Science Café blogDoes the Public Understand Science?
August 13, 2008
Am I the only science communicator alive who was unaware of the journal called Public Understanding of Science?
I recently discovered it, and for anyone interested in knowing how opinions about science and technology form in the public mind, what factors influence them and how science can be “framed” in a positive light, this journal is a must-read.
Poring over the archives as well as the most current issue, I found these highlights. Some of them seem like no-brainers, but that’s not the point. The great news is that these findings are based on research – not intuition, “gut feelings” or presumed “common sense.” No more pounding on the table to make your points heard. You can now cite research studies and let them make the points for you.
- The public prefers public science over privately funded science because they understand that when profits are involved, their needs play second fiddle.
- University scientists are more trusted and more likely to be considered working for the public good than those in commercial companies.
- Even though the public’s understanding of nanotechnology is still low, its perception is more positive than negative. Why? Because university and government scientists, who are doing most of the nanotechnology research at the moment, benefit from the public’s general trust in their benevolence.
- Framing nanotechnology as beneficial to human health or environmental health lowers the risk perceptions of the general public.
- When it comes to biotechnology, the public distinguishes between “red” (animals, e.g., animal cloning) and “green” (plants and pesticide resistance, for example). Red trumps green at the moment because the public remains skeptical of the low benefits of green biotechnology.
- Risk judgments about nanotechnology are influenced by social context. If small or medium-sized companies are seen as benefiting, then the public will be less likely to assume the worst about nanotechnology risk.
- Television weathercasters can become prominent science communicators (“station scientists”) and, with the help of professional development and training, broaden the range of topics about which they educate the public. Indeed, one in seven weathercasters has a contract clause that includes community service.
- The late 20th century saw the end of the social contract between science and society, e.g., “the provision to science of prestige, autonomy and support in return for its role as the leading agent of social progress, prosperity and emergent rationality.” The new view? Better make that plural. There are many views, but the two negative ones divide as follows. Science is a subordinate instrument of corporate profitability. Or science is subjective and prone to underestimate technological risk. (I’m not sure which is worse.)
None of this surprises me, of course. But it is a pointed reminder of how hard scientists must work to retain the public trust – and how risky the future can become if they lose it.
Gazzaley Makes News Again; UK Judge Bars Would-Be Chemistry Student
August 5, 2008
UCSF’s resident Brain Man, Adam Gazzaley, MD, PhD, director of UCSF Neuroscience Imaging Center and featured guest on Science Café last March, continues to get ink – and with good reason. As more brains begin their slide into the less efficient aging mode, more and more of us rage against our diminished capacity.
That list includes the UK’s Guardian/Observer reporter, Phil Hogan, who visited Gazzaley in his Mission Bay offices last year and tested his journalist’s brain in the functional MRI machine that is central to Gazzaley’s neuroscience research.
Hogan describes Gazzaley as a “trim, youthful, un-Einstein-like figure in black shirt, jeans and boots, though he does have one of those boards with algebraic squiggles and files labelled ‘EEG’ and ‘ageing’ and a brain on the shelf that gives you a lightning storm when you plug it in. Dr. Gazzaley’s particular interest is ‘the interface between attention and memory,’ the area they call ‘working memory.’”
Speaking of working memory, an even more ancient Science Café post from December 2007 mentioned the lawsuit brought by an Iraqi national living in the UK, who was prevented from taking secondary school-level courses in chemistry and human biology because he had suspected terrorist links. A British judge has now ruled that the ban is legitimate, since the courses would put the suspect in a “substantially stronger position” to carry out chemical and biological attacks.
As one blogger commented, “Well that’s one way to drive up interest in studying the sciences and address the skill shortage….”
And while you might have tired of hearing about Euroscience 2008, here is a short article in Science on the latest meeting in Barcelona.
Lasting Impressions and Offbeat Observations: Euroscience 2008
July 29, 2008
New stimuli alter perspective, which is why traveling enlivens the brain and refreshes the spirit. Here are some facts, experiences and random observations from Euroscience 2008 that scored high on both scales.
Pondering Consciousness: Euroscience is always notable for the time and space devoted to public outreach activities and exhibits. This year in Barcelona was no exception. One of the most intriguing centered on studies about consciousness, which involved short videos of patients discussing various forms of neurological and psychological distress caused by an altered or hyper level of self-awareness. Inside each booth was an artist’s representation of the patient’s experience. This fusion of art and science, accompanied by highly literate text about the nature and purpose of consciousness, was a conference highlight. UCSF science could benefit from closer ties to the art community.
Thoughtful Fact: The human brain contains 2 percent of the body’s mass, but uses 15 percent of our cardiac output and consumes 20 percent of our oxygen need.
Add to My List: Read Biology of Freedom by François Ansermet and Pierre Magistretti to better understand the “autobiographical self” that keeps the brain active when technically “offline.”
Amusing Reflection: Hearing Ben Goldacre, the Guardian’s “Bad Science” columnist, describe the bizarre beliefs of 19th and 20th century health food faddists and hucksters, all of whom were Americans. Certainly there were similar crazies in other countries too, weren’t there? Well, maybe not on the same scale; for a case in point, read about Hadacol.
Great Ideas: Spanish sugar packets come equipped with a plastic stir stick for your espresso. Many of the buses in Barcelona also run on natural gas.
Energy Trouble: There are now 180 million new customers for energy each year, thanks mainly to population growth in India and China. Whatever happens, we will need to improve the transfer of alternative power, so that it becomes less place-based and more storage-based. Energy must travel intact to where it is most needed. And there’s a Nobel Prize waiting for whoever can figure out how to devise a positive environmental use for carbon.
Notes to Myself: Check to see if my sunscreen and shampoo contain nanoparticles, which are 80,000 times thinner than a human hair, or about one-billionth of a meter. Good example of nanotechnology now in use: home pregnancy tests. Questionable use: Do I want my clothing to be “intelligent”?
Ancient News: The oldest known prostheses was a wooden-and-copper leg fashioned in 4th century BC Rome. I say “was” since it was destroyed during World War II.
Good News: Spain has the highest ratio of organ donors to population in the world.
Unbelievable News: Is it true that a research group is working on an artificial hippocampus? How is that possible? Anyone at UCSF care to comment?
Interesting Quote (but what does it tell me?): “Life is the totality of those functions which resist death.”
More Interesting Quote (from Abraham Lincoln): “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.”
Point to Remember: When it comes to issues of human health, you can separate hazard from risk, assuming the latter is minimized by inviolable controls. Questions from the Euroscience audience were a reminder that nanotechnologists must be willing to research and reveal the potential hazards of applied nanoscience to maintain public confidence in the controls.
Scientoons: Science cartoons are a big hit in India, where 22 different languages are spoken. That’s because, as scientoon creator Manoj Patairiya of the Indian Journal of Science Communication explains, “Scientists do not know the language of the common man, and the public does not know the language of science.” Humor is the bridge between them.
New Word You Will Be Hearing More About: “Glocal.” Used in particular reference to podcasting, whereby a local story, placed on the Internet as an audio file, is repeatedly posted and shared, thereby producing an immediate global impact.
Something to Watch for: The Arab Science News Agency, which is taking shape with assistance from the National Association of Science Writers.
Something to Watch for Also: A new publication, Science Journalism in Europe, has just debuted. It is a product of Germany’s Dortmund University in collaboration with the German Science Journalists’ Association. The lead story is entitled “Who’s Fooling Whom?” and centers on the value of engaging with the public about science. It is a must-read for anyone at UCSF interested in a different perspective on how the public understanding of science should proceed.
This closes the book on Euroscience 2008. UCSF Science Café podcasts resume Friday, August 1. Next up: molecular biologist Joe DeRisi, PhD. Watch as well for new content on our sister website, sciencecafeworld.com.
Networking in Barcelona
July 25, 2008
Euroscience Open Forum closed its 2008 Barcelona conclave Tuesday with a ceremonial, Olympics-like handoff to the 2010 host city, Turin, Italy. If the doubling in size of this year’s conference is any indication, the Turin officials will need to plan for a big venue. Success has bred success.
As one of the few Americans in attendance, I can attest to the European journalists’ continuing appetite for perspective on the some of the biggest issues facing humanity – from energy solutions for an overtaxed environment to the ethical use of nanotechnology. Neuroscience topics, one of my perpetual favorites, also were well represented, a big change from 2006.
Social networking applications, however, are another story. There is both curiosity and hesitation about these applications, the full-blown, American-style sharing of information online conflicting with a cultural preference for face-to-face contact and greater privacy. I think, too, there is still a small entrepreneurial gap.
The notion that a single person, represented in a Euroscience session on podcasting by John Bohannon, Science magazine’s gonzo journalist based in Vienna, could create a whole web presence around podcasts was exciting but a little scary, and perhaps a little unseemly. Still, experiencing the technology firsthand can be liberating, and you could almost feel attitudes shifting as Bohannon’s presentation continued.
I’m sure that whatever emerges on Europe’s web 2.0 science communications side in the next few years will clearly reflect the continent’s different sensibility, but we will recognize it as a cyber-blood relative all the same.
In my next blog posting, I will offer some final observations on the Barcelona meeting and some points of reference that could be useful to those who seek greater public engagement with science on this side of the Atlantic.
In the meantime, this news item from Nature captures what I clearly saw and felt in Barcelona, a European science community that is starting to flex its financial and research muscles.
Nature News / July 23, 2008
German public-private partnership breaks ground
For the first time in its 60-year history, Germany’s Max Planck Society (MPS) is setting up a new institute using private money – €200 million (US$317 million) of it. On 15 July, the twin brothers who founded the generic drugs company Hexal signed an agreement with the MPS to establish an institute for cognitive neuroscience in Frankfurt. The institute is set to start work by the end of this year.
The Ernst Strüngmann Institute is named after the father of Hexal founders Andreas and Thomas Strüngmann. It will have the same scientific independence as the 80 other MPS institutes, but unlike them its finances will be overseen by a separate board, on which Andreas Strüngmann will sit.
“Public-private research is a well established concept in the United States, but not yet in Germany,” says Wolf Singer, director of the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research in Frankfurt and provisional head of the new institute. “I hope this model will become common practice.”
Barcelona Readies for Euroscience
July 17, 2008
Street banners in Barcelona advertise the Euroscience conference.
More than 3,000 attendees are now descending on Barcelona for the fourth Euroscience Open Forum.
That list includes me. In my role as reporter, observer and synthesizer, I will be sending back articles, photos and podcasts with highlights of a conference that – although held only every other year – is fast becoming a required gathering for anyone interested in trends, new research and science communication.
I have written about the Euroscience meeting in previous posts, and while the content is always rich and useful, it is the perspective on science that I find most refreshing. Just consider these topics, and you will understand what I mean: “Building networks: how to support science journalists in developing countries”; “What can nanotechnology do for health care?”; “Bionics versus regenerative medicine”; “What are the ethical and social responsibilities of scientists?”
Workers begin installing the Euroscience 2008 sign outside Barcelona’s Exhibition Hall.
Over the next five days, I will give you a seat at the conference and a window on Catalonia’s big push to become a “California-style” biomedical research nexus. Everyone, it seems, is now keen on discovering the big cures or developing the big ideas that will win a city instant recognition as an international research center. And with fame will come more scientists and more discoveries.
San Francisco and UCSF, look out. Barcelona is on a hot streak, and after staging a hugely successful Olympics in 1992, no one should bet against them this time, either.
14 Questions for Obama and McCain
July 9, 2008
Science Debate 2008 continues to elbow its way into public view. But will the presidential candidates notice?
A survey suggests that the American public would certainly like them to pay attention. After all, a science debate would necessarily deal with some of the most pressing matters of human existence – like climate change, innovation, genetics and ocean health. Perhaps, then, some of the press corps following the campaigns would finally get the hint.
To make matters very simple indeed, the organizers of the Science Debate 2008 concept – working with major science organizations – now have produced a distilled list of 14 questions that any candidate running for president should be prepared to answer.
The full list includes:
- What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science- and technology-driven 21st century?
- Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?
- In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?
Another interesting read: the BBC report on the UK’s new Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation. “Who Owns Science?” is the subject of the institute’s first conference this Saturday.
And kudos to the Los Angeles Times for its story on the environmental threat posed by NF3, a synthetic chemical that was supposed to be a more environmentally friendly substitute for perfluorocarbons, once used widely to clean the vacuum chambers of the semiconductor industry. Turns out that NF3 is a potent greenhouse gas used in the manufacture of flat screen TVs. You know the punch line. As flat screen TVs have become more popular, there has been a rise in the amount of NF3 being vented into the atmosphere.
This Friday’s Science Café features the work of neuroscientist Krystof Bankiewicz.
Introducing SciDev.Net
July 1, 2008
Every time I discover a flourishing science website, I am encouraged that the audience and appetite for science and science news are stable and growing. One such discovery is SciDev.Net, which brings you science and technology content for and from the developing world.
If you consider yourself an informed person, you might want to test just how much you really know about the world of science, from Vietnam and South Africa to Peru.
SciDev.Net’s statement of purpose is as follows:
“SciDev.Net – the Science and Development Network – is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to providing reliable and authoritative information about science and technology for the developing world.
“Through our website SciDev.Net we give policymakers, researchers, the media and civil society information and a platform to explore how science and technology can reduce poverty, improve health and raise standards of living around the world.
“We also build developing countries’ capacity for communicating science and technology through our regional networks of committed individuals and organisations, practical guidance and specialist workshops.”
Stories range from water sanitation and helping the poor to overcome food price hikes to health research, science journalism and opinion articles. It’s an eye-opening editorial mix, and one that UCSF staff interested in advancing health worldwide™ should be reading as a matter of course.
Science Café is taking a holiday break this week. We will be back on Friday, July 11. And be on the lookout for an exciting, new, UCSF-sponsored international science website that debuts during the Euroscience conclave starting July 18.
Gay Brains and Funny Women
June 25, 2008
If you have missed the latest scientific report about structural differences in the brains of gay men and women, you have missed what could be the first salvo in a new public debate on hormones. That might seem a little counterintuitive, since we are talking about brain structures like the amygdala.
But the researchers, who found that the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women and that those of gay women had more in common with heterosexual men, ruled out genetics and so-called “learned influences.” That pretty much leaves the gestational bath of hormones as the potential determining factor. If further studies confirm that hormonal influences in the womb truly determine sexual orientation in humans, then look out. Human engineering might enter a new and dangerous phase with unpredictable consequences.
In rummaging through the online files of PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), I also ran across this three-year-old study on the “sex differences in brain activation elicited by humor.” Humor, the authors report, “is a higher-order process crucial in human interaction” and, guess what, men and women process humor a little differently.
Among the study’s findings:
- Females appear to recruit specific brain regions to a greater extent than males when presented with humorous stimuli.
- Stronger female activation of the left prefrontal cortex also suggests greater use of executive functions involved in coherence, potentially using working memory, mental shifting, verbal abstraction, self-directed attention and irrelevance screening.
- Surprisingly, females also demonstrate more robust recruitment of mesolimbic reward regions at the right nucleus accumbens, suggesting greater reward network activity during humor response. This small brain region has been implicated in psychological reward, including situations of self-reported happiness, monetary reward receipt, the processing of attractive faces and cocaine-induced euphoria.
Now that it’s been three years, I wonder if there has been a follow-up study on what men find fall-over funny while women are left scratching their heads. An Adam Sandler movie might be a good place to start.
Friday’s Science Café: The Brain and Movement.
Blog, Again: Merzenich Turns Up the Heat on Bipolar Stew
June 26, 2008
When UCSF neuroscientist Michael Merzenich, PhD, a Science Café veteran, speaks about the brain, I tend to listen. Merzenich’s blog post on dangerous drugs for bipolar disorder in children is a must read. With the Fourth of July holiday approaching, I didn’t want regular or new readers of Science Café to miss it.
Shower Curtains and Your Health
June 17, 2008
I hope you remember my Science Café interview with Tracey Woodruff, PhD, in 2007. An expert on the effects of environmental toxins on reproductive health, Woodruff spent considerable time discussing different classes of dangerous chemicals. Among them were phthalates.
I mention phthalates again because of a story in the Los Angeles Times, based on a report by the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, that revealed the presence of phthalates in softeners added to polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic shower curtains. You know that distinctive “new shower curtain odor”? Guess what? We are smelling what is essentially a hazardous emission caused by a blend of phthalates and their nasty cousins, volatile organic compounds, the report found. Worse, this brew can linger and worsen in the humid conditions of a bathroom.
No one is saying that a shower curtain alone is ruining human health. But it is no comfort that these chemicals have been linked to liver disease and damage to the central nervous, respiratory and reproductive systems. And let’s not overlook the fact that they can also harm a developing fetus.
The good news is that manufacturers are already starting to phase out the use of PVC curtains. But given what we now know, buyer beware.
Next up for Science Café: A husband-and-wife science team come to SFGH to continue their research into spinal cord injury and repair.
Scientoons, Anyone?
June 10, 2008
The Euroscience meeting in July offers an embarrassment of riches. From sessions on neural imaging, the male-female health survival paradox and bionics versus regenerative medicine to the aesthetics of the body, smart homes and how art and science interact, the emphasis is on understanding, innovation and communication. There is also an energetic public outreach component with free activities and lectures on the human brain, nutrition, ecology, matter and the universe, and discovering science. The conference title sums it up – “Science for a Better Life.”
When it comes to science communication, though, something called scientoons is sure to inject an element of fun. In short, scientoons are science cartoons, which are not new, of course; The Cartoon Guide to Genetics was required reading for me for years. What is new is their use in a systematic way to entice apathetic students into learning more about science. You can review some examples at the scientoon gallery. Or maybe you would like to draw some of your own and submit them for publishing on Science Café. I encourage your creativity.
And here’s a follow-up to my conversation with UCSF headache expert Peter Goadsby, MD, PhD: The BBC has posted an article on his work with new headache drugs. If you read it, you will notice that Goadsby’s former institution is named, but not UCSF. Guess they haven’t received word that he has now relocated.
Obesity to Blame for Climate Change?
June 3, 2008
With the obesity epidemic now firmly established as the health crisis du jour, I don’t want to be accused of piling on. But I could not let pass this BBC News health story posted in mid-May, which seems to transform an interesting point into mean-spiritedness, not to mention point the finger in the wrong direction. Here is the full text:
BBC News / May 16, 2008
Obese blamed for the world’s ills
Obese people are contributing to the world food crisis and climate change, experts say.
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine calculated the obese consume 18% more calories than average.
They are also responsible for using more fuel, which has an environmental impact and drives up food prices as transport and agriculture both use oil. The result is that the poor struggle to afford food and greenhouse gas emissions rise, the Lancet reported. It comes as the World Health Organization predicts the obese population will double by 2015 to 700m. In the UK, nearly a quarter of adults are classed obese, twice as many as there were in the 1980s.
The team found that obese people require 1,680 daily calories to sustain normal energy and another 1,280 to maintain daily activities — a fifth more than normal. The higher consumption of food has a two-fold effect, researchers said. First of all the increasing demand for food, drives up production. This means that agricultural processes are using more oil to meet demand, which contributes to the rising cost of fuel. The cost of fuel is then passed on in the cost of food, making it more difficult for poorer areas to afford it.
Prices
What is more, the researchers said obese people are likely to rely on transport more and put more strain on that transport because of their mass, which again drives up prices and usage. But the researchers said there was a solution. Phil Edwards, who co-authored the article, said: “Urban transport policies that promote walking and cycling would reduce food prices by reducing the global demand for oil and promotion of a normal weight. And they added: “Decreased car use would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “Transport and food policy and the importance of sustainable transport must not be overlooked. ”But Dr David Haslam, of the National Obesity Forum, said it was “stretching it a bit” to blame the obese in the way that the study appeared to do. “Really, it is discriminatory towards obese people. They are an easy target at the moment, but I think the causes of climate change and rising food prices is much more complex.”
As always, I welcome your comments.
85 Percent of Americans Are Right About Something
May 27, 2008
While it’s unlikely to match the size of the audience watching the American Idol finale, a presidential debate on science has won the endorsement of 85 percent of Americans, according to a poll commissioned by Research!America and ScienceDebate2008.com. Health care, climate change and energy top the list of topics preferred by poll respondents.
Here are some other highlights:
- 84 percent agreed that scientific innovations improve our standard of living.
- 67 percent agreed on the supremacy of scientific evidence over personal belief.
- 50 percent agreed it was important for the candidates to talk about the influence of scientific findings on policy.
The full results are available here.
The Research!America site offers useful statistical data for non-members, including a state-by-state compilation of total research dollars received and their sources. Not surprisingly, California ranks first.
Closer to home – and for those who are not regular readers of the Potrero View, one of San Francisco’s many community newspapers — you will find an inspiring story on the opera-singing wife of this year’s first Science Café researcher, Andrej Sali, PhD.
And to demonstrate how “cutting-edge” Science Café can be, I draw your attention to this BBC science story that validates the “Floss or Die” views of School of Dentistry researcher Mark Ryder, DMD.
Next up for Science Café, a conversation with aging researcher and medical anthropologist Sharon Kaufman, PhD.
Have Fun with Hidden Worlds
May 20, 2008
I like stories with plots and science with pictures. So today, I share some images gathered on a quick tour of UCSF laboratory websites devoted to uncovering the hidden world that surrounds us - or that is us. I suppose I should tell you what the images are, but I'm not. Let your imaginations run wild. And send me your favorites.
— Jeff Miller
Future City
Pre-Pollock? Post-Pollock?
Fried Egg, No Ham — or Your Brain on Sunshine
Smart Bacteria
Acrobatic Sequence from Cirque du Soleil?
Our New Index; Liberal Science; Gazzaley in Time
May 13, 2008
The long-promised index to Science Café topics debuted yesterday, in case you hadn’t noticed. Now you can search for everything I’ve discussed and written about for the last 21 months – from addiction science to xeroderma pigmentosum – quickly and easily. We’ve made a little headway on the transcripts, as well, and plan to add some more this week. Thanks to everyone who made a suggestion on how to speed up the process.
The next index will list the names of the scientists interviewed for Science Café. That should be live in the next seven to 10 days.
Included on that list, of course, will be Science Café’s resident Brain Man, cognitive neuroscientist Adam Gazzaley, MD, PhD, who has received prominent mention in a Time magazine story on memory. I hope to catch up with him later this spring and update my original episode, which so far has proven the most popular Science Café in 2008.
Speaking of catching up, if you missed Michael Gerson’s column, “A Phony ‘War on Science,’” in the Washington Post, I’ve linked to it here. His central point: There is war within liberalism because liberals have yet to resolve the conflict between humanitarianism and egalitarianism. In short, quoting liberally as he does from an essay by Yuval Levin in New Atlantis, he contends that because science is objective, it cannot concern itself with equality. This opens the door to authoritarian abuse.
Here is one response from a Post reader: “I have been a scientist for over 25 years, and I have never heard a scientist discuss such ideas or suggest anything that could be construed as ‘a war on equality.’ I hear scientists talking about preventing cancer, or treating Alzheimer’s disease or promoting recovery after brain trauma.”
More responses are posted on Nature’s blog.
You should send your comments directly to Michael Gerson or the Post’s Letters to the Editor, and copy me as well.
The Association of American Medical Colleges’ awards page for Science Café is now available online. Sad to say, both Thom Watson and Julie Bernstein no longer work at UCSF Public Affairs. But they both deserve considerable credit for the café’s success, which continues to build. The total number of podcast downloads for the year, now at more than 80,000, is way ahead of last year’s pace. It’s possible that we could sneak past 200,000 before the year is over.
Euroscience Wants You; UCSF in Chile
May 7, 2008
Does a July trip to Barcelona sound good?
This would not be a vacation, mind you, but a career-building quest to learn more about the state of science and science communication in Europe. Here is proof.
This is not idle musing. In 2006, I attended the last Euroscience Open Forum conference in Munich and from that gathering, Science Café was born. Call it a greater zest for science, a more literate population, or perhaps an awakening to what state-funded science based in universities can mean, but the Europeans bring a fresh perspective to the discussion that is instructive.
That breadth is obvious in the Barcelona program, which ranges from nuclear forensics and neurology to stem cells, addiction science and biofuels. Two years ago, few UCSF scientists or scholars had heard of Euroscience. But in my campus travels past laboratory bulletin boards, I have seen at least a half dozen posters advertising the conference.
Could this mean that UCSF will actually be represented by more than one person this time around? Please let me know.
For those who might remember a 2006 Science Café on the UCSF/Chile Exchange Program that featured the story of UCSF graduate student Monica Rodrigo-Brenni, I include an article she wrote for a recent issue of the American Society for Cell Biology newsletter. It’s good to learn that the ties to Chile remain strong.
“A developing collaboration between the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and Fundación Ciencia para la Vida (FCV) in Chile has begun to connect these two diverse institutions in an unprecedented way. Students and faculty from the two countries have been meeting and discussing their research projects and sharing their experiences in science.
“To date, the primary basis for the program has been annual scientific meetings in Chile. In 2002 and 2003, faculty from both institutions conducted seminars. A 2004 microarray course – and 2005, 2006, and 2007 very successful UCSF/Chile Exchange Programs –involved faculty and graduate students from both countries. The 2005 contingent of UCSF researchers and graduate students was led by Bruce Alberts, Professor of Biochemistry; Peter Walter, Professor and Chair of Biochemistry and Biophysics; Keith Yamamoto, Executive Vice Dean of the School of Medicine and Professor of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology and Biochemistry and Biophysics; and Patricia Caldera, Academic Coordinator of the Science & Health Education Partnership (SEP). The 22 UCSF graduate students represented six different academic programs.
“The success of the meeting attracted increasing numbers of applications from graduate students to participate in the 2006 and 2007 programs. The UCSF/Chile Exchange Program has, in Alberts’s words, ‘enable[d] our graduate students to experience how science can contribute, as well as how it might best be structured, in developing national environments. For many students, this may profoundly affect future career directions.’ For their Chilean counterparts the meetings present a rare opportunity to interact closely with top international scientists and colleagues, as well as to arrange collaborations or training positions in the U.S.
“Sebastián Bernales, a Chilean scientist who recently received his Ph.D. in cell biology at UCSF, created the 2005 meeting and developed the UCSF/Chile Exchange Program. Inspired by the high level of collaboration that exists among laboratories at UCSF, he thought that such collaboration could be extended to two different institutes, even countries. With the goal of promoting the exchange of ideas and technologies between the two institutes, more than 70 students and 14 professors from UCSF have participated in these scientific and cultural meetings in the past three years. Having been a participant for the first two years and co -organizer in 2007, I can truly say how wonderful the meetings are. For one week, students and professors from multiple UCSF programs interact with students and professors from universities that make up the Millennium Institute for Applied Biology (MIFAB). These include the Catholic University of Chile, University Andrés Bello, and University of Chile. Interactions include scientific talks and poster sessions, as well as day trips in Santiago and surrounding areas.
“Another aspect of the conference is one that is very dear to me: For the past three years, I have taken a group of the visiting students to a Chilean middle school to teach hands-on science classes. This idea was shaped by Patricia Caldera’s visit in 2005 and by my personal experience in the SEP program with UCSF scientists and San Francisco Unified School District teachers.
“The meetings led to many friendships and collaborations. A tangible success story is the installation of a DNA microarray under the supervision of Joe DeRisi, Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics, and members of his UCSF laboratory. This equipment has been invaluable for many projects at the MIFAB. Other significant results have been the temporary employment of some Chilean students as technicians or interns at UCSF and other research labs, as well as acceptance into Ph.D. programs as a result of such work experience.
“This meeting would not be possible without the support and generosity of Pablo Valenzuela, cofounder of Chiron and current director of the MIFAB. After stepping down from Chiron’s leadership, Valenzuela founded Bios Chile, a biotechnology group, as well as the FCV, a nonprofit research institute. His vision for the future of Chilean science was shaped by his experiences as a postdoc at UCSF. He wanted to create a high degree of collaboration between Chile and the rest of the world; what better place to start than with UCSF? He recruited Bernales, then a graduate student at UCSF and now a junior researcher at the FCV, to help him realize his vision. Walter, Bernales’s graduate advisor at that time, was also essential in developing this program and in validating these ideas from the beginning. Without these three individuals, the UCSF/Chile Exchange Program meetings and subsequent interactions would not have been possible.
“This network of interactions allowed the FCV to organize a unique meeting in January of 2008. For the first time ever, a new edition of the textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell was released outside the U.S.; all the authors (Alberts, Sandy Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, Walter, and Tim Hunt) met with several hundred students, professors, and medical doctors in Santiago. Then the authors visited a research station in Antarctica, where they symbolically released the book.
“Overall, awareness of the significant differences between the two communities has encouraged self-reflection on the position of scientists in the global community. At the same time, participation in the program has inspired a feeling of belonging, not only as a scientist in a particular university, but as a scientist in a much bigger community – one without boundaries and united by common goals of knowledge and discovery. Few scientists have an opportunity to experience this early in their careers, at a time when it could affect their outlook on science. I believe that the experience provided by the UCSF/Chile Exchange Program gives the participants a unique perspective on our global community. Since most participants are graduate students, and future scientific leaders of the world, the benefits from this one-week exchange will be felt for years to come. Any program with the potential for such a significant impact should be embraced everywhere. One might go as far as to say that it should be part of the scientific training of students everywhere.”
— Monica Rodrigo-Brenni
Where Are the Transcripts?
April 29, 2008
We’ve been running our Science Café reader survey for a while now and the responses, although still fewer than 50, are revealing. Biggest complaint: Where are the transcripts?
Here’s the answer. We have tried to speed up the transcriptions by sending the recordings out to web-based transcription services, but the University requires that these companies sign a nondisclosure HIPAA agreement and file a W-9. Not huge obstacles, of course, but try to explain these requirements to someone whose business model is built on speed.
Since these companies also only take credit cards, someone here has to front the money and then wait to get reimbursed. That takes time, too. And the automatic web transcription services don’t handle scientific terminology well, which means we have to read and edit them carefully, in any case.
The only alternative is to have someone on the Public Affairs team listen and transcribe the conversations in painstaking and laborious fashion. So, to those readers who keep asking, we’re working on the problem and trying to fix it. More transcripts will be available soon.
So, too, will be an index that allows you to search both topics and the names of scientists interviewed for Science Café.
Now for some other results. The bulk of survey respondents want to hear first about scientific breakthroughs – an interesting bias, considering that Science Café was originally conceived as something that would provide a little more context and back story. Close behind is a preference for insights into disease. How the brain works, science literacy and how serendipity figures into discovery are the other top vote-getters.
I will take all of this into consideration as Science Café branches out in the months ahead.
Now you can help me.
Send me a general question you would like me to ask scientists during future conversations.
I’m waiting.
A Presidential Science Adviser?
April 22, 2008
Sorry to tease you with that headline. We all know that no such animal as a presidential science adviser exists in the US, a sad fact that David Baltimore and Ahmed Zewail mentioned prominently in their April 17, 2008, Wall Street Journal editorial, “We Need a Science White House.”
The words of woe and warning were aimed at policymakers and presidential candidates who seem strangely silent on what Baltimore lists as the trinity of benefits attributable to science: health, security and prosperity.
Also mentioned was the American Competitiveness Initiative, which, if you recall, was a pet project of an early Science Café interviewee, Ken Dill. Here’s Baltimore’s Wall Street Journal summation of what happened.
“Last year things seemed hopeful, at least for the physical sciences. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report, ‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm,’ that helped drive Congress to pass legislation — the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) — aimed at bolstering the sciences. It was supposed to beef up the study of science in high school. In the end, no money was found to fund the initiative. It was a commitment made, but not kept.”
No wonder cynicism flourishes. That assumes, of course, that you know enough to be cynical. An editorial entitled “Critical Journalism” in the March 27, 2008, issue of Nature details the decline of substantive science reporting in the US, based on the Pew Research Center’s State of the News Media 2008.
True, as the editorial acknowledges, the Internet has filled some of the information gap created by the decline of science desks at print publications and television networks. But the operative word here is “substantive.” Online science reporting needs to shake off its news release-driven “me-tooism,” the editorial urges. Citing data that the public is indeed hungry for science news, the editorial concludes with a lament. No science reporters. No watchdogs. And no truth tellers.
Keep the pressure on for Science Debate 2008.
— Jeff Miller
