ve been working on a few more COP26 related projects, which I’ll post about soon, but here’s a glimpse into what happened. find out more at this dedicated page.
As part of the Scottish Parliament evidence session, my contribution focused on how we evaluate government communications during the pandemic. It’s a notoriously difficult subject, as there are so many moving pieces. However, there really ought to be some way to reflect on the effectiveness of the communications strategies and to establish comparators across nations.
The final report from the Scottish Parliament session covers a lot of levers for Scotland’s recovery and you can read the full scope of these here
I was really honoured to be part of a session organized by the Scottish Parliament to advise the Scottish Government on their public communication strategy. The session was a really good opportunity to think about how we evaluate government communications, especially in times of urgent need for clear messaging and quick public reactions. I hope this may develop into some further research on the subject and may well need some international collaborators to get it done.
These are remarkable times and I was very pleased to have the chance to speak with people from the STFC and UKRI community about the importance of science communication. Here’s the re-run.
Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve launched a new, personal podcast, focused on the research I do. You can access it through all good providers! Sign up here The first episodes examine far ranging issues in transhumanism, science, and emerging technologies.
I was delighted to take part in the week-long Pint of Science programme this week, especially as our event covered one of my favourite subjects - gaming. In my slot, i cover how Salford’s Game Lab inspired collaboration and why gaming is a great way to develop enthusiasm for learning. Here’s the video:
I was delighted to provide a keynote for the Dutch research funding organization NWO, focused on the role we adopt in science as public intellectuals. It was as much a call to action, as a statement about the value of being publicly present as an academic.
My main point was that our absence from public life leaves the world vulnerable to those for whom information serves simply to reinforce their power and the independent academic is a crucial component of democracy.
Luckily, we have a lot of really remarkable scholars who are taking up this challenge and occupying the role of public intellectual. So, we have a lot to be optimistic. A key factor though, will be for us all to remain digitally agile, so that we can cut through the noise of digital media, but also make the most of the latest platforms that are available.
I was delighted to give a talk to staff and students at the Natural History Musuem in January, as part of their SciFi series. The talk focused on identifying urgent considerations in a climate of uncertainty around a number of major, global transformations.
I kicked off the talk by discussing the importance of utlising creative, digital technologies to put science where it can reach people, showing the game Ark: Survival Evolved as a great example of how dinosaur knowledge can be found. We quickly then turned to transhumanism as a critical re-framing of the climate emergency, so as to encompass a range of other global catastrophic risks. In doing so, we re-imagine the problem at hand and achieve a clearer sense of the totality of the risks we face and what’s needed to address these concerns.
Last week, I spoke at the Altmetrics conference on how we may think about our role as scientists, not as professionals, but as citizens. Here’s what I said.
Great to have been in Switzerland for the annual Science Comm conference. So many great people working hard to communicate fantastic research. Here’s a link to my talk, broadcast on Facebook Live.
Getting started at #ScienceComm19
Posted by Andy Miah on Friday, 20 September 2019
Citation: Miah, A. (2019) Good Science Begins with Communication, Times Higher Education, Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/good-science-begins-communication
Recently on Twitter, a debate took place over advice from Professor Jim Al-Khalili, professor of physics and public engagement in science at the University of Surrey, that a practising scientist should establish themselves before aiming to go too far down the road in communicating science.
While much of the debate was based on just a brief clip from a wider talk, the less generous Twitterati felt that Al-Khalili’s statement discouraged spending time on science communication until one is well into postdoc years, once a good amount of grants and publications were out there proving one’s credentials.
The more generous Twitter users felt that his advice was more that one should practise as a scientist first, before making a huge move into a completely new profession, especially if one’s core currency will be in the accumulation of research funding and publications.
Yet, even though this may sound strategically sensible, it neglects the value of ensuring that the public are part of the entire research process from day one. To rearrange a well-known quote from Sir Mark Walport, chief executive of UK Innovation and Research, good science begins with communication. It is not something we should do just at the end of the process. As researchers, this principle must be our starting point.
However, this reasoning is not just a matter of ensuring that the public are part of decision-making hierarchies about science. Rather, it’s important because formal structures around scientists today require them to ensure that they have impact journeys for their research, from the point of inception. This is especially the case now with the research excellence framework, where impact has become an even bigger part of how research is evaluated.
A well-regarded scientist is, increasingly, someone who is publicly visible, willing to be present in the media, and someone who co-authors with their research users. In fact, some journals, such as the British Medical Journal, actively encourage co-produced research “with patients, carers, or members of the public”. These best practice guidelines could well become conditions of publication in the future.
I began my PhD when the World Wide Web was becoming established and this was extremely empowering as a researcher. We suddenly had our own means of communicating directly with the public, rather than having to rely on editors, broadcasters or the news cycle. Today, we can make our own documentaries, publish on our own channels and create our own podcasts.
Many young scientists in particular are taking hold of this with both hands, creating extraordinary content around their research, rewriting Wikipedia pages, working with artists and creating entirely new platforms that make science more accessible. More importantly, they are taking up the mantle of immersing themselves within public life, occupying the role of the public intellectual, a function which is of increased importance now in an era of fake news and post-truth.
Far from being a choice, we need to think about communication as a necessity to scientists’ jobs that is given adequate time in their workload.
Fortunately, funding councils understand this and have ensured that time, funds and thought are given to how their funded projects will connect with the public. It is also important to note that there are many ways to do science communication. One doesn’t have to be the next Brian Cox or Alice Roberts.
Over my own career, I have worked across a range of creative communication formats, from producing theatrical performances about genetic enhancement and consulting on film and radio drama scripts, to exploring the science of falling in love over an evening with 30 dinner guests and developing virtual reality experiences.
It is the opportunity to be part of a wider conversation about how science is embedded within society that makes science communication so valuable.
Yet, the value that we all derive from seeing scientists work alongside the public is far more than just instrumental, it is an immense enrichment of research life. Recently, I worked with a team from the University of Salford at the Cheltenham Science Festival to present a new virtual reality experience that explains the science of the microbiome. An octogenarian had his first experience with VR there and it was science that brought him this opportunity.
Through such experiences scientists can discover why their work matters and how important it is to ensure that the public has an opportunity to talk with them about it. These experiences also cause one to reflect on their responsibilities as a researcher and to appreciate more clearly the fundamental needs of citizens for research.
While far more science communication happens today than ever before, we still have some way to go before it is available for everyone. That’s why it’s crucial to keep talking about the fact that there is more than one way to be a science communicator. It is possible to develop a science communication journey while you carry out scientific research from the very beginning of your career.
But, more importantly, if done well, science communication enriches the research we do and the significance of what we discover. It can also be really good fun.
Author Bio: Andy Miah is chair in science communication and future media in the School of Environment & Life Sciences at the University of Salford.
Another year and another amazing festival. We did so much stuff, it’s hard to know where to begin. So, here’s a quick glimpse of our programme.
“STEPHEN HAWKING WAS THE MOST ACCOMPLISHED SCIENCE COMMUNICATOR OF OUR TIME. NOT ONLY DID HE POPULARISE EXTRAORDINARILY COMPLEX IDEAS AND MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE FROM ALL WALKS OF LIKE, BUT HIS LEGACY INSPIRED ARTISTS TO MAKE WORK THAT FURTHER ENRICHED OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNIVERSE AND OUR PLACE WITHIN IT.
WHAT DISTINGUISHED HAWKING WAS THAT HIS RESEARCH INSIGHTS ALWAYS SHAPED THE SUBJECT OF HIS SCIENCE COMMUNICATION. IN SO DOING, HE MADE THE MASSIVE JUMP THAT MUCH SCIENCE COMMUNICATION FAILS TO ACHIEVE, NAMELY TO BRING THE LATEST IDEAS TO THE PUBLIC’S ATTENTION. HAWKING DID THIS IN LEAPS AND BOUNDS AND WAS ALSO A DEEPLY HUMANITARIAN FIGURE, AS MUCH CONCERNED WITH THE SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN SPECIES AS HE WAS FOR THE IDEA OF LIFE IN ITS ENTIRETY.”
“IN THE FINAL YEARS OF HIS LIFE, HE TURNED HIS ATTENTION TO THE OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS AFFORDED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND HOW THIS COULD CONTRIBUTE TO OR DETRACT FROM IMPROVING THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE MOST WORSE OFF IN SOCIETY. IN THIS RESPECT, HAWKING’S CONTRIBUTION WAS ALWAYS WRAPPED IN A DEEP COMMITMENT TO THE PURSUIT OF LIFE AND TO OUR ENJOYMENT OF IT. HIS CONTRIBUTION BEYOND PHYSICS WILL LIVE ON FOR YEARS TO COME, NOTABLY IN THE STEPHEN HAWKING MEDAL FOR SCIENCE COMMUNICATION, WHICH WAS FIRST AWARDED IN 2015."
Today, the BBC launches a big initiative to help children navigate the world of fake news and this is a nice segway into an event I took part in a couple of weeks ago at the National Science and Media Museum, which opened a new exhibition on Fake News. Curated by John O'Shea and Sarah Browncross, I was really pleased to advise it in the lead up.
The Museum has done a great job of turning around an exhibition in a short space of time, which deals with one of the biggest stories of the year and certainly the biggest digital discourse of 2017. With the Collins Dictionary including 'fake news' into its historic pages, we need greater work on promoting digital literacy, but also thoughtful responses to how we engender trust within our institutions.
One of the problems here is that all information sources become compromised and this may even include museums as we begin to rethink who we trust and what counts as authority in a digital age. The trend over the last decade has been to elevate the crowd to the position of authority. The more likes on Facebook or views on YouTube, or recommendations on Amazon, the more credit we give to something. Yet, this reputation economy becomes subject to manipulation as the platform within which it takes place is monetised. So, we see celebrities being told off for promoting a product on Twitter, as this is strictly speaking advertising, which is carefully regulated.
The Museum's exhibition draws attention to the longer history of Fake News, which began well before Donald Trump came on the scene.
The edited volume by myself and Mark Lorch received interest from the Mirror last week in an article which outlines the book we published earlier in the year with the Royal Society of Chemistry. Check it out here
The book was published out of a book sprint we conducted during Manchester Science Festival in 2016 and has been getting some great reviews, including one from Nature.
This is probably the biggest event in my calendar and it's happening over the next week! My role is to work with a great team at Salford Uni to develop, design, curate, and produce a programme of work for the Festival. As Educational Sponsor, we put a lot of work into this and it's huge this year. Headlines for me personally including having our VC open the festival at the main launch, spread of budget investment across 4 schools and various other units, over 50 staff members involved in delivery, about the same number of students, and some really creative, innovative events.
The biggest one in terms of production for us is the GameLab, which happens weekend of 21/22 October. Here's a quick glimpse of it...
We also have the Annual Lecture in Science Communication, given by Jon Chase this year, winner of the Josh Award. You can sign up for that here
Our whole programme can be found at our #SciComm Space website and it's huge!
