by Roland Jackson, Executive Chair, Sciencewise-ERC

Protesters threaten to tear up a field trial being carried out at Rothamsted and the reaction of Sense About Science is to rush out a petition to ‘Defend Science’. It was rapidly rebranded as ‘Don’t Destroy Research’ http://bit.ly/KsjbIb, but the aggressive, confrontational approach remains.

This is an over-reaction and likely to be counter-productive. It is the wrong approach, and it is too late. It preaches to the converted and further polarises any debate, which is probably exactly what protesters (and there are not very many active ones, but a lot of interested and concerned people) would like to see. Few people are ultimately likely to back activity that might amount to criminal damage, and upping the stakes will probably make security at the trial site even more of headache than it presumably is already.

What this case highlights is the need to engage in dialogue sooner rather than later, since engaging later risks leading to a slanging match. The scientists at Rothamsted have taken a very human approach, openly explaining their motives and offering discussion. But starting a dialogue once the decision to run a trial has already been taken is a difficult position to be in even if, and not much has been made of this, extensive and due governance has been gone through with Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.

So, what could or should be done differently, and what are the lessons for the future? If there is a role for GM, it will need to carry sufficient public support and accept public influence, not just here but in countries around the world, both for the purposes and directions of research and for its implications and applications. Because opinions are now so strong and entrenched, that means that research funders, institutions and indeed individual scientists would be well advised to explore and understand public views and values before they take specific decisions about priorities for research.

This current case also implies that they should be particularly sensitive as to whether what they are proposing to do is an experiment in a controlled environment or whether it is in reality a deployment of the technology with risks of wider impact, even if that impact may be judged by most people to be very low. Putting this in a wider context, such as global food security, implies that the research community as a whole should reflect on the choice of focus on particular technologies and applications judged against other ways of addressing the same problems. Interdisciplinary exchange and debate is vital within the scientific community itself.

For GM, the challenge remains balancing discussion of the issues in a broad context, with the necessary case-by-case approach to specific potential applications. It is not easy, and strident calls to the barricades are not helpful.

by Suzy Antoniw, Content Developer, Science Museum

Synthetic biology aims to engineer life to make it do what we want. But is engineering a life-form similar to tinkering with a machine? What will this emerging technology look like in the future? At an event held in the Dana Centre in October, University College London (UCL) students, fresh from this year’s International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition, used artwork, films and discussion to explore these questions.

The event began with an introduction to the iGEM competition from the UCL team. This competition opens up the subject of synthetic biology to students from all over the world. Because they use ‘bio-bricks’ – ready-made chunks of genetic information for programming a specific trait that can fit together with other chunks – students with varying amounts of laboratory experience can enter the competition and engineer living machines.

Team members from UCL came together from different countries and academic disciplines. Their unique perspectives inspired them to organise this evening to explore the controversies around synthetic biology, not through a highly funded competition, but through a relaxed evening of art and discussion.

A brief introduction from Dr Brendan Clarke (Teaching Fellow in History and Philosophy of Science at UCL) and Dr Joe Cain (Senior Lecturer in History and Philosophy of Biology at UCL) encouraged delegates to think about how the engineered organisms described in the evening’s films and discussion fit into our ideas of what life is. Artist Howard Boland then encouraged the audience to browse the displays and videos on offer, accompanied by members of the iGEM team.

Synthetic biology can make us think about living things in new ways and it is clearly an appealing subject for artists. One video from designer Alexandra Daisy Ginsberg speculated about how a colour-changing bacteria called E. colouri might change the future. Another film demonstrated a project from the Cambridge University iGEM team that made brightly glowing bacteria – E. glowli. Andy Gracie’s 43.25.5.37 allowed delegates to look at microscopic creatures and reflect on life at the microscopic scale and how it relates to art. Eric Schockmel’s mesmerising Occupation: Movements ii & iii (Syscape #4) showed a computer rendering of what a machine that makes life might look like in a future technological ecosystem.

The discussion that followed raised a number of questions and concerns from the audience. A lot of people compare synthetic biology with the early days of electronics – but if today’s bio-bricks are like early transistors, what will tomorrow’s equivalent of computers be like? Joe Cain was keen to emphasise that genetic manipulation had been going on for at least as long as selective breeding and Brendan Clarke added that although we are using the technology to make glowing fish, in future it has the potential to feed the world.

The audience was concerned about who will own genetic information. Synthetic biologists are divided over whether genes should be intellectual property or whether the whole field should be ‘open source’ and free to all. Also looming over the entire subject is the worrying question of whether this technology could be used for destructive purposes. The iGEM team enthused that this makes it all the more important for academics and artists involved in synthetic biology to think about how to bring members of the public along and make them aware of the technology and all its possibilities.

The discussion about this tantalising, emerging technology could have continued for hours but, in the end, the night was just too short.

by Priya Umachandran, Assistant Content Developer, Science Museum

It’s now easier than ever to get your personal genome sequenced. Your genome is your entire individual genetic code and sequencing identifies all the DNA contained within your code.

On 15 September, the Dana Centre hosted Danish neurobiologist and journalist Lone Frank. In front of a packed audience she discussed issues around this newly commercialised technology. Is knowledge of our own genome an information genie that should stay firmly in its bottle? What can we make of this brave new world where companies are springing up, all eager to tell you what lies within your personal genome? How accurate are these tests, especially when it comes to ‘testing’ for very specific traits or diseases? Joining Lone was Armand Leroi, evolutionary biologist at Imperial College and the discussion was facilitated by science journalist Anjana Ahuja.

Lone kicked off by reading an excerpt from her new book, My Beautiful Genome. This is a personal odyssey of her own DNA testing experience, both as a scientist and as a person. The panel’s initial discussion teased out Lone’s nuanced view of our relationship with our genomes.

We are not our genomes. The genome isn’t a straitjacket of fate. It’s one indicator of how our lives could unfold, but our futures can be affected by many things. Even so, knowing and using genomic information could still be really useful. Lone cites examples of currently prescribed drugs, which studies have shown should only be prescribed after genetic testing has taken place to be really effective – such is the power of our genetic inheritance in some cases.

It was fascinating to consider Lone’s analogy comparing personal genome testing with personal computers. Computers used to be only for experts, yet now they are an everyday fact of so many lives. Could the same be true one day for genome testing? The book’s subject matter lassoes all sorts of issues, from the scientific to the political, ethical and very personal. The Dana audience certainly seemed provoked by the panel and the Q&A session in the second half of the evening was a lively one. A retired nurse argued for genetic testing at birth, and there were conversations about how far it’s possible or desirable to regulate the burgeoning personal genomics industry and discussions over the media’s role in reporting genetics. The evening started off with a show of hands of all those who had thought about getting their genome sequenced – which turned out to be no one. By the end, opinion had been polarised, with a few more customers for the online genome companies, but a few more critics too.

Sciencewise-ERC has commissioned a number of dialogue projects in the area of genetics from GM food through to synthetic biology and the latest advances in stem cell science. Read about all of these and more, to discover how new science and technology is set to change the future.

by Diane Warburton, Sciencewise-ERC Evaluation Manager

The British Gas Green Streets programme has many similarities with the DECC Low Carbon Communities Challenge (supported by Sciencewise-ERC). Both schemes have provided significant amounts of funding to local communities to reduce carbon emissions, and both have evaluated and measured the success of what they were trying to do.

While the Low Carbon Communities Challenge continues in the 22 communities funded, the Green Streets programme has been completed, and a detailed evaluation has just been produced by IPPR: Green Streets, Strong Communities. What communities can do for emissions reductions and what emissions reductions can do for communities, by Reg Platt, was published in July 2011.

Green Streets provided 14 groups in diverse communities in England, Scotland and Wales with a share of £2 million of capital to spend on microgeneration and energy efficiency measures in community buildings and surrounding households in order to save energy, generate energy and engage the wider community. The IPPR evaluation looked at the energy saving and energy generation data to calculate carbon emissions reductions, and to look at the multiplier effect through changing attitudes and behaviour more widely.

The evaluation finds:

• Significant levels of energy generated and saved, with comparably high levels of carbon emissions saved (full data is in the report).
• Financial benefits received through reductions in energy bills and income from government initiatives to support renewable energy.
• Increased access to community facilities which were able to stay open longer (and therefore getting more users) as a result of lower energy costs reducing running costs (e.g. Beccles Lido reduced electricity running costs by 25%, and gas costs by 15-30%, while the number of swimmers almost quadrupled).
• 41% of people living around the community buildings involved said they were aware of Green Streets, and 45% of those said they had been inspired to take action on energy efficiency and renewable energy, and 61% said they would be more likely to take action in future.

Problems included the level of existing community capability potentially resulting in different levels of positive outcomes, a clear need for up front financing, technical problems with some housing stock, and planning permission. These are addressed in the report’s conclusions and recommendations which cover increasing community capacity, making finance available, tackling solid wall insulation and improving the planning process.

IPPR are following up this work with meetings and events, and are planning future research work in this area. Contact Reg Platt at IPPR for details. The report is available to download from the IPPR website.

by Suzy Antoniw, Contemporary Science Content Developer, Science Museum

It’s a subject a lot of us would be very hesitant to tackle. But last night a 50-strong group gathered around a table in the Science Museum’s Dana Centre to try and answer this tricky question. Actually this was no ordinary table, it was the Contemporary Science team’s Talkaoke – a doughnut-shaped ring with a member of the team, master of chat Alex Fairhead, at the centre.

Before the talk got started Alex kicked off with a vote on the big question to log the audience’s opinions at the outset. Overwhelmingly the audience felt that something has to give, with the attendees split between limiting family size and cutting down consumption. Only 2% of the audience felt the UK didn’t need to make some changes.

Simon Ross of Population Matters, a charity campaigning for an environmentally sustainable future, started the chat. He weighed in with some facts. The world population is set to have grown from 3000 million to 9000 million in a single lifetime. Within Europe the UK is the most densely populated country and has the fastest growing population. He suggested that attitudes have to change and having fewer children could be incentivised to make a positive impact on the environment.

As the audience warmed to the format and closed in on the Talkaoke, more and more people found their voices. The chat flowed back and forth, covering subjects as far-ranging as education, immigration, taxation, happiness, ageing, human rights and religion.

The audience’s proposals for a more sustainable UK future – working for longer, paying higher taxes and limiting the number of children we can have – made the suggestions from this event some of the most unpopular I’d ever heard. Many of them would be tough for governments to implement if they ever wanted to be re-elected.

Jacqueline Tsui, an urban planner at Hertfordshire County Council and the evening’s other invited speaker, suggested that people could begin making the UK a more sustainable place by talking openly about limiting family size. She also mentioned that celebrities could be role models for sustainability rather than large families and make a tangible difference, such as Angelina Jolie’s decision to adopt children.

In a final poll of the audience over 30% claimed the evening’s debate had changed their opinion on the subject. While it’s relatively easy to raise these issues at a Dana event full of open-minded people, it’s harder to take them out to people who aren’t engaged. But maybe my response won’t be entirely congratulatory the next time a couple announce they’re expecting their fourth child…

This event was part of the Climate Changing programme, which is supported by:
Principal Sponsors – Shell and Siemens
Major Sponsor – Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Major Funder The Garfield Weston Foundation
With additional support from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Patrons of the Science Museum and members of the Founders Circle: Climate Changing programme.

by Diane Warburton, Sciencewise-ERC Evaluation Manager

Evaluation: facing the tricky questions was a sell-out session at the annual Science Communication Conference this year. Over 120 people heard presentations by Mark Dyball of People, Science Policy on assessing impact on policy; Diane Warburton, Sciencewise-ERC Evaluation Manager on assessing value for money; and Laura Grant of Laura Grant Associates on evaluating long-term impacts.

The session was highly interactive. Ten-minute presentations by each speaker were followed by questions and answers. The audience then split into small groups to discuss their own experience of these tricky questions and how they had dealt with them. In addition, each group identified the key questions they saw for evaluating public engagement in future.

• From these questions and the tweets from the session, important issues for the future include:
• Being clear about what success looks like before starting to evaluate
• How you define ‘value’ or whether you allow that definition to emerge from the project
• How to find appropriate evidence of impacts and construct relevant messages for different audiences
• How to find budgets for evaluation and the problems of evaluating small projects with limited funds
• How to show how one small project contributes to wider and longer term changes
• The need to show negative as well as positive impacts of engagement
• How to measure enthusiasm and inspiration

All excellent questions to take away, not only for evaluators but for all those concerned with public dialogue and engagement.

Although not objectively measured, the scale of interest and desire to learn more about evaluation seemed extensive. As one tweet during the session said “Thanks – learning a lot about evaluation at the moment”. Fuller feedback on the session and the conference as a whole will follow later on the British Science Association’s website.

Sciencewise-ERC is also following this up by producing more information on assessing value for money. Various materials are already available on the Sciencewise-ERC website, including the full and summary Evidence Counts research report (2010), and the presentation and handout from the SciComm conference, http://bit.ly/ikkw5o.

by Melanie Knetsch, Living with Environmental Change (LWEC)

The environment is something that affects us all. Melanie Knetsch, Public Engagement lead for the Living with Environmental Change (LWEC) partnership, highlights why it is essential to engage with the public on complex challenges.

Citizens forum session

Was it worthwhile engaging with the public around research and policy topics covered by the Living with Environmental Change partnership? All the evidence from the evaluation reports suggests that it definitely was and should continue to happen.

The development of a Citizens Forum, which involved 18 members of the public from Bristol and the surrounding area, has informed the LWEC partnership in a number of ways. This was just one of a number of public engagement activities undertaken by the LWEC partnership and a few of the immediate benefits include identifying research priorities, highlighting communication messages that are needed – especially around adaptation issues, and feeding public views into the development of a UK flooding strategy.

Engaging with people on complex issues is often thought to be a difficult process – yet the Forum, which was managed by dialogue and engagement specialists, Office for Public Management (OPM), demonstrated that if experts who are good at explaining their work are brought in and a clear focus is given to the discussion, then people are very capable of engaging with tough questions.  It became very clear that people want to be part of the discussion process and they are interested in the questions and issues that researchers and policy makers face.

As one participant highlighted, “Because, as a society, we are the ones affected by the outcomes and changes made”, and it is this connection to the global, national and local challenges brought about by environmental change that kept the conversations going.

The Forum, through its linkages with the strategic questions LWEC is grappling with, also strengthened the view that Government and academia do care about the public’s views in this area. As another attendee stated: “It opened my eyes to the fact people at high level do actually want to know what the man on the street thinks”. And by undertaking a Forum, it ‘allowed the wide range of public opinions to be represented outside the formal structures and these are more likely to be more representative.’

Running from October to February, three one-day forum sessions were held. The first two focused on specific research areas (flood-risk management and adaptation to climate change) and asked members to prioritise research options in these areas. The third session took a less technical focus and asked members to consider the decision-making and governance process surrounding the need for all of us to change behaviours.

Some of the key highlights from the discussions showed:

• clear support for future research into environmental change challenges
• a need for research to demonstrate value for money
• that the overall objectives of the research should be focussed on preventing disasters caused by environmental change – that preventive rather than reactive approaches would be more cost effective in the long term
• the need for the research findings to have ‘real ’ impact through connections with the private sector
• that, to change behaviours, all sectors need to be engaged – including businesses and charities – and that, generally, national government-led interventions were favoured but with input and responsibility to respond to climate change challenges from other sectors
• that no one actor should be solely responsible for behaviour change, and all ‘decision makers’, including the public, should be involved in the process

The summaries of each of the three discussions, the final evaluation report of the LWEC Citizens Forum, a video case study and other resources can be found on the Sciencewise project page. The LWEC website also provides an outline of some of the public engagement activities the LWEC partnership has undertaken.

by James Bell, Science Museum

A ‘flying saucer of chat’ in full flight is a thing to behold. Along with the ‘doughnut of dialogue’, this is one of the affectionate names for Talkaoke – a circular table with a swivel chair centre from which a host invites people in to take a seat and have their say on whatever topical avenue comes up. You might call it a mobile pop-up talk show. My first encounter with the Talkaoke format is at an event in the Science Museum’s Dana Centre. Appropriately named concept developer and host par excellence ‘Mikey’ of The People Speak is busy summing up a few points made during an impassioned exchange on ‘science and truth’. A limelight overdose or the lure of the bar creates a vacated chair and a chance to join the circle. The head of a mic is extended towards me, I lean in to give my name, and I’m drawn into the ping-ponging of reactions, thoughts and questions around the table.

Talkaoke in action - Science Museum

The Contemporary Science team at the Museum were impressed by Talkaoke’s ability to generate informal dialogue, so we commissioned one to be made for our Antenna offer. I was one of several who attended training on how to host the sessions, and discovered that it’s a fine example of the adage ‘if it looks easy, it’s not’. Taking charge of the hot seat of Talkaoke is an incredibly nuanced and skilled role. The host must keep a balanced conversation flowing, pay attention to the person speaking and keep the rest of the table engaged as well – who is overflowing with thoughts, and who needs to be brought into the session? Microphone control, and the ability to offer witty, succinct summaries and spot themes are all necessary to avoid swivelling yourself into a hot panic as the charming doughnut metaphor goes up in flames and you find yourself in a ‘hole of hell’ surrounded by blank faces. Thankfully the training must have sunk in, and buoyed by a drink or two the audience for our first outing at a Museum ‘Lates’ evening didn’t need much encouragement. The evening’s theme of ‘happiness’ offered an array of avenues to explore, and the time flew by with thoughtful and inquisitive participation.

The next day we set up for some sessions with the Museum’s half-term visitors. Starting up a flying saucer on a frosty morning is a dark art, and the families passing by seem suspicious of the glowing disc and its empty chairs. Like in a busy shop, interest is infectious and drawing in those first few participants proves elusive. Last night feels like a world away. But Mikey is around to offer his experience, and using an irresistible mix of peer pressure, Mikey’s inviting nature and simply not taking ‘no’ for an answer we finally get liftoff.

Navigating the conceptual atmosphere requires a sensitive touch when children and adults are at the table. Is the atmosphere too rarefied? Where is the commonality? Where does the conversation naturally want to go? Questions on how we use Talkaoke remain. Is the host an inert catalyst to the conversation? Or can knowledge and facts colour the session from the centre? Not according to The People Speak, but how does the format square with visitors’ ‘learning’ expectations?

When we took part in the training we were joined by some engineers from various fields as part of a collaborative scheme with the Royal Academy of Engineering. Expert voices seeded around the table seem to enhance Talkaoke without creating a stultifying point of authority, so we asked the New Economics Foundation over for the ‘Happiness’ Lates, which helped to enrich the session.

As a means of getting people talking about what matters to them, on terms naturally defined by the group, Talkaoke is a potent device. It benefits from the obvious similarity to the talk show format people know and love. The host adds value above the sum of the simple parts and this is what makes the technique work as an engagement tool. It’s a matter of logging hours in the centre and understanding the ethos. We look forward to seeing where Talkaoke can take our visitors as science news continues to stir up issues, and insist on an exchange of viewpoints and feelings between people.

———————————————————————————————————————————

Talkoke is one of a series of pilot events coordinated by key public facing organisations which Sciencewise-ERC has been partnering with. You can find out more about this initiative on our website.

by Owen Tarrant, Environment Agency

I have to admit that I did question myself, “why did I just do that?” As I put up my hand, volunteering myself to act in the role of the so called ‘expert’ speaker on flood risk at the first session of Living with Environmental Change (LWEC) Citizens’ Forum. It’s not that I mind speaking in public – I am used to that, I often have to give presentations to peers and others involved in the management of flood risk. No, it was the thought of having to present to 15 members of the public who had no prior experience of flooding that was really daunting: will they understand the concepts of risk; what sort of questions will they ask, where will their priorities and interests lie? More than that, it was the thought of not being able to wrap myself in the protective blanket of technical jargon which is often so comforting when presenting.

The focus of the meeting was on the topic of flooding and the research that is done to support the management of risk. The aim of the discussion was to inform the developing National Strategy for the UK’s flood research. Specifically, LWEC was very keen to identify areas of particular public concern about flood risk, so that the commissioning and communication of research by LWEC as part of the National Strategy takes account of and reflects the needs and concerns of the wider public.

On the day, I was keen to convey the scale of the flooding challenge that the UK faces, now and in the future. This is actually relatively easy to do as the numbers are large. For example, the Environment Agency’s assessment of flood risk estimates that 2.4 million properties are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in England and a further 2.8 million properties are thought to be susceptible to surface water flooding. In all, around 5.2 million properties in England, or one in six properties, are at risk of flooding. Furthermore, flooding is rarely out of the headlines given the numerous recent events: Boscastle (August 2004); Carlisle (January 2005); Yorkshire, Gloucestershire and other areas (June/July 2007); Cumbria (November 2009); Aberdeenshire (November 2009); and Cornwall (November 2010). However, what I found really stimulated discussion among the members of the forum wasn’t the large scale national picture, but the effects of flooding on the individual home owner. Effects such as the financial costs of flooding (on average £30 – 40K per house affected) and the length of time it often takes for a community to recover after a flood event.

What did I get out of the day? Well, the level of understanding and knowledge in the room was the real surprise for me. Perhaps this is due to the frequency of reported flood events? Regardless, the opinions voiced by the forum were well reasoned, and the questions asked of myself and the other speakers in the room were often extremely well informed and targeted. They often left me searching for satisfactory answers. During one discussion on why we should be researching improvements to computer modelling techniques to aid the prediction of flood events, a forum member asked, “When will our models be good enough to provided the predictions on which to base decisions?” Then they furthered their question asking, “Surely there must be a law of diminishing return, you’ll have to keep investing more and more money for a smaller and smaller improvement; do you really need better faster models; will it really make a difference?” Questions such as this really get to the heart of risk-based management and decision-making, and it is something that perhaps we should ask ourselves more frequently: when is a result good enough to make a robust decision, or, does the uncertainty in the result change my management response?

Was the day a success? A resounding yes. The public participants generally supported the view that flooding is an important area for research investment, particularly in light of both the cost of the clear-up, its impact on the ‘public purse’ and the emotional distress and disruption caused by flooding. The group was also able to prioritise and rank areas of research to help inform the developing UK Flood Research Strategy. Moreover, for me the forum emphasised the public’s ability to take on board and then synthesise complex concepts and information – a capability which is often underestimated by scientists and professionals. It will certainly make me rethink how I tailor my communications in the future.

by Dominic McDonald, Science Oxford

Oxford is a funny place. In size, it’s smaller than the nearby towns of Swindon, Milton Keynes and Reading, and yet in terms of national importance it punches far above its weight. Much of this is a legacy of the ancient university, but by no means all: the motor industry in the town developed largely independently of (and in some ways in spite of) the university. The city’s scientific heritage is also strongly influenced by the university, but these days the county of Oxfordshire also boasts Oxford Brookes University, the Harwell Campus (home of major research facilities like the Diamond Light Source) and Culham Centre for Fusion Energy.

The organisation I work for, Science Oxford, is independent of all these organisations. It was set up in the mid-80s to promote the pursuit of science and enterprise – two areas which the founders felt were under threat. 25 years later, many things have changed, but the key challenges remain the same: how can we create a society which is able to engage with science in an intelligent and worthwhile way, and so drive the economic growth on which our future prosperity depends?

It is in response to this challenge that we have recently announced that we are creating a new centre for science and enterprise in the heart of the city. Our current centre has been open for five years, and although it continues to be a valuable testbed for a variety of experiments in public engagement with science and technology, we know that it is too small to make a significant difference. So in 2010 we bought ‘Macclesfield House’ the former home of Oxfordshire County Council’s Education Department. Although this is not a beautiful building, it has the advantage of being right next to the city’s historic castle mound, and within easy reach of the major transport hubs.

It’s a crucial part of the plan, however, that this is not something which is ‘done to’ the people of Oxford and its surrounding region. It would be possible for the new building to be a place which primarily serves tourists, and for which Oxford simply provides a convenient backdrop, but if the new centre is to succeed it will have to be a place which is valued by local people. As a result we have started a consultation which is asking people what they would like to see in the new centre, and (most importantly) what they are worried and excited about regarding our plans. This has been done via our website, feedback forms attached to a small exhibition in our current centre, and three consultation meetings which were held in early December.

Initial comments have been very positive, as you might expect of a project which will transform a relatively unloved bit of the town. However we have identified a number of negative issues, some of which are expected, and others less so. In addition to concerns about parking and funding, there are also worries about the impact that a modern centre will have on the urban landscape. Identifying these issues early is a really valuable output from the consultation process, and one which will stand us in good stead as our plans develop.