Group items tagged

My sense of Yamana is that it works mostly as a clearinghouse of exchange of innovative approaches. The second unSummit coming up in a few weeks has no schedule of papers, but facilitates discussions that evolve over the 2 days. I think one would have to experience this to understand how it works. I had planned to do so this time, but decided I was too far behind on following up on previous connections. Here are Yamana's guidelines: "We feel the current culture of science creates an invisible cost in loss of productivity, slower rates of discovery, and 'wasting assets,' including human capital. We are committed to having enough conversations with the people that can make a difference, including (and perhaps especially) within our own scientific communities. We will transform what is possible both for people who are currently working in the field of science and for those that are interested in studying to become scientists. We will impact the experience of learning science, the experience of teaching science and the experience of doing science. We include conversations across the whole gamut of what affects desired outcomes, from salaries, to healthcare, to personal leave, to the work environment, to the conversations being had about science, to how science is funded, commercialized, and shared. By acting as a clearinghouse for issues and concerns, as well as a catalyst for potential solutions, we are connecting the passionate voices in science with one another to create a shared vision for the future."

I've been thinking about this alot lately. How do you make cultural change? How do you shift conventional wisdom? How do you create new practices and ways of doing, especially if the dominant "narrative" and system of "incentives" don't support change? Do you shift one relationship at a time? Or is larger change possible? What are the spaces for going against the grain?

This article reflects on the similarities, differences and complexities of science and democracy. Indeed, science is present in our daily lives and democracy through our actions that foster society are present daily as well. Because of the impact of science on society, democracy may be seen as a core element in guiding science towards the greater good. Nevertheless, government use and intervention of science may not be always so. Therefore, it is the people's right and obligation to engage government and scientists reminding them of the benefits but also the risks of their projects and objectives. Science and business may create a covenient and profitable conduit for developing new inventions and advancing science. However, through democracy, we may and should remind them of the ethical implications of their discoveries and the need to work for the greater good and benefitting all. An interesting article that also provides some insights about Obama's policies on Science.

In this editorial from the October 2010 volume of "Science," Bruce Alberts suggests a system of STEM (science, technology, mathematics, and engineering) merit badges for children ages 5-18 to earn awards in schools. He compares this system both to the system used by the Boy and Girl Scouts, and to the system of AP (Advanced Placement) courses currently used in high schools today. It is suggested that this will help students maintain the curiosity they feel towards science in the early years into their high school careers, by when children have often lost interest.

I've recently come to the term STEAM which ads "art" into the traditional STEM equation. I also found this link while doing this quick research - http://ilandsymposium.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/art-science-activism-and-bicycles/. This combined with Rhoda's post about Digital Storytelling makes me wonder what role creativity (from stories to visualizations) play in this equation.

Not being familiar at all with STEM, I am interested in seeing what connections might be found with further inquiry into how stories and the way they are shared can have an effect on positive change, education and personal connections to issues that often seem too big.

The documentation from this 2005 Congressional hearing may help insert some of the science Peter was prompting us to incorporate into our case investigations -- GIS, communications science, demographics, and others are brought to bear; the Q&A toward the end give some sense as to what the decisionmakers (Members of the House) took away from the expert scientists' presentations.

Scientific research plays a very important role in the development of the areas discussed; for example, information data collection and development and improvement of hazard and risk assessment models. These programs are critical since we live in a country with so many natural risks year round.

Indeed very comprehensive. I find interesting when they ask the effect of the local environment in shaping our perceptions of risk. It was interesting to see how people felt in Southesat Lousiana before and after hurrican Ivan.

With a PhD in Biochemistry from Oxford, Nich Anthis combines his dual passions in science and politics to comment on issues and research that are at the intersection of both. Nick writes: "Recognizing science as a path toward understanding nature, distinct from corporate and other applications, The Scientific Activist opens up a new dialogue on the proper role of science in an ever changing society. The truth isn't always black or white, but an informed public is an empowered one, so I won't shy away from the complex issues. Most importantly, though, The Scientific Activist takes on the people and obstacles standing in the way of the progress and proper application of science. Enemies of science, beware!" He is working towards more nuanced and complex understandings of what science means and what role it plays in a complex world.

Now that the Winter Olympics are all over the news I thought it would be interesting to share this groundbreaking project between the Natural Science Foundation and NBC which uses the global spotlight of the Olympics to make science more accessible and more interesting to students, by showing how science helps athletes in the Olympics. Videos show how physics, math and other sciences can be used to explain speed in skiers or how motion is utilized in cross country ski techniques.

This is interesting and innovative. Talk about a creative way of learning!

"s that originally led to them may be rejected. The official "histories" that appear as mere garnishes in many science textbooks are more than happy to leave out all of these tedious or embarrassing elements "

Published by the Council of Canadian Academies, this paper reviews a bit of the history of the relationship between policy and science, as well as policy and scientists. The author, Executive VP of the Council, starts from a broad view, describing an "is (fact)/ought (value)" dichotomy between science and policy, moves closer to characterize the range of relationships between scientists and policymakers and their attitudes toward each other, describes their spheres of influence (world of progress v. world of power), and finally makes the case for government as a place for collaboration and progress employing both. Saner offers some "take-home messages" and some questions for further exploration, including how to meet the needs of each while facilitating communication; managing the divergent cultures to reach successful ends; creating incentives for both players to join the effort; and adapting to the multitude of ways the differences between these two groups manifest themselves around policy issues.

sprout is a social design firm devoted to creating and supporting the community-driven learning, teaching, and investigation of science. We're united by a passion to explore and reveal how to reclaim science as a richly personal and creative craft. Through our programs, stories, and studio space, we're working to make our vision real in Somerville.

Felicia: this is a very interesting project. I really like the idea of "community-driven science". I really appreciate that the project is intended to "build a community of investigators in Somerville." These type of opportunities allow communities to build networks and reflect on their local issues possible posing some alternative options. Really interesting!

The goals for the 5th Living Knowledge conference are: "What innovation is needed to guide research towards public concerns? How can civil society fully participate in the co-creation of knowledge? The 5th Living Knowledge Conference will focus on getting more insight into processes, and develop specific policy recommendations that resonate with public concerns and articulated research needs." On the site we see "PERARES (Public Engagement with Research And Research Engagement with Society) project aims to strengthen the interaction between researchers and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and citizens in Europe." We also see a description of science shops: "small entities that carry out scientific research in a wide range of disciplines - usually free of charge and - on behalf of citizens and local civil society." All these things would be worth looking further into to understand what guidelines people use or recommend for engaging others in scientific & technological change. In brief, they seem very sympatico to the idea of Case 4 of the course (http://ppol749.wikispaces.umb.edu/PBLEngagementCase).

So this seems to be the other theme emerging, how you work with individuals / the public / citizens in shaping scientific research and the dialogue around it.

Just trying out Diigo for the first time and linking to a book that I would like to follow up with.

From Peter the instructor: Thanks for trying out diigo. For future posts, provide an annotation that helps viewers decide whether or not to click on the link to read more.

See essay review of the book: Taylor, P.J. "Biology as Politics: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Lewontin and Levins," Science as Culture, 19(2): 241-253, 2010. Abstract: Lewontin and Levins's contributions are viewed from four angles: a more vigorous culture of science criticism; a visible college of Marxist scientists in the USA; inquiries into the diverse social influences shaping science; and motivating readers who want to pursue their science as a political project. Indirect contributions-influences on and appropriations by other actors in the wider realm of biology as politics-are discussed as well as the more direct effects.

ResIST is a multinational collaborative research partnership that seeks to explore the role that science and technology in increasing inequalities but also the ways in which science and technology can address these same inequities. The research teams from Germany, Malta, Mozambique, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Turkey, the UK and the US are engaged in 5 separate but coordinated research endeavors. ResIST provides a nice template for how transnational knowledge building might work.

As a project-driven organization, our goal is to translate conservation science into compelling visual messages targeted to specific audiences. We work with leading scientists, policy makers, government leaders and conservation groups to produce the highest-quality documentary images of both the beauty and wonder of the natural world and the challenges facing it.

Rhoda this is linking to posts by others around creativity and communication in this endeavor. Interesting.

What does it mean with grassroots organizing and activist result in legislation that seem to challenge the foundations of science? The academic freedom bill would: " 'create an environment ... that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, [and] develop critical thinking skills' regarding 'scientific controversies.' " Who could be against critical thinking. But what if your definition of critical thinking is to provide alternative explanations of evolution that are not based in scientific knowledge or methods. What is that? What does it say that there are science teachers who may feel they are constrained in challenging theories of evolution? What is the right way for challenging consensus views? The bill seems to bring forth some very sophisticated "activism" in pushing forth anti-science, or Moore's idea of marginal scientists.

I like this line: Think of this way: If you come home to find your television and computer stolen, along with a note saying, "This removal of your goods shall not be construed as a burglary,"... It's interesting to think about the law around what is and is not taught in different cases. I sometimes have issues with the MA state frameworks as well in that certain things are emphasized and others left out.

This group presents on 4/24 from 7-9pm as part of the Cambridge Science Festival

Great link and they have podcasts too.

"Cultural Theory is used as a theoretical lens for understanding the different interpretations of the risk associated with BSE/nvCJD, the subsequent risk amplification by the media, and the effect of trust and reliance in science and government in their construction."

Winikoff et al explore key issues related to the adjudication of the disagreement between that the US, Canada and Argentina have with the European Communities over GMOs. The primary focus is on the WTO SPS Agreement and the way in which the agreement can be used to respect cultural differences regarding risk assessment, acknowledge that science policies are value laden, and that public input and participation is even more important than scientific expertise especially in instances of low consensus and low expertise.

This article is really interesting for several reasons -- it describes a model by a scientist about scientists, and the reception he got from his colleagues; it's an interesting model for thinking about scientists on its own; and in it the author of the article, the scientist, and a reviewer all claim that there have been "no real studies about science."

Interesting article, although I appreciated the stages described in the article, I think it is a much more nuanced process. Nevertheless, an interesting depiction. Thanks Pam!