At the afternoon breakout session on Science Education and a New Generation of Civic Engagement, there was a great deal of discussion about science literacy. One point that got everyone's attention was the question of what exactly is science literacy with the follow-up being what would a successful science literacy program achieve. From there we found ourselves talking about how a a successful science literacy effort would result in certain changes in public or political behaviour. In the ensuing conversation with the panel and attendees a couple of observations emerged from around the room.

First off, was a sense that the media is at least partially to blame. After all, it is the media who put up the "iconic images" (a term that wouldn't go) to illustrate a story, and simplify it  beyond recognition. While there are some inherent dangers in simplifying a complex topic, media has always been, and probably always will be, about simplification. From the earliest broadsheet newspapers, media has to have at least some degree of compactness or brevity. ( even Christmas Carol was originally serialized) If scientists want a big forum to explain a big topic they can write a book. Many do, and many do it very well.
Further at least one person pointed out, there is the problem of the media using iconic images (I promise not to say it again) such as the now familiar polar bear swimming about in the warming waters of the North to illustrate global warming. I agree this can definitely be a problem when a scientist wants to have a more sophisticated discussion. The answer to that one may take a lot of work, but it is surprisingly straightforward. Develop your own images and catch lines. Media is desperate for a few fresh outlooks and fresh takes on a number of stories that touch science.

The other point that got some attention in the discussions was that despite all the science literacy efforts, many behaviours haven't changed.  We still fill up the gas guzzlers and head down to the corner store. I'll counter that however by saying that is a matter of advocacy - not literacy.
We tell people smoking is bad for you and to buckle up but they nevertheless light up the first chance they get and may still have the butt in their hand as they fly through the windshield of their car after a head on. Education does not necessarily equal change and it is not the job of educators or the media to make things change. If the science community wants to see some change they have to become advocates which was very much the message Preston Manning gave at his keynote presentation 2 hours earlier.

Now here's the kicker.

Most of this post was written while waiting my turn at the microphone during the Q and A opportunity. ( It was a long line up ) While I was waiting, the discussion between the audience and the panel included a wee bit of a smack down of Twitter which was a bit ironic as I had tweeted while waiting, and there was a little more of 'blame the media'.
When my turn came to the microphone I wore my PR hat and the hat I keep handy from my media career. I raised the points you see higher up in this post, tried to offer a few examples, and basically suggested that the science community needs to be engaged as individuals in the discussions - on and offline. This is not a media issue I suggested,  and believe it or not, Twitter can be your friend too. When I was finished I got a round of applause - a bit unusual for a non-panelist I'm guessing. By the time I sat down I also had a twitter message and a couple of e-mails from people who agreed. So if most of the room agreed, and clearly some are also completely wired into 2009, why is the conversation so often the same at science conferences. " We told them but they just don't understand us".

Time to take the advocacy show on the road and make it happen. The young scientists who organized this Science Policy Conference have done exactly that. They saw an issue that needed to be addressed and used every tool at their disposal to make it happen and from what I can see, done so with a great deal of success. The organizers (I am on the organizing committee by the way), scientists, and policy makers need to ensure that when the closing remarks are done and the lights come down they pick it right up again and engage a broad audience to keep the discussion going.

Have some thoughts? Make a comment below, use the 'Share it' button, follow me on Twitter as @mikesgene, and try out our GenOmics application on Facebook (we're giving away an iPod Shuffle this week )



The Science Education panel from left to right David Rose, Sunny Marche, David Castle, Bonnie Schmidt