Message in a bottle

     Now that I've gotten your hopes up about the prospect of me writing something fascinating and sending it out to sea with nothing but a thin layer of glass to protect it from the world, I have to let you down. I haven't put a message into a bottle, and I certainly haven't thrown a bottle into the sea (thanks for nothing, landlocked Ohio!). In fact, I haven't even written a message (though I did type one).

     For the final meeting of this seminar focused on effective communication of science to the public, we are using the concept of the message box to distill our work into a format that is easy to communicate. We are encouraged to think inside the box, where our thoughts are rigidly confined, sorted, and limited by space. While all of this sounds fairly negative, it seems that these restrictions are essential for scientists to effectively communicate with the public. The message box forces scientists to sort whatever it is they are trying to say into a few key areas. The issue is similar to the title of a scientific paper or newspaper article, and serves as the floor of the box. Perhaps the most important of the four walls is the so what? section, where scientists have to justify why anyone should even care about their work. Two opposing walls problems and solutions, help set the stage for the results and provide an outlook for the future, respectively. The last wall, benefits relates to the so what? wall by showing how the solutions can relate to the public.

     I struggled to complete my own message box for a few reasons. 1) I don't really have a complete research program in place yet. I've completed a few projects that are distantly related, and only two of them are even connected to my proposed dissertation work. This puts me in an awkward position, as I'm not sure I have a message yet, let alone one that can fit nicely into a box. 2) My research is not very applicable to people in general. Yes, I could use the findings from my work to generalize to all ecosystems, but that amounts to hand waving and straw grasping, neither of which make me terrible comfortable. While the organisms I study do occur in agricultural fields, my research focus is not applied to crop production or pest suppression. 3) Perhaps most importantly, I felt that the message box template was designed for researchers who work with real problems: global warming, epidemics, habitat loss, fishery collapse, cancer, the end of the world, and so on. It would have been nice to see an example from someone who works on something more mundane, or at least less directly applied to human welfare.

     I started to wonder if these examples were chosen simply because these are the ones that scientists want to communicate to the public. There certainly would be a bias toward reporting these kinds of messages to the public, but I don't think that means scientists studying in other fields should give up. Sure, someone who discovers that a species of amphipod communicates by releasing pheromones from its eyes might get a high-profile publication in a scientific journal, but will the public care? I like to think that people are fundamentally curious about the world and what scientists do to learn about it, but I don't think all research fields are equally interesting for a general audience. Hopefully this hasn't come off too negatively; I just don't see myself being interviewed for an article in the New York Times about my current research.

I'll just have to wait until I start a post-doc in microscopic extraterrestrial spider volcanoes, or something...

Fun science word of the day

     Science terms are renown for being cumbersome, confusing, and gratuitous. Certain scientists use these terms to separate themselves from the public and those who they consider lesser scientists. For example, I could describe my research in one of two ways:

1. I study spiders and how they affect the environment by eating things

2. I study generalist arthropod predators of the family lycosidae and how predator identity, defined by habitat mode and hunting domain, creates emergent multiple predator effects that cascade via trait- and density-mediated direct and indirect effects to regulate the detritivore food web

     See what I did there? But this post is not about the dangers of over-obscuring your work with fancy words. Instead I want to highlight a single science term I recently learned from one of my current students: conglobation. First off, I think it's a really neat looking word and it sounds cool. Call me silly, but those are important characteristics for a word to have. Here's the definition of conglobate, the root of the word:

1) adjective: formed into a ball 2) verb: to collect or form into a ball or rounded mass

Now, I came across this word in a project proposal about Armadillidium vulgare, the common isopod, or pill bug, or rolly-polly.

     These little guys are capable of conglobation, which has been shown to protect them from predators and water loss. After all, they are crustaceans, which evolved in the water and breathe air through special gills. These gills need to be moist to work, so conserving water is therefore important while living on the land. This is why isopods are typically found under logs or in other shaded, wet areas. Furthermore, when they are found in dry areas, they are frequently conglobated while they wait for more favorable conditions.

     One must wonder what it is like during conglobation. The isopod has all of its legs and underparts jammed against each other, with the opposite ends of its digestive tract in intimate proximity. The eyes and antennae are completely wrapped up in the rest of the body, so their sensory world basically disappears. There's nothing comparable in human biology, short of placing yourself in a sensory deprivation tank.

     As someone who studies animal behavior, I am always aware of the dangers associated with anthropomorphizing (ascribing human intentions to the decisions of other animals). That said, I wonder what these isopods think about while curled up. Do they review their day or plan for the future? Is conglobation unpleasant, or is it something they look forward to? What would human culture be like if conglobation was a regular part of our lives?

They Might Be Effective Communicators of Science to the Public

     This week I'm reviewing the album “HereComes Science” by They Might Be Giants. For those of you who have not heard of this band, for shame! They've been around for over 20 years and have created tons of great songs, some of which you know, even if you don't know it. More recently, they've taken on the world of children's music with their albums “HereComes The ABCs” and “Here Comes The 123s”. Their latest album in this genre tackles the issue of communicating science with the public by trying to reach young people through music, so let's see how they do.

Track 1 - Science Is Real

     Starting off strong, topics in science (the big bang, DNA, evolution) are contrasted with unicorns, elves, and angels. The poke at religion here is quite subtle, but certainly intentional. However, this isn't meant as a malicious atheistic attack, but rather as a way to show children the proper place for science. Science is used to gain knowledge about the world, whereas the other subjects are entertaining stories from which facts cannot be found.

     They do a decent job approaching the topic of a scientific theory, but ultimately fall short. Yes, a theory is more than a guess, and yes, a theory has survived numerous tests, but no, science cannot be used to prove anything. Theories, no matter how strongly supported, can always be toppled by new information, especially when that information comes to light after new technology has been invented to allow new questions to be asked. Track 10 actually illustrates this point well.

Track 2 - Meet The Elements

     Here we explore some basic chemistry and the idea of how elements combine to make new substances. I think this song would help to take an abstract concept, elements, and make it more tangible to young minds. The tie-in with biology (we're mostly made of four elements) is nice, and the simile with the box of paints simplifies the ideas without completely obscuring them. I could see kids getting excited about checking out the periodic table after memorizing this song. (My understanding of children and music is that songs will be repeated, at their demand, until everyone has memorized them, whether they want to or not.)

Track 3 - I Am A Paleontologist

     Children and creationists are similar in their passion for dinosaurs and lack of critical thinking skills. Fortunately, it's not too late to save our children. This song introduces the idea of form fitting function, which is a basic concept we try to teach at the college level. If today's children are anything like me, they'll be excited to hear the names of dinosaurs in the song, and work hard to learn them. They even included the dinosaur I was most proud to remember as a kid, Pachycephalosaurus! One can only hope that songs like this can spark an interest in pursuing a career in paleontology.

Track 4 - The Bloodmobile

     Fantastic metaphors abound in this song about the circulatory system. Some of my introductory biology students could have benefited from listening to this song instead of (not) studying their notes. We learn about how blood connects everything in the body and is the main form of transportation within us. There's anatomy, physiology, and immunology, and it's all presented in a fun, easily understandable way. I just might shed a tear the day a student tells me she is “pre-med” and was inspired by this song. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Track 5 - Electric Car

     This song is admittedly short on the science, though it does extoll the benefits of electric vehicles. Considering the bad reputation electric cars have had, it's probably worthwhile to make children interested in them early on. They could have incorporated some air pollution science in here to make the song more substantive.

Track 6 - My Brother The Ape

     This song subtly hints at the evolutionary connection between humans and the other great apes. The obvious similarities between us and our closest relatives are highlighted by contrasting our (apparent) lack of similarity with other organisms. This song is surely a response to the early criticisms Darwin met when he first proposed his ideas. The visceral reaction (Hey, I'm no monkey!) is headed off by this song by suggesting that our relatedness is a positive thing that should be celebrated, perhaps with a family reunion.

Track 7 - What Is A Shooting Star?

     This song gets stuck in my head all the time. Astronomers would be proud at how they delicately maneuver through the often-confusing terms used to describe rocks that fly around in our atmosphere. The row-row-row your boat song style is sure to help cement this one in the mind of the listener, and kids brought up on this will feel positively compelled to correct anyone who claims they found a meteor on the ground.

Track 8 - How Many Planets?

     Never mind how many there are, what do the planets sound like? This song teaches kids the order of the major celestial bodies in our solar system, without getting into any details. While it may not seem like science, this is exactly the same material kids will be getting in science class. So why not make a song out of it to make it more interesting? Pluto fans can rejoice in the fact that it is mentioned, though the reality of its status is affirmed in the last lines, where they lump it in with “a bunch of other stuff”. Sorry, Pluto.

Track 9 - Why Does The Sun Shine?

     More astronomy here, this time loaded with facts about our closest star, the Sun. There's a lot of science that went into our understanding of the facts in this song, and it should intrigue any curious kid who listens closely. And hey, even if you aren't listening to the lyrics, you can still jump up and down in your pajamas and scream about the Sun while you rock out.

Track 10 - Why Does The Sun Really Shine?

     While some may view this song as potentially confusing to children, it actually fits perfectly with attempts to teach them about science. In the last song, we learned that the Sun was a “mass of incandescent gas”, but here we are correctly informed that it is a “miasma of incandescent plasma”. Contradictory? Sure, but that's how science works. Before we understood that there was a fourth phase of matter, it made sense to think the Sun was a gas. Science progresses, we learn new things about the world, and our knowledge continues to expand. Hooray for science!

Track 11 - Roy G. Biv

     The visible spectrum of light is something that interests all children, and most of us learn this little trick to remember the order of the colors. This song was perhaps a great chance to introduce the idea of wavelength, photons, and energy, but a decision always has to be made about how much information should be packed into a given song.

Track 12 - Put It To The Test

     The power of science is highlighted here. Although the details of experimental design and the scientific method are not explained, children are encouraged to test claims that may be suspect. Blind belief makes life easy, but that doesn't mean the believer is right. Kids are naturally inquisitive, and anything that can prolong that questioning nature, forcing them to use their brains instead of automatically accepting everything they hear, will be to the benefit of everyone. That is, everyone except for the people who make their living by counting on others believing what they say without (or despite) evidence.

Track 13 - Photosynthesis

     The level of detail into mechanistic processes here is certainly lacking, but we have to remember the goal of this music. We're trying to teach children some science and get them excited about learning more. The electron transport chain doesn't need to feature prominently in a song in order for kids to learn something about plant physiology. To that end, this song succeeds.

Track 14 - Cells

     I've actually seen the music video for this song used in an introductory biology class. It's catchy and effective at summarizing cell theory: all cells come from other cells. Furthermore, we get some neat imagery to describe DNA. I think the greatest benefit of songs like this is to take ideas that people often find abstract and hard to understand (you can't easily see cells or DNA without fancy science stuff), and reduce them to simpler images. It's a good starting point that remains valid even after learning all the gritty details about the subject later in life.

Track 15 - Speed And Velocity

     Much like “What is a shooting star?”, this song focuses on some of the scientific terms that the public often mixes up. Speed and velocity are two different things, and physicists will be upset if you confuse them. The topic is fairly limited, so the lack of substance in this song shouldn't be surprising. I'm not sure anyone would want to listen to the calculus-based derivation of how position, speed, and acceleration are related to one another.

Track 16 - Computer Assisted Design

     I've never used a CAD program, but I know that they are invaluable tools for engineers. That said, there's not a whole lot of science to share about them. This song is mostly filler, and its length reflects that.

Track 17 - Solid Liquid Gas

     The science here is implicit. Instead of singing about the speed with which atoms move around in the different phases of matter, they use the music to do the work. Solids are slow moving, liquids are bubbly and flowing, and gasses are high energy, bounce-off the wall crazy. Kids will be well equipped for science class if they listen to this, especially if they dance along with the music.

Track 18 - Here Comes Science

     Requisite TMBG song about the album name. One does wonder why they made this track 18...

Track 19 - The Ballad Of Davy Crockett (In Outer Space)

     A silly song that's mostly a space adventure. They still manage to introduce some science terms, the fact that sound does not travel in a vacuum, and the issues with traveling at light speed. It could have been used to describe some of the other aspects of being in outer space, but heck, it's the end of the album, and they've already accomplished so much.

     So, are They Might Be Giants effectively communicating science? This semester we've talked a lot about what makes communication effective, and I think this album succeeds overall. The use of music certainly helps, but they also keep the jargon to a minimum and relate the science to everyday life. Humor features prominently as well. To what should their efforts be compared? Your average professor-researcher doesn't even attempt to reach out to an audience for science in the way this band has, I'd argue that They Might Be Giants communicate science to the public more effectively than the scientists themselves.

     Although the format is completely different, I think their efforts are comparable to those made by the authors of the children's books we read a few weeks ago. Not every song (or book) was full of mechanistic explanations, but they all aim to pique interest in science and the natural world. To that end, I think we can mark this album a success for scientific communication. The public is more likely to value science (and scientists) if they are excited about it and appreciate its importance. This album takes a step in the right direction by engaging young minds, and might even help to engage the minds of parents. Here's hoping.

Rewritten by machine and new technology

Bonus points if you know why this picture is here

     We now return to your regularly scheduled program of topics being discussed in the graduate seminar titled "Effective communication of science to the public". This week we are approaching the topic of science presented on that old thing that kids today don't even recognize: the radio.

     Listening to three selections of radio science made me realize how variable this medium can be. The first clip, about stem cells, was aired on my favorite radio science program, Science Friday. The speaker does a nice job avoiding the treacherous jargon of the field and distills the message down to its essential components. In doing so, he covers important background information for the topic (what are stem cells?), interprets recent findings, discusses the consequences of these findings, how it all applies to our lives, and where the field will be going in the future. This includes everything the mildly curious listener would want to hear without childlike over-simplification or unwarranted over-intellectualization.

     The second piece about the potential dangers of plastics, was decidedly less scientific and more focused on policy. Presenting scientific findings as tenuous conclusions is important (if only my students would appreciate that!), as misinterpretation of extremes (plastic is ALL GOOD or ALL BAD) is one of the major problems scientists have to deal with when communicating to the public. I was puzzled by the fact that the conclusions were tempered by the fact that rat and mouse models were used for the research. I was under the impression that most of the pharmaceutical, developmental, and disease research relevant to human health was conducted with these rodent models.

     The final segment dealt with ice, and was about as exciting as it sounds. An author about the wonderful world of ice was incredibly boring, poorly prepared, and didn't even seem to be an authority on the subject. Her professorial counterpart was distracting and committed the crime of talking down to his audience. I felt insulted by the simplicity of his metaphors, which may have been due to the fact that the subject is not too complex to begin with. When I listen to science shows on the radio, I don't need to hear about how much people think ice is pretty or fun to touch. Very atypical of my normal behavior, I turned off this clip before it even finished.

Some brief notes on the topic of radio science presented in an interesting book:

- The challenges of effective communication via radio are also present when delivering a talk at a professional meeting or presenting a lecture to students

- I'm not sure if every researcher would have interesting sounds to fill in the background. What would yours be?

- I think the reason that most scientists need this kind of advice in the first place is because we are trained to remove excessive description from our writing. Plus, too many of us are left-brained thinkers, who are inept when it comes to poetic things like using imagery or metaphors that evoke the senses. Bah!