Author: Christopher Worsfold

Sense About Science – Final Thoughts

It’s been over a month now since I finished my Charity Insights internship with Sense About Science and amidst the hectic nature of freshers week and returning to university I have been reflecting on the experience.

Before my internship I was interested in the work done by SAS and I knew a lot – or at least I thought I did – about the interplay between science, society, politicians and the media. Since my internship I have come to realise that the issues and solutions are much more complex, but also much more interesting. This idea was always stewing in the back of my mind during my time at SAS and was really brought to the forefront when I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the 2015 Sense About Science lecture: The Ugly Truth. The lecture was delivered by managing director Tracey Brown, a podcast of the lecture is available here as well as a comment piece written by Tracey for the guardian. The event was attended by leading figures in the world of Science and Policy, including my former head of department Prof. Joanna Haigh, author Simon Singh and hosted by Dr Adam Rutherford.

TraceySASlecture

The lecture essentially focused on the way scientists struggle to tell the truth. Often it can be hard to tell, such as in the case of those seeking miracle cures. At other times it is oversimplified in an “ends justifies the means” approach, do we only need 5 fruit and veg? what is the real limit on alcohol? Is it just better to tell people what to do than give any real evidence? Tracey’s argument was that scientists and the media need to be more open about uncertainty, because dumbing it down or worse acting as if we know everything only makes the truth, when it does emerge, harder to believe. The lecture was thought provoking and I advise anyone reading to have a listen. Tracey explains deftly how there are so many facets in promoting good science in our society. It’s not just about tackling quack science, but trusting the public to make sense of evidence and uncertainty.

I was lucky enough during my internship to take an active roll in this speech, attending the team meetings for which it was outlined, discussed and debated, and also researching aspects of the speech. Sitting in the audience I was surprised to see pictures I’d found an case studies I’d examined being used. After the lecture I was also able to speak in person to members of the Energy Panel and thank them for all their help. I also spoke with previous SAS interns, many of whom are studying for PhDs.

Before my internship I was uncertain about a career in science communication and policy, what it would entail and whether it would be interesting. I now know for certain that it is not only interesting, but constantly changing and I’m excited for the challenges it will involve.

I’m very fortunate to have had the chance to work with the dedicated, passionate and inspiring team at Sense About Science, I’d like to thank them all for making my internship so enjoyable.

I’d also like to thank those who work for the Charity Insights scheme for making it all possible. If you have the chance I would urge you all to apply for charity insights, it will easily be the best thing you do all summer.

 

Sense About Science – AskForEvidence.org

One major problem with politicians today is there is a huge lack of trust. People simply don’t believe their claims. The same issue can be applied to society more broadly, particularly media and advertisements. People know that when something seems too good to be true it probably is, but they don’t know what to do about it.

To address this Sense About Science set up the ask for evidence campaign, and in particular askforevidence.org to encourages the public to challenge unbelievable claims directly, asking those who make them to provide evidence which can then be scrutinised and evaluated. Since it’s launch less than a year ago askforevidence.org has seen over 1000 queries from frustrated members of the public seeking evidence from those who make extraordinary claims.

As part of my internship I was lucky enough to work with the ask for evidence campaign; this included helping people who have received (often dubious) evidence be put in touch with scientists who can help interpret it for them, whilst also querying a number of claims for myself. For me this is a large part of what makes the ask for evidence campaign so powerful, because people can ask for evidence, but what they receive could be nonsense. In fact very often it seems those making the claim will be deliberately confusing, they know the person asking is unlikely to have a scientific background so should be easily put off by technical jargon and long research papers. However the beauty of Ask For Evidence is that it allows them to follow up on any evidence with the help of a professional.

The campaign has already queried many extraordinary claims and found them to be, unsurprisingly lacking in extraordinary evidence. The full list can be found on the website. During my time at sense about science I wrote a piece on a fertility app that claimed to be “99.9% safe”, an extraordinary claim which if true would make it more effective than condoms or the combined pill. Another was a claim by Dr Marilyn Glenville that changes in diet can reduce menopause symptoms, a claim that is not supported by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Encouraging the proliferation of claims that are well supported by strong evidence can only be a good thing. It might not rebuild trust completely with politicians and the public, or mean we still don’t see companies making ridiculous claims, but a well informed public, willing to challenge these claims, can only be a good thing. We need to speak up and stand up for evidence, only then will we stop being lied to.

Week 2 – Sense About Science

During my time at Sense About Science one of my main responsibilities has been running the Energy Panel and the Plant Science Panels and for me this has been some of the most interesting work. The panels are made up of experts in the respective fields, who have made themselves available to answer public questions. As part of my responsibilities I field questions from the public, choose the appropriate scientist to answer (in the case of the Plant Science Panel there are over 50 different specialists), then if necessary edit the answer to make it more readable, before publicising it.

So what is the point in getting scientists to answer public questions? As a charity tasked with “increasing public understanding of science and evidence” SAS have on the face of it a near impossible task. On many hot topic issues the lines have now become so entrenched and polarised that people will not budge from their opinions. Take for example, climate change. For well over 20 years the science has been clear and even surpassed the most difficult tasks of being accepted by policy makers (the Kyoto protocol is 18 years old). But still even today there are many who aren’t convinced, often basing their objections on ideological stand points than any real evidence. Another example would be those who oppose vaccinating children, on the grounds that vaccines cause autism, a claim that has been disproved time and time again.

What the Panels aim to do is bridge the gap between scientists and the public, creating dialogue and trust that is so often lacking. In order to achieve this the approach take is one of public-led expert-fed discussion. The public choose the path of the debate with their questions, the scientists give the best answer they can. This is important because if scientists want to continue they need policy makers support, they need public support… so the public need to have their concerns addressed, they need to have their questions answered. Part of the problem so often with scientific discussion is people can feel they are being lectured or even patronised. The panels put the public in the driving seat, whilst allowing the scientists to make their case. In this way it is hoped that apparent controversial issues can be made acceptable to the public and to policy makers, or at the very least take some heat, hyperbole and misinformation out of the conversation. In the case of the energy panel issues include climate change, fracking, nuclear energy and renewable energy. For the plant science panel GMOs, the use of pesticides and plant diseases such as ash dieback.

So what I’m doing as part of my work at SAS is encouraging discourse between scientists and the public, sharing information and building trust; all from behind my small desk. Well at least that’s what I’m trying to do.

 

Sense About Science – Week 1

I first knew I wanted to apply for Charity Insights this summer around November 2014, I first knew I wanted to work at Sense About Science about 2 days later. And by Monday morning 3rd August 2015 I just really wanted to get going, to find out what exactly Sense About Science does and how I would fit in.

To give some background to Sense About Science are a “charitable trust that equips people to make sense of scientific and medical claims in public discussion“, pretty self-explanatory yes? well maybe not.

Part of the problem faced by scientists is that they are (often) not in touch with public opinion. This is also a problem for the public, they don’t know what scientists are doing and the only tool many have is the media. The media can be very bad at helping to explain science.

So what SAS try to do is bridge that gap between scientists and the public whilst also helping to combat sensationalism in the media. They achieve this through; guides on certain issues known as “Making sense of…“, responding to media misreporting through for the record, helping equip scientists to become more active in public policy, through Voice of Young Science and encouraging the public to value evidence and evidence based policy through the Ask for Evidence Campaign.

So this small office of 10 people in no small way are helping the public make sense of science, hardly an easy task.

I knew a lot of the work of SAS before I came here, having viewed the website a few times, but mainly I knew what they did through twitter, I seem to learn most things through twitter (@senseaboutsci in case you’re interested). But after my first week here what I have really come to notice is they also do so much more and I don’t think I’ll have anything remotely close to a full picture even after four weeks. And i guess that’s what I’m most excited about.