STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Okay, welcome to the seminar today. We have a, talk on,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: on outreach and Science Communication by Auto Li. Probably you know her, and she will introduce herself, so please.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Thank you. Yeah, thanks everyone for coming, even if you've seen for the air on, that's fine. So, for those of you that don't know me, I'm obviously, I'm studying physics, so astrophysics, that we most of us are currently doing. So, it's communication placement here at the UD.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Today I'm going to be talking about navigating a new era of science communication, so some of the topics we're going to cover.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Starting off with what actually is science communication?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So it's pretty self-explanatory. It's sharing scientific ideas, practices, results, with various audiences, so these could range anywhere from
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: schoolchildren and young people, all the way up to other scientists, policymakers, funding bodies, and the type of communication that we do really depends on the audience that we're trying to target and the message that we want them to take home. So, things could be price releases, media visits.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Social media posts, managing a website, outreach events, exhibits.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And how do we actually define good science communication? This is just a little analogy that I came up with. So, I like to think that good science is often shared through science communication, and through this, we can help, with public understanding of science, we can get people engaged and supporting science.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: This can help with funding, policy support, and also promoting diversity and science, which then, in turn, leads back to more good sites that we can share.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, one thing I wanted to touch on before I get into the bulk of my, seminar is this conference, PERI conference, which I went to back in March this year. It's inspired a lot of the things I'm going to be talking about today. So, PERI is for public awareness and engagement with research infrastructures
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So it's a group of science communicators and science journalists, both freelance and embedded in research infrastructures, as I am.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And the theme of this year was navigating psychic communication in a Shifting landscape. And what I really enjoyed about this, conference is that there were many different interpretations of this shifting landscape. So, some people spoke about new emerging technologies.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Some people spoke about shifting political landscapes and the impact this has on science, and also shifting media landscapes. So that's inspired a lot of what… a lot of what I'm going to be talking about today. But the key message is that science communication is changing.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, what are some of these changes? Arguably the biggest is the shift from traditional media, which is things like newspapers, TV, radio, lectures, towards so-called home media, which is predominantly social media, YouTube, and podcasts.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, with this shift, practically anyone can create content. There's platforms and tools to create and share science-related information for little to no cost.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Which does mean there's been a massive boom in…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: the amount of content that's being shared, which is a really good thing. It's increased, sort of democratized science, made it available to everyone, and it's… with it being new media, this is particularly targeting, younger generations, which is great, because they're having exposure to science outside of the classroom.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Obviously, there are some downsides. So, the first is that we have fragmented audiences.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: They're split across all these different platforms, and you have
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: hundreds of thousands of creators across all these platforms that are competing for attention. This means it can be hard to get, accurate site information shared.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: What it really requires is sort of tailored, platform-specific content. So, if you have a new result or a new paper, instead of just putting out a price release and letting the media, sort of, take it, you might need to also post on social media.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And within that, it's not one message across all the different platforms. You might have to, adapt the video, create a video to go with it, adapt the text, etc. So, this can make it hard and time-consuming to accurately share that specific information.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Along with the massive amount of information that's being shared, we do have misinformation and disinformation, which are slightly different. So, misinformation is false or misleading information shared without intent to harm, so often by mistake.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Whereas disinformation, often has bad intents to deceive or manipulate.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And this is very prevalent on social media, because it's really hard to police, and it's also hard to verify credibility of content you see online. Often, people with… without a scientific background can create content that is just as polished as someone with scientific background.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And we've seen this particularly at things like vaccine safety, climate change, and asking for 5G as well.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: There was an interesting study at MIT, back in 2018, which studied, 126,000 rumor cascades. A rumor cascade is essentially someone posting a piece of, fake news and, the amount of people that sort of share it and spread it.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So they looked at, information that was spread by approximately 3 million people over… just over a decade.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And alarmingly, they found that fake news was 70% more likely to be re-shared than true news, and it also spread about 6 times faster.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And they did sort their eyes on the possible reasons for this.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And it seems to be a sort of psychological thing, because often fake news is, emotional, it's shocking, and therefore people are more likely to share it. Even if they don't agree with it, they might share it and be like, oh wow, look at this.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: piece of fake news, but that is still giving it, that time and attention.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: This is a nice little example, from a talk at Harry, actually. So, back in April of 2024, one of the MET restarts coincided with a total solar eclipse with a candidate from USA.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And there was a lot of conspiracy theorists. This is my personal favourite. A company in Switzerland called CERT is helping open up a portal to other dimensions.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: What they're allegedly attempting to do is stolen demonic entities on the earth. I'm not making this up, do your own research. Obviously, there's a lot of nonsense being shared, or a lot of nonsense was shared around this particular topic, but also there were people that were genuinely curious and worried, so this one down here is from a 15-year-old that says.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I'm only 15 and I'm really scared, can anybody explain this more to me? So, it is something that does need to be addressed when something like this happens, because, as you can see.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: This is, again, from the talk, so this is the social media engagement, visits to the website, and mentions in the press around the time of the 8th of April, when these conspiracy theories are being shared. As you can clearly see, there's a big spike in all of them, so it is something that needs to be
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: addressed.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: and monitored, and there's various ways you can do this. They suggested, sort of, opening up a dialogue rather than directly trying to shoot people down, because a lot of the time, conspiracy parents won't.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Except that he's saying, no, that's not true. They're trying to open up the dialogue. Also, audience mapping, trying to work out why people are saying these things, whether they're conspiracy theorists.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Whether they're critics or people that are just generally concerned and would like to understand, what's going on, and also mapping people geographically.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So I think that was just a nice example to share.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Then moving on to AI, which, again, was a big theme at the conference.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: There's… it's very polarizing, for…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: communicators… well, for everyone, but for communicators. So it poses a big brack, because at the minute, we're seeing, AI-generated text, images, and video that are slowly becoming indistinguishable from real, content. This is, obviously.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: If you're not, trained, or you haven't, had, any exposure to how to actually be able to tell the difference, it can pose a real threat.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: AI search tools, such as, like, ChatGPT and Claude, are also servicing unverified claims and false information, which is particularly concerning, but then…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: On the flip side, a lot of science communicators are, seeing AI tools, that are benefiting communication, so there's tools like Ellicit and Semantic Scholar, which
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Essentially, you can put in a question or a topic, and it will find and synthesize scientific literature for you, so then you can go on and read the paper. This is often
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: helpful for sex makers who don't have a scientific background and aren't aware of the process of finding scientific literature.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And it's also… there's tools that can be used for things like translation, which is particularly useful if you want to expand the reach of a piece of information, and then summarizing and personalizing content as well.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But one thing I want to touch on more is the AI search tools, because this is a particularly prevalent issue.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, a recent study showed that 58% of people are replacing traditional searches with Japanese AI.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, essentially, the old way of searching for information was someone would go onto Google or Bing or that browser, they'd type in a question, they'd be given a list of links, and then they can go and select a link and decide if it's got the right information. If not, move on to the next link.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But now what we're seeing is that users are logged on to these generative AI search engines, they are typing their question, asking their question, they're receiving an AI-generated answer, they're essentially taking that, the gospel, and they aren't clicking links or verifying the information.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So obviously, this is a big problem, because…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: not everything that AI says is true, we know this, we know it hallucinates, and this can be particularly harmful in this situation, where people aren't verifying information for themselves.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And also, it means that
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: the amount of false information that we're seeing and spreading, and is being spread, is sometimes covering up true information. So, how do we make sure that accurate scientific information is being shared?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, through generative engine optimization, which is the practice of structuring digital content so that these search engines can, interpret, summarize, and cite it in their answers.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, a lot of… there's been a lot of recent interest in GEO, and sort of understanding how it works, and how we can implement it.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So what's been understood is that it does function differently from search engine optimization, which is optimizing content for it to appear in a traditional Google search, where you get the list of links, you want your website to appear higher, obviously, and that's search engine optimization, which we shouldn't completely ignore, but we do need to now consider GPO.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So research shows that URLs cited by AI
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Search engines rarely match what Google and Bing rank as top sources. I think, if I remember correctly, a lot of these, take into account websites like Reddit as a top source.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But, there is an understanding gap.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: some influence could be possible. So, with these AI search engines, we can't really… we can't influence the training data, but we can influence something called the grounding data, which is how the AI sort of verifies the information that's been given.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So we can do this through things like social media.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: websites. One of the tips that they mentioned was if you,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: are answering a question in your post or in your website, you should explicitly type out the question. So, for example, say, what kind of passports is the LHC provide? If you were answering that question, you'd also want to explicitly
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: type out the question, because then the AI is basically more likely to pick that up and include it in its answer.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, it's definitely something that needs to be considered in science communications. I think it's also, you know, have quite a big impact in general, communications and strategic, communications outside of, science.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Okay.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Moving on, we're gonna look at people's attitudes towards science and scientists.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: This is predominantly coming from a 2025 survey. This is the Public Attitudes to a Science Survey, from Ipsos and Nugarai.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: It's gonna be…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: It happens every couple of years, so the last one was 2019, which was obviously a brief pandemic, so this particular survey is giving us a lot of interesting information post-pandemic, and with new technologies such as AI, so we're going to look at those in a bit more detail.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: First, this is just a slide to summarize the key findings. There's a couple I wanted to note in particular. So, we do have a public that continues to value science, research, and innovation, which is great, but there is a new backdrop of uncertainty, ambivalence, and a loss of trust.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And we have fewer people feeling informed in an evolving media landscape. So, although we have, although people have more access to information, it doesn't necessarily mean they're feeling more informed, so this is definitely something that needs to be addressed.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: There's also a desire for more diversity and participation in science.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, just going into some of these in more detail.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: First, this is from the first chapter of the report, which basically summarizes general attitudes towards science. So, 71% agree that science is a big part of our lives, and we should all take interest.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: That's pretty good. There's been a shift from outright disengagement with science to something that's been shifted passive engagement. So, this is people… fewer people saying they're not interested in science, and more people saying they're interested, but they're not actively making an effort to engage with science or keep informed.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And we've also seen that fewer people are feeling well-informed, which, like we said, could be to do with the increase in the amount of information that's out there, and whether it's true or not.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Then we have the people's views on science and researchers, so good news for the scientists in the room. 82% think that you make a valuable contribution to society.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And most people associate you with top positive traits being natural, competent, honest, responsible, open-minded.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: This is obviously a good sign. One thing I wanted to point out in particular was this one, good at communicating. So, 21% put this in their top 3 traits for scientists to have.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Which I think is particularly interesting.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And what it sort of hints at is that there's an increased appetite for
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: scientists to get involved in science communication, and this is something I'm going to touch on a little bit later.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So this is actually from a slightly different survey. This is the Ipsos Veracity Index, which happens every year.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And it's basically, how likely you should trust a person based on their profession. It stays pretty consistent year in, year out. Nurses are always pretty much at the top. Engineers, doctors, to be expected. Scientists, just a couple down, 81%.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And then all the way at the bottom, we have journalists. So, I think the key takeaway here is obviously that scientists trust
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, people trust scientists a lot more than they trust journalists, not surprising. But, what it really means is that we need scientists to get involved in science communications, because it's all our communication about science. It's coming from journalists, that's how most people are interacting with science. It's not great, people aren't going to trust it.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So what this means in practice is having scientists,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: involved in comms by, attaching them to quotes, getting them involved in videos, media visits, things like that, so people are really engaging with them, rather than just comms people and journalists. I do think
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: There's kind of a caveat here that
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: their journalists doesn't cover all people involved in communications. I think, also, if people were asked about the type of journalist, like, whether they're a lot of science or a different subject, it could be different, but I think the key point there is pretty clear.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So next is, people's attitudes towards new technologies. So, people are largely embracing new technologies, which is good, due to the degree that it's improving people's lives.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But there is a lot of uncertainty around, the government's control of it, and the speed at which it's developing. We want to make sure that that's all kept under control.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: the most, touched on in this, particular chapter was AI.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And 33… sorry, I should say, of the people that felt at least somewhat informed about AI, 33%… 33% said they felt the benefits outweighed the risks, 36% said the opposite,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: there's quite a lot of… this is quite a polarised issue, compared to, say, vaccine safety that had 80% felt the benefits outweighed the risks, and only 8%, argued the opposite. And as you can see, there's also a big, gap in between where people are really uncertain.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, although…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Sorry, and I should say, as well that, when they were looking at people that were feeling more informed, this doesn't necessarily translate to them feeling the benefits outweigh the risks.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, there's still a lot of uncertainty, regardless of how important people are actually feeling about AI.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Then in terms of communicating with the public.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: The survey pretty much shows that people want,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Scientists and those that, sort of, support science and regulate it to be engaging with the public as much as possible, especially about the, sort of, social and ethical implications of their research, especially with these new and emerging technologies.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And I want to point out this one as well, because 56% agree that scientists should be rewarded for communicating their research to the public, which I think is pretty significant, but over half are thinking this, because I think it's hinting at,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: People are aware that a lot of scientists can't prioritize communications, obviously, and therefore they should be rewarded for participating in it, and often we have.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: barriers that are, sort of, internal and culture-related, which I'm going to touch on those a little bit more in a second.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, as I spoke about earlier, we've seen some massive shifts in the media landscape from traditional to new media.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: This is basically just about how people were finding scientific information. So, from the amount that were actively or passively seeking information.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I'd say a large majority, or a majority at least, were finding it on social media or on YouTube.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And actually the survey said that in 16 to 24 year olds, new media has surpassed traditional media in, where people are finding, information, science information, with top platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and X, which is formerly Twitter.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: This has a direct implication for science communications, because the next generation of voters and taxpayers are finding their science information on social media. So we need to adapt to this, and cater to it, and make sure we have outputs that are targeted at these audiences.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: You have people trusting for the science-related information.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Well, the survey shows that predominantly adult people are trusting the information they come across.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And only half are verifying the information that they come across, which I think is slightly concerning, because, as I've said, not all science information you come across online is true.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But in terms of trust.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: it was found that trust was equal across all channels, so they looked at the difference between, like, a BBC documentary, a TikTok video, a WhatsApp conversation with a friend, let's say, and they found that it was equal across all these channels.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, it's not necessarily defined by the platform which they're finding this information, and it's not based on them verifying the information, it's actually based on the confidence that they have in the source, so the person or the institution that is sharing that information.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, this is telling us that institutional credibility is a new major currency besides communication, and we need to know how to utilize this.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Then, science capital. So, this is the sum of an individual's science-related knowledge, attitudes, experiences, and how this shapes their engagement and aspirations in science. And what the survey shows is that
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: people with low science capital has decreased, which is great news, but people with high science capital hasn't necessarily increased. Instead, we've got this growing, section with people that have medium,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: science capital, and… how I think of science capital, so someone with high science capital, let's say, maybe they have a parent-chief scientist, they're studying a science at A level, they read science books, they go to science fairs, you say they have high science capital.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: someone with low science capital, they don't have any science in their, like, immediate circle, in their media diet, in their, education. This means they've got low science capital. It doesn't mean that they're not intelligent, it just means that they're.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Exposure to science is very low.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, the big problem is that the middle is growing, but the top isn't.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And why this is a problem is because
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: We've seen a lot of, really positive links between high science capital and general attitudes towards science. So, as you can see here, the difference.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: in high science capital and low science capital for things like supporting blue sky research, seeking science-related information, and agreeing that science increase personal prosperity. These are all positive links, obviously.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: People with high science capital are agreeing with those things, so they're more likely to be supportive of boost their research, they're more likely to trust scientists, but they're also more likely to be, critical of science and of, how governments,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Funding Science?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But overall, to improve gem attitudes towards science, we need to improve science capital.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: just to pick out two final things from the survey, which I thought were particularly relevant to PPD.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: 64% of the public agreed that the government should fund blue sky research, although this is down, from previous surveys where it was
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Pretty consistently in the high 70s.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So it shows that now it's more important than ever to be communicating the importance of blue-spair research.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And then also, this is a comparison of the public's trust, depending on the institution that the scientist works for. They would have the university at the top.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Pro Company is at the bottom, and we're somewhere in the middle.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, just to summarize, that survey, so we have a public that value science and want to hear more about it. We have, scientists broadly trusted and respected, associated with positive traits.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But we have a change in how the public are consuming science, and this means that more access to information hasn't necessarily led to our public feeling more informed about science.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And finally, science capital is the strongest predictor of support for science, and therefore, we should be, investing in
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Improving.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: That's not cool.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And how can we actually use the data from the survey?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: more reports, basically. So, this report is the Public Understanding and Science Report, from the Royal Society from 1985. It's literally known as the Bodemo Report. It was led by Sir Walter.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And this was a major turning point, for attitudes towards sex communication and public engagement, because it officially recognized
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: public engagement as a legitimate part of becoming… of being a scientist, and it was, sort of, from then on, embedded in the Royal Society's mission and the actions of higher, education institutions.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, it directly reshaped, funding requirements and institutional behaviour, and some of, the impacts that we know is, the creation of National Science Week.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: For, the necessary… The requirement, sorry, for public engagement statements to be included in grant applications.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Also, the requirement for research councils to fund public engagement and understanding, and also things like the World Society introducing a Friday lecture.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, it's had a pretty significant impact in the last 40 years of science communication, whether people are aware of it or not. And it's why, 40 years later, it's important that we revisit it.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And that's what this report does.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, in April of this year, the Royal Society published the Science for Society report, which is a direct successor of the Bodman report.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Importantly, it includes, data from the Public Attitudes Towards Science survey, in a lot of its recommendations.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: The audience is, primarily, those in the research community, as well as those sort of surrounding it, so communicators, decision makers, funding agencies, etc.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: There's a lot of things, in the original bottom report that couldn't have been predicted, and one of the main reasons this, new report was written was to kind of assess the, changes, since the original report.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, I just listed, sort of, the three key ones here. So, obviously, the digital world. At the time of the bottom report, this was, sort of, a great unknown.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Because only 13% of homes have a computer, and the internet is just a couple of years old.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But now we have instantaneous access to practically all human knowledge, and so this is something that has definitely… they've definitely reflected on in the new study.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: As I said, the digital world was the big unknown at the time of the bottom report. In the new report, it's AI. As we know, it's going to accelerate scientific discovery, it could support, people's understanding of science and access to science.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Obviously, it poses significant risks, and the public are deeply polarised about the issue.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And then the third thing is…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: misinformation, which is now operating at a scale that wasn't considered in the original form report. Like I said, we have unlimited access to information, and as I have touched on, I think it's information and make news.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, there's big competition for sharing trustworthy scientific information.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, what does the, report actually touch on? So, it recommends 20 key recommendations across these 6 themes.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And within each recommendation is a series of sub-recommendations which are targeted at specific audiences, so this could be government, this could be the Royal Society themselves, this could be the research community, and it gives them, sort of, specific actions.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Which hopefully will allow us to drive the same impact that the original VODMA report had.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But the unifying thread on all of it is that public engagement is an important part of the research lifecycle, and it should be, respected as such.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And the scientists have to be, recognised and rewarded, for engaging with the public.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But, easier said than done. As part of the survey, they…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: included a new study, which I just wanted to know. Factors affecting public engagement by UK researchers. So this was a survey that was commissioned to understand the reasons why there's this disparity between scientists who want to engage and
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: The public that wants to hear from them.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And essentially, they found that it's because
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: There's no time, there's no reward, and there's no structure, in a lot of cases. So we have this gap where, you know, scientists do genuinely want to engage with the public, and as we've seen from the BAS survey, we have the public that wants to hear more about science.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But there's a gap. So how do we bridge it? Some of the suggestions were…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Including science communication and public engagement training. This could be in things like broad schemes, in, bachelor's degrees, for practicing scientists.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Also, to have, career progression criteria outlined, for project engagement to encourage people to get involved.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Also, having protected time and resource, for public engagement.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And explicit outreach budgets.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Because the problem is that scientists are our best, most trusted asset in those communication, and…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: We want to hear from them, but we're not best supporting them in doing that.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Another, potential problem.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: is something called the Sagan effect. This is after the late Carl Sagan, who was a renowned astronomer and science communicator. It was rumoured that he was denied tenure from Harvard.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And also rejected from the National Academy of Science, because he focused too much on his science communication and on his public presence.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Whether this is true or not, people don't really know. But it does, point at a certain stigma that I think still does exist.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: That some people think if a scientist has time to do public engagement and outreach, surely they have time to be doing more science, and they're not taking their research seriously enough.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But the research actually shows the opposite, that engaging with the public and doing outreach can support career progression and support science.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But there is still this fear for some scientists of being seen as not productive, successful scientists.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So really the stigma doesn't match the evidence, but I think we are starting to see a bit of a shift, with new science communicators.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: People like Brian Hotts, you know, Glass Tyson, Hannah Frye, you know, they're all decorated and successful scientists, and they have hundreds of thousands or millions of followers, and so they've built that public trust and that engagement.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And so, hopefully, we can continue with that.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: the sort of key message… the other key message, from the Science for Society report is that science is two ways through. It's really changed from when the Batman report was first written. At this time, a lot of science communication operated on something called the deficit model.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Which is essentially that the public are sort of empty vessels waiting for the wisdom of science, and that scientists control the flow of information to them. So it's very much a one-way street.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And this was actually criticized in our House Reports Committee report in 2000.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And I think since then, it's definitely started to change, so we have a new era where science is really becoming
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: a two-way street, so we have things like citizen science. So, for example, this is the big butterfly Count, which I'm sure some of you might have heard of. Basically, you can, sign up for free, and you can count butterfly populations in your local area to support
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: What's the last?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: By population, research.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: There's also things like participatory research. This is particularly relevant in, sort of, healthcare, studies. And also, we've seen this,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: To drive the new public for more open dialogues on the ethics and implications of science, in particular, new technologies.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, just to finish up, I'm going to talk a little bit more about, what comms EV does, and how you can get involved if you're interested.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I would love to go really in-depth into all the various projects I've worked on this year, which I've really enjoyed, but I'm just going to do a sort of summary. So, our main, sort of outputs, we have external comms.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: This is things like our LinkedIn. This is a little bit of sold social media.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: We used to have X, but now SDFC, don't. SDFC… no SDFC departments have X, but we have actually just recently surpassed the followers that we built on X on LinkedIn, which is good.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: We have the website, which I'm gonna address in the next slide.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: We also have things like articles and press releases, which are probably supported by, the central STFC comms team.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And then we have our internal comms. This is things like the newsletter, TV screens around campus. We also share quarterly highlights from the department with the executive board, and we make imports to things like the SOBS and the SOC webinars.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: As I said, I'm going to just talk a little bit more about the website, because we are getting a new website, and hopefully you've seen this, you've probably had a couple emails from me about this.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, I was hoping that by the time I did the seminar, it would be up and running, but we're about a week out, so hopefully by the start of next month, we'll have this brand new website, with our brand new accent color, which you might see and I've been using throughout my presentation.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: This has been a really exciting project, and I'm looking forward to seeing it go live.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: as I said, within the next week, it should hopefully be up and running, and you can have a look for yourselves.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Then, on the, sort of, other aspects of sense communication is the public engagement. Upd does a lot of public engagement, and we are recognized as one of the better departments for it, I'd say. So we obviously have masterclasses, things like Master Physics Masterclass.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: We do work experience, engineering experience.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: We do visits and tours, and we also, participate in things like the Public Health Fest days.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: This is probably the easiest aspect to get involved in.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And how you can do this?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, we have four nightly public engagement meetings, which you're welcome to come along to at any time. It's not… it's free.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: If you're there and you're not committing to anything, really, you can just find out a little bit more about what the group does and some of the exciting opportunities.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: You can also volunteer at our events throughout the year.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: One thing you can do is register as a staff ambassador. This is,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: We're the central, public engagement team, so, you'll be kept in the loop about, the public engagement events that are going on across the campus and across the other SCFC campuses, and again, you're not committing to anything.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I'm also becoming a summer-up work experience supervisor.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And then, in terms of getting involved with the comm side of it, if everyone has upcoming results, papers, or milestones, it's best to get in touch with me, or my replacement once I'm gone next month.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And share these things early. A lot of people might think that anything they have to share is too small or relevant, but I don't agree with that.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I think there's words.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Okay, yeah, no ideas too small, please do share what you have to say, you never know.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: could help to, kind of, support what you're doing. And also, if you feel like it, please follow us on LinkedIn.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I'm gonna do that?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I'll just summarize. So…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Those three visions is no longer vague, it's an open dialogue between science and society.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: The media landscape has shifted. We have things like AI and misinformation, which are posing new challenges for us.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But there is a big public support for science, and we need to protect this and nurture this, and importantly, build science capital to help build possible last youth and drive things like engagement, in science.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And finally, that you can and should get involved with public engagement.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Thank you very much, Otto.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Any questions, please? Yeah, I've got a couple questions and a couple comments, so I'll try and keep it short. So slide 24, when you were talking about, the sort of fraction of people, you were saying that of the fraction of people that felt informed about AI, what fraction was that that actually felt comfortable or informed enough?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I don't have the exact figure. I'm sure it's in the study, I can find that. But it would be interesting to know. Because it's very clear from these numbers here that there is obviously a big uncertainty, but I think even paying to the fact of, like, how much people felt comfortable to answer is also… Yeah, and I guess it's also…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: quite objective.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Yeah. Someone else is fairly informed. Exactly. Yeah. I can definitely find that in the report. Awesome. And then, slide 27, you were talking about, so this 48% number, you said, you know, kind of concerned about the verification. I guess, maybe this is, like, an open question. I don't know whether, like, should we be worried that it's already
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: this low, and, you know, you were talking about genitive, yeah.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: engineering optimization, and the fact that because it's easier, people don't go and do their own research, they don't click the link because it's right there. So, is that number going to get worse, or is it going to get better because AI will get better at potentially linking things? Like, I guess I'm not expecting an answer, but I guess I'm curious of, like, which way that will go.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And, you know, should we be concerned, or, you know…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, I guess… Yeah, I guess it depends what,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Yeah, if it's… I suppose it still depends on what's being fed into it, like, it's still better, so I suppose, like, maybe the message is we still need to do better at
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: somehow making sure that it can link it, even when it does improve. I think the main point is that people should check the information they're coming across, especially if it's on social media or on YouTube. But hopefully, yeah, the AI will get better for
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Yeah, there's some other way that we can mitigate that, but I could definitely see, like, things getting worse. Yeah, exactly, so maybe that's, like, considering where we're at now. And then two quick comments, so slide 30, so I think it's really just a thing we should…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: you know, the fact that this is down, like, 15%, potentially, I think is very reflective of, you know, the financial landscape that we all currently are very aware of, and I think this is really…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: pushing the message that we need to be better at communication, especially moving forward. And then the final comment I just want to say, hopefully I don't embarrass the Autelie, is just, RT has done a phenomenal job getting the website to the point of, you know, almost getting it out, and it's a shame that it didn't happen this week, but I just really want to highlight that this is a really big achievement, you've done a fantastic job with the placement. And I'll shut up.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Yes.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So I've actually, got a question and a comment. I'll maybe start with the comments. Yeah. And it's regarding, like, the, you know, like, whether AI, like, generative AI can be, you know, beneficial, or, like, you know.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: bad for our society, and I kind of want to highlight something that I
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: heard on the Mindscape podcast with Sean Carroll, like, some number of months ago. I think the guest that he had on was named Gordon Pennycook, and he studies… I… I am not kidding, he says, pseudo-profound bullshit. It's an actual term out in the academic sphere, you can go on…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: look it up on Google Scholar if you want. But, I mean, it's a really difficult problem to tackle, because it's just so easy to produce something that sounds profound, but is in fact saying nothing, and, you know, like, people like Deepak Chopra are accused of this all the time with, you know, things like quantum mysticism.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And they're… people like them are a target of science communicators, but the science communicators are having a hard time reaching the people who are likely to believe in it, largely because of this kind of
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: propensity for people to get heated and sort of get argumentative with each other. So what this researcher has found, and is actually kind of designing, is a generative AI interface where people can literally just go and talk
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: to a chatbot about things like vaccine misinformation, and he's found that it can be up to, like, 25% of hardcore conspiracy theorists have converted back to, like, back to the leg.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: It's not trying to do anything, it's just being patient with them. Okay. Because of that sort of combative nature, like, it's very good at isolating, like, I mean.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I won't get into, like, you know, metaphysics and stuff like that, but I think, like.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: like, what is the self? But, I mean, you know, the, like, this idea that, you know, we, like, sort of
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: separate ourselves from, like, the in-group and the out-group. That's a really efficient way to make sure that no one ever changes size. So, an AI chatbot will be really good at just sort of, like, you know, taking flack from, like, someone who believes in flat earth, or, you know, 5G causes COVID, or…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: You know, like, all that, all that jazz. And, like, it'll just be, like, I hear what you're saying, but here's, you know, the reasons why everything that you're saying is, in fact, complete crap. Yeah. But in much nicer terms. So it's actually, I think it's an interesting…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: thing that could be developed that will help with all of this. And I, like I said, I wish I could obviously, you know, rattle off the name of the study, but it's on the MyScape podcast, if you go back a few months or so, if you wanted to, to listen to it.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And my, my question, kind of related to that, is that when we're talking about, like, the distillation of scientific information to the public via things like AI chatbots and more… more… and more directing this at the new media.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: because, I mean, like, if we produce more and more content, the algorithm that governs who sees what, I mean, like.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: vaccine skeptics and, you know, people who are, you know, just generally conspiratorial are not going to see that content, whereas, like, if we can make, like, a million times more content on TikTok, yeah, you'll probably get
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: more people seeing it in general, but, like, the audiences that you want to reach, I think, are still gonna be, disproportionate of not seeing it. So, like, is there… is there something that, you know, like, maybe they talked about it at this conference that you went to? Like, what's the answer to that?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I think,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: like you say, it's hard to target those audiences that are so, like, far, and so why aren't their opinions stuck in that way, but…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I guess, through the new media, like I said, this is fueling,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, if we optimize it, this could fuel, the answers that these AI search engines are going to, so hopefully,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I don't know if that could have any sway, but also maybe we're looking at targeting, kind of, the passive… passively engaged audiences, rather than trying to grab the people that we know.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: probably never gonna believe us. We can go for the people that maybe,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: skeptical, or maybe they're, like, a little bit interested, but they don't do any research, or don't make the effort to keep informed. But there weren't really any…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: There weren't really any talks specifically on, like, trying to… target those…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Or maybe, or maybe, yeah, like, maybe not, like, like, set aside the, you know, like, again, the people who are kind of, like, too far gone, and will never switch sides, maybe, except after a conversation with the chatbot. But how about, like, okay, like, when I think of, you know.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: like, kids, who are maybe, like, the algorithm doesn't know them very well, but the, like, the fact is that it will try and funnel them towards, like, the manosphere, which is a huge problem that's, you know, that's out there. But, like, so is, is there…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: like, a way that we can curate our own, like, outputs such that it's gonna be… like, I mean, I know that there's probably a way, but I mean…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: like, our… the stuff that we do is probably not as eye-grabbing as the… as the fake news, right? That's the issue with a lot of the fake news is, is that it's a very emotional thing, so people are more likely to engage with it. They're either shocking, is this true?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I'm gonna be able to share it. Yeah.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Right. Because I guess… What you're saying is, like, can we just put out as much information as possible?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But I don't think that's true, I don't think that would…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I don't know if that would solve anything, maybe it's… we need to…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: tailor our comms more specifically to audiences, but I already think that
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: especially with our social media outputs. Like, across SDFC, I think
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: they are targeting a general audience, and then I'd say it's more with the public engagement and the outreach activities that we're targeting those younger audiences, so maybe we need…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: social media days.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: talk to the general audience, it's awesome to just…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: a general audience, if that makes sense. Yeah.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I don't know. Maybe we need a class on it. Yeah.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Hi, hi. So, thanks for the talk. I guess I sort of wanted to follow up on what you were saying about, you know, the algorithms directing people to harmful content. I mean, I think
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: You know, since you already touched on this idea of the regulatory side of science not being able to keep pace with technological advances, this is something where we need to be more
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: active, and we need to be more vocal, because if you look at what's going on right now with blanket social media bans for under-16s.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: This is an enormous threat to data privacy for everyone.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Right?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: We, as technologically literate scientists, need to be raising this point, and we need to be raising the alternative solution of things like, well, why don't you ban addictive algorithms?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: why don't you ban algorithms that direct people to extremist content? You know, why don't we go back to chronological timelines on all of our social media instead of recommended content? This is a less harmful pathway for
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: everyone, not only for children, but also anybody who has to upload a copy of their passport to look at YouTube, which should be terrifying to everyone in this room.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, I, I think…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: In addition to, you know, everything that you've mentioned, we need to take a more active
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: voice on the regulatory side of science as well, not just the public consumption. Yeah, I think that's true, and… Yeah, regulatory towards social media as well, because I keep saying. Yeah, because, I mean, as you said, everyone thinks, oh my god, why don't we think of the children, because this fake news does…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: feed on fear, right? Yeah. And…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Yeah, we're sort of trying to cut it off at the audience side, rather than that, where the action problem we're saying, which is the addictive algorithm, so yeah. And all of the predatory… and all of the predatory companies that want to collect our data are whispering in the government's ear, saying, you need to do this, and we need to take an opposing point of view. Yeah.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Now, that's a very good point, actually. If I bring up what we do, we do peer review, right? So, what we're doing with science is we're checking the science that is being done, making sure that when it's going to go out there to the public media.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: We think it's correct. We're not absolutely correct, or sure that it's going to be correct, but we actually do peer review. Now, none of these organizations do peer review, except you hinted at that.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: You had a chatbot that actually could look at the content and then actually identify, is it correct or not? Now, couldn't we identify, say, algorithms that can check these algorithms and make sure that that's, okay content? Now, that's what we should be doing as scientists.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: We should be putting that into the government's framework of controlling these AI companies, so that we actually are in control of the peer review. So, we're actually
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Fitting everything through a peer review system.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But it's a chatbot. And then, of course, people will complain about that, because who did the chatbot? Scientists. That's the other… But they trust us. But I can also bring up another thing. They, say the government, the government don't trust us at all, because they don't like scientists to be in control of science.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: They want to be in control of scientists, not us being in control of our own science. And it even comes down to the point where some of the scientists in this organization will not be allowed to come to this lecture because they are not being paid.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: for the hour that they spend here. So they've got to identify the first center to actually come to this lecture.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So if I can tell you, that PPV's very good, other organi- other departments are not good, but we have to go over this burden, where even our own organization has a
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: a sort of, almost a sort of ban on scientists coming to lectures, because they haven't was set up. Yes, and there is a seminar that you've organized that is, in the future.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: They have to pay the person
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: to actually make the content of that seminar, and come here and pay this time. So you weren't paid for the one hour peer, were you?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: You've got a cost center, right? So who's paying you to come here?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So we have to break these barriers, actually, because this is how science is actually communicated between ourselves, not
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: We're all in the box, actually. We need to break down these barriers down right now, rather than, try and break barriers down in the public. We put barriers ourselves. I have heard from the engineering people, for example, from Ralph Space. Yes. They would love to come here, but they can't. Yes, that's right.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: They've got a barrier, because he can't give them a cost center to cover their time to come here. Now, I guess many people in this room don't know that. CPD is very, very generous, because all these guys sitting here are all paid to sit here and listen
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: To this talk here, which is a great talk, by the way. Really. So I… but I think it's very important we have to start looking at our own backyard.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And making sure that we actually can get out there and get the content that we're actually producing distributed throughout the whole world.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I mean, we are advertising this on Maha Engage, and lots of people who see the advertisement, but they don't dare to join. That's right. Well, their senior line manager would say, well, why are you going to this lecture? We're not paying you to go to the lecture, we're paying you to, do this work.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And this is something that people don't really understand.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I've been robbed.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: ATA, okay, I was left since 1990, and I'd never encountered that in my… and I wasn't in when I first came here. I've never encountered that.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: That's right. You're PPD. PPD are great. I was in space science for about 12 years before, you know, 13 years before I can't really space that time. So now it's creeping through all the departments.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But going back to the original talk, shouldn't we be deriving algorithms that actually can check? Because that's what peer review is. Scientists themselves are checking the paper, and they're looking at the flaws.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Or arguments that are down in the paper. So we should be doing the algorithms, through all these algorithms out, and see if we can beat me.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I suppose it always still comes back for time, though. The point is, it's the government.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: a very… and you've made a very good point. We're actually, say, cutting off the… some of the best talent by not allowing 16-year-olds to look at certain content. Now, I know it's harmful content, things like that, but
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: They're not going to be able to look at anything if they don't have access to internet and things like that. So we're actually destroying a whole generation of brains there.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And so it's like saying, if you're under 16, you can't go into a library.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Because there are countful books in the library.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So we have to actually make sure that we are in control of the data, not the AI companies who make a lot of money out of it.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Hi. Hello. Very interesting talk, thank you. I'm from CLF. Yes. I'm used to call, but I do know about the rail space thing. I can tell you the capital camp, everything.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I agree, it's ridiculous. I have a comment and a question that you may or may not be able to answer. One of your slides towards the end was that lovely picture of the front of blood proactive Laboratory in the brick wall.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And Ethel's lab behind it. Yes. I agree, it's a lovely picture.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But my problem with that photo is it's the wrong laboratory. It's got one name at the front and a different building front. I always assumed
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I guess it's… I do know this is relative. Okay, in which case, I have another point to make to you. I've been at the lab almost as long as my colleague at the NPR did 40 years.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I'd be really interested, as a lot of people will tell you, in the history of the site. It's sort of the site, historian de facto, which is why I particularly picked up on that. The fact that you don't know what it is is the first thing we should talk about.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: You also said happy birthday, Raoul. Yes. Are you referring to our 70th anniversary next year? That was,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I'm joking.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Does that mean we have to know? I do remember when I was, making this particular post that there was,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: This was a… this was a real one, well, not a real one. There was, like, multiple different, like, tiles, and I remember I sat with one thing, we kind of… there was a bit of a discussion about, like, timelines and stuff. Well, it was the right definition, I think. This was an AI-generated slide. My point is, it says one thing, and then the pictures in the other, but what I was actually trying to say was that 2027
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: It's Postal Lab's 70th birthday.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I have asked Central Commons whether they're planning anything at all, as I thought they might do something for the 70th, but that's no good for somebody retired by then. Do you know if they're doing anything for the 70th? What has plans? With the passing of Norman… Well, yes, we discussed this, but
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: We haven't… I mean, I think other departments are discussing it in detail, so we should talk later.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Yes. About this. Now, it's a big problem, because Norman died. Yeah. Well, how long have I been doing that book now? I know you were writing a book with…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Actually, just a couple more comments that I should say, thank you. Really nice talk. And, and second, yeah, I just want to echo, Ashley's comments about, joining, public engagement meetings, so we have them every couple of weeks, and yeah.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Encourage people to come along.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Just come along and see what's happening, or if you've got something you want to contribute, that'll be for more than welcome.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Well, they should contact you if they want to get involved. Yes, but I don't send emails out immediately, so feel free to just…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Okay.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: So, you mentioned about this three top, social media, and that we are not in…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I love them, right? Like, it is the ground? Yeah, so PPD just has mentioned, the central FDFC has,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: at least it'll have X, but they don't post on it. So, PBE is just LinkedIn, but, SDFC has more accounts than some of the bigger departments, like ISIS, they have a couple different platforms, but just PBE, that's just…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: People are, kind of, discussing, alternates.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Alternatives to X.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: There's some, like, blue sky. So, maybe that's something we'll see in the future, but yeah, we are just…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Yes.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Triple question, triple question. On slide 37, is the picture AI generator?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Look up to it.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I'm gonna assume no, because… It happens. Just curious. It's so appropriate to the top that I hit AI.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Every single statistic will make up. 94% of all statistics.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Yes, yes. I just… I just have another sort of comment that I made. I kind of just remember it off the top of my head right now. So…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Like, so, like, another way that I think we can,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: engage kind of, like, in an informal way. There's lots of science communicators who are making content on, like, YouTube, TikTok, and all these other social media things, and, like, there are some that are, like, you know, quite dogged in their… in their
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Like, they will go out and do, like, these crazy debates. Like, I mean, like, I think we might have all seen, like, this, you know, surrounded format on Jubilee, like, where you have, like, Dr. Mike, who went and talked to, you know, a bunch of fancy vaxxers, or,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: you know, I think there was one with Flat Earthers as well. But I mean, suffice it to say, like, these are science communicators who are, like, their whole job is to just be in the public sphere and have these, sort of.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Like, the more combative engagements with people who are, you know.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Trying to, like, you know, sow this, you know, this bullshit out into the public sphere.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And I have personally reached out to Professor Dave, or Professor Dave Explains, trying to say, like, if there's anything that we as scientists can do. And he was saying, yeah, like, you can, you know, participate in podcasts, but, like, you know, we as science communicators need, like, you know.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: People to interview, we need people to, like, you know, edit our script, like, you know, go over our scripts to make sure that everything is, is,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: like, kosher. I… and they're clamoring for more of us to, you know, to engage in that way, so if you're not, like, willing to go onto, like, you know, podcasts or interviews or, like.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Or if you're like me, who, like, absolutely sucks at debating, right? Like, you can still participate by reaching out to active science communicators who are better trained at the more combative stuff, and say, I can, you know, I can be part of your team in the background, and give you, like, the, yeah.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: you know, if you don't want to be patient like a chatbot, you can just… But, like, they'll, you know, debate people who are, you know, like, the active disinformation artists.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: like RFK Jr. or, you know, like, the Discovery Institute is a huge, big entity that we should all be scared about lately. Yes, yes. People argue is entertaining, and people will take away the right messages from those videos. Yeah.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Yeah. Reach out to… just, like, a lot of them just have emails that they… that they post on, but, like, they have…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: you can just send them a message and say, I am, you know, so-and-so from Rutherford Appleton Lab, and then, you know, maybe even we can
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: you know, like, be official, like, have an official partnership of, you know, some of them, even. Yeah.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: We're approaching the time, but are there any questions on Zoom? I don't see off Zoom anymore yet.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Maybe I just want to ask for your opinion, whether… so, like Joe was saying,
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Is it worth, having a training, for example, for heart disease, or for SDFC? Like, the other trainings that we have to take? I know they're always… Yeah, their own life. Yes.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I mean, I guess, yeah, that's, like, an STFC-wide thing. I think it would have to be. Yeah. I think the best way to, like, get involved at the lowest level is to come along to the public engagement meetings, then you have at least, like, some understanding of the kind of outreach that we do.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But I think, yeah, maybe that… I don't… I haven't heard that being raised as a possibility, but I guess it would make sense. I don't know if people would be reluctant, given that it's…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Just another training, and yeah, exactly. You don't love trainings, but…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But it's something that we have to remind you to go, or otherwise we need seminars from the studio like yours. Well, we have at least one seminar like this every year. Or at least one seminar a year from the public engagement. Time it with the heat wave and promise AC. Yes. Many years ago, I mean, we had training, actually.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Maybe 25, 30 years.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: But you would actually… it was run by Repo Graphics in that area, in that group, actually, to do the photography as well. So you would go in and actually prepare a 5-minute… it was a TED talk. You had to do a TED Talk. It was not called TED Talks 25, 30 years ago, but that's what it was. So you had to go in and prepare something that you actually went in front of a camera.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And you, gave your spool. And there were people there.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: criticizing as it is, and what you should do. You don't do this, don't do that, et cetera, et cetera. Write up a critique of what you did, and then you come back after you've prepared it again, and do another spiel in front of the camera. But that's all gone now. I think that's because there's no money.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Yeah, I know that, the scientific comms team does, like, media training days, but that's predominantly people higher up. Yep.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: most people here want to do that, so… yeah, maybe something like that. Was it popular? Very popular. I mean, I've got a sort of half hour on black holes, where I sit down and talk about black holes. Now, it's out there, you can watch television, but it's 2 and 3 in the morning, actually, sometimes.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: No, I don't watch it anymore. Can this be uploaded to YouTube or some other stuff? I suppose it can, actually, yeah. But that's half an hour of black holes, I mean…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: You don't want to know… that's more than you really want to know. I mean, you can't talk in 5 minutes is perfect for most people. When it goes to half an hour, that's so long.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And a quick one, I know you… it's done for funding, but would you have benefited if there were two students, if you had another colleague in our group?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: You say enough work for them? I think, yeah, there would definitely be enough work. There would be more that we could do.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And how would you feel if there was another student? Would that have benefited your homework as well?
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I think so, yeah. Someone could talk. Yeah, it's hard to judge, having not had it, so I don't really have anything to compare it to, I've just had my own experience, but… Well, I mean, your current living supervisors too, right? Ashley and Stuart.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Yeah. So I think that should be in… There's competitors in other departments that I work with occasionally, so…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: I think there's definitely more scope, though, because, I mean, I remember sitting down with Ossing, we were kind of thinking about all the things we could do, and there was… that list went on for ages, and we just didn't have time to do it, so I think there'd always be more scope, and I think there's always, you know, we should be working towards more engagement, so…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Oh, yeah. Concerning the training, I can advertise that we do have a PPD exhibition room guide training.
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: And then, it's not…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: a lot of people join, in the training, like, we have Sophie will come, and then we will introduce what we have in our exhibition room, and also Sophie will say, like, how do we… how do we…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: explains this properly, nicely, according to a different audience. I mean, I think, as she mentioned in one of her slides, do get involved in the STEM ambassador List. That is very, very helpful, if you really want to be…
STFC-RAL-CR03 R61: Why are we not calling it a STEMbassador, by the way? A STEMbassador. Stembassador. That is the name of it, in my… Okay, indeed, thank you very much.