Investigators' Blog
Dr Sarah Morgan on NZAS 2015
Scicomm: Building a Sledgehammer for the Walls Between Science and Society
I’ve been wracking my brain about how to structure this piece, and have picked so many starts and specific topics that I’ve tied myself up into a delightful hot mess. I typed 9 pages of notes on the day and have had numerous follow-up discussions. Each and every one was wonderfully rich, somewhat opinionated and never resolved.
There is just so much to talk about, from the #GoingPublic conference of the New Zealand Association of Scientists, that we are going to be talking for a long time. (which is lucky since it’s taken me so long to get this piece out…).
One of the sound bites that remained with me was the thought that this conversation, about scientists speaking out in public, might be one that needs to be repeated every generation: each time it will reach someone new. I see great similarities between this idea and feminism, which in itself further highlights the sexism undercurrent to the discussions around scicomm efforts in New Zealand. Uh oh: all the controversial topics are coming out.
I’m going to break this up into sections, and review what a) struck me as the most pertinent, poignant points raised during the conference or b) were clarified by my attendance. It’s interesting that the main points turned out to be about scicomm in general, rather than specifically with regards to scientists speaking up on controversial issues in public.
- Hypercritique, including sexism
This is number one because I see it as the major roadblock holding scientists ‘above’ the general public. If we hold ourselves and our peers to such lofty measures of perfection, no effort is ever going to be good enough. No effort is ever going to be recognised as having value, even if it is very small. I believe every effort at such a point has value, even if negatively received by the public (to a certain degree); the action of getting scientists out there will help along the path to normalisation of having scientists in society.
Hypercriticism in this scicomm context is a reflexive denigration of engagement efforts. It tends to be couched behind phrases illustrated by some as having been the direct recipient of. One’s achievements in the main stream media are not ‘worth’ anything, your expertise is not specifically on that topic therefore you have no ‘right’ to speak up on it, your way of doing this is outdated/bad/wrong etc/my way is better/you should be doing it like that, your research isn’t even that good, you’re not even a professor yet etcetera: peers being reflexively and overtly negative in response to scientists who have made efforts towards engagement with the public.
I use the word ‘reflexively’ because I don’t think we even realise we do it anymore. We are all trained to critique the papers we read, to critique our own and others methodology, manuscripts and grant applications. It’s a habit – one that is valuable in the context of the scientific process – but detrimental in the scicomm/society space where being personable and establishing social connection/empathy are the keys towards engaging a lay audience.
Several presenters spoke to this point, though not all directly. As mentioned earlier, there were examples of comments received from scientific peers, but also opinions from a perspective of ‘harden up, ducks-back the comments’, which raised further discussion and again dovetailed with the sexism in science theme – at which point do you stop ignoring negative aspects of the local culture and push for change at every opportunity? I strongly suspect the level of antagonism/scorn/vitriol received from one’s scientific peers as a result of scicomm efforts is rather gender dependent.
Revolution: Find something complementary to say about a scientific colleague’s scicomm efforts and imagine saying it out loud to their face. Expert level: go say it out loud to their face.
Fight the subconscious hypercriticism habit.
- Public expert vs public intellectual
This is intertwined with the first point on hypercriticism, in that it is very easy to judge another person as one or the other, but very difficult to judge oneself – especially after any measure of success in your endeavours, which might reinforce your personal belief in one direction or the other. Hypercritique comes in with the verbal cutting down of people supposing themselves to be public intellectuals rather than experts. “You don’t even study that topic – what right do you have to be on the news speaking about it?!” New Zealand’s infamous tall poppy syndrome is rife within this conversation.
Side note: It has a word! Ultracrepidarianism is the habit of giving opinions and advice on matters outside of one’s knowledge.
I need this word in my life https://t.co/uEELyLQcZS
"Ultracrepidarianism is [.] giving opinions [.] on matters outside of one's knowledge."— Philipp Bayer (@PhilippBayer) May 3, 2015
I think the public has come some way towards accepting the expert, but less so the intellectual. Or perhaps the difficulty comes in with the public being as unable to identify worthy intellectuals as we are personally as scientists. Trust is put in anyone who speaks up with authority until a point where they show themselves to have zero clue – usually in a highly embarrassing and public manner. The public intellectual is a rare beast, and appointment is obviously fraught with danger. The public expert on the other hand is able and encouraged to speak up at any point when their topic of expertise is brought into the public eye. Until we can clarify the role of the public intellectual, perhaps we should focus on encouraging the public expert to speak up, and encouraging more and diverse public experts to make their mark in the media.
I’d also like to re-raise a point here, though it takes us on a tangent:
Interesting that the politicians got a chief science advisor before the public did. What are our priorities? #GoingPublic
— SM Morgan (@DrSMMorgan) April 9, 2015
The message is very much so that the government requires a science advisor to help make decisions for the good of the country: as opposed to a science advisor to society, to support them in their requirements of their government.
The public intellectual in a position of chief science advisor to the New Zealand public, is a powerful dream. An office which could become known for its unbiased and effective research, answering any question at any point, providing the data for backing up stories in the news and elsewhere. Weigh in on public debates or controversies. Communicate the science behind 1080 or vaccinations or oil drilling to society from a position of elected authority…can scientists as a group not provide this function? Was this part of the dream for the Science Media Centre and scientists in conjunction?
Revolution: Talk about your work within your community when it comes up in the media. You don’t have to be on TV or radio – ring the local schools and see if the teachers want to bring it up in class, try the local Rotary or Women’s Institute meetings.
- The Celebrity Scientist
This is, of course, tied up with the first 2 points and very poignantly illustrated in the USA where anyone with a PhD and some amount of showmanship can start their own science/health literacy-based TV show. However, my bugbear is that turning scientists into celebrities completely flies in the face of the normalisation of science in society goal. Wrapped up in the second point, any measure of media success can very easily thrust a scientist from their comfortable and somewhat safe role of public expert into the public intellectual role where they are called upon to give their opinion on topics and situations vastly removed from their professional expertise. However, I believe that normalising scientists in society would be helped greatly by more scientists speaking out on more topics, with the proviso that they are sure to phrase it as their own opinion. After all, the academy is full of over-educated, strongly opinionated individuals who are as human and subject to the same flaws as the lawyer or the builder. Having this more openly acknowledged would help the public see scientists as real people once again – but in a way where your offering your opinion is not concurrent with an appointment as a public intellectual/authority. When schools or engagement programmes are looking for a scientist to chat with a class or do an experiment or presentation– why go for the semi-famous one who’s on TV or the radio all the time, which will not go any way towards normalising science or the tertiary study environment (a goal of schools with low rates of students going on to further education). I suggest instead finding the regular Dr Bloggs, who has no notoriety whatsoever, but knows her subject just as well. Perhaps even open the field and try to find a scientist who attended your school, or lives in the area. Least I ruffle too many feathers – I do not mean to say that having recognisable, ‘celebrity’ scientists in mainstream media is bad – I just don’t think all engagement efforts with the public should remain solely in their court.
If there was one lesson to take away from the conference (according to the gospel of me) it would be, not surprisingly, collaboration. Collaboration not only between scientific peers (and in an encouraging, supportive manner – down with hypercriticism!): but between sectors, fields – all things. Find a journalist and build a relationship. Find a policy/ministry employee and build a relationship. Find a school, find a sports club, find a new lab, find a community group, find a blog, find a mind – and communicate with it.
—
END I’d like to thank Te Pūnaha Matatini for getting me to the NZAS conference this year. I think the best part about academia is the collaborative and community atmosphere that is illustrated so perfectly at conferences. Academia, and science in particular, will always be better when we work together, when we collaborate and learn with and from each other. The New Zealand Centres of Research Excellence are a beautiful example of this, and Te Pūnaha Matatini is pushing the boundaries connecting academia with business and industry.
Dr SM Morgan is a Research Fellow at the Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, working on translation interventions in the health literacy field.
Big Astro
The advent of the web and social media have led to a huge outpouring of enthusiasm for science but almost all sciences have skeletons in their closet, some real and some imaginary. Physicists gave us the bomb, chemists cook up the chemicals they put in the food (yes, yes, and you cheerfully drink H-2-O and breathe O-2) and even if medical researchers have doubled our lifespan many will claim they are in thrall to Big Pharma and specialise in diseases of the rich, in addition to perpetrating more specific and chilling abuses. But astronomers often sail past earthly concerns. After all, what’s not to like? Astronomy generates an endless stream of stories about strange planets, unlikely stars, and the birth of the universe, but nothing anyone can easily get upset about.
Even journalists suspend their usual rules for astronomy and other good-news science stories. Copy approval, sending sources a draft of an article for commentary and correction, is anathema to journalists on a hard news story, but I am often sent drafts “to check the details” when I talk to the media about astronomy. So perhaps this is why astronomers have been caught flat-footed by the apparently sudden eruption of protest around the Thirty Metre Telescope, or TMT. The issue is not the $1.3 billion price tag but its location at the summit of Mauna Kea, the highest peak on Hawai`i’s Big Island. The problem is that while Mauna Kea is a fantastic place for astronomy (a huge mountain rising out of the Pacific Ocean; the skies above it are stable and clear) it is also sacred to many native Hawai`ians. The issues are far from straightforward, but Buzzfeed (in its new incarnation as a purveyor of long-form news) and the Huffington Post have summaries of recent events and TMT consortium has put its own response to the controversy online. However, for some astronomers it has led to the discovery that they may not always be the good guys.
While we might wish it were otherwise, astronomy is not apolitical. Science communicators (myself included) wax eloquent about space exploration, but the space race was launched by Cold War competition. Nor is the politicisation of astronomy new. The British navigator, James Cook, set sail in the Endeavour from Plymouth in 1768 to observe the transit of Venus from Tahiti, as part of a campaign to determine the overall scale of the solar system. Cook carried additional sealed orders to be opened after the transit observations were complete, which told him to continue from Tahiti on a voyage of discovery into the Pacific; part of the larger competition between European powers to explore trade-routes and acquire outposts around the world. (By many accounts, the contents of those orders were well-known around London before he sailed.) And like a modern-day space programme, Cook’s voyages were a simultaneous national investment in pure science, prestige and geopolitical leverage. [And Cook and Hawaii are tightly connected – he commanded the first European ships to make landfall in Hawai’i, and was killed in a skirmish there in 1778.]
New Zealand and Hawai`i are both parts of the Polynesian world. As a New Zealander, much of the language used by the Mauna Kea protestors is familiar…READ MORE
Building a Nest
By Troy Baisden
It was great to be at Te Pūnaha Matatini’s kickoff. As we look forward to theme meetings next week, I thought it would be useful if I explain a little more about what I’m up to, and why I’ve linked GNS Science’s “Global Change Through Time” programme to your CoRE.
In my lightning talk, at the Te Pūnaha Matatini’s kickoff, I pointed out that I work on problems like climate change and water quality. I think everyone is on board with this: we all agree these problems are complex, yet inspiring and important. They’re perhaps not funded in your CoRE because they’re so big and largely funded elsewhere. As a result, it makes good sense for someone like me involved in big CRI-based programmes on these topics to affiliate with Te Pūnaha Matatini.
But I got a sense that perhaps even complexity geeks want to keep their distance when I say, “I’m here to work on problems so big, no single person can understand them.” But that’s exactly what the problems of climate change and water quality are, by the time we recognise that solutions have to involve not only the biogeophysical system, but also societal and economic transformation.
For example, the IPCC‘s summaries of what we know about the climate change problem run to three enormous volumes, which are further summarised and integrated in another tome called a synthesis report. My goal is to help people develop tools that sort through the information in these tomes and make it work for them. That’s why I’ve joined Te Pūnaha Matatini.
I’m looking for new, better and more effective ways to think about how we build the academic architecture that connects the dots within big issues. Our knowledge about climate change, which still seeks workable solutions, developed over time from relatively simple pieces. If we agree we’re not managing climate change as well as we should, it’s important to think about redesigning the way we’re addressing this big issue. It may be we can learn from other similar problems, using them as model systems.
I’m reminded of Gall’s Law:
“A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.”
Complexity is about simple sensible things, that when connected together, are no longer simple. In this sense, building Te Pūnaha Matatini is, itself, an important complexity challenge.
I’ve come to the view that a structure like Te Pūnaha Matatini has been selected to provide some initial building blocks, each a relatively simple piece, or project. Our challenge in the early stages of development is to connect them together, keep the process exciting and simple, yet end up with something that is much more than the sum of its parts.
Within each theme, a limited number of projects will have to start simple and become working systems. One of the most interesting features of complex systems is that they often contain nested hierarchies of simpler systems. It interests me that global change, by being a series of connected problems, requires us to develop some frameworks for understanding the whole set of problems. By looking at how we can make connections and identify similar approaches during the building of Te Pūnaha Matatini, I’ll be looking for the links that help us see and manage complexity. And I’ll be looking at how these systems fit into the even bigger picture of global change. This matters for the science of science policy, which seems to be at the heart of Te Pūnaha Matatini.
When taking on a role building something, it’s important to have a goal, and mine is to improve strategy, policy and decisions across global change issues. When we begin discussing strategy, policy and decisions, complexity matters. There’s often a desire to focus on isolating problems and managing the simple systems, excluding surrounding complexity. Yet, the complex interactions in wider systems often generate unexpected instability. Bigger systems can have dynamics that are orthogonal to our expectations from simple systems. Ultimately, I see a need to improve how we generate expectations – a goal which has permeated complexity science from quantum mechanics, to social sciences, to earth system science, and beyond. Right now I’m interested how we can tackle this within dynamic research structures that obey Gall’s law, and deliver better expectations to strategy, policy and decision processes.
To conclude on a lighter note, I’ll point out that things within Te Pūnaha Matatini that catch my eye may surprise you, and have been useful insights to me. For instance, I include global trade within my definition of global change. This leads me to see big opportunities to ask whether better understanding of supply chains helps us identify how and when we can better transmit environmental value from consumers to producers, to help maintain our “clean, green” image. And I think that the success predator eradication is having in mobilising the community and voluntary sector could be a good model for wider environmental causes, and deserves attention.
I look forward to seeing our expectations evolve, and hopefully finding more insights and surprises along the way. In a sense, we’re building our nest, and it should be composed of well chosen pieces – some structural, some sticky and some shiny and interesting.
The 2014 Marsden round
I have been keeping track of the Marsden fund for a few years now over on A Measure of Science at Sciblogs New Zealand. As we wait for the results from the first round in 2015, let’s reflect on last year’s results. 2014 was another tough year for applicants, with the success rate falling to just 8.3% – well below the long run success rate of 10%. As the figure below shows, this was the fifth year in a row that the success rate has been below 10%.
The figure also shows that this is because the number of applications has risen considerable in these last five years, while below, we see that the total funding awarded has not kept pace. There was a big injection of new funding in 2009 after the National government came to power, but this only seems to have coincided with a large increase in the number of applications.
So if there is no more funding available, why are we writing more applications? The plot below shows that this increase in preliminary applications submitted has come from the universities, while the number of applications coming out of our Crown Research Institues has actually declined. This growth has not been driven by a growth in university research staff. Statistics New Zealand’s R&D survey suggests that these numbers have, if anything, declined over the last decade: in the 2004 survey, the universities reported 3300 FTE researchers, while in 2014, they reported just 3100
There certainly seems to have been a change in behaviour amongst university staff in the last few years. A decade ago there was one preliminary application for every five FTE researchers from universities, while last year this had risen to one for every three FTE researchers. It is tempting to suggest that this is in response to the increase in funding in 2009, but then one might have expected a similar response by CRI researchers, whereas the opposite has happened.
I think that this may have something to do with the pressure that university researchers are now under to measure up for the Performance Based Resarch Fund. University researchers are expected to be applying for external research funding, and for many, the Marsden fund is the only option. While we might welcome the growth in research activity in universities, this is evidently placing a signficant strain on an already stretched science and innovation system.
Finally, the other feature that caught my eye in the 2014 round was a small drop-off in proportion of funds awarded to fast-start applicants. The share of funds awarded to fast-starts has levelled off since 2011. This had to happen at some point after a steady growth in its share since the fast-start scheme was introduced in 2001.
Fast-start applicants have a slightly higher chance of success than standard applicants, with a long run success rate of 13% (c.f 9% for standard applicants). Last year though this dropped to 11%, in line with the success rate for standard proposals (7% in 2014).
Shaun on the physics of Cricket
On March 16th Shaun Hendy talked to Radio New Zealand National host, Bryan Crump about the physics of cricket.
Thegn Ladefoged
By Jessica Tulp
Thegn Ladefoged is a man with a home here in New Zealand but work that stretches across the world. One particular project has seen him travel to Easter Island to carry out an investigation on land use and its effects on the Rapa Nui population over time. Stemming from previous work in Hawaii, Thegn used methods developed to look at soil productivity and applied these to Easter Island. Thegn’s work emulates the goals of Te Pūnaha Matatini, working across multiple disciplines with ecologists, soil scientists and computer modellers.
As with any research done on Easter Island (Rapa Nui), this project was done in response to the issue of the “collapse”. Many researchers believe that unchecked population growth of the Rapa Nui society in a fragile environment was the reason behind its collapse, however this idea has recently been put into question with evidence suggesting that the extreme changes within the Rapa Nui society occurred only after European contact in AD 1722.
Thegn and his team looked at the productivity of the island to see if they could see any changes prior to the collapse. According to the work of previous researchers, they should have expected to find that nothing had changed prior to European contact in terms of productivity and land use, however this was not the case! Through a whole bunch of soil samples and weather stations, they carefully collected climate data from across the island for about three years. Looking at this data they can see where is fertile, where is not, and how this has changed over time. The fertility of the soil in any one place is related to the age of the substrate and the amount of rainfall in that area. The older the substrate, the less rainfall it can handle before it leeches away the nutrients in the soil.
In a recent publication by Thegn and his team in PNAS, they characterised different areas of Rapa Nui after analysing the data they had collected. Using obsidian hydration dating they were able to date a number of artefacts they found and discover a clear pattern of land use. Three main study areas were covered: one which was a very dry area, a second which was a wet area but with bad soils, and a third area, the “Goldilocks” of the group, which had fairly good soil and rainfall. Land use in the first area seems to have begun around 1300, with the population beginning to leave around 1650 due to droughts. In 1700 the population began to move away from the second area. European contact was not until 1722. This tells us that changes in land use in the first two areas were going on prior to any European contact.
This research brings forward new possibilities and explanations for the Rapa Nui people, arguing against a collapse before European contact. The results indicate that the change in land-use and movement of the Rapa Nui population was due to variations in the climate and soil, leading to environmental constraint rather than degradation as has been previously suggested. Shedding new light on Rapa Nui, Thegn and his team have collaborated to expose new information and add to the intriguing history of the island.
Nano-Girl Review
By Ebba Olsen, Age 14
Nano-Girl was a very interesting event. There were many experiments ranging from a small electric shock which had lights and sounds to make it seem bigger to giant explosions. Some experiments were more educational than others. Rubbing a balloon on a volunteer’s hair explained about the change within the atoms and the electrons moving between the balloon and the hair. While a shopping trolley powered by fire extinguishers was more just for fun.
My favourite experiment was liquid nitrogen sealed in a bottle placed in a bucket full of ping pong balls. The liquid nitrogen expanded causing the bottle to explode and the ping pong balls to go flying. While scientific and educational Nano-girl was also very humorous. She told many jokes and had a funny assistant called Boris who helped her conduct some of the experiments. Many of which were dangerous such as the washing detergent and fire experiment. This allowed Nano-girl to hold fire in her hand without being burnt.
Another one would have been the indoor lightning experiment but this sadly didn’t work because of something that happened during rehearsals. The projectors showed what was supposed to happen though. These projectors were very useful. It showed diagrams to explain how things worked as well as what was on stage so you could see it easier. Nano-girl was great for people of all ages. It was a fun experience definitely worth going to.
Pierre Roudier
Want to know how important soil is? Here’s one of our investigators, Pierre Roudier talking to Bryan Crump on Radio New Zealand nights last week on Monday.
To listen to the interview click here
(Photo: This is peat sampled near the Waituna Lagoon in Southland)
Adam Jaffe with Radio Live
Our Theme Leader of Complex Economic and Social Systems, Adam Jaffe, discusses the “science of science policy” with Andrew Patterson. The Business Correspondent for RadioLIVE, on Sunday Business, 01 March 2015. Here’s the link http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Adam-Jaffe-Motu-Economics/tabid/506/articleID/74424/Default.aspx
Communities of Engagement – reflections from Dion O’Neale
By Dion O’Neale
Engaging with communities is a focus for Te Pūnaha Matatini so I very much appreciated the point of Rhian Salmon’s lightning talk at our initial research symposium. In her role as a climate scientist, Rhian has spent long periods of time in Antarctica, which makes for great science outreach material. But in her presentation to Te Pūnaha Matatini, Rhian questioned how scientific we are about the outcomes of the science outreach we do. Outreach activities require substantial amounts of time and effort from scientists, often for little professional recognition. Rhian advocated developing methods for reporting on and researching the impact of these outreach activities, then using the results to inform future communication practises.
Engaging with communities of a different kind is Jeanette McLeod, a graph theorist from the University of Canterbury. Jeanette spoke about one of the ecological complexity projects that will be running in Te Pūnaha Matatini — epidemic spread in possum networks. Coming from Australia where she fed tame possums in her backyard, Jeanette is now studying how the spread of tuberculosis through possum communities is influenced by the characteristics of individual possums.
As they collectively munch their way through 21000 tons of NZ native forest each night, possums interact with one another within their own social network. Jeanette, along with collaborators Mike Plank and Alex James, is using data about these interaction networks collected by scientists at Landcare Research who tracked the locations of a population of possums in the Orongorongo valley, near Wellington. Within the possum population, super-shedders (highly infectious individuals) and super-spreaders (individuals that encounter many others) seem to play an important role in affecting the spread of diseases like TB. Understanding the effect of the heterogeneity of of individuals in the interaction network could turn out to be important for identifying possible methods of using infectious disease to control possum numbers.
Networks of interactions were a theme in Dave Maré‘s presentation too. Dave spoke about what makes cities so cool from the point of view of an economist. No matter what you measure, cities are a particularly efficient way of making stuff. Whether you measure numbers of patents or firm revenues or scientific publications, cities produce more _per capita_ as their size increases. I was interested in how Dave is teasing out the different mechanisms that might be contributing to cities getting more efficient as they get bigger. Dave is looking at how higher frequency and diversity of interactions within cities might spur innovation as people are exposed to new combinations of ideas. These could be interactions within cities due to people changing jobs, or between cities with internationally connected workers spurring exporting of the firms they work for. I’m hoping I’ll be able to explore some of the ideas Dave spoke about by working with Dave’s colleague from Motu, Izi Sin. The idea is to build a network of employment relationships so we’ll be able to quantify some of those interactions within cities and look at how they might affect the outcomes of the firms or the individuals involved.