Using the Tools of Informal Science Education to Connect Science and the Public

Abstract

Traditional modes of communication within the scientific community, including presentation of data at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications, use technical jargon that limits public engagement. While altering word choice is an important method for increasing public engagement, the data itself may not be enough. For example, communicating the lack of evidence that vaccines cause autism did not convince many reluctant parents to vaccinate their kids (Nyhan, Reifler, Richey, Freed, Pediatrics 133:e835–e842, 2014). To address this gap between the scientific community and the public, many journals are adopting open-access policies and publishing lay-abstracts. Meanwhile, “meet a scientist” programs are creating opportunities for scientists to engage with the public in person. However, these programs may not be as effective as they could be. Many scientists still subscribe to an information-deficit model in which “the data speaks for itself.” Alternative tools that go beyond the data are needed. Here, I present three tools to create connections between the public and science: 3-D objects, games, and storytelling. These multidimensional and multisensory methods do more than promote understanding of scientific data; they may also be used to convey science as a verb and as an essential viewpoint in the human struggle for understanding.

Everything Is Science: A Free City-Wide Science Festival

“…However, these strategies have not been as successful as originally lauded (Sturgis and Allum, 2004;Simis et al, 2016). The limitations around this strategy have encouraged new approaches to connect with communities (Killikelly, 2018). We found that by restricting presentations to props and demonstrations, speakers were inclined to think more creatively about the analogies used to describe their science and interact with the audience.…”

“…The information-deficit model aims to deliver science to an ignorant audience and efforts to fill this “ignorance” gap include introduction of open-access data and community presentations that take the tact of “the data speaks for itself.” However, these strategies have not been as successful as originally lauded ( Sturgis and Allum, 2004 ; Simis et al, 2016 ). The limitations around this strategy have encouraged new approaches to connect with communities ( Killikelly, 2018 ). We found that by restricting presentations to props and demonstrations, speakers were inclined to think more creatively about the analogies used to describe their science and interact with the audience.…”

Student responses to creative coding in biomedical science education

“…Biomedical science graduates who successfully learn to code in this era of big data will have an advantage. To effectively learn to code, however, requires experimentation and iteration 7,15,10–15 . As a consequence, in more recent times undergraduate curriculum reviews have been focussed on embedding quantitative analysis, mathematical reasoning and computational tools in multiple locations 1,2,5,16 .…”

“…To effectively learn to code, however, requires experimentation and iteration. 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 As a consequence, in more recent times undergraduate curriculum reviews have been focussed on embedding quantitative analysis, mathematical reasoning and computational tools in multiple locations. 1 , 2 , 5 , 16 Coding skills provide biomedical science students the tools needed to model and understand the emergent properties of complex biological systems.…”