TING THE FUTURE

Best Practices for Commumcation

of Science and Teclinology

to tlie Public 1

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

March 6-8, 2002 • GaiMieigburq, Maryland • USA

5l

t of Energy

ite of Standards and Technology

linistration

t of Commerce

Nisr

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Technology Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

NIST Special Publication 991

Communicating the Future:

Best Practices for Communication

of Science and Technology to the Public

Conference Proceedings

March 6-8, 2002

Edited by:

Gail Porter

Public and Business Affairs Division National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3460

www.nist.gov/bestpractices

Co-Sponsored by:

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science

/ ¥%

National Institute of Standards and Technology

September 2002

U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald L Evans, Secretary

Technology Administration

Phillip Bond, Under Secretory of Commerce for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Arden L Bement, Director
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an

experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities,

materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

This publication contains transcripts of speakers' remarks at the conference on Communicating the Future: Best

Practices for Communication of Science and Technology to the Public held at the National Institute of

Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, on March 6-8, 2002. The opinions expressed in this report

should be attributed to the conference steering committee or individual conference speakers and do not imply

endorsement or agreement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 991

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 991, 164 pages (September 2002)

CODEN: NSPUE2

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 2002

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov - Phone: (202) 512-1800 - Fax: (202) 512-2250

Mail: Stop SSOP Washington, DC 20402-0001

Cover Photo credits: from left to right, ©Robert Rathe, ©Robert Rathe, Kathie Koenig
Abstract

Communicating science and technology to the

pubhc has become an essential enterprise for research

universities, government agencies, science museums,

foundations and granting agencies, other non-profit

scientific organizations, and corporations. To advance

the state of the art, a conference on Best Practices for Communicating Science and Technology to the

Public was held March 6-8, 2002, at the National

Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md., with major funding provided by

the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.

This report of the conference proceedings includes a summary statement by the conference steering committee, transcripts or other text summarizing the

remarks of conference speakers, and abstracts for 48

"best practice" communications programs selected by

the steering committee through an open competition

and a formal peer review process. Additional information about the 48 best practice programs is available on the archival conference Web site at www.nist.gov/bestpractices.

Keywords: science communication, technology communication, public communication, science journalism,

public relations, media relations, public information, best practices, science literacy, Web sites. World Wide Web,

exhibits, news media, science museums, evaluation, communications research.

iii
Acknowledgment

The Best Practices conference steering committee

wishes to express its appreciation to the large number

of people who made both the conference and this proceedings report possible. Thanks to NASA's

Marshall Space Flight Center, the U.S. Department of

Energy Office of Science, and the National Institute

of Standards and Technology for their multi-year

financial support for both the Research Roadmap

Panel (R2) that initiated the idea of a conference on

best practices in science and technology communications and for the Best Practices conference and the

work of the steering committee. Thanks to the members of the steering committee for their substantial

commitment of time and energy, much of it on

evenings and weekends, to set up the conference.

select the best practice communications programs,

and review and author the conference summary.

Thanks to the speakers and poster presenters for shar- ing their "best practice" programs with us and for providing materials for both this report and for the

archival conference Web site at www.nist.gov/

bestpractices. And finally, thanks to staff members of

the National Institute of Standards and Technology

for hosting the conference and handling production

of this report and the conference Web site, especially

Patrice Boulanger, Jennie Covahey, Stephanie

Edwards, Susan Ford, Sandy Gray, Rebecca Green,

Gail Porter, Crissy Robinson, Sharon Shaffer, Kim

Snouffer, and Kelly Talbott.

iv
Table of Contents

Steering Committee vi Conference Summary 1 Speaker transcripts of summary materials:

Keynote Address: Sense, Nonsense, and Science

Joseph Schwarcz, Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Office of Chemistry and Society,

McGill University 17

Putting Communications Research and Evaluation into Practice

Susanna Hornig Priest, Associate Professor, Texas A&M University Department of JournaUsm 35

The Evolution of Research and Evaluation in Public Relations

James Grunig, Professor, University of Maryland Department of Communication 40

Topical Lecture—The Future of Broadcast Journalism

Peggy Girshman, Assistant Managing Editor, National Public Radio News 49

Live from the Field: Observing Science in Its Natural Habitat

Hannah Holmes, freelance writer; reporter and columnist, Discovery Online; and author 55

Research Roadmap for Communicating Science and Technology in the 21st Century

Rick Borchelt, Director, Communications and Public Affairs, The Whitehead Institute 61

Topical Lecture: How Science Books Drive Public Discussion

Bruce Lewenstein, Associate Professor of Science Communication, Cornell University 69

Graphic Science: New Venues for Science Communication

Frank Burnet, Faculty of Applied Science, University of the West of England 77

Keynote Address: Sex, Lies, and Science Television

Paula Apsell, Executive Producer, NOVA, WGBH Public Television 90

Abstracts for 48 poster topics 99

Appendices

A—Conference Program 148

B—Call for Papers/Entry Form 152

V
Communicating the Future:

Best Practices for Communication of Science

and Technology to the Public

Conference Steering Committee

Earle Holland (Co-chair)

Science Communications

The Ohio State University

Joann Rodgers (Co-chair)

Public Affairs

The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions

Deborah Blum

School of Journalism and Mass Communication

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Rick Borchelt (Conference co-organizer)

Communications and Public Affairs

The Whitehead Institute

Joe Culver

Public Affairs

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Lynne Friedmann

Friedmann Communications

Greg Koller

Media and External Communications

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Robert Logan

School of Journalism

University of Missouri

Jon Miller

Center for Biomedical Communications

Northwestern University Medical School

Mary Miller

Center for Media and Communications

Exploratorium

Gail Porter (Conference co-organizer)

Public and Business Affairs

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Carol Rogers

College of Journalism

University of Maryland

Barbara Valentino

Evolving Communications

Kris Wilson

Department of Journalism

University of Texas, Austin

Committee Science Writer

Diana Steele Free-lance writer

vi
Conference Summary

Tonight Show host Jay Leno is walking around the

streets of Los Angeles asking random adults questions

about science. "How long does it take the Earth to go around the sun?" he asks. "Twenty-four hours," two people in suc- cession reply.

"What causes the tides?" he asks. "Boats?" his next

victim replies. "Fish?" Leno's informal survey was highlighted by Paula

Apsell, executive producer of the public television pro- gram Nova, in a keynote talk to the 280 participants of

the conference. Communicating the Future: Best

Practices for Communication of Science and

Technology to the Public.

Held March 6-8, 2002, at the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg,

Md., with major funding from the U.S. Department

of Energy, the conference provided a forum for science

communicators, educators, and researchers to share

both their successes and their frustrations in communicating the results of research advances to lay

audiences.

The at times startling ignorance of average U.S.

adults of basic scientific facts has been well documented by annual surveys conducted by the U.S.

National Science Foundation.' For example, 50 per- cent of U.S. adults surveyed don't know that it takes a year for the Earth to orbit the sun. Similarly, 50 per- cent of respondents believe that early humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs and that atoms are smaller than electrons. Jon Miller, director of NSF's

science literacy surveys for many years and director of

the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University Medical School, concludes

that fewer than one in five Americans meet a minimal

standard of civic scientific literacyMany in the scientific community believe that a lack of knowledge about science and technology is a major obstacle preventing increases in government

funding of research. Another commonly held view is that science literacy is a major factor in discouraging

students from choosing science or technology careers.

Still others point out that widespread science illiteracy

makes a large segment of the public vulnerable to the

claims of charlatans who promise "miracle" results in

losing weight or for improving life's decision-making

through the wonders of astrology.

However, connections between science literacy and

the well-being of the nation's research enterprise or

society in general that may seem like common sense

are, in fact, more complex than the simple statements above imply.

A wide range of scientific institutions—from cor- porations to hospitals to government agencies—have

initiated science communications programs for the

public because they believe that increased knowledge

of the organization's role in advancing research will improve the institution's reputation, making it easier to gain public support for other organizational goals.

Finally, many public science and technology communications programs—particularly those conducted by

government laboratories or universities—are grounded

in the principle of the "public's right to know." Since a large percentage of scientific and technical research is funded with tax dollars, the institutions and the

researchers using those funds have an obligation to explain to the public in understandable language how

that money has been used. Regardless of why research institutions and other

organizations carry out science and technology communications programs for the public, the Best

Practices conference steering committee (see page vi) of science communicators, journalists, and researchers approached its task of identifying model communications programs from the following perspective:

Given that many research institutions and other

science-oriented organizations such as museums do

conduct public communications programs, what does

the communications research literature tell us about

the most effective ways to carry out these programs,

and how can we apply this knowledge to help select model programs or "best practices" that can be

adopted by a wide range of institutions?

Historical Context

In 1998, the Space Sciences Laboratory at the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration's

Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., chartered a l6-member working group to identify the

most compelling questions still to be answered by the

1
academic science and technology communications

research community.' The group also was asked to compile examples of best practices in science and tech- nology communications programs as implemented by

research institutions across the United States or abroad. The laboratory planned to use the committee's

findings to determine high-priority communication

research areas for future funding and to apply best practice lessons learned from other organizations to improve its own and NASA's communications

programs.

The Research Roadmap for Communicating

Science and Technology in the 21st Century Working

Group included science communicators, communications researchers, journalists, and scientists. Dubbed

the R2 group, the panel met eight times over the next

three years. Locations for these meetings included

La Jolla, Calif; Woods Hole, Mass.; Washington,

D.C.; Chicago, 111.; Santa Cruz, Calif; Durham, N.C.;

Huntsville, Ala.; and Jacksonville, Fla. Each meeting was hosted by a different research

organization.^ Science communicators, journalists, and

researchers from government laboratories, universities,

newspapers, foundations, non-profit organizations,

public relations firms, and museums were invited to make presentations to the committee about their pro- grams, science coverage, and communications research

efforts. The meetings were open to attendance by journalists and the public. In addition, the R2 committee

solicited comments from members of groups such as the National Association of Science Writers, the

Council for the Advancement and Support of

Education, and the International Association of

Science Writers.

The R2 group also used part of its NASA Marshall

funding to sponsor five original research projects.

These projects included comprehensive reviews of the

science and health communication research literature;' a study of U.S. public attitudes toward biotechnology

and implications for improving science communications,"^ a review of communications programs conducted by federal research organizations,' and a study of

how public information officers broker information

exchange between scientists and journalists.'

The R2 group's major findings and recommendations were published in a special issue of the research

journal Science Communication, in a paper authored by

R2 chairman. Rick Borchelt. ' The same issue of the

journal included several papers describing research

projects funded by the panel. (See a bulleted list of

findings on page 6.) With the research agenda portion of its mission

complete, the R2 panel had planned to host a major

peer-reviewed conference to feature model science and

technology communications programs. Funding constraints at NASA Marshall, however, forced postponement of these plans until alternative funding for the

conference could be secured.

A 'Best Practices' Conference

In April 2001, the U.S. Department of Energy's

Office of Science and the National Institute of

Standards and Technology formally agreed to co- sponsor the conference originally envisioned by the

R2 panel, with major funding being provided by DOE

and primary staff support and conference facilities by

NIST. A steering committee for the conference was

selected that included many members from the previ- ous R2 panel, as well as new members selected to ensure that the committee could competently review

proposals from a wide variety of institutions and to ensure that results from the conference would be effec- tively disseminated to DOE national laboratories. The steering committee, co-chaired by Joann

Rodgers of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions

and Earle Holland of Ohio State University, met in Chicago in May 2001 to establish criteria for selecting

communications programs as best practices, to deter- mine what types of institutions would be eligible to submit entries, and to agree on a strategy for maximizing the number of entries. From the outset of its deliberations, the Best Practices Steering Committee decided to limit entries to communications programs sponsored by or conducted by research-oriented and

public-education institutions. While numerous awards

exist to honor science journalists from media organizations who communicate well with the public, there are fewer opportunities for science communicators based

at research and other science and technology institu- tions to receive such recognition. The committee

included communications programs aimed at children

2
but decided to limit entries to programs that take

place primarily outside of classroom instruction. Poster session entries to the conference were

solicited via ads in science-writing, higher-education,

and public-relations trade publications (e.g., PR Week,

Chronicle ofHigher Education); direct mkil, e-mail and

phone solicitation of public-affairs specialists in research institutions and science and technology

museums; and announcements to listservs. Entries were welcomed from research-sponsoring

institutions such as universities, government agencies,

corporations, or non-profit organizations; from public

education institutions such as museums or non-profit

Web-based enterprises; or from third parties such as public relations agencies engaged by these entities in

their communications efforts. To help encourage

entries from universities, non-profits, and other organizations with limited travel funds, up to 50 selected presenters were eligible for a $750 manuscript fee to help offset travel costs, as well as free conference

registration.

Entries were solicited in the following categories:

direct-to-consumer programs,

programs for specialized media,

scientist-based programs,

programs for legislators and opinion leaders,

programs for the general media, and

programs intended for children (outside of class- room instruction).

Entries were solicited through an on-line form

posted on the conference Web site (see Appendix A).

The form requested a 500-word narrative description

of the communications program, as well as information on the intended audience, budget, staffing, and

any research conducted before or after the program to improve its design or evaluate its effectiveness. The

committee also accepted supplementary materials, such

as brochures, videotapes, photographs, and summary

reports by regular mail.

The steering committee received more than 150

entries. In July 2001, the committee met at the

National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colo., to formally rate and rank each of the

entries. Forty-eight "best practice" communications

programs were selected based on the following criteria:

content and clarity of explanation,

identifies a discrete audience,

uses appropriate formative and evaluative

research,

illuminates both the process and product of

science or technology, and

easily adapted for other settings or organizations.

The presenter for each selected communications

program was asked to prepare a poster to be displayed

at the conference, to write an abstract for the confer- ence proceedings, and to provide documents and

images from the poster to be archived on the confer- ence Web site, [www.nist.gov/bestpractices.]

The conference was originally scheduled for September 26-28, 2001. But after the terrorist attacks of September 1 1 shut down Reagan National Airport

and disrupted travel plans for government employees,

the committee decided it was in the best interest of the

conference to postpone the meeting for six months.

When the conference convened on March 6-8,

2002, the meeting was subscribed fully, with almost

300 participants attending. They represented institu- tions from all across the United States and several for- eign countries, including Canada, the United

Kingdom, Brazil, Australia, Belgium, Trinidad, and

Japan. Participants included science communication

specialists from universities, national laboratories, research institutions, and hospitals; journalism professors; communication researchers; science museum

curators; scientists; educators; and government

officials. The 48 featured posters were displayed for the duration of the meeting. Morning and afternoon plenary sessions on March 7 and 8 consisted of keynote

addresses, topical lectures, and panel discussions on

topics ranging from evaluation of science communication programs to targeting hard-to-reach audiences. An

opening reception, conference dinner, continental

breakfasts, and lunches provided opportunities for informal networking among participants (see Appendix B).

Research-Driven Communications

While institutions routinely review past research in

a given technical field before funding additional proj3
ects in the same area, few organizations systematically use the results of research already collected in the field of science communication to design their programs. In many cases, managers of public communications pro- grams come from related fields such as journalism,

political science, education, or a specific scientific or

technical discipline and are not aware that this research

literature exists. In other cases, the daily stress of continually producing the products of science communications programs such as newsletters, Web pages, magazines, exhibits, or broadcast programs fully consumes

science communicators to the detriment of long-term

planning for or evaluation of those programs.

Some federal agencies that provide grants for sci- ence communication programs, such as the National

Science Foundation (NSF), require that formal evaluations of funded programs be conducted. However, the

results of these evaluations are not made publicly avail- able by NSF. (NSF does encourage grantees to publish

their findings themselves and recently supported cre- ation of a new Web site to facilitate this.)'" A major goal of both the Research Roadmap panel

and the Best Practices Steering Committee has been to improve dissemination of science and technology communications research results to science communications practitioners, as well as to better inform communications researchers about specific areas of science and

technology communications practice that can benefit

most from academic research. For example, a 10-year, comprehensive effort sponsored by the International Association of Business

Communicators (lABC) Research Foundation to determine the defining characteristics of excellent public relations programs produced a wealth of conclusions, many of which are relevant to improving science

communications programs." However, few practicing

science communicators at the Best Practices

Conference were aware of the study.

Excellence in Public Relations

James Grunig, professor of communications at the

University of Maryland and the director of the lABC

Excellence project, described for the conference atten- dees the methodology for the study, which involved

conducting surveys and interviews with public relations managers, practitioners, and CEOs for more

than 300 organizations.

The most important function of public relations,

Grunig noted, is building relationships with, not just

communicating to, strategic publics. The most effective communications strategies involve two-way communication. An organization's effectiveness (and its reputation) depends on its ability to reconcile its goals

with the expectations of its strategic publics—those

groups outside the organization that affect its operations.

The Excellence project concluded that the best public relations programs had the following qualities

in common:

Public relations is a unique management function that helps an organization interact with the

social, political, and institutional components of

its environment, and serves a strategic managerial

role as well as a technical role. Public relations departments strategically plan,

administer, and evaluate public relations programs.

Public relations helps to shape the underlying

conditions of organizational excellence (for

example, through employee communications

programs).

Public relations is empowered by the dominant

coalition (the people with the most power in an

organization) and is not subordinated to marketing or other management functions.

Public relations is two-way and symmetrical.

Public relations executives serve as ethics counselors and internal advocates of social responsibility (the "conscience," or "thinking heart" of

the organization).

Traditional metrics of communication have measured one-way communication:

Communication: how many people receive the

message, show up at an open house, how many

press clippings mention the institution, etc. Message retention: not only did the message get out there, but did they retain it? Cognition/understanding: did they make sense of the message?
Attitude: do they agree with you?

Behavior: do they say good things about you, buy your product, etc.? In implementing pubhc relations programs as a two-way process, the role of public relations is not just to affect the public, but also to bring in information

from the public to inform the decisions that management makes.

Two-way communication involves: Disclosure: not only is the organization open

about its activities, but the public comes to the

organization when it sees there is a problem.

Accuracy: the public can predict what the organization is thinking, and vice versa. Understanding: the organization and its strategic

publics share understanding about the organization and its mission.

Agreement: The organization and its strategic

publics agree that something is good or bad,

something should be done about it, and they

evaluate it in the same way. Symbiotic behavior: the public helps the organization accomplish its mission, but the organization also behaves in such a way that it makes the

community a better place to live and the organization a better place to work.

Methods for measuring the success of a communications strategy involve conducting surveys and inter- views, as well as observation (such as watching visitors interact with exhibits) and focus groups. Counting the number of media clippings is a poor

measure of the success of a communications program,

except possibly for monitoring the performance of

media relations staff. General surveys of attitudes,

image, and reputation are also poor metrics of communications programs because they are affected by

many other things such as day-to-day decision making

by an organization's management that are beyond an

organization's public relations programs. The

Excellence project found that the use of advertising

equivalencies (describing the value of news stories generated by public relations efforts in terms of the dollar value of paid ads of the same size) was so inherently

misleading a practice that public relations professionals

should consider use of such comparisons as unethical.

A further discussion of successful management

strategies for public relations can be found in a paper

authored by Grunig and Larissa Grunig for the

Department of Energy's Brookhaven National

Laboratory.''

The Science-Attentive Public

In today's complex world it is no longer possible for any citizen to follow and stay informed about the full range of public policy issues. One way of characterizing how people approach science and technology

information has been suggested by Miller. He identifies three strata of the public that differ in their interest in and understanding of science and technology.

Using the National Science Foundation's Science and

Engineering Indicators studies as a base. Miller has

estimated that approximately 15 percent of American

adults have—over the last decade—had a high level of

interest in science and technology issues and have felt that they were reasonably well informed about those

issues. Miller refers to these citizens as being attentive

to science and technology.'^

Based on a combination of self-reported level of

interest and level of understanding, Miller classifies public science audiences into three groups:

Science attentive: Those who express a high level of interest in a particular science and technology

issue, feel very well informed about it, and regularly read newspapers and magazines with rele- vant information.

Science interested: People who claim to have a high interest about a science and technology

issue but do not feel very well informed about it. Residual public: People who are neither interest- ed, nor very well informed about science and

technology issues.

In the 2001 NSF survey, about 10 percent of

respondents met the criteria for being science attentive, a drop of 4 percent since 1997. Forty-eight

percent of respondents were classified as science

interested, while 42 percent were classified as residual. Even if only about 10 percent of the U.S. population is science attentive this still represents an audience

of 20 million people. Adults who are attentive to sci- ence are more likely to watch science television shows,

visit science Web sites and science museums, and buy

5
science books. Communication with this audience can have the effect of spreading the message more broadly

since science attentives tend to be more pohtically

active than average, have higher than average levels of

education and income, are comparatively well informed about science and technology issues, and

have a high level of cross-talk with other audiences.'''

Science Communication and Trust

Two recent studies focused on the issue of science

communication and trust. Both found that trust tends

to reside in social institutions and processes. Using data from a survey of 1,000 U.S. respon- dents in 2000, Priest analyzed the relationship between

people's willingness to encourage biotechnology

research in a number of different agricultural and biomedical areas." She found nearly 30 percent of respondents projected that genetic engineering would not

benefit society during the next 20 years—about the same percentage of persons (but mostly different

respondents) who were similarly critical of nuclear

energy. As education in science goes up (as measured

by the number of college courses in science), respondents' substantive understanding of biotechnology

increased, using a simple true-false test. Priest found

that a respondent's confidence or trust in scientists,

farmers, and government regulators (all representing

the relevant institutional leaders for biotechnology) was the strongest predictor of people's willingness to encourage biotechnology research. A separate analysis of the 1998 U.S. national survey

by Miller and Kimmel found that the strongest predictor of encouragement for agricultural and medical

biotechnology (measured separately) was a belief in the

promise of science and technology to improve the

quality of life."' This generalized faith in science and

technology is similar to the confidence in scientific institutions found by Priest. The second strongest pre- dictor of encouragement for both agricultural and

medical biotechnology was attentiveness to biotechnology, followed by the level of biomedical literacy.

Taken together, these two studies suggest that favorable attitudes toward the encouragement of new

science and technology are built on long-standing trust or confidence in major social institutions such as science, universities, government, and business. Shortterm media exposures were not good predictors of a positive attitude toward either agricultural or medical

biotechnology. The take-home message of these findings is that science communicators should not attempt

to package and sell trust like soap, but rather continue

to provide the factual information and education the

public needs to understand complex topics like biotechnology. The development of trust takes time

and cumulative effort.

Research Roadmap Findings

In its review ol the science communications

research literature and its discussions with practitioners, journalists, and researchers over the course of a three-year study, the Research Roadmap panel found

additional support for many of the conclusions

reached by the research efforts highlighted above.'** The R2 panel concluded that: There is no such thing as a "general audience"

for science and technology communication;

rather there are many people with many different uses for science and technology information and

many different levels of understanding.

Communication programs should be designed to address and serve the needs of each group; there

is no "one-size-fits-all" message or method of

communication.

Public understanding of science is not the same as appreciation of science or of research- performing institutions. Public understanding of

science is often touted as the goal of a communications program really designed to enhance the

reputation of a particular research institution. The goals—public understanding or public

appreciation of science or of a particular institu- tion—should be explicit at the outset of any sci- ence communications program, and metrics for measuring the desired outcome should be

designed appropriately.

Science and technology communication pro- grams should be directed to addressing an audience's needs and interests, not by the research

enterprise's ideas about what the public "should

know.

Active involvement by scientists and engineers is

critical to the success of any science communica6
tion program. Scientists have an obligation to interact with publics outside their peer community and should be integrated fully into decisionmaking regarding science communication issues.

In order to best foster mutual respect and trust between scientists and external publics—essential to effective communication—public affairs representatives need unfettered access, and preferably

a direct reporting relationship, to the head of the

agency or institution they represent.

The changing nature of the media—the proliferation of new media and fragmentation of exist- ing media—will continue to change how and to whom science is communicated.

Tweniy-first Century Communications

The changing nature of communication media may

be the biggest single challenge—and opportunity

facing communicators. Just as the advent of television added images to sound and brought about a revolution

in the way organizations communicated with their constituencies, the Internet's direct interface with con- sumers has brought about a profound change in the nature of communication itself The ability of organizations to publish materials

directly to a world wide audience through the Web has

reduced dramatically their previous dependence on

intermediaries such as television or newspaper

reporters to carry messages to important publics. A

corollary to this change is the much larger number of

media choices now available to consumers. Network

television news no longer dominates public discourse

and a spot on the evening news no longer should be

viewed as a major benchmark of communications

success.-" The events of September 1 1 illustrated how dra- matically journalism has changed. People tuned in to watch events unfolding before their eyes and they have

kept watching. Since September 11, the audience for news has increased, in general, but more people are getting that news from the Internet, where it is avail- able 24 hours a day and where Webcasts can be

replayed whenever it is convenient to do so. The splintering of video programming among

broadcast, cable, satellite, and the Internet has opened

up more choices for the consumers and more news

markets for science communicators. Among these increased programming choices are channels like Discovery Health, National Geographic Channel, and

the History Channel, as well as such highly targeted

cable and satellite channels like the Research Channel

and the University Channel. While more science and

technology programming should be good for science

communications, the portion of that material that is in

fact pseudoscience is a cause for concern. The trend in television newscasting is toward

shorter and shorter segments, with more medical and

weather coverage. More time is spent on weather than

any other story in a local newscast, which makes

weathercasters a potentially prime conduit for passing on environmental and other weather-related science news to consumers. At the same time, niche programs like public television's Nova are holding their own by emphasizing

challenging content and storytelling for topics like genomics, cosmology, and string theory, which increas- ingly are visualized with high-end computer graphics.

Hallmarks of Good Science Communication

programs

In reviewing and selecting topics to be presented as posters at the conference, the Best Practices Steering

committee was struck by a number of repeating

themes, elements, or techniques that many of the best programs had in common. Programs that used the fol- lowing elements tended to be more engaging, more

relevant, more substantive, and often more

creative—all characteristics that boosted success as measured by such factors as size of audiences, number

of Web hits, longevity of support, and other factors. Not coincidentally, many of these same themes

emerged in the keynote talks and topical lectures pre- sented during the conference program.

These programs were judged "best practices" by the

conference panel, and all either presented posters or gave talks at the conference. Some examples of pro- grams that illustrate the common themes include:

Illustrates both the process and product of

science

The Internet has made it possible for an audience

to directly view science as it happens, both the daily

7
frustrations and the exciting discoveries. The

Exploratorium in San Francisco mixes Uve Internet broadcasts and streaming media with interactive pre- sentations in the museum's theater. The programs

showcase the settings and extraordinary people making

scientific discoveries, and invite audiences to share in the process of discovery. In the same vein, the Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution's Dive and Discover expeditions take

Internet viewers on a virtual sea voyage. This live- from-the-sea Web site involves viewers in the daily

activities and discoveries of scientists, and is aimed primarily at middle-school students and their teachers. Taking a different tack, the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at Virginia Tech sponsors

forums on scientific and technological advances to examine, in a balanced manner, the ethical and social

issues they create, as well as the often highly complex

historical, philosophical, social, and legal components.

Topics of the daylong Choices and Challenges forums

have included genetically modified foods, the human

genome project, diet and disease, water supply, and

quality of life at the end of life. More than 500 people

attend in person and the programs also are broadcast

nationwide.

Science magazine and the American Association for the Advancement of Science sponsor a Web site that

explores scientific controversies. Science Controversies,

On-Line Partnerships in Education (SCOPE) brings the

scientific process and unresolved scientific questions

into middle-school classrooms. The dynamic nature of

the Web site allows students to see how researchers'

ideas, questions, and conclusions evolve over time.

Involves scientists in a substantial way

Adler Planetarium includes professional

astronomers on its exhibit-development staff, which

allows the museum to facilitate the rapid integration of new discoveries into its exhibits and programs. Adler

currently has eight Ph.D. astronomers on its staff, six of whom have joint appointments with the University

of Chicago or Northwestern University. Instead of

becoming experts in undergraduate teaching, these astronomers focus on becoming experts in public education for a range of audiences from children to adolescents to adults. Adler's astronomers contribute

directly to museum exhibits and programs, as well as provide a link to other professional researchers.

Considers political climate and/or involves

decision makers

The Kansas Geological Survey conducts an annual

three-day field conference, which takes policy makers

to locations where natural resources are produced or

used, to see first-hand the resources they make decisions about. Attendees are legislators, agency staff, teachers, business leaders, and environmental leaders. The field conferences usually focus on specific topics,

such as energy, or particular regions of the state. Knowing that the biggest potential obstacles to a groundwater reclamation project would be political,

the Orange County (Calif) Water District took its message directly to political and business leaders and

active community members to forestall opposition to the project. The project will reclaim water from sewage

to replenish diminishing groundwater resources, essential for the county's economic future. The project is

critical to the county's future but the Water District

acknowledged its high "yuck" factor. The public rela- tions campaign began years ahead of the implementation of the project, beginning with explaining the project and its necessity to political leaders. With straightforward explanations and simple graphics, the process was compared with techniques used for making bottled water, which reassured people. The Water District

also found, through focus groups, that people trusted

what doctors and scientists said, so it is recruiting doctors and scientists as supporters and spokespersons for the project.

Uses multimedia/illustrations/interactivity

when appropriate to bring science to life The Weather Discovery Center at Mount

Washington brings the science of weather to museum

visitors. Mount Washington has what many people

believe is the worst weather in the United States and

has had a continuously staffed weather observatory on

the summit since 1932. The museum, located in a more benign weather environment, the valley town of

North Conway, N.H., has exhibits that include data on real-time developing weather; a telecommunications link to observatory staff on the mountain's sum8
mit; a camera atop the summit; an interactive role- playing exhibit that invites visitors to become weather

forecasters; and a showcase for current research

projects.

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute sponsors a Web site, Cool Science for Curious Kids, that contains

science activities, including animation, sound, and

quizzes. The activities, originally developed in print

form at five children's and science museums, encourage

kids to explore science. The Cornell Theory Center has developed a

"virtual world, " which combines online chat, gaming

technology, and Web features to construct a 3-D virtual environment where users interact. The goal is to cre- ate a hands-on virtual science center in cyberspace that engages high school students and Cornell undergraduates, along with researchers and graduate students.

Relates science to the everyday environment

or culture scientifique.

Bruce Lewenstein, associate professor of science

communication at Cornell University, introduced this term, culture scientifique, to the conference attendees to describe how science books have emerged in the last 20 to 30 years as important carriers of culture and of

broad public discourse. Beginning with Carl Sagan's

Cosmos and including books like Stephen Hawking's

BriefHistory of Time, and E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology, these books generate wide discussion and help to cre- ate what we think of as American culture. They illustrate that rather than being separate from everyday life, science is deeply intertwined with it. Joseph Schwarcz, professor of chemistry and director of Chemistry and Society at McGill University in Montreal, hosts a weekly call-in radio program to take

questions from listeners about science. He tries to help

listeners combat pseudoscience by helping them come

to conclusions based on observations and evidence,

rather than rhetoric. He also helps them cope with

everyday science quandaries. Questions he's fielded in

his 20 years on the air have included: what solvent to use to get magic marker off a $5,000 Barbie Doll's face (answer: nothing; anything that will erase the marker

will also dissolve Barbie's face) and why carrots burst

into flames in a microwave (answer: the microwave sets

up mini-electric currents in the carrots, which ignite

volatile oils; this also happens to microwaved pickles).

The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is using the lab's shuttle buses—which run through

downtown Berkeley and circle the University of

California, Berkeley campus—as rolling billboards to showcase the lab's activities. The lab developed colorful posters for the sides of the buses, each featuring a Berkeley Lab scientist with a leading question related

to the scientist's work, for example, "Did you ever wonder about the invisible marvels of the nanoworld?"

The posters list the lab's Web site, which links to per- sonal profiles of the featured researchers.

Britain's Graphic Science is creating science posters

for both the insides and outsides of buses, developing

science-based pub quizzes (popular in the U.K.), and

installing science questions at supermarket checkout

counters (www.uwe.ac.uk/fas/graphicscience/). For a five-day science fair in Cheltenham in May 2002,

Graphic Science director Frank Burnet (science direc- tor of the festival) played up the idea that science is part of everyday life. The theme of the festival was

"pleasure," and there were events about the science of

music, cooking, chocolate, and sex. London's Central YMCA commissioned, devel- oped, and produced five plays exploring issues arising

from advances in biotechnology, including genetic

selection, xenotransplantation, the biological basis of

mental illness, genetically modified foods, and cloning

and stem-cell therapy. Written in consultation with

scientists, doctors, and patients, each play is followed

by a live debate involving the audience and cast. The

Y Touring company performs the plays in schools,

theaters, prisons, science centers, and arts festivals, primarily targeting youth.

To introduce food journalists and writers to the

American Chemical Society's resources on food chemistry, the society sponsored two workshops on the

chemistry of food. The seminars, the "Elements of

Chocolate" and the "Formulas for Flavor," were

designed to offer food writers a new perspective on the

topics they cover. The response to the workshops was

enthusiastic and coverage about or resulting from the

seminars was extensive.

9
Avoids parochialism

Based at the University of Wisconsin, The Why Files

is a non-profit Web site that provides entertaining and

informative science content. However, unUke the great

majority of university or other organizational Web

sites, it typically does not describe the research of its sponsoring organization. Instead it takes the nonparochial approach that good content from any source

will be covered and the university will benefit by being

seen as performing a useful service to the community.

The Why Files subjects are often "the science behind

the news," clearly written and with a sense of humor.

Topics have included, at the time of Princess Dianas

death, the science of grief; when an ominous asteroid was sighted, how much readers should worry about

stray rocks from space; and during the California ener- gy crisis, methane hydrates and nuclear energy.

Views the topic from the audience's point of

view, not the institution's

Environment Canada developed a successful strat- egy for communicating science with Canadian aboriginal communities. To the Inu people of northern

Quebec and Labrador, "ashkui," the first areas of

frozen ice to open up in the spring in northern

Canada, are both supermarket and pharmacy.

Environmental scientists studying the ashkui listened

to, acknowledged, and incorporated traditional wisdom about the environment in their research. When

the researchers met with local elders, they met not in a boardroom-type setting, but in a camp setting where

native people had traditionally met to discuss hunting,

fishing, and related resource issues. And to communicate the results of the project they printed posters not on paper, but rather on linen, the Inu's traditional

"print" medium for passing on wisdom.

Uses face-to-face methods

Brookhaven National Laboratory turned a crisis into an opportunity, and used face-to-face, two-way

communication to improve public trust after confidence in the lab had eroded in the wake of a series of

costly environmental crises. The laboratory used a change in managing contractors to initiate a suite of

new, formal and informal community relations activities, including creating a Community Advisory Board,

establishing a community ambassadors program, and

designating community liaisons. The new programs

now inform the organization's scientific culture and

help ensure a commitment to excellence in communications and community involvement. Communications and government affairs offices also were

brought together under one manager, with direct reporting to the director of the lab. The U.S. Geological Survey's Western Region

Center, in Menlo Park, Calif, holds a public open

house every three years. At the last event, in May

2000, 14,000 people attended over three days. Open

to the general public, the event attracts children and

families, college students, teachers, neighbors, and scientists from nearby universities. The open house is a way to share information about local earthquakes,

landslides, water quality issues, and other issues affect- ing people living in the Bay Area, and has helped rally

local support for the institution.

Reaches out beyond the science-attentive

public

Southern New Mexico's border region contains a diverse and medically underserved population. A coali- tion of libraries led by the New Mexico State University library banded together to provide healthrelated information in electronic and other formats to targeted populations. jBIEN!—Border Health

Information and Education Network—also wanted to provide information on current health-related research

to professionals, educators, and librarians; develop an

information network; and provide literacy training to health professionals and consumers. The project provides increased access to quality health information in English and Spanish, in multiple formats.

The National Eye Institute, part of the National

Institutes of Health, created a traveling kiosk, designed

to be displayed in shopping malls, to provide information about low vision—visual impairment not correctable by eyeglasses, medicine, or surgery. NEI deter- mined that shopping malls, America's new town halls, provide an ideal venue for communicating health

information to a wide audience.

Sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson National

Accelerator Facility, Becoming Enthusiastic About

Math and Science (BEAMS) brings at-risk middle10
school children and their teachers to the lab annually

for a two-, three-, or five-day immersion in the

research environment. BEv^MS hopes to redress the

early loss in K-8 education of minorities and females

from the math, science, and technology career

pipeline; strengthen the motivation and academic

preparation of students; and provide teachers with

activities based upon research at the lab. The High School Biomedical Research Program for Disadvantaged Youth, a full-time, eight-week summer

program at the University of Maryland at Baltimore,

pairs disadvantaged high school students with scientist mentors for research projects. The project topics

include heart disease, cancer, molecular biology, brain

disorders, pharmacology, etc. Students not only work

in the laboratory but also meet for weekly group activities, such as science seminars, debates, career seminars, and oral presentations. Since 1988, 95 percent of

the students (who come from 79 Baltimore-area

schools) have gone on to college, with 88 percent

majoring in the sciences.

Provides information to the commercial

media in easily usable form

The University Corporation for Atmospheric

Research provides TV weathercasters with background

information on global climate change, visualizations of

weather and climate concepts, and stock footage of

major weather events. The ClimateStock program is designed to encourage coverage of climate change on

prime-time TV, since TV weathercasters are often the

most visible representatives of science in U.S. households. B-roU is provided free via satellite uplink, and

suggested scripts and shot lists are available on the

ClimateStock Web site. EurekAlert!, sponsored by the American

Association for the Advancement of Science, is a Web

site where member organizations (universities, medical

centers, associations, and other research organizations) can post science news releases. Its embargoed news

releases, press packets for scientific journals, searchable

database of experts, and archived news releases provide

one-stop shopping for journalists looking for story

ideas, background information, or expert sources. The Mayo Clinic provides video news releases on

health-related topics to local television stations.

Medical Edge is a weekly, 90-second news insert made

available at no cost on a market-exclusive basis. The

segments air regularly on 121 TV affiliates in the

United States and Canada, along with stations in Turkey, the Middle East, and Croatia. The program is designed to provide reliable information for the public on medicine and health, increase awareness of Mayo

Clinic locations and expertise, and drive traffic to Mayo's Web site. Stations can air the segments as-is, use clips of B-roU for their own stories, or have their own reporters or anchors voice the accompanying

script. The segments use Ph.D. scientists and M.D.'s as spokespersons.

Research and Evaluation

Good communications programs are evaluated

both before and after a program is designed and implemented, and they are revised or fine-tuned in response

to audience feedback. Goals are clearly articulated and

the research is designed to measure whether the stated

objectives are being met. This formative and evaluative research is one of the most crucial, and most often

overlooked aspect of communications. Commercial

communicators study their audiences extensively, and

now that more non-profit institutions are communicating directly to audiences, rather than through inter- mediaries such as journalists, public affairs specialists

need to study their intended audiences as well. Methods include conducting focus groups; survey- ing audience members; counting the number of people

who show up to an event; compiling Web statistics; monitoring usage; giving quizzes; holding public hearings; or collecting anecdotal information in a systematic way. Some of the pitfalls include not clearly stating the

goals to be measured; measuring something other than

success in achieving the stated goals; not researching

the right audience; not targeting a campaign specifically enough; or relying too heavily on sporadic anecdotes as evidence of success or failure. In general, the quality of research and evaluation

reported by applicants was smaller in scope and lower

in quality that the R2 conference organizers had

expected to find. There were some very good evaluation efforts but they were exceptions rather than the
rule. It is clear that additional effort needs to be

focused on both formative and summative evaluation.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Science and technology communication with the

public by research, education, and other institutions is undergoing a renaissance of ideas and techniques.

Gone are the days when a science communicator could

issue a simple printed press release, deliver it to the

major networks and newspapers, wait to see if the

topic would be covered, and feel confident that she

had done her best for her institution. Today's science and technology communicators

need a much broader array of skills. They need to understand both the technologies and the aesthetics of

multimedia, interactivity, and the Web. They need to view their job as a facilitator for good relations between their institutions and the various segments of

the public important to their institutions. They need

to be actively engaged in the day-to-day decisionmaking of their institutions as a voice for institutional

social responsibility. They need be familiar with the

robust body of research under way in the field of communications, and they need to keep abreast of new

developments lest they find themselves delivering messages to a "general public" years after others have real- ized that it is a figment of a previous generation's

imagination.

Equally critical for the success of science and tech- nology communications is research, before, during,

and after a communications program is developed.

Conducting communications efforts without research

and evaluation is a bit like sending out a fleet of buses

without ever bothering to check if they made it to

their destinations.

One thing that is not likely to change now or in the future is the central role of clear, engaging, relevant content. As long as there are important public policy

decisions being discussed, discoveries being made, and

technologies being created, institutions will continue

to need effective translators who can drill through the

often opaque world of technical achievement to view

and describe the fascinating scenes inside.
References

[1] National Science Board. 2002. Science and Engineering Indicators, 2002. Washington: Government

Printing Office, [www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/c7/c7sl.htm]

[2] Miller, J.D. 2000. The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States, in Kumar, D.D.

and Chubin, D. (Eds.), Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice. New

York: Plenum Press. Pp. 21-47.

[3] Rick Borchelt (chair), U.S. Department of Energy (at the time of the committee's operation, current

affiliation. The Whitehead Institute); Debbie Triese (study director). Department of Advertising,

University of Florida; Deborah Blum, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of

Wisconsin-Madison; Lynne Friedmann, Friedmann Communications; Martin Glicksman,

Department of Materials Sciences and Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; John M.

Horack (ex officio), Space Sciences Laboratory, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA;

Robert Logan, School of Journalism, University of Missouri; Paul Lowenberg, Lowenberg

Communications; Charles McGruder III, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Western Kentucky

University; Jon D. Miller, Northwestern University Medical School; Gail Porter, National Institute of Standards and Technology; Carol L. Rogers, College of Journalism, University of Maryland;

Barbara Valentino, Evolving Communications; Michael Weingold, Department of Advertising,

University of Florida; Gregory Wilson (ex officio) SSL, MSFC, NASA; and Kris Wilson,

Department of Journalism, University of Texas. The co-chairs of the Best Practices conference steer- ing committee, Joann Rodgers of the Johns Fiopkins Medical Institutions and Earle Fiolland of the

Ohio State University, served as consultants to the R2 panel.

[4] Salk Institute for Biological Studies; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, American Association

for the Advancement of Science; Northwestern University Medical School; University of California,

Santa Cruz; Duke University; Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA; and the University of Florida.

[5] Weingold, M.F. 2001. Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication

23:164-194.

Antecol, M., 2001. Health Communication Through the Prism of Anti-Smoking Mass Mediated

Campaigns (unpublished)

[6] Priest, S.H. 2001. Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication 23(part2):97-l 10.

[7] Lewenstein, B. 2000. An American historical perspective on public communication of science. Paper

presented at the Conference on Science Communication, Education, and the History of Science,

London, 12-13 July.

[8] Rowan, K. E. 2002. Whose side are you on? A case where university communicators disagree about

sharing risk news. Manuscript submitted to Science Communication.

[9] Borchelt, R.E. 2001. Communicating the future. Science Communication 23: 194-211.

[10] Personal comment, Barry Van Deman, NSF. The Web site address is www.informalscience.org.

[1 1] Grunig, J.E., and Dozier, D.M. 1992. Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

13
[12] Grunig, James E. and Larissa A. Grunig, March 2001. Guidelines for Formation and Evaluative

Research in Public Affairs: A Report for the Department of Energy Office ol Science, (unpublished)

[13] Miller, J.D. and Pardo, R. 1999. Civic Scientific Literacy and Attitude to Science and Technology: A

Comparative Analysis of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. In M. Dierkes

and C. von Grote (Eds.), Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science, and Technology.

Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Pp. 81-129.

[14] Miller, J.D. & Kimmel, L. 2001. Biomedical Communications. New York: Academic Press.

[15] Priest, S.H. 2001. Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication 23(part 2):97-110.

[16] Miller, J.D. & Kimmel, L. 2001. Biomedical Communications. New York: Academic Press.

[17] See Susanna Hornig Priest's transcript on page X of this report.

[18] Borchelt, R.E. 2001. Communicating the Future. Science Communication, 23: 194-211.

[19] Atkin, D.J., Jeffres, L.W., Neuendrof, K.A. 1998. Understanding Internet adoption as telecommunications \>z\\2Lv\or. Journal ofBroadcasting & Electronic Media 42:4:475-490.

Browne, D.R. 1999. Electronic Media and Industrialized Nations: A comparative study. Ames, lA: Iowa

State University Press.

Harris Interactive. 2002. Internet Penetration at 66% ofAdults (137 Million) Nationwide. The Harris

Poll #18. Available at http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=295. Accessed

May 30, 2002.

Miller, J.D. 2001. Who is using the Web for science and health information? Science Communication

22(3):256-273.

UCLA Center for Communication Policy. 2001. The UCLA Internet Report 2001 : Surveying the Digital Future. Los Angeles: UCLA. Available through www.ccp.ucla.edu.

[20] Bryant, J. and Bryant, J.A. (Eds.). 2001. Television and the American Family. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Gilliam, F.D. Jr. and lyenger, S. 2000. Prime Suspects: The influence of local television news on the

viewing public. American Journal ofPolitical Science 44:3:560-573.

Robinson, J. P. and Levy, M.R. 1996. News use and the informed public: a 1990's updzxt. Journal of

Communication 46:2:129-135.

14
speakers' Talks

Keynote Address: Sense^ Nonsense^ and Science

Joseph Schwarcz, Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Office of Chemistry and

Society, McGill University

Schwarcz: There were five friends who lived in Quebec and one day they decided to go on a trip to

visit a foreign country, so they piled into a bus and

headed for Ontario. They got across the border and

they were looking out the window and one of them,

who happened to be a naturopath, upon spying one

black sheep on a hill, said, 'Took, all of the sheep in Ontario are black."

Next to him was a chiropractor—a somewhat more critical thinker. He said, "I don't think you can

really say that. All you can say is that in Ontario some of the sheep are black."

Well, sitting behind them was a biologist—more

scientifically minded. He said, "I don't think you

guys can really say that scientifically either. All you

can really say is that in Ontario, there is at least one

black sheep."

But sitting next to him was a physicist. He said,

"Well, that isn't exactly right either. If you just want

to go in terms of conclusions based upon the evi- dence, in Ontario, there is at least one sheep that is black on one side."

Sitting behind them, of course, was the chemist

the fount of all knowledge. He said, "No, all of you

guys are wrong. You can't really say that. The only

thing you can really say is that in Ontario, there is at

least one sheep that is black on one side, some of the

time."

Well, the point of that little story is the importance of coming to conclusions based upon observations. And that is really what science is all about. But

unfortunately, there are far too many people who

don't really understand what that means and often

jump to all kinds of wrong conclusions even though

the evidence is staring them in the face. And what I want to do with you here today is talk to you and share with you some of my adventures in dealing with the public and show you how much confusion there is and what may be some of the ways of

righting it.

Well, where do we start? A couple of years ago on December 23, and I remember this very well because

I was at home during the Christmas holidays, a friend

of mine called me up and said, "You've got to turn on

Dini Petty." Well, I didn't know who Dini Petty was

or how I was supposed to turn her on at 9 o'clock in the morning.

Well, she was the hostess of a TV show. There she was locked in conversation with a guest. And obviously they were talking about my kind of things

because they had all kinds of foods on the table. And

they were avidly engaged in label reading. Just as I turned it on, I was hit over the head by these immortal words.

"If you can't pronounce the words, it's a chemical

and I don t know how many people want to be eating

chemicals."

As you can imagine, I immediately perked up

upon hearing this. I was astounded to discover that

the author of these words was a physician, who had

labeled herself a nutritional consultant, who was pontificating about the evils of chemicals.

"When you talk about chemicals, even moderate

use is too much."

If you can imagine, this was pretty unnerving for someone who has spent a life in chemistry. And I had

to do something about it. But what do you do?

You instantly feel this anger when nonsense is being perpetrated. I decided I would call up the

Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons because

the show came from Toronto. I figured they must

have some way of regulating medical care. She was a doctor uttering nonsense. Something had to be done.

I couldn't get through. The phone was busy. Later

I discovered why. The sugar association was calling

because she had called sugar, "the great white devil,"

and they didn't like that. Eventually I did get through, I made my complaint. Of course they couldn't do much about it. She

really was a legitimate M.D. The college was actually

17
very receptive and informed me that they cannot

guarantee what their graduates will say once they

leave the university.

In any case after this, I carried on a rather vigor- ous correspondence with this physician in which I

criticized some of the things that she said. In fact, I decided to target her. I would send her scientific articles about food additives and about safety procedures

and regulations, etc., and she would send me back her

views on homeopathy, because she had gravitated

toward that. She had come to believe that nonexistent molecides could cure people. So as you can imagine we did carry on a rather vigorous correspondence until two years ago when one of my letters came back unopened. And it turned out that she had

left Canada. She had gone to the U.S. to New York.

Obviously pastures are greener there for her particular

brand of silliness. I would like to take credit for driving her out of the country, but I dont think that

really happened.

Eventually I had the chance of getting on the Dini

Petty show myself to try to correct all this. But I don't

think I had a real effect because she really wasn't

interested in hearing about the safety of food additives. It was much more sensational to talk about all of the horrors and to paint chemicals as devils. So

that often is very difficult to fight. But I've been trying to do that for a long time.

Often people ask me how I got into this very

bizarre game of communicating science to the public.

It actually all started a very long time ago in a most

unusual place. It started at St. Joseph's Oratory, which

is a large cathedral that dominates Montreal's skyline.

And when I was in grade 6, I went up there with a friend of mine to put silver nitrate into the holy

water. For those of you who are not chemically adept, let me explain the beauty of this. The holy water is usually stored at a little container at the entrance to the

church. Pilgrims come and dip their fingers into the

holy water and then cross themselves on the forehead

and then go into the church to pray. Well, silver nitrate is a light-sensitive chemical. So they would go

into the church to pray and when they would come

out, the sun would expose their forehead and change

the silver nitrate into metallic silver and they would

develop these indelible black crosses on their fore- heads and they would be convinced that they had

seen a miracle. And we who were hiding in the bushes knew that indeed they had seen a miracle—it was a chemical miracle.

It was then that I decided that I would like to grow up so that I too could teach people how to put

silver nitrate into holy water and do these marvelous

things. But along the way I found out that there was

a lot more to do with chemistry than just that. The

real magic of chemistry lay not in making indelible

crosses on people's foreheads, but it lay in understanding the way our world works.

The medications, the foods that we eat, the cos- metics that we use, the cleaning agents that we all use—these are all chemicals. And they are all fascin- ating. Of course, they require a little bit of understanding.

So that's where it all started. But the real public

interaction began in 1980. It was stimulated by this whole silver nitrate business. Because I had been

doing various demonstrations, such as putting silver nitrate on the hand to show how the color developed.

And I sort of began to be known for these things.

18
And then in 1980, a crirical event occurred at the

descendent of Expo 67, known as Man and His World,

which was an ongoing summer World's Fair. It had a pavilion. The pavilion was the UNESCO pavilion.

They wanted to mount some kind of a science fair dis- play, sort of a mini science museum. And they asked

me and a couple of my colleagues to do this and we

said, "Sure." We hired some students and we set up

demonstrations and we did httle performances on colors, on plastics, on fireworks. It was kind of neat. It was prett)^ small scale. People would gather around

and sit on little stands and watch these mini shows as we called them. We thou2:ht that we were doing a good thing, making headway in terms of

popularizing science and the scientific method of

thinking.

Then one Monday morning, which I remember

very well, I picked up my morning newspaper. And

the page three c\xy column had something about

chemistry. Of course, I started reading it. Very

quickly I discovered that it was all about us and our

efforts at the pavilion—with which the columnist was

taking issue. And he said, while the whole world is worried

about a substance called urea formaldehyde used as an

insulating material, there are these people at the Expo

site telling everyone what a wonderful product it is. Well, this really annoyed me, because what we were

demonstrating was polyurethane, a completely differ- ent chemical.

Now, to make polyurethane, you mix together two

substances and you get a nice foaming effect. Very

interesting material. Good demonstration. But indeed,

this was the time when people were worried about

urea formaldehyde. But that's not what we were

demonstrating. We were demonstrating this. Polyurethane is a foam. It is a very interesting material.

However, this column was about urea formaldehyde, which in those days was being used as an insulating material. In the 1970s we went through the

energy crisis, everyone was insulating. And there were

a lot of fly-by-night operators who would apply urea formaldehyde foam insulation improperly. It would

release formaldehyde, which of course can be toxic. So

there was legitimate concern over this. There were

legal hassles all over the place. So the columnist was

saying, while everyone is concerned about this, these

guys are showing what a wonderful product it is. Well, by 9 o'clock that morning I had a letter on

his desk, together with a large polyurethane egg, about

this size that I had made that he was to hang around

his neck for penance for having laid such a large scientific egg—not having recognized the difference

between polyurethane and urea formaldehyde. The

only common feature was that these were both foams.

They were chemically completely different. This is like saying concentrated sulfuric acid is the same as water, because they look the same and they're

both liquids. Of course, this was nonsense. He wrote a very nice retraction the next day, saying

that he really was at fault. And the problem was his lack of scientific education. That he didn't know that there was more than one kind of foam and that he had

learned something and he wished he that hadn't

skipped all those chemistry classes in high school.

Two days later I got a call from a Montreal radio

station. CJAD, it happened to be, was asking me if I would like to comment on this controversy. Which, of

course, was a non-controversy. It was a non-issue. I said, "Sure." I explained it very much like I've explained it to you. And I talked about the importance of understanding science so that you don't come

to these wrong conclusions based upon the evidence.

And I guess they must have liked the explanation

because a couple of weeks later there was some other

scientific question that came up, I don't remember

what it was. And they called me to ask if I could

explain it, which I did. And pretty soon they asked, "Would you like to come on the air to do this regularly and answer questions?" I said, "Okay, I will give it a shot." And I've been doing it for quite some time as you can see.

19
About 20 years. Twenty-two years actually. And it has

been a fascinating experience.

I remember the very first day. In particular, one

question. I was a little bit nervous then because I didn't know what to expect. Perhaps I wasn't listening all that carefully when one of the questioners seemed to me to be asking, "Is it sale to lick your balls?" Now, I was astounded by that for a moment until the conversation went on and I realized that the caller was ask- ing about golf balls. Because in those days there was a controversy about the pesticides that were being

sprayed on lawns, especially on golf greens. And

apparently it is the practice of some golfers to lick their fingers and then wipe off the ball to make sure

that it's clean. And some were concerned they may

therefore transfer some of these pesticides to their body. And when you hear that part of the story, it begins to be reasonable. So we did address it and talk about it. It just shows that you really have to pay

attention to what people are asking.

I've now been doing this for a very long time. The

questions, of course, change but they are equally

interesting. Not long ago a lady called up and wanted

to know what was the safest way to burn a laminated

picture. Why? It quickly became apparent that she

had recently been divorced. She did not want any

mementos of her husband. She wanted to burn the

laminated picture. But she had remembered that this lamination is done on particleboard, which is glued

together with urea formaldehyde. And she was worried that she would release formaldehyde, which is toxic. And she didn't want to give him the satisfaction

of harming her after the divorce. So we talked about

this and actually came to the conclusion that this is not a totally unrealistic concern. If you do burn particleboard inside a house and you don't have very good

ventilation, you could be exposed to formaldehyde.

And if someone is particularly sensitive to it, it could

have some consequences. So this is the kind of inter- esting question that one gets and one has to learn to deal with.

Finally, two years ago, all of these sorts of attempts

at communicating science to the public and adventures culminated in the establishment at McGill of

the Office for Science and Society, which is a unique

enterprise—certainly in Canada, probably in North

America—where the university has said that its role does not stop at the gates of the university and its responsibility does not end once students have graduated. There is a social factor here, a social responsibility, to make sure that the public is educated, because,

after all, the university lives on public funding. Our

mandate is to make sure that good unbiased scientific information gets disseminated. We answer questions

via email, or Web site, or by telephone.

The office was actually opened in September 1999

by Principal Shapiro. We have a physical place. We

have a location. I have a staff. We deal with all these

kind of things. We have a Web site. Of course, these

days you're nobody unless you have a Web site and

there it is: www.mcgill.ca/chempublic. We put out

position papers. We answer questions on the Web site

as well. And, something else that we started last year, we put our courses that we teach, under the umbrella name of World of Chemistry. We have four separate courses that essentially deal with the science of every- day life. And those are accessible. They are accessible to everybody through cool.mcgill.ca and you can take

20
McGi

ocs

Office / and Society

Organisation pour la ciiimie et la soaete

a look at these if you are interested. There is no pass- word. There is no charge of any kind. You just look it up and you cUck on the lecture that you are interested

in and you get the whole visual presentation just like you see here. You hear the voice just as it has been

recorded. The only thing that you don't see is the lec- ture but that, of course, is irrelevant. So you may

want to check that out. We have a lot of interesting

stuff on there. Public outreach, I think, is very needed, because

there is such widespread misunderstanding of science

and the role of science in our lives. I mean what can you say when you pick up ads like this from circulars.

I got this in the mail and it is an ad for underwear.

Now I don't mean to demean this underwear,

it may be very good underwear. It suggests that it is a

fabric that breathes, that allows moisture to pass through. Maybe so. But look at the claims. "H2O also known as sweat is attracted to [our long johns] like ants to a picnic. Our constant comfort process separates the H2 from the O making evaporation take

place much faster." Now let's just analyze this for a moment. I mean,

obviously the graphic artist that they hired to do this has never had a course in chemistry. H2O molecules

do not look like

that. There is no bond between the

two hydrogens.

Furthermore, the

implication that evaporation

involves the separation of the oxygen from the hydrogen is absurd.

Evaporation is nothing more than a change of state.

If indeed if it were possible to break down H2O

into H2 and O purely by using underwear appropriately, we would have a solution to our energy crisis, because hydrogen is an extremely effective fuel. It burns very clean. It would be great if we could just

rub our underwear and generate it, but alas we cannot

do that. What can one say when we have surveys that tell us that 30 percent of Europeans believe that only

genetically modified tomatoes contain genes. I don't

have the figures for North America. I think it would

be frightening to find the results. I'm not sure what

they believe about genetic modification. They think

that it does horrific things. And it is my belief that the benefits of genetic modification outweigh the

risks and sometimes when I make statements like that

people will come up to me and say, "Oh yes, today

you guys, you scientists, perhaps you just want to take

a gene from a bacterium and put it into a tomato or

21
into a canola plant. That's today. Tomorrow you'll

want to be cloning people."

Well, no, it doesn't work like that. Just because we

can put a gene into corn that makes it ward off the corn

borer, doesn't mean that we

want to be cloning people.

Most scientists are responsible and want to work for the

public good.

Now it is, of course, to be

understood that people have

critical analyses of these

things and worry about the

safety because most people, of course, do not understand what is going on. You tell someone that you are genetically modifying their food. They perceive that you are tinkering with nature—that you are playing

around with DNA. They don't really know what

DNA is but they know it should not be played

around with. And they are very suspicious of genetically modified organisms and, of course, they become

all worried when they believe that they are consuming

genetically modified foods.

Well, I think that a lot of this worry comes from

improper education. I think before genetic modification was unleashed upon the public, there should

have been a better campaign of education. So people

would have begun to understand what it is. That we

mix genes all the time. We do this on a daily basis. The usual product is children. And they don't all come out the way we want them. Right? So you can

never guarantee that mixing genes is going to be safe

in all ways. But we think that it is a good idea to cre- ate children because the possible benefits outweigh

the risks. So it is as well with genetic modification.

The allegations about this being Frankenstein's harvest and the horrific things that genetic modification

does, made by groups such as Greenpeace which dis- seminates this kind of propaganda to children. Which

by the way is wrong. Frosted Flakes are not made

from corn that is genetically modified. Corn that is sold for eating purposes is not genetically modified.

But they use this as a weapon of terror to scare people

away from scientific advances.

Now, I think any scientist cannot give guarantees

to the public about anything. We don't know what

may happen. But what we have to look at is whether

or not, in our sphere of knowledge right now, the

benefits outweigh the risks.

I cannot prove to anyone that there is going to be no harm from genetic modification ever. Because you

can't possibly take into account everything that can happen, and science can never prove a negative. That

is a naive expectation that members of the public

have.Let me give you an illustration of that. You know

every Christmastime we have evidence that reindeer can fly. You see it on TV programs, you see it in movies, you see it on cards. Well, is it possible? I don't think so, but could I prove it. Well, I could take

a reindeer and take him up to the top of the Peace Tower and nudge him off Let's face it, if that rein- deer ever in his life were motivated to fly, that's the

moment. What would happen? I suspect we would

have a mess at the bottom. I could repeat it with

another reindeer and another. What will I have

proven? Only that those reindeer on that given day,

could not or did not choose to fly. I cannot prove

that reindeer cannot fly—that there are not eight

reindeer somewhere in the world, given the right con

ditions, the right stimulation, that cannot fly.

Similarly, we can never say that there will be no

problem with genetic modifications. So far the problems that have cropped up have not been significant.

The benefits outweigh the risks. The benefits may

take some time to be manifested that is true, because

the stage we are at with genetic modification, I think,

is the stage of the Wright Brothers' first flight. I think

22
if you were present there, you would not have been

very impressed. Because you would have seen this primitive contraption kind of bounce around for maybe 100 meters. Not very effective. But anyone

there with some imagination would have realized that okay today it flies 100 meters, tomorrow it's probably

going to be 200, and by next year a mile and within

five years from city to city. That's where we stand.

The principle is demonstrated. I think that we are going to see the benefits in the long run. So I'm not an enemy of Tony the

Tiger of Frosted Flakes.

I think that exploring

genetic modification is a good thing and there are going to be all kinds of

benefits. I think the riskiest thing in life is not tak- ing any risks at all, because then you never get I anywhere.

Indeed we know that there are 2 billion people in the world who suffer from iron deficiency anemia

because they subsist on rice, which has very low iron content. It is possible to genetically modify it to increase the iron content. We know that there are about 250 million people with significant visual

impairments developed every year because of a lack of

Vitamin A. That's because they subsist on rice which

has very little beta carotene, which is the body's pre- cursor to vitamin A. Golden rice can be engineered to have more beta carotene. It is not going to happen

tomorrow, or next week, or in two weeks, but the

principle has been demonstrated. Not only do I think we will be able to engineer things like broccoli to have more sulphoraphane, which is an anti-cancer

compound, I think we'll be able to engineer crops to grow in soil that is very salty, which is a big problem

around the world. So we have to have an open mind

and realize that there are no guarantees but that the

benefits are going to be very real. These are the kind of issues that we have to deal

with all the time. But there are others, too, which are simpler and perhaps more curious, very often food

related because everyone is interested in food.

I had a lady who called me up and said, "I have a carrot problem." So what's your problem? "I slice up

my carrots, I put them on a plate and put them in the microwave oven to cook them." Well, I didn't say anything about this particular technique of cooking

carrots. But okay. So what's the problem? "They

explode." Well, of course, this gets my attention.

Over the years I have learned that you don't dismiss

anything out of hand. You know, that's one of the

worst things that you can do in science. You always

investigate.

So I say, tell me exactly what you did and what

you saw. "Well, I put the carrots on the plate exactly

as I am showing you here" and exactly as you will do

when you go home tonight. And she says, "I put

them in the microwave and they exploded." So I said,

describe the explosion. "Flames. Fire." So I say. Okay,

and I've got to try this. So I go home, set it up just

like that. Turn on the power. Sure enough,

maybe not exactly an explosion, but wisps of flames,

really interesting.

What's going on? Well, it turns out that the

microwave set up mini electric currents inside the

pieces of carrots. Sometimes a spark will jump the

gap between the two carrots. As you can see where

the carrots have become charred. But the carrot oils, of course, are also volatilized by the heat. And the

carrot oils are highly flammable. So the spark will set these oils on fire and you get these little whiffs of

flame. It's really interesting, you'll enjoy it.

COULD SAVE A H

1 MILLION n

A YEARM

23
Let me tell you that carrots are not the best. Green

pepper is very good and orange peel is outstanding.

You may have to play around with the distance, but it will happen.

Now I talked about this on the radio one day. I described it very much as I have described it to you

here today and it turned out to have an interesting

consequence, because I had a call from the manufacturer of Mrs. White's pickles. Now you probably have

not heard of this brand pickle, but it is an outstanding brand and if you ever go to Montreal, make sure

that you pick up Mrs. White's dill pickles.

But they had had a complaint from a customer

who told them that while she was heating up her dill pickle in the microwave oven—and there are some

issues that we just will not explore. She complained

that they started to spark. Now the only time that she

had ever seen sparking in the microwave oven, of

course, was when she had put some metal in there. So

she was convinced that the pickles were contaminated

by bits of metal and she was threatening to sue. Well, one of the Mrs. White's pickle people had heard my

explanation on the radio and wondered if this carrot

effect would also apply to pickles. So of course I did

the pickle experiment and it turns out that it does

apply. Pickles can also spark in the microwave oven.

And as soon as we established that, they were able to

allay the fears of this lady and I now have a lifetime

supply of Mrs. White's pickles. And another interest- ing mystery has been solved. But there are some that are even more interesting

than that. Believe it or not I have had to answer questions like this. How do you open a cremation urn

that has been epoxied shut? Why? Well, it turned out

that they read the will a little bit too late. And the urn already had been glued shut, when they discovered that the victim wanted to have her ashes strewn

over an area of the forest or something. So they

couldn't get the urn open. So we had to do some

experiments. So eventually it turned out that acrylonitrile was the right solvent. So if you ever have to confront this problem, you'll know that it is acrylonitrile that can open the epoxy glue on the urn. One day I had to make a house call on a Barbie

doll. Why? Barbie doll collecting is a whole world.

They have conventions. They trade them. They sell them. It's absolutely fascinating. I went to one of

these conventions with 5,000 Barbie doll collectors

there. And they have hundreds of booths where they

sell the accoutrements. They sell Barbie houses. They

sell Barbie dolls. There are women dressed up like Barbie. It is absolutely fascinating. And some of the

oldest Barbie dolls, of course, have huge value.

Well, this lady calls me up in panic, saying that

she has purchased a $5,000 Barbie doll and it wasn't

perfect. There was little bit of her lip that had a dent

in it where the paint had come off And she had tried to fix it. And she had tried to fix it by taking a felt tip

marker, a red one, to fill in the spot. She didn't reck- on the fact that the ink would run. And it ran into

the doll. So she wanted to know what she could do.

So I had to make a house call.

I went with my solvents and my Q-tips and I investigated. Now when I first saw this doll, it really

24

I
was tragic. It was too horrible for rae to show you

what she really looked like after what was done. It was so terrible that even Ken was horrified.

So I tried all my solvents but this time I could not

solve the problem because the dye had permeated the

plastic. The plastic was very porous to this particular

dye. Eventually with a little bit of peroxjde, we were

able to lighten the color but that was it. And the doll obviously lost a great deal of its value and she was

pretty devastated by this. But there is a moral here.

And that is, if you buy a $5,000 Barbie doll, do not

attempt to repair it with a 29 cent felt-tip-pen without testing whether or not it will run. What eventually happened to the particular Barbie doll I don't

know, but if this lady were a regular reader of the

tabloids, she may have used it for a different purpose

because it turns out that Barbie dolls—at least according to this gentleman—are very good at bass

luring. I don't know. I've never seen any scientific

tests to attest to that. A lot of the questions that we get asked in my

office are by frightened people who are worried about

toxins in their lives. Worried about keeping their health. All understandable, but very often confused.

They think that there are simple answers to complex

problems.

I will give you some examples. You know that one

of the real worrisome issues these days is cholesterol.

1:4

. . oncf ^\}\h 14-pound

/orgemoufli ioss from lofeej

O/teet/ioiee, flo./

Cholesterol has virtually become a four-letter word.

Even those people who have no understanding of

what cholesterol is want to eliminate it from their

life. So you can understand why it was some few years ago when some scientific research showed that oat bran can reduce cholesterol, that this caught the public's imagination. Everyone wants to lower blood cholesterol because its is associated with heart disease. So stores were stripped bare of oat products. It was

quite an interesting period.

Now before then oat products and oat bran particularly were very cheap. This is the outer covering of

the oat and it was used only as animal food. So all of

a sudden when it was discovered that oat bran could

lower cholesterol, it was taken out of the mouths of

horses and it was put on our breakfast plates. So what

did that leave for the horses? Well, you guessed it. They were eating our foods, we were eating their food. It didn't matter what it was. It could have been

dirty potato chips, if it said it contained oat bran, we

wanted it. People thought that all their dietary sins would be forgiven if only somehow they could get oat bran into their diets.

Original Contributions -

' The Hypocholesterolemic Effects ot

p-Glucan in Oatmeal and Oat Bran

A Dose-Controlled Study

25
It was a very interesting period. It became a fantastically popular product—oats. Now up to that time

it hadn't been that popular, except in Scotland, where

Dr. Samuel Johnson, one of the authors of an English

dictionary, told of how the Scots live on food which

in England is given to horses. That was a definition

used in a dictionary and as you can imagine it upset

the Scots. The Scots, of course, had always been great

proponents of oats. We know that porridge and haggis are made of oats. There is also a concoction that some of you may have heard of called athole brose,

which is an alcoholic beverage made from oats. So the Scots were very familiar with these and they were

really disturbed when Johnson said that this was only

horse food and they had revenge. He was invited to give a public lecture in Scotland after which he was

treated to some dinner, for which they gave him porridge. So the hostess asked him, "How did you like the porridge, Mr. Johnson?"

And he replied, "Very good for hogs, I do believe."

And she very cleverly retorted, "Well then, pray let me help you to a little more."

So the Scots have always been found of oats, but

this has not been the case in North America until this interesting little episode. And that really popularized

oats, particularly Quaker Oats. Everyone wanted to eat it because all of sudden it became a health food. It

is indeed healthy, although there are no single foods

that can be classified as angels and others denigrated

as devils. We have to look at the overall diet. But if you put oats into your diet and in particular steel cut

oats, I think that those are very tasty, you can indeed

lower your cholesterol. However, you have to look at numbers. In science we want to be quantitative, not only qualitative.

When someone who is scientifically minded is told

3 GRAMS OF BETA GLUCAN

OAT BRAN HOT CEREAL ICUP

OAT BRAN MUFFINS 3-5 MUFFINS

OATMEAL 1.5 CUPS

CHEERIOS 5 SERVINGS

that you can lower your cholesterol by eating oats there are specific questions that immediately pop into

mind. 1) How much do you have to eat? and 2) How

much can you lower your cholesterol? We want

numerical answers. And the answers here are not that

attractive. You have to eat a lot of oats in order to have an impact on your cholesterol level. How much? Well,

the particular kind of fiber, known as soluble fiber,

that lowers cholesterol is beta glucan.

You eat about a cup of oat bran. It isn't always

easy to do that because oat bran is not one of God's

gifts to the palette. Oatmeal is more tasty and you

can do that. Porridge is, of course, just another form

of oatmeal. One and a half cups a day, cooked oat- meal we're talking about, can have a very significant

lowering of cholesterol level, plus it also gives you some insoluble fiber which is great for the intestine

and generally it will also help dieters because it will

fill you up and it will make you eat less of other stuff

So I am a great proponent of oats, although they are not miracles.

There is no single food that is a miracle. Cheerios

has recently discovered that the O in Cheerios stands

for oat bran. Prior to all of this stuff, they probably

didn't even realize that they were making their product our of oats. But now it has become a health food.

But you also have to eat a lot of Cheerios in order to have 3 grams of beta glucan. As you can see about

five servings. Although I'm sure that General Mills,

the maker of Cheerios, is working on making a bigger

Cheerio so that we don't have to eat quite as many in order to get the beta glucan.

You know today we are accustomed to talking

about foods in terms of are they were good for us or

not, is it healthy or not. But you know that is a tela- ;

i

26
tively new concept. Because today we have the luxury

of talking about these things, especially in North

America, because we don't have to worry about not

having enough food, at least most of us don't. We

don't appreciate the fact that every 3.7 seconds some- one in the world dies, purely from not having enough

food. So we have the luxury of worrying about

whether our food is genetically modified or whether

or not there are specific additives in our food. Most

of the world is quite happy just to have food to eat. So what about this business of the health connection that we worry about—the notion that you are what you eat? Where does this trace back to? Well,

actually the first person to start talking about this was

Hippocrates a couple of thousand years ago when he

said, "Let thy food be

thy medicine." This was pretty good

advice. Although he was not very clear about what you

should eat. He didn't

know that. He knew

that there was a rela- tionship between

food and health. Of

course, Hippocrates

also thought that rubbing pigeon dung on a bald

head would grow hair. So he was not the ultimate

fount of good information.

It was this gentleman, however, who first gave us what was really quite solid advice about what we

should eat and how it connects with health. This was

Sylvester Graham. Graham was a Presbyterian minister, the son of a Presbyterian minister, in the 1800s in New England. And in those days ministers made a living by going around from congregation to congregation giving sermons and then putting out the

proverbial hat and if people liked what they heard,

they would support the preacher.

He began by preaching abstinence from alcohol. As you can imagine, this did not go down well in New England in those days, when the traditional

breakfast was bacon washed down with whiskey. So

people didn't want to hear that. So he had branched

out into another area. So he decided that he would

become a nutritional expert. Of course, he never

studied any nutrition, but he became a nutritional

expert and he had a nutritional scheme. He said that there were some things that we should just not do in

life, and for that he became known as Dr. No—the

original Dr. No. Because he said, no meat. Why no

meat? He said that it would inflame the passion. He

suggested that it would make people engage in activities that he thought should be reserved for procreation only. Because these activities robbed the body of

energy so that you didn't have enough energy left to maintain health or to cure yourself from disease if you got ill. He also suggested no spices, no caffeine, no alcohol, and no doctors. Which to be honest with

you in the 1800s was not a bad idea. Because in those

days what did doctors do? They purged patients.

They bled patients. If you got better, it was usually in spite of the doctor not because of him. So that was

not bad advice.

But his most venomous attacks were against meat. Because this was sexually inflammatory, he said, and

it would cause people to do horrific things. What

kind of horrific things? Well, for example, an activity that was classically discussed in the Seinfeld episode

known as the Contest, where this activity was never

talked about by name, but everyone knew exactly

what was being referred to. And this is also what

Graham suggested. He said that people who ate meat

were led astray, destined to take matters into their own hands, and this would rob their body of energy, and that's why they were constantly sick. So he said,

"Leave meat alone, go on a whole grain, vegetable

diet and you will be better." That was good advice. In

fact, it was the same kind of advice we give today, but

not for the same reason. He was quite wrong about

meat inflaming the passion, but he was correct about

the advice that was given.

So if you want to eat, what would you eat? Well,

you would eat graham crackers—the world's first anti-sex food, although, of course, it is no longer

being marketed in that particular fashion. But that was the origin. And people who started to eat more

fruits and vegetable and more whole grains, probably were better off because the traditional diet in those

days was really atrocious.

Today we have many nutritional gurus who have

followed in the footsteps of Sylvester Graham, some

with equally outlandish ideas. When you walk into

27
any book store today and you begin to wonder why it

is that we train physicians and nutritionist when we

have all of this advice that is readily available. Any

disease that is known to mankind can be cured just

by having the right diet or by staying away from cer- tain foods.

Well, I like to pick on some of these books. And

this is one that I particularly enjoy taking a poke at. This is really an anti-science book. Now before I go on and tell you all of the terrible things that this book does and has in it, I should suggest that the diet

that the authors recommend is not a bad diet. They

end up recommending mostly a vegetarian, whole

grain diet, so I don't have any complaints about that. They also end up recommending a system of food

combining, such as not eating proteins with carbohydrates and eating anything but fruits before noon,

they tell you, don't worry about the diarrhea. Anyway,

the diet is not bad, but all of the nonsense behind it and explanations, are terrible. It pollutes the mind

and creates an anti-science environment.

Let me give you a classic paragraph from this book. Hold your chairs. "Within atoms and molecules reside the vital elements we know of as enzymes.

Enzymes are not things or substances. They are the

life principles in the atoms and molecules of every

living cell."

I first saw this handwritten. It was brought to me

by a student. I had not read the book at the time. She

wanted to know what this was about. Gee, you know

this must be some kind of joke. Someone must have

sat down and said to themselves, "What is the greatest amount of silliness that can be put into the fewest

words?" I think this is a candidate for that. Obviously, enzymes are things, they are real, you can put them in a bottle. You can put them on a shelf. These deluded people seem to have the idea that enzymes are some ethereal substances, perhaps akin to the human soul, which we may or may not have. I don't know. Some of us may and others not. But, in any case, you cannot put it into a bottle. What they suggest is that when you process food,

you kill the food because you destroy its enzymes.

Now enzymes, of course, have real biological value. We couldn't live without enzymes, but we produce all of the enzymes we need intracellularly. We do not

need them from an outside source, and we cannot use

them from an outside source because they are metabolites like any other protein. But this is the

kind of nonsense that they disseminate.

They also tell us that you don't want a microwave

oven in your kitchen because it is like living next to a nuclear reactor. Well, I could even argue that living next to a nuclear reactor is not a bad place to live because there will be very few traffic accidents there. But never mind that. The suggestion that microwaves

somehow are akin to nuclear radiation is ridiculous

and it just scares people.

They delve into every area of our life, including our love life. Believe it of not the authors tell us that you must not have female orgasm during pregnancy

because it cuts off the oxygen to the fetus and results in inferior brain development. Now I don't have any

idea where they would pick up something like that. Even if you had such a hypothesis, how would you go

about testing this? They tell us that the greatest threat to health is processed foods, such as sliced bread. Now I'm not

going to tell you that sliced white bread is a great source of nutrition. Of course, it's not. And of course, we should be eating whole grain breads as much as possible. I will, however, tell you that people have

survived eating white bread. It is not a toxin as they

imply. They tell us that processed foods such as this are a great threat to health because chemicals are used

to process them. Here again, chemicals are synony- mous with poison. Yes, processed foods do use chemicals. Why? Because we know that if you don't add a

preservative to white bread like this, within a couple

of days, this is what happens. And market studies

have shown that people do not buy this kind of

bread.

28
So because of that we add a preservative. The preservative that is used is calcium propionate. A very

effective preservative because it is a good mold

inhibitor, but it allows yeast to thrive, which is exactly what you want in bread.

But then they get worried because there is a chemical in their bread. Well, first of all I think it is important to point out that bakers and other food

processors cannot just randomly put additives into

foods. It doesn't work like that. You have to apply to be allowed to put certain additives in and you have to

satisfy the government and it takes lots of studies in order to do that. There are all kinds of regulatory

hoops and hurdles. So by the time an additive is approved, there is a lot of information to suggest the

benefits outweigh the risks.

In the case of calcium propionate there really is no

problem, because we have lots of it in our bodies anyway. It is a byproduct of metabolism. Whenever we

take in fat we produce propionic acid and propionate.

In fact, we sweat preservatives. If you analyze your

underarm sweat, you will find calcium propionate in

there. Which is interesting because it explains a feature of French life. If any of you have ever been to France,

and purchased a baguette, you know that they are

delicious. But you have to eat them within about 19

seconds of buying them because they don't have any

preservatives, so they will go moldy and they will go

hard.

You know the Frenchman's traditional way of car- rying the baguette home, which is the ultimate preservative process and it's all natural of course.

In talking about these things, how can we not talk about interesting things like cleanliness and cleaning.

I had a lady call me up. She wanted to know

about this particular cleaning agent, which happens

to be a good one, Hertel Plus. She has been reading the liquid

ingredients on there and finds

sodium tripolyphosphate. She

calls me up and wants to know if

this is a chemical.

Well, right away I know where!

this conversation is going because

what she is really asking is is this dangerous? Is this poisonous.'' Is

this toxic? Because in her mind,

of course, that's what a chemical is.

So, of course, I go through my usual spiel, telling

her that everything in the world is made of chemicals.

If you're buying something without any chemicals,

then you are not getting a very good deal, because

you are buying a vacuum. And I think I was able to explain to her that the phosphate is in there to combine with minerals in the water, which would interfere with the activity of the detergent. And she

bought it because after all if you expect to see chemicals somewhere, it is in cleaning agents. That's okay.

That's where they belong.

But two weeks later she calls me again, panic in her voice. She has again found sodium tripolyphosphate, but this time on a different label. This time it was on a food label and it happened to be Kraft dinner. So she calls up and she says, "Look, I feed my

son a Kraft dinner every single day. " Apparently this was something that was of no concern to her. But

what was of concern was that it contained

29
tripolyphosphate and she wanted to know why a cleaning agent was in the Kraft dinner. She knew that eating this was messy business and she wondered if the company has developed a secret process to clean

her son from the

inside out. Of course, I explained to her

that this was not

the situation. The

phosphate was

put in there

because it enhances water

absorption by the

macaroni. So she can give her son

the macaroni,

which apparently was the only

thing she was ever feeding him, very rapidly. I'm not

sure that she was satisfied with this. Cleaning agents

are one thing. There the phosphate agents are fine,

but you don't want them in your food. Even though I explained to her that phosphates occur in nature, that every time you take a bite of meat you get far more

phosphates naturally then you would get in the

macaroni.

Where do they get such ideas.'' Well, from reading

books like this book about food additives. Imagine if my phosphate-fearing friend looked it up in this book. What would she find? Obtained from phosphate rock. Highly alkaline. Shampoos. Cuticle sof- teners. Bubble baths. All of that makes sense. Then to find that it is also used in incendiary bombs and tracer bullets. Now not only would she worry about her son being cleaned from the inside out. Now she

begins to worry about him exploding and disappearing, although probably not without a trace. The author has made a fundamental chemical

error. She has confused phosphorus with phosphates.

Phosphorus indeed was used in incendiary bullets. Phosphorus is the element. When you combine it with oxygen to form phosphate, it has completely dif- ferent chemical properties.

This is tantamount to saying that water is a dangerous substance because it has hydrogen. And you

know what hydrogen can do. You remember the

Hindenburg. You remember the Challenger.

Hydrogen is very explosive. Therefore, you have to worry about water. Of course, when hydrogen combines with oxygen, you get something that is quite

different in physical properties. Such is the case here

as well. But it is very difficult to get these ideas across

to people who have literally no scientific background

whatsoever. These books tend to be sensational and

sensational ideas sell. People want to know what to worry about. Of

course, it is a natural thing to worry. And they cater

to that. They give them things to worry about that needn't be worried about. One of the most important

things in life, I think, is knowing what to worry

about. You don't want to waste your worries.

Worrying is very stressful. There are enough things to worry about beside phosphate in macaroni.

They also get these ideas from "they." The all- inclusive, wise "they" who know everything. They say

that. Well this "they say" can be a problematic

business.

I'll give you an example. Remember the old days

of playing telephone when you were kids. You would

whisper something into someone's ear and they would

whisper it into the next person's ear, etc. And by the

time it has gone through a channel of whispers, the

information would come out very different.

I find this all the time. I will do something on

radio or TV and I will hear what I said or what I did,

and it will be quite different from what actually happened because people are not very good observers.

You know that if you have 10 witnesses to a traffic accident, then you'll get eight different stories. Right?

30
People are not very good observers and they do jump

to the wrong conclusions.

I'll give you a classic example. One day I was talk- ing about a particular kind of color—cochineal red,

which is very often used to color cherries like Marichino cherries. It is also used to color cherry ice cream and strawberry ice cream. It is a fascinating

dye, which comes from an insect source. These small

insects are raised on cacti in Mexico, the southern

U.S., and the Canary Islands. And the female of the

species produces a red juice, which can be processed

into a very effective dye for coloring ice cream. These

insects are very small—smaller than a cockroach. This

is a dye that has been used for centuries and is one of

the best time-tested products.

I told this story on the radio very much like I told

it to you here today. What happens? A couple of days

later I get a letter from a lady who says that she has

told this story to her friend, who refused to believe it. And she was now asking me to confirm in writing

that there are cockroaches in chocolate ice cream.

Well, you can see what happened. She heard the

word ice cream. She heard the word cockroach, which

was only used to describe the size of the insect. Maybe not the most appropriate analogy. I had never mentioned chocolate, but that must have been her

favorite ice cream. I had talked about strawberry and

cherry. She had picked up a few smidgens of truth

that metamorphosed in her mind into something that was completely different. And probably caused anxiety in her friend, who is probably a chocolate ice cream lover and now thought that chocolate ice cream was colored with cockroach juice.

So you can see how important it is to try to communicate effectively and to get the information

across.

Incidentally, there is nothing wrong with coloring

with insect extract. I mean that's just a personal,

social upbringing. Why is it that someone's mouth

waters at the thought of eating the rear end of a cow, which is what steak is, and they are horrified by the

prospect of a little bug juice in their strawberry ice cream? So there's really nothing wrong with that but

I'm sure that there is a lot of needless anxiety created

here.

So what we need to do is powerful education.

From early on in life we need to get kids thinking scientifically. We need to promote scientific education at

all levels and to foster critical thinking. But it is not an easy challenge. Especially because people are not good observers and are not very adept at coming to the right conclusions based upon the observation.

And we are challenged by one other problem in our attempt to communicate science. And that is that we can never have conclusive answers. We can never

say that something cannot be, that it is totally nonsensical. There is always a maybe. That's why so many

scientific publications are infused with perhaps and

maybe and if, etc. Because it is rare that you can say something absolutely conclusively. And we all have to keep in mind that as scientists we are certainly not

infallible. We have to keep an open mind. Obviously,

not so open that our brain falls out. But an open

mind, because stuff happens that is unexpected and we have to be ready for it. And I'll give you my final example about that. Remember a couple of years ago, when Coca Cola came out with New Coke. This was because they had

been engaged in a long battle with Pepsi. And Pepsi

had set up these booths in shopping centers where

they were doing the Pepsi Challenge. They were giving people Pepsi and Coke and asking them, which

was better. Much to Coke's dislike, people liked Pepsi too often. So they decided that they needed a marketing gimmick of their own. And they approached their

advertising agency and the agency told them, "Look,

Americans like new and improved, so come up with

New Coke."

31
Boy, was that bad advice. Americans may like new

and improved but not in every facer of life. There are some things you don't play around with, motherhood,

apple pie, baseball, and Coca Cola. They changed the

formulation, slightly. I mean only so that they could

say that there was a change—nothing of any

importance.

But, of course, there was a rebellion among the masses, who didn't want Coca Cola played around

with. And there was tremendous concern. They

started Old Coke Drinkers clubs, they hoarded the

product, etc. Eventually Coke relented and they rein- troduced Coca Cola Classic and now New Coke has

been phased out. And now we have the old Coke,

which has become the new Coke, etc. But about 15 months after the introduction of the

New Coke, scientists began to hear some reports from

certain areas in Africa about an increase in the birth

rate. And no one could understand this because it was

in the little villages where Coca Cola consumption

was said to be very high. And a few researchers even

suggested that there had to be a connection. That

somehow the increase in birth rate was too tied in with the introduction of New Coke. Of course, most

scientists said this was absurd. There cant possibly be

any such connection. Then two Harvard researchers

decided to investigate. They found that indeed there was a connection. It seems the ladies in these villages were not using Cocoa Cola as a delicious, refreshing

beverage. They were using is as a contraceptive. Well,

how does one do that? I'll leave that to your imagination. I'll just tell you that you don't drink it. You

make use of its spermicidal properties.

Now, of course, as the researchers heard this, they

said maybe, but is it testable? So they went into the

laboratory and got some sperm. And you know these

little guys like to swim. So they put them in a petri dish. And they decided to measure what is called the

sperm motility. How quickly they swim. So they

measured it in Coca Classic and found the sperm

motility. Then they took New Coke, measured it and

what did they find? Sperm motility, five times greater.

These little guy were five times more active in New

Coke than Old Coke and there was the answer. New

Coke was not as effective a spermicide as Old Coke

had been. Now just why that is the case nobody

knows. The Coca Cola company did call a press conference, but the only comment they had was that

Coke markets itself as a delicious, refreshing beverage.

And then you know how researchers are. They like to push the envelope. So you tested Old Coke and

New Coke, so you better test other soft drinks too. So

they decided to test Diet Coke and discovered something staggering. Sperm motility was zero. Which, of

course, leads us to the final scientific conclusion,

based upon the observations, that as far as chemical

contraception goes. Diet Coke is it. Right? Well that's

it for me too.

Coke Brand Sperm Motility

Old (Classic) 8.5

New Coke 41.6

Diet Coke 0.0

Except for one little finale to this whole enterprise.

Which comes for two reasons: My publisher insists that I always mention that there are books to be purchased, and the other is that because there is a story

with that too that is very illustrative of our attempts

at communicating science and some of the pitfalls.

Two years ago when I was approached to put together

a book, I said, yes, I would be happy to do that but I want it to be called. The Right Chemistry. Because I was so tired of all the perjoratives with chemicals, you

know dangerous chemical, toxic chemical. I wanted

The Right Chemistry. And the publisher thought,

"Yeah, that's a pretty good idea.

And I pur together the book, and they thought it

32
Radar, Hula Hoops

and Playful Pigs

was interesting. And everything was just about set until I get a call from him saying that he had been

showing this to his sales people in the U.S. and while

they liked the book and they liked all the stories in there about the discovery of gunpowder and why

Rasputin wasn't poisoned by cyanide and how to remove skunk smell and the link between vitamin E

and heart disease and how selenium may prevent cer- tain cancers and all that, and the ups and downs of

underwear, but you can't call it, The Right Chemistry,

he told me. I said,

"Why not?" "Because

it's a scary word.

People are not inter- ested in chemistry. It frightens them. They

think about formulas. They think about

equations. Only the

nerds are going to buy it, and they don't

spend money."

So what do you

want? You have to change the title. You

have to have something a bit more captivating. Do you have

any suggestions? This is when he brought up the idea

that one of the chapters in the book, "Radar, Hula

Hoops and Pig Balls," at the time. And it was a chapter about polyethylene, which was used as sheathing

material around radar cables during the second World

War, and helped win the war. After the war it was

used in hula hoops, which was a financial windfall for the inventor. And then a clever farmer realized that

his pigs were biting each other when they were in close confinement—on the ear and on the tail—that

required antibiotics which is expensive. They were

doing this because they were bored, and they could

be entertained with polyethylene balls, which were

pig balls, and then they would leave each other alone. These were the pig balls. That was the title of the

chapter. That's what they wanted to call the book.

I said, well no. I'll go for the radar, I'll go for the

hula hoops, but I'm no pig ball man. And I suggested, therefore, playful pigs. Which also meant that the

in

cover had to be changed because the test tubes and

other things that were on the cover were no longer

applicable. So they hired a graphic artist who came

up with this cover design, which has flying

pigs—which is a problem. Flying pigs and science

don't go together that well. But it was too late. And I kind of liked the pigs, they were cute. But the major

problem was that the story has nothing about flying

pigs. The pigs were walking pigs in the story. So I had

to go back and rewrite that piece of the story so that now there are legitimate flying pigs in there, scientifi- cally flying pigs.

Anyway, I did this and the book sold well in Canada. I thought that by the time it came to the next one, I would be allowed to call it The Right

Chemistry. No, the publisher said, people are scared of

chemistry. You have to come up with something else. So I did. I have had a long infatuation with Barbara

Eden, who used to play in / Dream ofjeannie, in the

old TV show. That was my favorite show when I was

a kid. Even then I remember wondering about how

she came out of the bottle with this puff of smoke. I discovered when I was in graduate school that it was a chemical reaction that they used. Hydrogen peroxide,

they found, under the influence of Mn02, manganese

dioxide, mixed with water, is exothermic and you get

the steam. All you have to do is mix the two chemicals. And that always intrigued me. And then two years ago, I was out in Vancouver on behalf of the Discovery Channel doing a trade

show in their booth. As luck would have it, next to us was the Arts & Entertainment booth, A&E. And they

had just bought the rights to the old I Dream of

Jeannie TV show. And who was there to promote this, Barbara Eden. So as you can imagine, I high-tailed it over there. I got into a conversation with her. Did she

remember how she got out of the bottle? She told me

she didn't even remember how she got in it. And I described to her the chemistry. I even showed her the chemical reaction. I thought, "Gee, if she thinks this is neat, it really is. I can use this reac- tion to be the focus of the next book." And it turned

out to be the case, and it became the Genie in the

Bottle. Because it did allow me to give that particular

account and also because I like the idea of the Genie

in the Bottle as a metaphor for science. Because I think science can do absolutely marvelous things if it

33
is handled properly. It is just like a genie in the bottle. But you have to be careful about letting the genie

out, because once it's out you can't put it back into

the bottle. So I like that idea about the metaphor—about the

care we have to take

with science—and,

of course, I also like the story about

Barbara Eden. And

now I thought that maybe the next book, I'm going to be allowed to call it The Right

Chemistry, but that's not going to happen

either. It is going to be called. That's the Way the Cookie

Crumbles. And

maybe by the fourth one I will have done enough groundwork to do it. But probably not. Because I think that the publisher

is right. And that's the bottom line of this whole

story. If it were called The Right Chemistry, it probably wouldn't interest people that much and it wouldn't capture the imagination. Because they don't think

of chemistry as a positive thing in life, as potentially

interesting. So sometimes you do have to sugarcoat it a little bit in order to get people to taste it. And once

they taste it, I think that they will like it. So although

at first I wasn't particularly found of catering to public misconceptions, I think that there is a certain extent to which you have to do that, if that's what it takes to capture the attention.

So I hope that I have been able to get across some

ideas about what it takes to communicate science to the public, and some of the misconceptions out there. And why I think that it is such an important job.

Because when people are ignorant of science they will be more anxious than they should be about things

that they do not need to be anxious about. They will ignore other things that are worth worrying about

and they will very often fall into the clutches of charlatans. Because when science doesn't have the answer,

the quacks will rush in to fill that void unless we arm

the public with enough weaponry to make sure that

that doesn't happen.

And we can do that by properly spreading scientific information, making sure people understand that

chemists are not different from other people. But we

do possess the vocabulary and the equipment to make

life not only more interesting but more understandable for everyone. Thank you.

^ote: Due to technical difficulties, Schwarcz's talk to the Best Practices meetings was not recorded. The transcript above was createdfrom a videotape ofa very similar talk given by Schwarcz at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada in 2002. Thanks to Carleton

University for their assistance.

34
Putting Communications Research and Evaluation into

Practice

Susanna Hornig Priest, Associate Professor, Dept. of Journalism, Texas A&M University

Priest: Tm going ro talk today about the results from an analysis I did of a survey that we did at Texas A&M in April and May of the year 2000 on public

opinion about biotechnology. This was actually a part

of a major effort involving 14 or 15 European

Countries—I've actually lost track—as well as Canada

and, most recently, Japan to study the relationship

between public opinion and media coverage, particularly newspaper coverage in all of those countries. As

part of my work for this group, I decided to take the

U.S. data set and use biotechnology as a case to talk about some of these issues of public understanding,

science journalism, science communications role in

agenda setting, framing, and cultivation. These are all processes that inform public attitudes, public opinions, and public perceptions of science.

I think most of us have heard of biotechnology

and genetic engineering by now, but some of us have

followed the public opinion literature more closely

than others. I actually have a subtitle here to lead into

the discussion of opinion: "Four Myths, a Hypothesis, and a Partial Solution and a Caution."

One of the four myths is that biotechnology in the

United States is not controversial in comparison to what's gone on in the UK and Europe. This is actually a greatly overstated assumption. Genetic engineering, at least by that name, is enormously controversial in the United States. And the controversy has

been increasing for a long time. As a basis for comparison, consider public responses to several other

technologies that were included in our study. For

space exploration, for example, only 7.7 of the people we surveyed thought that space exploration would

make the quality of life worse over the next 20 years. We also asked this question about the Internet. And

somewhat to my surprise, 15.8 percent of the population thinks the Internet will make the quality of life worse. I've heard several explanations proposed, rang- ing from Internet pornography to withdrawal from

social interaction.

About a third (32.4 percent) of the U.S. population thinks that nuclear energy will make things worse over the next 20 years. For genetic engineering

nearly the same percentage of people (30.1 percent)

hold this opinion—and by the way they are not necessarily the same people. If you think that nuclear

energy is likely to make the quality of life worse, you

are a little more likely to think that genetic engineering is going to make the quality of life worse, but by

and large those are not the same group. The comparison, though, that I want to make is this: We'd all acknowledge that nuclear energy is controversial in

this country. We may think that people who are opposed to it or people who are in favor of it are "out to lunch, " depending on our own personal opinions. But we don't argue very much that it is controversial. This is pretty much accepted.

But genetic engineering is different. Until quite

recently there was a perception that people weren't concerned about it. They are. That perception may

itself be a media effect. One of the things that the

media do is rely on statements from people who are promoting one agenda or another, including, in this

case, the promoters of biotechnology—both scientists and people in the corporate world. By and large these

people are positive. Our mainstream media are very

heavily subsidized by those kinds of information

sources, and they tended to ignore the controversy

that exists in the United States in greater proportions

than in some European countries.

My second myth is that opposition to science and

technology results from ignorance. I think a lot of

people in this room, assuming that more of you are

scientists than are journalists, probably begin with the

assumption that the problem is that people don't

understand genetics. They don't understand biotechnology. Our survey used six different biotechnology

applications, some from medicine, some from agriculture, and asked people as one of many, many questions whether—bottom line—they would encourage

35
Encouragement and Knowledge

by Education Level

6 -

5 —

2' Average Encouragement, Six Applications ^1 Biological Knowledge Score, Ten Items

Figure 1

these technologies or not. I don't have time to go into

quite all the variations between the different forms of

biotechnology in terms of response. Basically, however, there is very little relationship among education,

knowledge, and encouragement of these applications.

As people's education goes up, not surprisingly,

people's ability to score well on a short test of biological or genetic knowledge goes up. [See Figure 1.] These questions were borrowed from my Canadian

and European colleagues and included ones like: True

or false, only genetically engineered tomatoes have

genes. The more education you have, the better your

ability to respond to these types of questions in ways we think are correct. But overall encouragement for biotechnology doesn't lie with education particularly.

And, in fact, it is only weakly related. The overall correlation between that biological knowledge score and

encouragement of biotechnology totaled over six applications is a fairly modest 0.25. There are a lot of

other things going on. One of the other things going on is that for many

people, educated and less educated, this is a moral

argument. The bar on the left [see Figure 2] is average moral acceptability. Is this application morally acceptable? This varies across the six applications we tested,

but if you put them in order by lower to higher moral

acceptability, you get the same pattern as for the

darker bar, which is back to that level of encouragement variable. As moral acceptability rises, the level of encouragement rises. By the way, that third bar is people who remembered taking six science courses in college. Basically,

you can see that they aren't that far from the general

population in terms of their support or encouragement for these technologies or the degree to which

that seems to be related to moral acceptability. So it's not really a question of knowledge.

I think another myth that I haven't heard

expressed so often but that is kind of implicit in this discussion of morality is that maybe this has something to do with religion. One of our questions asked

people how religious they are. We have a whole range

from actually anti-religious to extremely religious.

There is some relationship between this and biotechnology knowledge. People who are extremely religious

tend to have a little bit lower scores on that knowledge test. Maybe a weak relationship between encour- agement and religiousness, but clearly it is not entirely a linear relationship. Maybe it is the people at both

extremes, but the overall correlation between the

degree of religiousness and biotechnology is even

lower than for knowledge, a very modest 0.16, and

that, in fact, excludes the 1 percent of our sample

who stated that they were anti-religious as opposed to not religious. Because it is such a small group, I threw

them out; otherwise the figure would be even lower. So it's a moral issue we are looking at, but it is not an issue of religion per se. Concerns are not confined

particularly to religious extremes, although there is some relationship there. Encouragement is just not

that closely associated with religiousness. By the way,

it doesn't seem to be associated with political affilia- tion in this country, either. We looked at that. We

36
4.0 1-

3.5

couldn't find any pattern really worth talking about at

all. Does it have to do with some of the other things

media might do? If science literacy in the narrow

sense of better abilities to score well on tests is not

really the issue, then maybe we ought not to be

thinking of science journalism's role or science communication's role as simply increasing factual knowledge. If we want a public that is more comfortable

with science, we're going to have to look in other

places. So what are some of the other effects of media on perceptions? You been introduced to the notion of

agenda setting. What are people paying attention to? How novel and strange is an idea? Maybe one of the

things that media accounts might do is just

get people more familiar with the topic.

Maybe they make them feel better informed, more on top of things, regardless

of whether they're actually scoring better on

objective tests of knowledge.

There is a little bit of relationship here,

apparently, but not very much between biological knowledge and some other factors. How frequently do you talk to others about

biotechnology? So how much is this a general topic of discussion around your house?

The more frequently you discuss these

issues, the more knowledgeable you are. I didn't run significance tests; it probably

would have been statistically significant

because it's a big sample. But there isn't a big difference between people who don't

talk too much and people who talk a lot about biotechnology issues in terms of

encouragement. Nevertheless, there is some

relationship that's apparent there. What about recency of exposure? I thought maybe at least the media, by telling

people about these issues, by getting them

familiar with these issues over a period of

time, might have an effect on public atti- tudes. So I put a question in there about

how long ago somebody remembers hearing

about biotechnology, so we could judge the

time that's elapsed since they first remember

hearing about it. Again, their knowledge goes up

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

if more time had elapsed, maybe because they themselves are connected to the scientific community or because they read different kinds of publications, but

the level of encouragement stays about the same. If there is a relationship there, it is not a very strong one

at all. What about how well informed people think they

are? Clearly if people think they are better informed —and this is encouraging—they do, in fact, score

better on that true and false test of knowledge. The

ones that think of themselves as more informed, generally speaking, also have a little bit more encouragement. But again, this is not a strong relationship.

Average Moral Acceptability (All Respondents),

Average Degree of Encouragement (All Respondents),

and Average Level of Encouragement

(Respondents with Six College Science Courses)

n

Average moral acceptability (all respondents)

Average level of encouragement (all respondents)

I I Average level of encouragement, respondents with six college science courses

Figure 2

37
So I guess my fourth myth is that as levels of

awareness and information rise so will public

support—regardless of factual knowledge. There is some weak support for that but basically, there are more questions than answers suggested by our data. We tried to sort this out a little bit more clearly. It

is great fun to be playing with such a huge data set and I haven't even started to look at the other countries yet. It is kind of a terrifying thought. But you

end up in a situation like this, with a lot of data, and

would want to reduce it to something that people can

get a better handle on. This is one of the ways to do it—basically a series of regression analyses, resulting in what we call path

analysis. [See Figure 3.] This is simply a way of repre- senting complex relationships between whole bunches

of variables. The ones on the left, we are calling independent variables. There are relationships between

age, gender, education, income, and number of col- lege science courses and this encouragement score. And then, in between, as kind of mediating variables, we put those elements that we thought were most

likely, based on this preliminary analysis that I just

showed you, to be responsible for whether or not

people encourage biotechnology, feel positively about

Encouragement Score (Composite for

Six Applications)

Figure 3

it, including the ones I talked about and a couple of

others. We developed a food concern index based on

people s answers to a series of food safety questions.

Were they concerned about nutritional quality of

food, were they concerned about contamination,

pesticides, and a series of other things? One thing the

media might do that we might be concerned about is that maybe they give too much risk information out,

over-sensitizing people to risks so they are afraid of

the next controversy that comes along to a greater

degree. Well, it does turn out that people who are generally concerned about the safety of the food

supply are a little bit less likely to encourage biotechnology, but it is again only a weak relationship.

There's our knowledge score. [See Figure 3.] Yes, if you know more about these technologies or genetics or biology in general, you're going to be a little more

encouraging. But again it's not a very strong relationship. That awareness index is the three kinds of

mushy variables I just got done talking about: how

frequently you talk, whether you consider yourself

informed, and how long ago you heard about

biotechnology. We collapsed these into a sort of

awareness index. That's a very weak relationship. (I might get a better picture, if I sort of took

that apart again, since those variables behave

a little bit differently. We had thought of

them as being kind of intertwined when we

first came up with them.)

The biggest relationship here is the one

between trust in biotechnology providers

and the encouragement score by far. I don't

have quite enough time to go into that in great detail. But we did ask people in this survey whether they felt that a whole series of entities related to biotechnology were

doing a good job for society. And some of

them were more popular than others, and some of them were more closely related to encouragement than others.

You'll be happy to know the results, I think. People think scientists are doing a good job. Scientists are the clear winners.

Farmers are doing a good job, another clear winner. Industry is doing a pretty good job.

38
maybe not as strong—this is somewhat to my surprise

actually. I've been concerned about the over-promotion of biotechnology. It might, in fact, have pro- duced a sort of backlash. But, so far, people are pretty

confident that industry is doing a good job. Number

four is consumer organizations.

Who are the losers? Actually, there are three losers. Want to guess what they are? Media is one, although

it's about tied with some others. We [media] are not a big loser, but we're not in the same category as sci- ence or farmers. Government is the strongest loser. Is government doing a good job regulating these technologies? There is a lot of concern about that. The

third loser, for reasons I can't explain, is churches.

People don't think churches are doing a good job.

Maybe they are looking to religious leaders to give

them guidance because of their moral concerns and

they are not getting it. I don't know. We need to do some interviews to find out.

Let's go back to the picture. [Figure 3.] Essentially,

after a great deal of manipulation that I don't have

time to go into, the bottom line is that trust in insti- tutions seems to be a lot more important than

knowledge, than risk, even than awareness. But remember, I said there were four myths, a partial solution, and a caution. The caution is that I don't think that trust can be sold like soap. I'm afraid that when I take this message out that people will think that what we have to do is figure out some way

to sell trust in science. You know, we've been doing

pretty good so far, how do we do this even better? The caution is that I think trust is easily lost and

not very easily gained. But maybe those of us involved in science communication and science education over the years, who've done a better job than we thought, ought to be very cautious about trying to package this and sell it. Rather I would encourage

people to think about trust in terms of dialogue with

the public on these issues so that we continue to pro- mote these other things—education, knowledge,

information—not just for their own sake but because

they themselves and that dialogue itself is probably a

really important way to build trust.

Note: Due to technical difficulties certain talks at the Best Practices meeting ivere not recorded. The transcript

above is from a substantially similar talk given at the annual meeting ofAmerican Association for the Advancement ofScience, 15-20 February, 2001, San

Francisco, CA. Reprinted with permission.

39
The^volutjon of Research and Evaluation in Public Relations

James Grunig, Professor, University of Maryland, Department of Communication

Due to technical difficulties with the videotaping ofthe meeting we do

not have a transcript available for this talk.

The Evolution of Research

and Evaluation in

Public Relations

James E. Grunig

Department of

Coimnunication

University of Maryland

Landmarks in

Public Relations Metrics

1977: AT&T measurement project

culminates in first-ever conference on PR

measurement at the University of Maryland.

1992: First book from lABC Excellence

project published. Explains the value of

public relations to an organization.

40
Landmarks in

Public Relations Metrics

1996: Summit meeting on PR effectiveness

held in New York, sponsored by IPR, Inside

PR, and Ketchum Public Relations.

1999:IPR forms Commission on PR

Measurement and Evaluation.

2000: DOE holds conference in Batavia, IL,

to develop metrics for its laboratories,

resulting in white paper by J. & L. Grunig.

Levels of Analysis for

Evaluation

Program level

Functional level

m Organizational level

Societal level

41
Program Level

Individual communication programs

such as media relations, community

relations, or customer relations are successful when they affect the

awareness, cognitions, attitudes, and

bcha\ iors of both publics and members

of the organization.

Communication Objectives

One-Way Two-Way

Communication Disclosure

m.m Message retention Accuracy

mm

Cognition Understanding

Attitude Agreement

1

Behavior m Symbiotic behavior

42
Research Methods for Evaluation

Quantitative

Surveys

Experiments

Qualitative

Observations

Interviews

Focus Groups

Organizational Level

Public relations contributes to organizational

effectiveness when it helps reconcile the

organization's goals with the expectations of

its strategic publics. This contribution has

monetary value to the organization. Public

relations contributes to effectiveness by

building quality, long-term relationships with

strategic publics.

43
Functional Level

The public relations function as a whole can

be audited by comparing the structure and

processes of the department or departments

that implement the function with the best

practices of the public relations function in

other organizations or with theoretical

principles derix ed from scholarly research.

E\'aluation at this level can be called

theoretical or practical benchmarking.

~1

neric Principles of Excellent

Public Relations Practice

Public relations is a unique management

function that helps an organization interact

with the social, political, and institutional

omponents of its environment.

The value of public relations can be

determined by measuring the quality of the

relationships the organization establishes

with its institutional environment.

44
Generic Principles

Public relations serves a strategic

managerial role as well as a technical role.

Public relations departments strategically

plan, administer, and evaluate public

relations programs.

Public relations helps to shape the

underlying conditions of organizational

excellence. 1

Generic Principles

Communication activities are integrated

through the public relations department or a

senior communication executive.

Public relations is empowered by the

dominant coalition of the organization.

Public relations is not subordinated to

marketing or other management functions

45
Generic Principles

Public relations is two-way and

symmetrical.

Publics relations executives are ethics

counselors and internal advocates of social

responsibility.

46
elationships Produce Reputation

"To acquire a reputation that is positiA e, enduring, and resilient requires managers to

invest heavily in building and m

' good relationships wit

constituents." (Fomb

"PR is responsible for

with key stakeholders in a m

cultivates positive reputation;

Associates, June 16, 2000)

Types of Relationships

Exchange

One party gives benefits to the oilier only becai

the other has provided benefits m the past or is expected to do so m the future.

Communal

Both parties provide benefits to they are concerned for the wel. even when they get

47
48
The Future of Broadcast Journalism

Peggy Girshman, Assistant Managing Editor, National Public Radio News

Girshman: Hi. It's great to be here. When I first graduated from college in 1975, I considered myself

extremely unfortunate that I had missed the "Golden

Age" of broadcast journalism. I had missed Edward R. Murrow, I had missed World War II, I had missed

Watergate, I had missed the downing of a president, I had missed everything. And all I ever thought about is how terrible it was, and how bad the local news was, and how everything had deteriorated so much.

Now, of course, I feel the same way: that the early

part of my career was just golden, and now, if you look

at local news, you see nothing but dreck, and if you

look at even network news, you see nothing but dreck

intercut with commercials, and now there are even more commercials than there were before, cutting into

material that you sometimes can't distinguish from a commercial. I think both perceptions are wrong. But if you want to keep with the one that we're in a toilet right now, you could look at this past week. It's been a very interesting week. If you've followed the Nightline

debate at all, is it ok to replace probably the finest pro- gram on television, news-wise that is, with David

Letterman, when David Letterman's already somewhere

else? And should you take the seasoned-veteran journalists, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson, off the air and

put in people who have mostly done stand-up or political consulting, and that would be George

Stephanopoulos and Claire Shipman.

On the other hand, I'm a glass half-full person. I see what's happening now and I say, "It's been a really

interesting six months." We had the biggest story ever [September 11 terrorist attacks], of what I think will be

my long career, and I thought at the time, "We will have this story every day for years. Years." And so far,

it's been months and it's still there, and you'll hear a lot about it next week because next week is the six-month

anniversary. That, like many other big stories, like the

Gulf War, like the impeachment, has had a positive

effect on people getting their news, getting any kind of

news, whether it's newspaper reading or whether it's radio listening or TV watching. So I would say that

that's good. I'm a journalist and I think people paying

attention to what journalists say is a good thing. You

might not. This was the first time in our history where, truly,

things weren't being filtered through a reporter's eyes, except for things like hearings. We all saw the same

thing at the same time. Many people saw it with other

people next to them; they could share it, they could

talk about it. Nothing filtered it, nothing explained it;

it was inexplicable, and that, to me, was a real interest- ing marker in television journalism, because it set a new standard for how you wanted to get [news]. This is a huge thing. You can't imagine something this big

happening, so now, all of a sudden, without a picture on anything, it suddenly doesn't work as well. I mean,

it's more exciting to see a live picture on CNN from

Afghanistan than to read a great analysis of what's

going on there, even though that live picture of what's

going on in Afghanistan is a mile away, a plume of

smoke. What does that tell you? I don't know.

But people have kept watching. At NPR, audiences

for some of our stations went up 25 percent, and

they've stayed there. It's been a boon for us, and so I think that when we're reviewing the past and the pres- ent day, before we go into the future, we need to see that as sort of a watershed event. Not that it's changed

our country necessarily forever, but I think it's changed

a little bit about journalism forever.

I wanted to tell you a little bit about what's going on today. Continuing a trend that's been going on for more than 15 or 20 years, most people get their news

from television. In a recent survey, 80 percent watched

local TV news in the last week, 68 percent read a daily

newspaper in the last week, 64 percent watched net- work news or national news of some sort, that includes

cable; 62 percent got their news from radio, which

could include public or commercial radio, and 34 per- cent got news from the Internet. These data are a year- and-a-half old, so that's probably low now. There's a local-national TV complement in that a lot of people

49
who watch local news watch their national news as well, because local news is on at around the same

time.

In many cities, there's now all-news cable locally.

As a matter of fact, here in Washington, the ABC

affiliate that does local news is just merging its news- room with Channel 8, which is an all-news local cable

station. And that's very interesting, because they were viewed as competition before. So, journalists will lose

their jobs out of this probably, and they will also lose two independent views of the news. They will combine into one newsroom that is collecting all the news.But across the board, regular use of regular media

has gone down. Newspaper and television news viewing has gone down even though there are many more

options now than there used to be. It's not just the

per-unit share. Fewer people are paying attention to broadcast news than before. Fewer people are reading

newspapers and magazines than before. Why is that? Well, we added a new option, which is the Internet. And you can look at the Internet as sort of a new

medium. Or are they using the old media to make

news? Sure they are. They're writing words. They're

putting up pictures like you'd see in a newspaper.

Frequently, they ARE the newspaper pictures. They're

putting up audio. In the case of our Web site, we put

up audio directly from our newscast. As a matter of

fact, you can click on NPR.org (please note the plug)

and get the latest newscast within the hour. MSNBC

lives and dies by video and audio from its channel

and from NBC News. So, MSNBC.com, which is always in the top two or three news sites on the Web,

uses pictures and audio from its broadcast partner; same thing with CNN, another very popular news

site. So, do I include them when I think about the

future of broadcast journalism? I do. How else did

they get it? Another trend that's continuing fairly strongly,

although it's gone down a little, is people watching a TV news magazine sometime in the last week. There

are lots of them on still. Some of them have gone;

Dateline, a show I worked on, went from five nights a week to three, to two, and, during the Olympics, to

zero. About half the country, at least, watches a news

magazine every week. And you can quibble about

whether that's news or not. It's certainly information.

It's non-fiction. If it's a court case that you never would have heard of, is that news? I don't know. It depends on your perspective. It's not about, "Fiere's what happened today in Afghanistan," but it certainly

is communicating information news-wise.

The most interesting thing, or the most sad thing

to people like me, is not even a trend, it's a fact. Old

people like news; young people don't. And that's been

true forever, but as the population ages, our demographics go down. Demographics are a very important thing. So, for example, in the most recent survey

of 18 to 34 year olds, only 28 percent of them read a newspaper every day. Sixty-six percent of the over-65

group does. So, it's more than double. Across the

board, local TV news, same thing. The thing that young people do the least is read newspapers. And by

"young" I'm talking 34. That's not that young. And

the worry at the network and local levels is what will happen when your demographic gets too old. 60 Minutes routinely ranks in the top 10 or 20

programs of the week. But when you look at the

demographics—if you look at the most popular age

for advertisers, 18 to 49—(that's a huge range) 60

Minutes ranks low in popularity, in the 60s or 70s. It's

like number 68 for the week for those younger people, but number 9 if you count everybody else. I'm

close to that 49 age cut off, so I don't want to be

counted out in two years. But it sort of freaks people

out and this explains why Nightline is being dropped,

or probably being dropped, because while they have

enough people watching the show, they're too old,

and they can't charge as much for an advertisement.

You can charge $50,000 maybe or $35,000 maybe for

a Nightline 30-second advertisement. They can get

$500,000 for that during Friends. Friends is younger

demographically. And it sounds ridiculous for a journalist to worry about what are the chances of getting

breast cancer if you're 49 and how do I write this

right, to think about ratings and news and ratings

and numbers and ratings and demographics, but we

all are forced to do that because it has affected our

lives.

I know I'm supposed to be talking about broadcast

journalism, but look at the front page of your newspaper. They started putting Life Features on the front

50
page. That was to try to appeal to other people. The

Washington Post has a kids page on the back of the

comics section—which is great, I'm not complaining

about it at all—I'm just saying they're trying to get

younger and younger audiences, and they're falling farther and farther behind.

Now, when you think about broadcast journalism,

you might be thinking cable, even though, technically, cable isn't broadcasting, but for this purpose

we're going to talk about it a Uttle. I mean, 20 years ago, we had one cable outlet. I thought it would tank.

I had an opportunity to go work there and I said,

"They'll never make it." I'm laughing now, but I took

the job at the other one, and it failed in six months.

But there was a huge jump when FOX went on the

air with people watching FOX. MSNBC has a smaller

audience, so we have three, 24-hour-a-day cable news

operations. You can get news any time. But beyond

the jump of initial new watchers, cable news has

remained relatively flat. When people come in, they come in during crises, and then they go away. They

stuck around for us. They stuck around for newspapers more, and they're sticking around for some regular news, but they haven't stuck around as much for

cable. The main draw of cable seems to be yacking.

That's what they put on, lots of people yacking, and

if you watch one channel, you might think it has more opinion than another channel, but 30 percent

of people watch cable news sometime during the day.

That includes CNBC, so even if you're tuning in to watch your stock floating by, that's considered watching news. That's growing slightly, although people

actually watch less CNBC now that everything's

printed in red instead of in green. It's one thing to watch your stock keep going up, up, up, and then you

want to check it three times a day or ten times a day, even. But guess what: You tend to check it less when

it's going down.

So, the main goal in programming, whether you're

making the show Friends or whether you're making

Nightline, no matter who you are, is, how do you get

the maximum number of people to watch and the

youngest people to watch, and how do you keep it moving all the time, because everybody's got a remote. The second they're bored with television, they

flip the channel. The second. Can you imagine anything you're writing having to meet that standard? I'm

sorry, this sentence is dull, I'm stopping halfway

through. I don't think so, you know. They can pick it up and put it down, and once you lose them, they

tend to be gone. So there's tremendous pressure, less so in public broadcasting I'm happy to say, to keep it lively all the time. This explains what happened with

local news going to 30 seconds, 40 seconds, 45 sec- onds; the longest story you'll see on local news, their in-depth series, is two and a half minutes. Two and a half minutes for NPR? That's like a joke, you know, if we can't say it in five, more than five minutes, it's not

worth saying. And they have pictures, so they're actually transmitting more information.

So, there's tremendous pressure, especially now

that there's hundreds of cable channels, and people

who get cable TV in their home are watching broadcast TV that way, so your local NBC affiliate is competing with HBO, and sometimes if you have digital

cable, competing with 15 channels of HBO, or 15

channels of the Discovery Channel, where they really care about who's holding the clicker. For example, I don't know whether you call what Discovery Channel

does, or lots of science documentaries, "news." When

MTV puts on news, do we call that "news?" Yeah, I think so. Is the Discovery Channel news? Well, it sort of looks like news sometimes. It's topical stuff. They have a shelf life on their shows of three

years. That's not news by my definition, but they're

very worried about men. The cable channels are more

worried about men than the broadcast channels are, because men hold the remote. This sounds sexist, but

women are more loyal. They turn on a channel and

they're willing to sit there and watch through the

commercial and watch for their favorite people. They

bond with people. With men, if it's not blowing up, they might change the channel. This explains the high

rate of crime news. Despite the dropping rate in crime, there is still the same amount of crime news on

local television: body bags, car crashes, whatever.

Because the perception is, "I can do this in 30 sec- onds, then I'm moving on to the next really cool picture." And there's nothing wrong with that in one

way, that is something that's going on in the world.

Bill Skane, former CBS producer, is laughing at me,

because he knows. It's hard!

51
How do you program? Women care about medical news more than men do, and women watch network

television, so you want to have more medical news. If you watch a morning program, The Today Show or Good Morning America, you'll see lots of medical seg- ments. You will not see a physics segment, ever, because

it's the women who are home getting the kids ready

and who have the TV on in the kitchen. That's the per- ception and, believe me, if that's the perception, they

have 12 studies to back it up. They don't do anything

by accident. They don't try anything by accident.

Everything is researched, and you know exactly who's

sitting out there, and you know exactly how old they

are, what sex they are, what color they are, what they're

going to buy, and what they're likely to buy, what your

advertisers might want from them. So, everything in between the commercials is designed to appeal to the

people who we want to have watch the commercials.

This sounds very cynical. I'm sorry. But what have we gotten over the years with this? We've gotten shorter

and shorter segments, for the most part. We've gotten

medical stuff, weather. Just think about this: Weather's on every single night for three minutes. That's more

than we spend on any story in the rest of the newscast.

So, as a result, by the way, the public understands jet

streams, the direction of weather, what fronts are, what

barometric pressure is, I mean, this is our best way to teach science, actually.

I did want to talk a little bit about what I see for the

future, and also what I see for science news and science

content in newscasts. What I see for the future is much,

much, much more blending of these things, so that it won't matter whether you say you watch TV or listen to broadcasts or went on the Internet, because you're

probably hearing or seeing the same thing. There's lots of co-branding arrangements right now, and NPR, for example, is pairing with the Bill Moyers show, which

airs on Friday nights, called Noiv with Bill Moyers, so

that's a PBS and NPR collaboration. But now, all of a sudden, you'll see one of our reporters on a PBS broadcast doing the same story that he might be doing for

us. So, people are sharing material more than every

before. You'll see lots of collaborations.

The reason you see all these pictures on CNN is they have television partners all over the world, including in every little local city. As a matter of fact—this

happened in the Columbine High School

shooting—the CBS affiliate in Denver had some exclusive pictures. They were a CNN partner. They fed it up

to CNN, so the NBC affiliate could pull it down some- where else. So, there's lots of sharing of material, and

you're going to see much more of that because there are billions of Web sites, arguably hundreds of big news Web sites, and hundreds of TV channels, and clear channel radios and satellite radio. When there's hundreds and hundreds of options of

all forms of media, then all of the sudden the cost goes out of whack. The thing you used to be able to spend a million dollars on suddenly you can't, because you have

such a narrow audience. It's all narrow, like little magazines. And so, people tend to share more, thinking,

"O.K. I can run this piece that I pulled off of our partner, the Discovery Channel, on Dateline. Dateline and

Discovery have a partnership. Discovery wants it because it promotes their show. NBC wants it because

it's material that they can get cheaper than they would

elsewhere. So you'll see more and more of that. In a way, you could see more redundancy, but in a way, you

have so many more choices. In the future, this means

that people who are creating the content have to worry

about diminishing audiences, less money to gather news, and less money to produce it. Most of the networks have closed down their foreign

bureaus, partly as a result of the "clicking" problem,

because people don't like foreign news as much as they

like domestic news. And most networks are still con- densing what they're doing, even though as they've

added news magazines, as they've added cable affiliations, they're not growing. They're shrinking,

and that's because of the demographics and the splintering of the audience.

And so far, nobody that I know of has made money

off the Internet although my friend at MSNBC says

they're working hard at it. They were pretty close to breaking even until September 11th. I mean, we've all put a lot of burden on September 1 1th, which is probably unfair.

I wanted to talk a little bit about science news. In terms of general news, there's just going to be more and more of it out there. It'll be more homogenous, but

there will be more different sites to find it on. In terms of science news, I have a bleaker picture. As this news

52
hole has expanded and sphntered, we have fewer and

fewer science news specialists working for major news

organizations. And that applies to newspapers, as well, which have reduced their science pages or their science staff, sometimes to zero or sometimes to one

poor schmo who has to be able to answer the question about the new Alzheimer's vaccine- at the same

time he's answering the question about table-top

fusion, which was just the other day. Nobody knows

all that, so we've lost some specialists, and even then, we never really had that many. We had a few at the

broadcast networks—one, in many cases, one producer, one reporter.

At NPR, we have a huge science staff that's probably the biggest science staff of any national news

organization—of any news organization for the public. We have about 20 people between editors and

reporters. And we've kept that going. The New York

Times has stayed pretty stable, but I'd say everybody

else has reduced science coverage. And if you think

about how CNN has to operate or any of the cable

operations operate, they live by yacking. So who do

you yack to? If you don't have anybody inside sort of

giving you somebody good to talk to, then it's harder

to book guests. And a lot of these people didn't like science growing up. They don't know much about it. The last science class they took was in the 7th grade; come to think of it, the last science class I took was in the 10th grade. So, there's nobody there to help translate it even internally to editors or to producers. I worry a little about this. There has been blossoming of cable channels that

deal with science and technology and health; there's just been a huge boom. I mean, there's Regular

Discovery, there's The Learning Channel, which does

a lot of this. There's Discovery Health, there's Discovery Science, there's Discovery Technology. Not

a lot of people get them yet, but they're there. But the

question is, are people watching them? Are these

things accurate? Most of the people who work at these channels don't have a science background. Most

of the channels have one of two people there who

have a science background. So even there, where you

think you're getting specialized information, you're

getting people who care a lot about television but also think that you can keep something on the shelf about

medicine that lasts three to four years, which is not

possible in our current climate of discovery and innovation.

And there is certainly nobody on the local news

level except for somebody who tends to get designated as the health reporter that week or that year. Somebody who comes in with nothing who does

manage to try really hard, makes good relationships

with the hospitals in the area, but can't independently

evaluate the study, doesn't know what a "P value"

is—I had to use my statistical terminology, thank

you—and doesn't have a clue who to call to get some

sort of critical opinion. So, what you would tend to do—this is very typical for television news—is, if there's a story in today's Journal ofthe American

Medical Association, you take a look at it, and you call the local hospital, even though they didn't do the

research (you never talk to the researcher). They

explain it after they look at it, you do two sound

bytes and a little bit of cover in between. You look for a patient who has this problem. Here's Fred with

prostate cancer. Here's Fred eating breakfast with his wife. You always have to start with an anecdote, and

then we go to the doctor at the hospital, you know,

what this new study means and maybe someday, Fred

will be cured with this treatment, and we end with

Fred saying, "I just hope they work it out." And that's the best it gets, right now. And I don't

see that trend changing or reversing itself, because

local news is collapsing its newsrooms. Network news

is collapsing its newsrooms. We're not talking about more specialization here, we're talking about more

need, but less specialization. I hate to sound so glum,

because I want to say that I think that public radio is doing very well. We have an interested, fascinated

audience. We can put on all kinds of intellectual

ideas, and people will watch it and listen. Nightline

just did five half-hours on the Congo and what's happening there, so there's moments of brightness every- where, and people seem to be interested. They're still watching.

Are these young people that I talk about—the 28

percent of the now 1 8 to 34 age group that read a daily newspaper—are more of them going to grow up

to be newspaper readers? Are they going to turn into

the older generation, or is there a permanent change?

I don't know. It's always been that way. People have

always read more and paid more attention as they got

53
older, except for a little blip during the 60s and early

70s, the golden age. And we'll see what happens,

whether young people grow up to be news consumers

or not. I think that they will, but not to the same

numbers. We'll see, maybe eventually, a gradual deterioration, but I hope not.
Live from the Field: Observing Science in its Natural

Habitat

Hannah Holmes, freelance writer; reporter and columnist, Discovery Online; and author,

The Secret Life of Dust: From the Cosmos to the Kitchen Counter

Holmes: Thanks for having me, it's fun to be here. Thanks for the soapbox. It is my favorite one. I think

science writing really labors under a burden: The

public thinks they don't like science stories. But I think they just don't get a lot of perks and thrills and

frills in the average science story. And going into the

field is a really great way to put in a lot of bells and

whistles that will drive a story and keep the momentum going, even if the facts are a bit dull. And when I say that I mean, if you don't mind

dismemberment and dysentery—because there are some hardships that go along with it. So far they seem to balance out.

I want to talk about some elements that go into

most science stories, and how going into the field can pump those up and put some life into a science

report. How it can turn a report into a story. I think

for me the goal is to make a science report into a narrative that has some momentum of its own, and a story line, and characters. So let me just talk about some of the basics that go into a story, and how going

out there can help to build those. One is plot. Science lends itself so well to a mystery story. It always starts with a question. There are always little revelations along the way. At the end

there may be an answer, there may not. There may be new questions—it doesn't matter, if you have the

momentum of a discovery process. Let me just give you an example of how that

played out with my first assignment, with Discovery.

The editors there had read a news report about a woman who found phytoliths—these are little tiny

rocks that form in the skins of plants. She had taken

these out of a mud core from an ancient lake. And by

studying which phytoliths were in which layers, she

could conclude that people were practicing slash-andburn agriculture in Central America 7,000 years ago. Well, that was the news report. Discovery sent me to Panama to turn it into a story. And I collected scenes

that I could string together to bring this series of facts to life. So I met Dolores. She's not just some lady. She's

like a tractor. There's not an ounce of nonsense in this woman. She threw me in her car and drove out into

the Panama countryside. And it was beautiful and

there were orange flower petals all over the road, and

it was just lovely. We got to a big flat valley, a beautiful valley. There were cows out there in the valley.

And it tuns out this is actually an old lake bed. This

is where she got her mud. There is another scene that

I can use. She took me to her mud room, which is a giant

refrigerator full of mud. And she took a core out of

there and brought it to her lab bench. I could smell

the mud. I could see the texture of the mud. I could

bond with the mud. There's another scene. These are some more sensory elements that people can start to hook into to envision this stuff And then she brought out pictures of the phytoliths, and they are not just dumb little rocks

they're beautiful little clear silicate things. Every plant

makes a very specific shape. So some are golf balls. Some are little lasagna noodles. Some are little cones. They're really neat. Some of them were black. They

were black because people had set fire to these plants.

And it started to come to life for me.

For the last piece of that story I went to Barro Colorado Island where there is a rainforest reserve.

I just wanted to see what it's like to be in a real

rainforest. So stringing those things together helped to bring

a news report more to life. That was the early days of

Discovery and they didn't string them together. They

wanted the reader to be able to chart her own course. So you could start anywhere and it was very disastrous. But it was a start. I did my part.

55
Another element of a science story is usually a star or a cast of characters—some researcher or a group.

And I don't know about you, but my experience with

interviewing scientists in their offices is not always

that exciting. And it's understandable. They tend to be nervous. They are worried that you are just not

going to get it. And it's a real risk, I think, a lot of

the time. So they're tense. And they're not accus- tomed to being the center of attention. The dynamic

is just not very good.

But if you get that person out into the field, especially if you get them out with their buddies, it is a completely different situation. The group dynamic

causes everyone's energy to go up. People interact

with each other in real ways that bring out their real personalities. And you see them for the interesting

kooky, odd, weird, whatever—people that they are. For an example, I'll go to Monserrat from Panama.

This situation actually presented both sides of the

coin. The Monseratt Volcano Observatory was a very

transitory place. Both students and sort of "boss

types" would rotate through on pretty short rotations.

Two weeks. Maybe two months. So it was never quite

clear who was who—who's the boss, who are the

small people. There was a lot of tension and a lot of

unhappiness. So I would go into the observatory

every day—I was there for a three-week project

reporting every day to Discovery. I would go in in the

morning, and everyone would just be in their corner doing their thing—nobody looking at anybody else, nobody talking, certainly. And no one talked to me. No one wanted to be overheard because there was so much tension.

But at some point in the day, people would get in a vehicle and go do some field work. And I would get

in the vehicle with them and shut the door and these

personalities would just explode in the car. They

would be joking with each other, making fun of each

other, trying to make me laugh. They would be spontaneously commenting on how the mountain looks

today or how it smells, or what they noticed yesterday. It was a completely different side of them and it was a lot more fun. So one day we went out to get ash samples. And

volcanic ash—again, my first impression is not wild

excitement. It's little, its gray, it's supremely annoying

to work with. But volcanic ash in the hands of this student, Haley, was quite another matter. This girl was screaming at cows because they had knocked over her ash trays. Her ash trays happen to be bureau

drawers that she stole from a dilapidated hotel which

got ashed over. And then she is yelling at her advisor

because he is not being careful brushing the ash out

of the tray into little Ziploc bags. And these will be

sent to the United Kingdom to be analyzed for their deadly crystobalite content. And suddenly, ash is a lot more interesting.

Another day I got in a truck with some students,

with an advisor they really liked. And we went to take

the temperature of some pryoclastic ash that had set- tled over some towns. We're sticking a probe 20 centimeters into some ash and we're waiting the pre- scribed 84 seconds and we're writing down the number. But these folks get along really well. They're having a good time. They're all asking the advisor questions. And he's just feeding them information, feeding

me information, it's very natural. And at some point

he started digging up trees out of the ash. This is like a 20-foot deep section of ash. So he was digging out

these blackened trees, and I'm thinking he's going to analyze these for how hot it was when the ash hit the

trees and he is going to get something really interest- ing here. Turns out they were having a barbecue, and

this was free-range charcoal.

The same group walked up the hill and they

found a little hole in the ash. One of the students

said they had talked to a friend who is a biologist,

and the biologist said that iguanas like to lay their eggs in warm places. And they'll dig down to the

right temperature in the ash and put their eggs in there. And the point is that these aren't one-dimensional,

shy people with one interest. They are multidimensional. They have a lot of interests. They're

creative. They're fun. They're people you want to hang around with. And that is the kind of mood that

I want to pass on to the reader. Sometimes you do have office-bound researchers who don't do wonderful things in the field. But some

of these techniques can still apply. It is a darn sight better to go see someone in their office than to talk to them on the phone, because any little detail you can

56
pass along helps the readers to build their own image

of the person, and to invest in the story.

I'll give you an example from the dust book. I needed a space dust scientist. I had two guys to choose from. One guy was at Caltech. He was doing

interesting research. He was using kiddie pools to catch space dust. He's obviously got some interesting

stuff going on. But I talked to him on the phone and

he was unbelievably shy. He could hardly talk. He

was a yes-or-no kind of guy. Ventured nothing. So I tried the next guy, a researcher at the University of

Washington. Shy! But a little more forthcoming. I went to Seattle for other reasons, so I went and talked

to him. And the guy's wearing a bright green shirt. And I'm thinking, well, that's a little different—that's something that maybe the reader can start to build

on. And he's got some cute mannerisms. Yes, he's shy,

but also he's quirky and he's funny. He's got a poster on his wall of an astronaut standing on the moon in a space suit taking a pee. So even if they're not doing something wild in the

field, there are still details you can pick up about

them that help the reader to understand that they

really are just "folks." Now, all of this stuff is really

window dressing, and little hooks, and little perks to get people to the lesson. Ultimately, I want to sneak some science in here without making it painful. I want it to be so subtle that it is under the radar, and

people don't go, "Ewwww, a science story."

And this where going to the field is really invaluable—for a few reasons. One is accuracy. For me to put my eyes on the subject and watch something

unfold is worth so many millions of words. There is just no comparison.

One very simple illustration of this: Before I went on a fossil expedition, if I had written about a fossil discovery, I would have been at risk of summarizing

along these lines. You go to the field. You dig up a

fossil. You get something that has all its ribs attached,

its legs attached, it's got all its vertebrae in a line, and

you pull that out of the rocks and you take it home.

That would have been my working assumption.

Having seen how it really happens, now I know that

you really just dig up a piece of rock about this big.

Maybe there's a little bit of a head over here. Maybe

there's a little bit of a tail over here. And you hope

the rest is in there. And some time months or years from now, you'll actually see the rest of the fossil. So

without witnessing the process, I would have had no

idea.Another real benefit is access. It's one thing to talk

to somebody on the phone and to have them say, "If you've got any more questions, give me a call. Don't

hesitate to call." Or, "Come by if you have more

questions." Well, that's okay. But if you are on expedition with them, you're living with them and they

can't get away. You throw a rock and you hit someone who is really interesting.

I was on a Woods Hole expedition with the Alvin

submarine—and talk about a contained group. There

was nowhere these scientists could go. And every afternoon the Alvin would come back up on the deck

and all these scientists would gather around. And the

geo guys would take their rocks and go to the rock

lab. And the gas folks would take their gases and go

to the gas lab. And the bio people would take their slimy things and go to the bio lab. And whatever you

were interested in, you'd just go along.

All the grad students and all the other scientists would gather, because a lot of that stuff is pretty new

and pretty exciting. And it was a very spontaneous,

natural, energetic exploration of a discovery—in some

cases, stuff these people had never seen before in per- son. We picked up a spaghetti worm one day from

the bottom of the ocean. I've certainly never seen

one. But I was not the only person asking questions.

No one had seen this. So everyone was talking about

it. That kind of access is just priceless in terms of

bringing the story to life. For me personally, the ability to draw diagrams

and make illustrations is another enormous benefit of

being with the people you are working with. I'm just

kind of stupid about some subjects. If someone can draw me a picture... I was once at the Space Telescope

Science Institute and someone was trying to explain

red shift to me. A guy finally got so fed up he drew a

little diagram on a clear piece of paper—well, a clear piece of something—and he put it on the photocopy

machine and blew it up. And everything moved

farther away from everything else. And it doesn't

translate as I'm telling it to you—which is kind of

the point. I love that about being with people.

57
And finally in terms of conveying the lesson, there

are slow days, there are boring days in research. It's so nice to have fun things to fall back on to keep the

reader there with you, especially if you are doing dayafter-day reporting. So it's nice to be able to fall back on the local culture. How it might relate to the subject. There used to be cabins in Mongolia built out of

dinosaur bones. I never saw one. But that's the kind

of local color that can buttress the science on a slow

day: People have always lived among these things and

this science is just a new way of looking at them.

Now, I did mention that there were some occupational hazards. One of them is that this business

about nature abhorring a vacuum is just not true. The

Monserrat Volcano had not been a toy volcano; it had

killed a lot of people. Destroyed an island. Destroyed

a culture, more or less. My boat pulled up to Monserrat and the thing went dormant. I was there

for three or four weeks, writing every day about the

exciting volcano.

A friend and I, a photographer, we did the San

Andreas fault, started at the bottom and again it was

a daily diary thing for Discovery, for three or four

weeks. There were two earthquakes the entire time,

and both were in towns that we had just left. This is a category of problems that I have learned

to deal with. I always chart out as best I can what I'm going to cover on any given day. I make contingencies. And I always leave things with my editor

things that are completely researched, written, and

done. So if I am stuck in a truck for four days, he has

something to put up. When we went to Mongolia to do dinosaurs, for instance, I left stuff like, "How does a bone turn into

a fossil underground?" It had nothing to do with the

day-to-day excitement, but it was something about

the site, at least. Another occupational hazard, a little more problematic, is the professional category. When you're

living with people you see how cute and funny and

smart and fun they are—and you also see that some

of them are real jerks.

And again, sometimes you're really stuck there.

I've been stuck with a fruit bat who thought I was

broadcasting details of her intimate life on the

Internet. And she was furious with me the entire time

and there was nothing I could do about it. She just wasn't very healthy.

I've been stuck with a stalker. In this case the guy

had control over whether I saw a very special thing ... not that thing! He was in charge of access to a scientific thing. He could say if I got to go on that expedition or not. And he kept me in suspense until the

very end. Had it ever turned into a sort of physically

threatening situation—as opposed to just extremely

annoying—I'm sure I would have done something

about it. But I chose to have that access. Anyone else might do something different. It's just good to know

that that kind of situation can occur. Ego issues can be a nightmare. I think often scientists punish their peers if they appear to be too much

fun, too casual, too un-serious. Scientists who talk to the press a great deal are sometimes at risk of being

slapped by their peers. And that makes them very

sensitive about what you write about them and how

you portray them. And that can be a battle. The worst of this category for me—I'll take anything else—is the desperately shy or disinterested subject. There is just nothing to do about them. If they

don't want to talk to you, they don't want to talk to you. And there you are for three or four weeks.

As unpleasant as the professional hazards are, they

don't hold a candle to the technology hazards.

This is particularly true for the live Internet stuff that Discovery does. I'll just give you a rundown of our Gobi desert experience. This was the American

Museum of Natural History with their annual

dinosaur and mammal expedition to the Gobi desert. The photographer and I, we each had a computer.

We had a back-up computer. We had a satellite phone. We had a back-up satellite phone. We had two

sets of solar panels. And just because of a quirk of

Discovery's calendar, we had to start our project a few

days before we were actually in fossil country, so we

started reporting from Ulan Batar, just with color

local color. We plugged in satellite phone number one and—snap, crackle, pop—we're down a satellite phone already and we haven't left Ulan Batar. So we

hooked up the solar panels, and held them out the

windows to charge up the equipment.

58
Once we got down into the desert, we hooked the

solar panels to the computers. And that seemed all right. You'd wrap up the computer in a lot of plastic

because it is so dusty and then attach it with a little umbilical out through a Ziploc bags to the solar panel

and you'd go off fossilizing with the group for the

day. But you'd look back to camp from.a half a mile

away in the middle of the day and you would see these blue birds. And these solar panels would get

picked up by the wind and they would just go. And

the little laptop would be going along behind it. So we put rocks on them. We sorted that out. And then we got an e-mail over the satellite phone

from our editor saying, "Discontinue all use of the

solar panels." Another guy was on assignment in Brazil using the same configuration and the solar panels had fried his computer dead as a door nail. So

now, "Do not use the solar panels." We're out of outlets now. And we have no solar panels. We're left with

cigarette lighters in the trucks. One night we had a big-pressure event: All the

expedition scientists were gathered around the cigarette lighter and we were talking to the American

Museum of Natural History in New York and this was a big fundraiser/educational event. They had a huge bunch of people asking questions live to the

Gobi desert. Everyone is huddled around the

Mercedes. (Mercedes gave the museum these trucks

with the cigarette lighters.) So they're all huddled

around that thing. And we've got the satellite-phone

receiver on the hood of the car with big rocks on it. (We have learned: Paint is not the issue.) But once

again, a burst of wind out of nowhere, and smackdown with the satellite phone! Smashed it. But it survived.

Then a few days later the phone was in my tent. We would keep all the gear in big aluminum cases in our tents all the time unless we were using it. My

whole tent got bowled like a beach ball across the

Gobi desert with a hundred pounds of gear in it, including that satellite phone. By the end we were down quite a few pieces of equipment. That satellite phone made it just barely to the end of the project.

The San Andreas fault was actually even harder,

which was surprising to me. We were using cell phones to transmit our stories and photos. There was

no service through much of the San Andreas fault zone. And when we could get service, the computer

would not talk fast enough to keep the cell phone

amused. And the cell phone would shut off and that would crash the computer. Over and over and over and over. The photographer took about four hours to send his photographs one night. After that we resort- ed to our usual fall-back position, which is go knock

on somebody's door and try to look cute. We do a lot of that, and meet a lot of nice people. And if we can't find anybody nice we rent hotels by the hour.

I actually sometimes dictate if I just can't get out by computer. If I can find a phone at all, I'll just dictate to an editor. But you can imagine for a photographer it's a little more challenging. We've had some

late-night discussions about just reading off the pixel values. Pixel number 7,458—that's green.

Finally, the category of hazards you are probably

dying to know about is the personal hazards.

Number one is just exhaustion. It is a known fact, when you head out on one of these daily reporting

things you are going to be totally wiped out and

destroyed by the end. Part of it is that you're following somebody else through their day. And their day is probably 10 or 12 or 14 hours long—just to do their thing. And at the end of that when they go have a

beer, you sit down and write a story. And that takes a couple hours. And then you fight with the technology, and that can take 15 minutes on a good day, or 4 hours—or forever—on a bad day. It's exhausting.

And add to that that some of these folks are

really hard drivers and they do not rest. Or they hike

20 miles a day. Or they don't care much for nutrition

and you know, you eat when you find something. Or

they're partying like crazy every night. And all of

these things add to your sleep deficit. Sleep takes a

real beating on these things. I've slept under trucks on these things. And on the ground in sheep doo in New Zealand.

There are some health issues, too, for a lot of these

things. And you're sometimes days' worth of travel from a hospital. I've never had an injury, but a friend

of mine was thrown down the stairs—they probably

have a technical name on a boat for stairs—but it didn't matter to her. She was thrown down 'em and

wrenched her knee. She spent four days in her berth

59
unable to leave. You'd never know it from reading her

coverage. She didn't miss a beat. She had people

bringing her stuff, but she did have surgery when she

got home.

Food is always an adventure. In Madagascar we

headed off into the rain forest with a blue plastic

bucket with chunks of cow in it. In place of refrigeration we had a colander over the bucket. And we just

kept chopping up pieces of that cow for days. It was

kind of nice when it was gone because then we were

allowed to kill the rooster that was tied to a bush. But

after the rooster, we were down to this flat fish that came in plastic bags. Flat dried fish. One of them was

so bad that it got flung into the lagoon near where we

were camped. And then we ran out of fish. And the

fish that had been in the lagoon disappeared—and I think we ate it. Even on the American Museum of Natural

History trip to the Gobi—they take all their own

food—people got violently ill with food poisoning.

So how do you cope with this stuffi" And why

would I ever do it twice?

I try to collect the little miseries and spin them

into something fun. And on a slow day I'll put

together a story that is just "What you don't know

about being on expedition here or there." On the

Mongolian expedition, for instance, I did "Life on a dinosaur expedition," or something like that. And I talked about the excitement of fossil hunting, which

is really just walking for about 12 hours with your

head like this [looks at floor]. And every time you see something white, you bend down to pick it up. And

your backpack slides up your back and your water

bottle smacks you in the back of the head. And then

you picked up a little white rock. That's the excite- ment of fossil hunting.

I went into personal hygiene. We were carrying all our water with us so showers were not an option.

Thirty days. Hygiene really consisted of sitting

around the fire at night rubbing those little black logs

of grime off your skin. And then going to the bathroom in the Gobi

desert [pause] parts of which are remarkably flat. And that's probably a good place for me to wrap

up. Because the fact is for the readers I screen out the

really bad stuff and the boredom and the grind and

the harassment and the egos and all the nasty stuff

For the readers I screen in the excitement and the

fun and the mystery and the silly things and the fun

people.

And the fact is that after a couple of weeks at home, that's what I'm going to remember too. And

then I'm going to hear somebody say, "I'm planning

an expedition to outer Spangodia, where there has

been a protracted civil war and the only food supply

is raw turnips. But we're going down to this really

deep cave for about two weeks, and it's lined with

toxic bacteria so you don't want to touch anything.

But at bottom we've heard that there may be a new

species of spider as big as a basketball." And I think this over and I say, "Take Me!"

60
Lessons from the Research Roadmap for Communicating

Science and Technology irt the 21 st Century

Rick Borchelt, Director, Communications and Public Affairs, The Whitehead Institute

Note: Due to technical dijficulties with the videotaping ofthe meeting

we do not have a transcript available for this talk.

Communicating The Future

Lessons from the Research Roadmap for

Communicating Science and Technology in

the 2P^ Centmy

Rick E. Borchelt

Whitehead Institute

March, 2002

Research Roadmap for the Communication of

Science and Technology in the 21st Ceotuiy (R2)

• Initially chartered by NASA/George C. Marshall Space

Flight Center

• 3-year charter beginning in 1998

• Focus 1: Set a research agenda for S&T

communication

• Focus 2: Identify and articulate "best practices" in public communication of S&T from (mostly U.S.)

research institutions

• Initially banked with $900K annual budget (including

webworks)

61
ScienceT^SmunicanSfi

;

(1) Relationship (if any) between science

communication, science literacy, and

science advocacy

(2) Understand the interests/behaviors of the

consuming publics (audience analysis)

(3)Understand the PlO-researcher-reporter

nexus
cience Communication:

BestPra

Findine 1

There is no such thing as a "general audience"

for S&T communication — there are many

people with many different uses for S&T

information, and many levels of

understanding with which to deal.

Audiences That Matter„

n and trade)

• Third-paity validators and magnifiers

(university and industry research

communities, scientific associations)

• Science-attentive public

Each audience requires a separate message

and message venue

63
The Science-Attentive Audience

• 10+°

' Mostly male

• Mostly younger (changing)

• High discretionary income

• High likelihood of voting, political activism

' Technology-friendly, easy to reach with

minimal translation

> High level of "crosstalk" with other

Dialogue with Policy Makers

identification (-10,000)

• What do they care about? Need audience

needs analysis

• How do they communicate? Need audience

technology analysis

Proactive responsiveness is critical to

reaching this audience

64
Dialogue with Press

Current focus for most science is on a sma]

number of visible national reporters

• TV network news no longer dominates public

discourse—focus on specialty press

• Need to understand what a reporter wants and

needs - not what M'e want or need from the

reporter

The scientific community and managers of the

science enterprise routinely fail to

distinguish between understanding of

science and appreciation for science and its

benefits

65

Ml
Science Communication:

ing J

The myriad of audience needs and interests

should drive public communication of S&T.

Communication should not be dri\ en by the

research enterprise's desires about what it believes publics should know.

The active involvement of scientists and

engineers is critical to the success of science

communication.
cience Communication:

Best Pract'

Finding 5

Science communicators who can foster

mutual respect between science and the

media also are essential for effecti\'e public

communication of science.

Finding 6

The impact of new media and the

fragmentation of existing media will have

profound impacts on how and with whom

we communicate about science and

technology at all levels.

67

J
Finding 6 (corollari

Science communicatioivpublic info

programs that define success as entree to the

evening news already are dinosaurs — based

on a 1940's model of information flow.

• The convergence period for transition to

new media will occur over the next 5-10

years.

tool in the public affairs portjblio, and the

one most likely to yield the greatest longterm credibility and success in the

communications arena ofthe 21st century.

"

68
How Science Books Drive Public Discussion

Bruce Lewenstein, Associate Professor of Science Communication, Cornell University

/r.^ China's Angry Studegts

riMh

Fusion or

iU Illusion?

Introduction

Why should we care about books? We hve in a "new media" world where we're all using the Web,

and creating public discussion and dialogue, and

putting in the infrastructure for electronic chat rooms, and so on. In that kind of world, what's the

purpose of looking at "old fashioned" books?

There are several reasons. The first is that books

have clearly been influential in public debate. It's so easy to point to some examples of books that have

been influential in science or public issues over the

last few generations. We can easily come up with

examples like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring or the

phenomenon of Stephen Hawking's book, A Brief

History of Time. So one reason to study books is to understand: What's going on here? What role have

books played in public debate?

Another issue is a more general one about history. I'm trained as an historian. Those of us who are his- torians don't just do it because it's fun, because we

like reading other people's mail—though we do. But we also do it because we think that there is something that you gain by looking at new things with an understanding of old things.

So, for example, those of you have been following

the news know that there's a new claim of tabletop

fusion coming out today in Science magazine. As an

historian, I created an archive on cold fusion at Cornell 13 years ago, where we looked at not just

how the media covered cold fusion, but also at general questions about cold fusion, like. How did it develop? What were the social issues that led to that development? Figure 1 shows an issue of Time magazine from those days—slightly altered, to show that an almost identical issue could appear this week fea- turing the new research. What appears to be a new

furor may be very similar to an old furor. I think

there is something to be gained by looking back at history.

ORNL

physicists?

Figure 1 . Why studying history matters: Does cold fusion repeat itself?

A third reason for thinking about books is that we traditionally think about books as being carriers of culture. The World Wide Web and other new

media are part of culture, bur they don't carry cul- ture (although maybe soon they will). Books are where we traditionally turn for culture, and so

they're a valuable point of study for understanding

ourselves and our culture.

Conceptual Models

Finally, I think it's worth studying books because

they force us to think about all forms of media.

There is something to be gained by thinking about

science communication generally. We shouldn't just

ask: What are good ways to reach people? We need

to ask more theoretical questions. What are the models of science communication? How do we imagine

that information flows? We need to ask those questions because rethinking that conceptual model can

affect what we consider to be "best practices" (which

is what this meeting is all about). We tend to think

69
Lab Formal Paper

. Meetings- it

-»». Preprints

Mass Media

Textbcxjks

Policy

Documents,

etc.

Figure 2: The traditional model of science communication.

about science communication as a formal process

(Fig. 2). Science happens in the lab. It goes through some meetings and preprints and it is finally published in a formal paper and then it is "science." Only

after it gets to "science," does it get out to mass media

and textbooks and policy documents.

From studying the cold fusion case and other

instances where the daily processes of science become more easily visible, we have learned that the science

communication process is a lot messier (Fig. 3). Stuff

happens in the lab and in field work and it doesn't

necessarily go through formal publication, but instead

goes to e-mail or straight to a museum or (as Hannah

Holmes suggested in her presentation at this meeting)

straight from a journalist out in the field to a documentary or Web site. Science information

flows all over the place.

The value of this kind of

conceptual approach is to remind us that, as we think

about public communication of

science, we have to think about

it in a more complex way, not as

a simple linear process. We have to think about the

multiple ways that information is flowing.

A second conceptual issue is to think about the

models of what we are trying to accomplish with public communication:

Deficit model

Contextual model

Lay expertise/lay knowledge model

Public participation model

The labels I'm using here are slightly different

than those used by Susanna Priest and Rick Borchelt

in their presentations at this meeting, but the ideas

are similar. The traditional deficit model is the idea

that if we simply provide information, things will get

better. As we've heard over and over at this meeting,

such as in Joe Schwarcz's presentation, there is a tremendous need to provide information. There's

nothing wrong with the deficit model: we do need to provide information. But that only captures part of

the need. The contextual model addresses the issue that there is not a single audience, but in fact there

are multiple audiences. We need to think about those

audiences in context: For what reason do they need

information? In what situation do they need information? This model highlights that we need to provide

information in different ways to different groups at different times, to address the contexts in which they

use information. Somewhat more controversial is the

model of lay knowledge or lay expertise—the idea

/

/

Documentaries

Museums

Entertainment media

(Movies, sitcoms)

Government

reports ,

E-mail

Seminars

Public discourse

(Churclies. bars,

talk shews, letters to editor)

General books

Policy documents

Fig. 3: The sphere of science communication. Adapted from

Lewenstein, B. (1 995). From Fax to Facts: Communication in the Cold

Fusion Saga. Social Studies of Science, 25(3), 403-436

Lab/fleld work 'i

( Preprints

'

, Meetings

Research news

News media

Journals

Grant proposals Textbooks

Reference works

70
1947 (history): Baxter, Scientists Against Time

1967 (history): Goetzmann, Exploration and Empire

1978 (gen nonfiction): Sagan, Dragons ofEden

1 979 (gen nonfiction): Wilson, On Human Nature

1980 (gen nonfiction): Hofstadter, Gddel. Escher. Bach

1982 (gen nonfiction): Kidder. Soul ofa New Macliine 1984 (gen nonfiction): Starr. Social Transformation ofAmerican Medicine

1986 (history): McDougall, ...The Heavens and the Earth 1988 (history): Bruce, Launching ofModern American Science 1988 (gen nonfiction): Rhodes. Making ofthe Atomic Bomb

1991 (gen nonfiction): Holldobler and Wilson, Ants

1995 (gen nonfiction): Weiner, Beak of the Finch

1998 (history): Larson, Summerfor the Gods

1998 (gen nonfiction): Diamond, Guns. Germs, and Steel 1999 (gen nonfiction): McPhee. Annals ofthe Former World

that sometimes public communication is about communicating ideas from what we would traditionally

call "non-experts" into the research enterprise. For

example, AIDS activists and cancer activists have

shaped the research agenda by bringing to the table

their knowledge and their expertise about what issues are salient. They don't change nature itself, but they

change what we know about nature and what we

think about nature and where we put our efforts in terms of understanding nature. That's a different kind

of communication setting than a setting of simply

providing information to fill a deficit. The final model is what Susanna Priest called the

public opinion model, what Rick Borchelt called the

dialogue model, and what I call the public participation model. They are all essentially the same thing. As

a society, we claim we're interested in this issue of

public communication because science is important

in an democracy. The key thing about a democracy is public participation in all facets of discussion of public issues. The public participation model of science

communication highlights the need to create venues and opportunities for public discussion.

These conceptual models provide a background.

When we start talking about books, we are thinking

about books in the context of the overall web of communication. We are talking about them in the context of multiple models of public communication of sci- ence. So then we can ask questions about what multiple roles might the books be playing.

Are Science Books Important?

To understand the role(s) of books, I am looking

at the history of science books since World War II. I'm looking both at books within science, such as textbooks and conference proceedings, and more public books, such as bestsellers, Pulitzer Prize winners,

and other contributors to public and intellectual debate. In this talk, I'm just looking at the public

books.

There are a couple of different ways of identifying

books that play a role in public culture. There are the ones that have some kind of official presence: they

have won an award, a Pulitzer Prize, a National Book

Award, etc. Or, they have been certified as being popular by virtue of being on one of several bestseller

Figure 4: Science-oriented Pulitzer Prize Books after World War II

lists. Or they fall into a category I call "remembered

books," the ones where someone I'm talking with

remembers the book and then says, "But you're going

to include that book, aren't you?" These are the books

that have become touchstones for us. Let me start with the Pulitzer Prize winners

(Fig. 4). In the first 30 years after World War II, there were almost no science books. One book, James

Phinney Baxter's Scientists Against Time, published

right after the war, was a story about the atomic

bomb. William Goetzmann's book. Exploration and

Empire, was about exploration of the American west. But beginning with Carl Sagan's Dragons ofEden in 1978, then every year or every other year, the

Pulitzers begin honoring a science book. They are not

all history of science, either. They show up in both

the general non-fiction and the history category of

the Pulitzers. Clearly, something happens in the late 1970s to make science books more central to American culture. Science becomes a part of the general public discussion. Interestingly, that same time

period is also about the time of the "science boom."

There were some new popular science magazines that

started in the late 1970s and early 1980s. There were new science television shows

Nova's first broadcast was in 1973. The science museum industry was booming. All this data suggests that the relationship

of science with American culture went through a change in the late 1970s, in which science became a necessary part of any cultural discussion.

The pattern continues in more recent years, with

books like Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel

71
inoo->- ^N-ocntDcncNu^iaDT-'-^r-onu^cxi

a> Gi (J> Gi GiGiGyGiGiG>GiG>GiG)G>Gi

scientific are not. Nonetheless, it is important for us

to see that these "pubhc science" books get some of

their credibiUty precisely because they lay claim to the

authority of science. Some people argue that science

is not valued in our society. I disagree. These books

become bestsellers by claiming to draw on science,

which they do because science is respected in the

community of ideas. The book data indicates that sci- ence actually plays a very important and respected

role in general culture. Figure 6 shows titles from the annual Publishers

Weekly bestseller list. This list again shows the importance of "public science" topics, such as sex. Consider

the two books on human sexuality by Alfred Kinsey

and his colleagues, published in the late 1940s and

early 1950s. These are not books that anyone would

predict would become best sellers, once you get past

the title, because they are actually dull, dry academic

treatises. But the titles alone seem to have sold a fair number of copies. We also see Sherry Hite's Hite

Report and the Masters and Johnson book on Human

Sexual Response there. Another "public science" topic

is exploration. Many books on the list, such as Thor

Heyerdahl's Kon-Tiki and Rachel Carson's earlier book. The Sea Around Us, fall into that category.

(Carson was a bestselling author 10 years before Silent

Spring came out.)

Then there are the "grand" books, such as Jacob

Brownowski's Ascent ofMan or Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

These are perhaps the first of the books that we

would think of as "science as science" books (not

counting Kinsey and Masters and Johnson), books

about scientific ideas. It's interesting to note that

these "science as science" books, too, appear only in the 1970s. The breakthrough clearly comes in 1980

with Sagan's Cosmos. The TV show, of course, was

tremendously powerful and well known and is partly

what drove the sales. But the book itself was also a bestseller—a bestseller so great that shortly after it was published, Sagan was given a $2 million contract

lor what would become the novel Contact. At the

time, that was the largest advance ever given for a fic- tion book that was not even in manuscript form.

Cosmos marked the moment that something different was clearly going on.

Figure 5. Number of "science" titles added to New York Times

bestseller list.

and John McPhee's Annals ofa Former World. Those

of us who are science attentive have been reading

McPhee for years, but only recently has he received

this national award recognition.

Looking at bestsellers, I see a similar pattern.

Figure 5 shows data from the weekly Neiv York Times

bestseller list. Although the data shows lots of variation, there is a clear change in the late 1970s. Before

then, only rarely did more than 10 new scienceoriented books a year become added to the list. But

after 1978, only rarely do fewer than 10 science-oriented books get added to the list. More science books

are being sold. That's another marker to suggest that science is a necessary part of ongoing cultural conversations. The Pulitzer Prize data and the bestseller data

suggest that the idea that there are "two cultures" (of

science and arts) that don't speak to each other may

no longer hold (if it ever did).

To understand this new cultural debate, we need

to know more about what specific types of books

were appearing on the bestseller lists. There are a least two kinds. First are the books in which "science"

appears as a main character. These are the books that

are about physics, or astronomy, or biology or so

forth. The second set of books are those that I call "public science." These books are about, for example,

sex, but they draw on the science of sex. These are the

inspirational books that draw on psychological

research. Many of the diet, health, fitness, and medicine books draw on scientific research or at least the

appearance of scientific research. I don't want to claim that all of these books use science well. As the

examples cited in the talk by Joe Schwarcz at this meeting demonstrated, many books that claim to be

72
In the "science as science" category, the next big

moment was Hawking's A BriefHistory of Time.

Hawking's book is the one that everybody bought but

nobody read. He says in the introduction that he left

out all the mathematical equations so that he

wouldn't lose readers, but the book is still a pretty

tough read. It sold 700,000 copies in hardcover in its

first year, 400,000 copies in its second year. That's

just in hardcover. It sets a new sort of expectation

about what books can accomplish. There are changes

in what counts as a bestseller during this period, so it appears that the ranking of science books goes down.

But Hawking's book opens up the book publishing

world—and thus the broader cultural world—to sci- ence. After it appears, science books get entire aisles in the book store, agents go seeking authors like Hannah Holmes to write books about engaging in science.

All of this evidence suggest that books have played

a role in general American culture. Some of the evi- dence shows that books are even more important in recent years than they were in an earlier time, even with all the changes in media.

How are Science Books Important?

Books exercise their cultural importance by contributing to public discussion in four areas.

First, books are important to the intellectual devel- opment of science itself. Even though some of the

bestselling or prize-winning books are targeted to the

public, they also are targeted to the scientific community or they play a role within the scientific community. That should not surprise us, given the conceptual understanding that the "sphere of science communication" gives us, which stresses the feedback among

different forms of communication and the loops that

connect different types of communication.

The second role that books play is to recruit people into science. This function is not unlike the goal

of many of the Websites or community-based projects

that have been featured at this meeting. That makes

sense, because if books are part of general cultural dis- cussion, then the functions of books should be similar

to the functions of other activities within the culture. The third role is one that cannot easily be

expressed in English. The French call it culture scientifique, the idea of everyday culture as infused with

science. If we say "a scientific culture" in English, it doesn't carry the same meaning that it seems to carry

in the French-speaking countries. The idea is that books show the integration of science and culture in our everyday life. The final role is one of public debate, in which

books are the location or the forum in which public

issues can be discussed.

A. Intellectual developnnent of science itself For an example of how a prize-winning book contributes to science itself, consider E.O. Wilson's

Sociobiology. This book was partly intended for the

science attentive public, elite intellectual community.

But it was also an argument within science itself It was Wilson's full, complete statement of the sociobiology program. It was intended for use within the

scientific community as a statement of that program.

In a very real sense, it pulled that field together, making explicit some of the connections and ideas that had previously existed only in separate papers or only

in specialist communities. Wilson's book made the new field concrete.

Year Place Author, title

1948 4 Kinsey et al.. Sexual Behavior in the Human'Male

1950 5 Heyerdahl. Kon-Tiki

1951 6 Carson. The Sea Around Us

9 Heyerdahl. Kon-Tiki

1952 4 Carson. The Sea Around Us

1953 3 Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female

1958 8 Heyerdahl, Aku-Aku

1966 2 Masters and Johnson, Human Sexual Response

1975 4 Bronowski. The Ascent ofMan

1976 9 Hite, The Hile Report: A Nationwide Survey ofFemale Sexuality 1977 7 Sagan, Dragons ofEden

1980 2 Sagan. Cosmos

1981 5 Sagan, Cosmos

1988 3 Hawking. BriefHistory- of Time

1989 6 Macaulay. The Way Things Work

13 Hawking, BriefHistoiy of Time

1992 30+ Sagan, Shadows ofForgotten Ancestors 1994 24 Preston. Hot Zone

26 Hermstein and Murray, Bell Curve

1995 14 Goleman. Emotional Intelligence 1996 30+ Goleman. Emotional Intelligence 1997 30+ Merck Manual

Figure 6: Science-oriented bestsellers after World War II

73
A similar function was played by one of the text- books I've looked at, James Watson's Molecular

Biology ofthe Gene, published in 1965. That book

pulled together the field of molecular biology, which

had not existed before. Whole courses were created to teach that textbook. In the same way, courses were

suddenly created called "Sociobiology," based on

Wilson's book, pulling together the field in a way that had not been true before. Yet, especially because of

Wilson's last chapter on humans, the book also became part of a general public discussion about the nature of who we are. Another example is Joseph Weizenbaum's

Computer Power and Human Reason. The book is a key text within artificial intelligence. At the same

time, it is also part of the general discussion about the

role ol computers in society, the workings of the

human mind, and all those related topics.

James Gleick's Chaos is interesting because it also seems to serve this intellectual role within science, even though it was written as a popular science book.

It was just another journalist going out and writing a book that would explain some area of science. And

yet, the book served the function of pulling that field together, the field of complexity and chaos, in a way

that it had not previously been pulled together. If you

look at some of the more recent books that are histories of the fields of chaos or complexity, they will cite Gleick's book as being one of the things that pulled

all those people together, that made them suddenly

realize that they were all talking to each other. The

public discussion shaped the intellectual discussion as well—through the medium of books.

B. Recruitment

Recruitment books pull people into science. These

are books that people cite as "Hey, the reason I'm a

scientist is because I read that book." Paul De Kruif's

Microbe Hunters is the epitome of these books.

(Although it was published a generation before the

period I'm considering, it continued its powerful pull

for many years.) It is astonishing how frequently that book appears in the memories (and sometimes memoirs) of senior scientists who became biologists in the

1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. They read Microbe Hunters

and that's what turned them on.

James Watson's Double Helix is a very different

kind of book, but served much of the same purpose

in the 1960s, 1970s, and maybe even the 1980s. If you look at the people who are today at the forefront

of biotechnology or genomics, many of them read

that book as graduate students and said "Yeah, That is the kind of scientist I want to be! I get to make a Nobel Prize-winning discovery, and then I get to go

play tennis, and then I get to go get the girls." That

sounded like a cool kind of career. More recently, particularly in astronomy or

physics, you get people for whom Cosmos (either the

TV show or the book) served the same function.

These are often people who were so turned on by the

TV show that they went out and got the book.

Cosmos has had the same kind of recruiting power as the De Kruif and Watson books: "Why are you an

astrophysicist or an astronomer?" "Because I saw Carl

Sagan's Cosmos" or "I read Cosmos."

C. Culture scientifique

The third role of books is this culture scientifique

idea. This is the idea that you are expected to have

read some particular books if you want to call yourself "cultured." The books by Isaac Asimov, Stephen

Jay Gould, or Bronowski, are "required reading" in

cultured circles (although the list does change over time—Asimov is probably less read now than he was

during his lifetime). You can't consider yourself a cul- tured person if you haven't read the essays of Lewis

Thomas about medicine, or more recently Dava

Sobel's Longitude. Not all of these books have tremendous amounts of "science" in them. Thomas's essays

are as much about philosophical approaches to illness

as they are explanation of disease, and Sobel's book is more adventure story than science explanation. But

you are "expected" (in some circles) to have read

those books. Among the "science attentive" public,

you are expected to have seen the excerpts of these

sorts of books in the New Yorker. Asimov is an interesting case in this category.

Asimov is actually best known for his science fiction books. Of his 400-plus books, Amazon.com lists about 285 of them. His Foundation series is first, and

it ranks about 9,700—in the top 10,000 items on Amazon.com. Some of his nonfiction books rank in the top 50,000, but they tend to be his books about

74
the Bible or about bawdy limericks (he had range!).

The first of his non-fiction science-oriented books is Atoms: A Journey Across the Subatomic Cosmos. That

book ranks about 50,000 on the hst. It's the 26th of

his books on the hst, so it's about 10 percent of the

way down.

Asimov also is interesting because he reflects the

commitment to a scientific worldview that is often at the core of these culture scientifique books. To illustrate, let me use a personal example: In the late 1980s, I wrote an op-ed piece for The Scientist, a weekly newspaper for scientists, in which I talked

about what I called the "arrogance of pop science." I was addressing the question of who should popular

science be directed toward. I was arguing that a lot of

the popular science magazines that had been pro- duced at that time, and that by then were in trouble

(many of them had failed or been sold to new owners), had failed not because they aren't pretty, but

because they were speaking from the scientific point

of view. They were not starting where audiences were, which was a concern about their personal situations or their personal interests or their personal diseases. Too many of the magazines, I argued, were stuck in an elitist scientific point of view. Asimov got a little annoyed at that, and he wrote a letter to the editor. I'm proud that I generated a letter to the editor by

Isaac Asimov. He said; "I don't understand what this Lewenstein nut is saying. Because he is saying that if people are stupid, then I need to start where they are. That doesn't make sense. "By Newton," he thundered

(not "by God," but "by Newton"), "I'd rather be arro- gant than stupid."

D. Public Debate

The final role is the role of public debate or public

opinion. Books do not just provide information, nor do they just excite people, but some of them are in

fact making arguments. Rachel Carson's Silent Spritig

is the most obvious example. That book made an argument about chemicals in our society and is widely cited as being the founding document of the environmental movement. The argument did not go

uncontested. Carson's book was not attacked just by

chemical companies, it was attacked by science writers. In 1963, a well-known science writer named

Lawrence Lessig won the American Chemical

Society's Grady-Stack Award (for excellence in science

journalism). As part of his award speech, he called Carson's book "highly emotional with a biased thesis." Much of his talk was an attack on Silent Spring.

This example demonstrates the degree to which there was an argument which many people felt was needed.

Similarly, Evelyn Fox Keller's The Feelingfor the Organism, a biography of Barbara McClintock, was

part of a discussion about the nature of science and

whether feminine science was somehow different than

masculine science. Did McClintock do science differ- ently? Did she have some kind of female connection

with her materials that males didn't have? Fox Keller was making an argument, one that's part of an on- going argument. Lots of people have criticized some

of the technical details of Fox Keller's book, but for our purposes, the important point is that she was

engaging in public discussion of a contemporary

issue. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's book

on The Bell Curve is similar: Many people will argue

with the science in it, they will argue about whether

it properly reports research findings or interprets data

correctly. But the point is that it became a topic of

discussion. The Bell Curve was the kind of book

where there were public debates, op-ed pieces, magazine pieces, newspaper articles, policy discussions, and

so forth. It's an example of how books can play a role

in public discussion.

Conclusion

Books drive public discussion most simply because

they are part of the media mix that permeates our

culture. While we focus on the World Wide Web and

other new media because of their freshness, we can't forget that there are lots of other pieces in the sphere

of science communication; books are there. More

deeply, books drive public discussion because of the

multiple roles they play in providing information,

engaging lay expertise, and contributing to public

discussion.

Books bring new perspectives into science. As we

think about the functions of public communication

of science and technology, we need to remember

examples like Chaos, the book in which the journalist

James Gleick pulls together an intellectual field in a

75
way that hadn't been done before. We need to think

about stimulating discussion—not just making you

feel good the way a Lewis Thomas book did, but

making you argue with a book in the way the

Herrnstein and Murray book did. That is a role that books can play. That role highlights the public participation or public opinion model.

Ultimately, books create the culture that we live

in. They are elements both of the scientific culture

and of our more general culture. By looking at them we can actually see the ways in which science and

modern culture are not separate but are—to use a jargon word from the sociology of science—co- produced. Neither science nor society exists without

the other one. Books provide an example of how that

interaction exists in a real, material way. If we think

about the multiple ways that books demonstrate the

interaction of science and society, then we can also see the ways in which the other activities that participants in the Best Practices for the Communication of

Science and Technology to the Public meeting are engaging are contributing not just to solving some

particular problem, but in fact are serving to create a

scientific culture, a culture scientifique.

Acknowledgments: This study was partially supported by

the Chemical Heritage Foundation's Eugene Garfield

Fellowship in History ofScience Information Systems.

The data on New York Times bestseller lists was compiled by Diane Renbarger, funded through the Cornell

University Presidential Research Scholars program.

I

i

76
Graphic Science: New Venues for Science Communication

Frank Burnet, Faculty of Applied Science, University of the West of England

Burnett: The microphone is a genuine formahty,

I'm afraid, because my first departure ever into the

communication of science was when I volunteered for The Loudest Voice in Britain award on BBC TV, the

Late, Late Breakfast Show, and I won.

Interestingly, they wanted me to shout something

that a university lecturer, they imagined, might shout,

like, "Get out of my lecture theater and never come

back, you! ' and instead I shouted (I wont shout it), I shouted, "Eureka! It's a 4-androstene 3,17 jam diol!

which doesn't exist, but it's a steroid in chickens.

Anyway. So, I was such a huge success my children

from then on for about 10 years never introduced me

as their father, just the man with the loudest voice in Britain, so there you go. If I boom, I boom.

But today, it's my great pleasure, and I do feel very

privileged to have been asked to come and speak here. Very privileged indeed, I find this conference very

stimulating and it's great to be able to present work,

which may not have been seen on this side of the

pond too much, and that's a great privilege. Thank

you for asking me. New venues for science communication, what I'm going to talk about, picks up on some of the themes

that have been in discussion here today. For example,

I will touch, definitely, on dialogue. I'll be touching

Frank Bumet

Ben Johnson

Madeleine Ings

on audience targeting, defmitely, and I have my own

particular interest, which is generic venues for communication, and I'll be touching on that, as well.

Wliere Are We?

Bristol

The most beautifnl, interesting and

distinguished city in England

-Sir John Betjeman

So, who are we? That's me, a little younger. That's

Ben Johnson, who's my principal researcher always

coming in slightly sideways, and this is Madeleine

Ings, who actually keeps us both in order. Graphic

science, as an organization, works through an associ- ate principle. We're the small core team. We take on

projects. We bring in people to run the projects with

us, so we have a rolling group of associates—some

roll more than others—who are associated with the team.Where are we? We're in Bristol, which is there. And just so you can get to know what it's like, it is the most beautiful, interesting, and distinguished city in all England. It's in the West. So where do we work? Well, we work in supermarkets. We devise ways of taking science to people in supermarkets. Now why do that? Well, I've just

picked up this new term, culture scientifique.'" I rather like it. Although I'm doing it, possibly not, for the attentive. I'm generating ''culture scientifiques" for the inattentive, so to speak, and the supermarkets are good venues for that. People are wandering around,

there's all this stuff around them, which of course is very science-loaded.

For example, there happens to be a picture of a flower stall in the supermarket. We devised a multiple-choice quiz with a prize at the end. Ten

questions, prize at the end, which you did as you

went around the supermarket. And, above the flower

77
Wliere Do We Work?

Supermarkets

stall, we hung a huge sign which just said, "Are flowers male, female, or male and female?" End, my multiple choice question. And the answer is, "both,"

quite so. Anyway, so, we did that in the other aisles. For example, here's the one we put on the Web:

"Tomatoes ripen faster if you put them in a brown

paper bag, because: It's dark. It keeps the air out. It keeps the air in. The ripening gas can't escape. You

Q. Tomaloes ripen faster If you put them in a brovm paper bag because

a) !t"s dari<

f~ b) It keeps the air out

c) It keeps the air In d) The ripening gas can't escape r e) I give up

give up." Can I have a concerted shout of a letter of

your choice? 1-2-3, go. D. Yeah, right. Now, it's interesting you should all know that so well because

of course, the world is full of people who space their tomatoes out on window ledges. Yeah, not a great

place for ripening stuff and gas going on.

So, we did that kind of thing. This is about the

centrality of science to everyday experience. That's

what we're trying to do. We're trying to point out

the fact that people are surrounded by science. They

live in a scientific culture. And, that's all we're intending. Before I go any further, I must say, we are not

trying to educate people. That's not our purpose. We

are simply bringing science out of the closet where it has managed to get itself hidden, and placing it back

alongside music and literature and so on, within culture. That's what we see ourselves as doing, relocat- ing it. We're not trying to ensure that absolutely

Where Do We Work?

Supermarkets

Schools

SCIENCE YEAR

FAST fOSWAliO TO IM£ ruTUSS everybody in Britain is ripening their tomatoes correctly. This really doesn't bother me. They can do

with their tomatoes whatever they wish. What about

tomatoes? This is sort of a tomato-dominated conference. Let's hope they don't throw them.

Anyway, so we work in schools. Very interesting

leading up to this discussion about the importance of

getting people young, this has been very much taken

up by the British Government. This year is "Science

1 1-14 year olds

SCIENCE YEAR

Year"—fast forward to the future—in British schools. And we've been working in schools using one of the

techniques that we have developed with designers.

Now, one of the things that I never understood

about design, because incidentally I'm a biochemist

by training, was that designers can target audiences.

Designers can identify, get you a particular audience

with great accuracy using design motifs and colors. And for that reason, we work with designers when

we're given a specific target audience.

In this particular case, the target audience is 1 1 to 14-year-olds. And we've created two posters for Science Year. One was their launch poster, which

simply, it's not a science poster, it simply says, "Catch the Wave." So it was about getting on the

78
wave. Aimed at 1 1 to 1 4-year olds, specifically trying

to focus on girls, but also on boys, Manga-style car- toon, you'll notice, it's the one on the—it's the one I could tell you if I knew how to use this machine. It's this one. Manga-style, because that is used if you go

to Web sites, aimed at this age group, Manga-style's

in use, and a color palette which is also used very

much in those kinds of magazines and Web sites. So this is—it may not be to you, in fact, you'll

probably hate it but it will catch the eye of that

group, reasonably effectively. We just produced

another poster for them, which actually isn't out and

this is a draft so the pics missing, but I've got the real thing out in the hall if you want to see it. It's quite

large. This is called an "empty belly" poster; delightful term. It just means that it's there so the school can

stick their own message, whatever it is, in the center where it says "text message," and the rest of the poster

uses, now, not just colors, uses words. They're in common parlance within that group, like. Neighbours

is the most popular soap. Matrix, as you know, a movie. Hearsay is the most popular pop group.

Destiny's Child, another pop group, uses these words

to draw attention to the graphic and to put science in the context of their culture. So, this is work we're doing with Science Year and these posters are going to every school in the UK—every secondary school.

We also work in science centers—and I've had

very interesting conversations with people who work

in science centers here. Our work in science centers,

is actually dialogue-focused. It's looking at a problem,

which has been alluded to by an earlier questioner,

which is "Okay, so we want to have some dialogue.

How do we do this? How do we structure dialogue?

And do people have to be prepared in some way for the dialoguing process?" Do you simply send them an

invitation and say, "Come and discuss genetic screen- ing tomorrow," or do you try and brief them? Are you

trying to get some deliberation by them before they

express their opinion? We were asked to develop tools

for use in a science center environment—so things

that would be fun to use, but which would give people opportunity to explore areas, "hot topics" as we

call them, of science and technology, and to do two

things. One, is to express their opinion and compare

that opinion with everybody else who'd ever used this particular installation, because it's software that

A computer called Deep

Blue con beat the world

chess champion.

Robots have reploced people in many factories.

In the future, robots could do more and more things

for us.

remembers people's reactions and responses, but also

to get them to explore the dimensions of their opinion.

Let me give you an example. So, this is about

robots. A brief introductory—three sentences: A computer called Deep Blue can beat the world chess

champion. Robots have replaced people in many factories. In the future, robots could do more and more

things for us. And then a question: Would you have a robot living in your home? And then an answer 'yes' or 'no,' and then feedback—now this is a prototype

it's now run for about a year, so we've got tens of

thousands of responses to this but this was when we

were in development. Essentially, what the machine

does is it tells you everybody else's opinion, whether

or not they'd have a robot in their home. It also tells you about people of your age, and if you like, people

of your gender's opinion about that question. So,

you're expressing your opinion, and you're also com79
paring your opinion with those of everybody else who's ever used the installation. When you logged in, incidentally, you gave an age

range. So, you have two bits of information you're

asked to give when you log in; only two: your age

an age range, not your exact age—and your gender.

And then you ask them to look at questions like,

"Would you have a robo-date?" Fifty-two percent

said, "Yes." Now, there's a reason for this. It's not a technical fault. At this very early stage, a day or two

to actually using the thing, lots of young children had

used it. So, would you have a robo-date? Would you

have a robo-chauffeur? Robo-chauffuer.'' Show of

hands, fancy a robo-chauffer? Yeah, you people are, 45 percent—we'll go dentist. No? Robo-cleaner? Yeah!

So, the purpose here is, what's your robot tolerance? In other words, are there things you'd have a robot do

for you and others you would not? And we just got

people to look at that. We weren't telling them, we're

just getting them to look at it.

We also worked in pubs. You'd never have guessed.

Those of you who've met me over the last few days,

you'd never have guessed I ever worked in pubs. I'm a complete stranger to pubs. In fact, when I decided to work in pubs I had to be taken into one just to see what it looked like, really. But they turned out to be

okay, and they are interesting venues for science communication. I don't know whether this—and this has

been done. This has been done in Australia—there is science in the pub, and in Britain, there are a very

interesting set of talks and debates in pubs called "cybars." So, and this actually is built on the ''cafe scientifique" principle—we keep going back into

French—which—yes, it's French. Anyway, but pubs

this is slightly different. This is called "Pub Genius,"

and it's a quiz; not just a science quiz like lots of sci- ence questions you happen to ask at a pub, but lots of

questions about the science you find around you in pubs. Back to the same theme, the science that super- market goers have around them; their scientific culture. So, this is about the science you have around

you when you're in the pub. And this combines two

methodologies. One is a series of questions. Now, pub

quizzes are very popular things in the UK, and pubs

specialize in them, and so you could just get people

to pick up this specific event in this generic venue.

You'll notice all the venues, so far, are generic. The

supermarket is everywhere. Once you devise something, you don't have to go out and do it all again,

you just let it go. You just put it on the Web, and

anybody who wants to can do a supermarket thingy.

The pub quiz, anyone who wants to can do this quiz.

You could come and get the questions from me after

this, if you like, they're all there.

So, the idea is to create events which are infectious, which travel, which have their own way of

going, which people will pick up and go, "That's

good. We've got a social club. We've got nothing to do next Thursday. Why don't we have this idiot's quiz?"

So, within the quiz there are eight questions about

beer. There are eight questions about wine. There are eight questions about whiskey. There are eight questions about toilets. There are eight questions about

fast food. There are eight questions about hangovers,

and so on. This one is about wine, just asks about the

alcohol limits in wine: "What limits wine to an alco80
Q. What limits wines to an alcohol content of betv/een 1 1 % and 14%?

a) Yeast dies above this alcohol concentration

|~ b) Licensing laws

c) Excise duty

<" d) Fussy landlords

t) 1 give up

hol content of between 1 1 and 14 pertent? Is it the

yeast die? Is it licensing laws? Is it excise use? Is it fussy landlords?" And the answer is, "A."

So, it's a question chosen to underline that making

something like wine is a process which involves sci- ence, it involves organisms, and that's the question.

We don't just have questions, because in a pub you

can't just do questions. We also do tricks. Thank you.

This is a very simple one. A very simple one, indeed. I gather you have these in the States, they're

Alka Seltzer. And you have these, film cans. Take an Alka Seltzer, put it in a film can. Take a little water

they thought I was going to do a rather bigger trick

clip the top, tightly on the film can [pop!]. Ah, that was a little undramatic, but all great failures tend to

be.

I've got another, and hopefully—actually, what

you can do to make an appalling mess, is to put the can upside-down. I hope. The wait's a good thing,

[pop!] Ah, yes! So, and of course the question you ask

the audience, and the prize is a bottle of beer, is why?

Why? Why does that happen? And I won't, of course, you know why it happens; that's sodium bicarbonate,

tiny bit of citric acid in there, carbon dioxide is pro- duced. Film cans are specially designed to be light

tight, and therefore have tight tops—you're offi

Where Do We Work':'

Supermarkets

Schools

Science Centres

Pubs

There are a number of such tricks that we do. So,

two sets of questions, a trick—an opportunity for people to explain why it happens that way—then

another two, another trick, and so on.

So, it's a pub event. It's fun, and what we hope

people will say at the end of it is, you know, "It was

only at the very end I realized this was about science."

It was only when someone said this was sponsored

by—Pfizer, that I understand—that's imaginary-it

wasn't sponsored by Pfizer—but it was only then that people say, "Oh, this is science." Most of the time,

they're not aware of that at all. They're just at a pub

quiz having a good time with their mates. Now, we're about to work on freeways. Not in the

middle you'll be glad to hear, but in the service sta- tions, because boredom is a big feature of travel, on

our motorways, certainly, because you don't go

actually, travel is a misnomer on our motorways—it's

just sitting in the car, really. Where they play this movie of the countryside going by. So, basically,

there's another common element that, I'll pluck it out

for you here, is "dwell time." These things, the things

we're devising, are all about people having the time.

They're in the supermarket going from end to end.

They're in the pub for a couple of hours, or in my

case, 35 seconds, but anyway, however long they're

going to be in the pub. They're on the motorway and

they wish they weren't. Dwell times are important.

And the dwell time on motorways can be very long,

and what we're about to do—we haven't done it yet, we just got funding for this—is to devise a quiz,

probably on a multiple-choice basis, sponsorship from

service stations that are off freeways, use their fore- courts to hand out—I should probably do some tricks because they're always good for gathering kids around

us—but then hand out these things for continuing

the journey, have a free post number to turn them in

to, have a prize sponsored by someone.

So, once again, this is done. We're not inventing

something. I mean, you know, Esso has been doing

this for heaven knows how long. You've got some

I'm sure it happened here in the States, certainly it does. They produce whole packs of material to give to your kids on the journey. We're not coming up with

anything new. None of this, it's very important to understand—none of this is new. We are building on

things that have existed for an extremely long time

81
that are very valuable to us in the work that we do.

We have no way we could say we were incredibly

original. We are simply building on what's there. So

freeways, I think, will be interesting, and we will be

looking to involve the traveling family, particularly.

So the target audience there—this is where I begin to

talk about targeting—target audience would be the

traveling family.

We actually do work in boardrooms a bit, we're now and again asked to advise bodies, like The Royal

Society of London, and this one's called "Listening to the Public: Dialogue and the Royal Society." Which

turns out to be a bit of a misnomer, because firstly, we're on the phone:

"The Royal Society wants to" "The Royal Society of what?"

"No, it's the Royal Society of 'where.' It's the

Royal Society of London."

"Oh, the Royal Society—what does the Royal

Society of London do, then?"

"Well, science."

"Oh, does it! Oh! Oh, good! Good! That's great!"

So, they've got a itsy, bitsy, tiny little hill to climb

in terms of contacting the public.

Nothing they can't handle. They've got 700 fellows

all over the age of 80, but ... We had to break it to them it was going to be a

bit tricky. All right.

Also, I suppose our work in that area shows up the

fact that there's a big interest in this "dialogue" word

and the "listening" word in the UK, just as there's been here at this meeting.

And on to buses. The buses that brought Rick and

I together. That's a bus, just in case you don't know

what they look like, and this is what we do on them.

I'll tell you a story.

When I moved to Bristol, I wanted very much to do something new. Something which would, you

know, be exciting, which would give me a good start in Bristol. And, I woke one 3:00 in the morning

thinking about poetry on the underground—I know

you've some of that. I know there's one in New York

and so on—where people have put poems on the

underground trains. Very, very popular campaign in the UK, and I decided, why not put science on the

underground? And so, I devised, with some

Millennium funding, posters—but I didn't put them

on the underground. The underground turned out to be incredibly expensive, but also interesting, the

underground audience there in the underground is not the audience I was interested in. What I wanted

to get to was an audience that is seen in the UK as being hard to reach, in terms of science communication. It's young adults: 15- to 25-year-olds.

Young adults, surveys show in the UK anyway,

don't watch science on TV. They certainly don't go to

Where Do We Work?

Supermarkets

Schools

Science Centres

Pubs

Freeways

Board Rooms

82
science-based visitor attractions, and essentially, sci- ence is not a major thing in their world. And we

decided to try and target young people, using posters

which are designed, targeted, at people who like to go, for example, to nightclubs. The Lizard Lounge is a young persons' club in Bristol, and you would have

seen these kinds of colors and these kinds of fonts

probably here in the U.S. These bright reds, these

bright yellows, and this kind of fonting and this kind of banding is very characteristic of this type of

advertising.

And so, we decided we'd create posters which were aimed specifically at young adults, and we produced a

first set, which I was very proud of, I have to say, and

my friends thought they were great—unfortunately as

I'll show with the evaluation—the bus-traveling public were deeply confused by them. But we learned

quite a lot from this. For those who can't read from

where you are, I'll just read out the top one. It's called "Cloning."

"Identical twins are clones and have the same

genes. Identical twins look the same but behave differently. Cloned Hitlers wouldn't behave the same. They might look like Hitler but behave like Charlie

Chaplin."

So, the idea is to point up—it's actually not about

explaining or some kind of treatise about cloning

actually, the idea is to intrigue. The idea is to get people just to go, "Hey, that's odd."

Prions, now prions as you know, can avoid

destruction by radiation or incineration. Are probably

ma

Where Do We Work?

Supermarkets

Schools

Science Centres

Pubs

Freeways

Board Rooms

Buses

just proteins with attitude. So a choice of words

about proteins, what we usually use: "Have harmless relatives in the brain. May cause BSE by corrupting their relatives.

"

So, the idea was to have these final lines which

people would remember.

Now I gave the game away—actually, buses are different from the underground, not just in who rides on them, but in terms of viewing things. Now I don't

know about you here in the States, but in Britain, the

insides of buses are incredibly boring environments.

The only things there are are telling you how badly

your wrist will be slapped if you haven't got a ticket. Or the maximum number of people in the bus is some astronomical number you can't imagine how

they got everybody on the bus to begin with. But

advertising is of very low quality inside buses in the

UK and also tends to be infrequent. So, advertising

space inside buses is cheap. Outside buses, of course,

is very expensive. Buses are moving billboards, the

best form of advertising. Essentially, to buy space in

83

EVERY MONDAY AT THE LIZARD LOUNGE
the public on the outside of a bus is a lot trickier. We

didn't want to buy space on the outside of a bus, as it happens, because we wanted to target young people

who we knew were a very high percent of the audi- ence within buses.

So, these were the first posters we generated. As I

say, they were wildly admired within the science communication community within the UK, but not widely admired by the target audience. So we tried again.

We got some funding from the Royal Society of

Chemistry, this time, and we'd learned some lessons by then. First of all, you'll notice we're not using as many words, and there are no clever, clever poemettes

of anything here. Chemical Brothers, they'll be someone here or many people here who know what they

are or who they are. I feel in the position of that wonderful story about the old Bailey Judge in the 60s

and some witness mentioned The Beatles. The judge

said, "Excuse me. Who, exactly, are The Beatles?" and

the learned counsel said, "I believe they're some kind

of pop group My Lord."

Well, this Chemical Brothers, they're some kind of

dance group, my lords and ladies. I'm not quite sure what kind of dance group, but they're an electro-pop

dance group, very popular in the UK, top-selling

Chemical Brothers

album out at the moment. So, Chemical Brothers are a well-known brand in the UK, and well-known

word—pair of words. We picked up on it a different

way. Showing things which are, physically, very differ- ent, but chemically, very similar. So they are related by the fact that they are, chemically, very similar, but

they are, physically, very different. That's one level of

message within the posters.

But the message the Royal Society of Chemistry

wanted to get across was the one at the bottom,

which you can't really see very well on this, I don't

think, and actually it is too small—it is, "A little chemistry makes a big difference." The idea of a little chemistry generating a big difference—a play on

words. That was the sole slogan.

Now, these were significantly more successful—I'll show you a little more data at the end about what I mean by successful—they were significantly more successful in reaching the target audience. The use of the

catch words helped, and the message seemed to go

across, at least in terms of what we were trying to do. And we were trying—once again, it's the same thing

trying—to point up centrality. Trying to say, "Why

not have some science here on a bus?" We're not say- ing it is absolutely compulsory that you understand

that graphite and diamond are both carbon.

Our final commission was the Institute of Physics,

and you can see, we've really learned our lesson about

words, now. Words are problematic—someone in introducing this very conference said that they

quite—they remembered the "physics is phun" slogan

with a "ph," but they didn't like it much. I thought,

"uh oh, here we go," because we just happened to use that as one of the motifs in this poster. But, this

is, once again, the Institute of Physics now in London, who had decided they wanted people to know that it was their 125th year of existence, and

they commissioned us to produce these posters for the insides of buses, and now, you'll notice, very, very strong image of a racing car, for example, the

word "Fast: thanks to physics." And then, "physics,

physics." So wherever your eye goes on this poster,

"physics—physics, physics, physics." But, that doesn't mean that people —and this is very interesting

in terms of Joe Schwarcz talking about the elephant

and people getting the message. There were a lot of

old people who don't take their glasses onto buses,

by the way, who thought that was a cabbage. But

we're very hard people to discourage, you'll notice.

There's one interesting lesson possibly here which

I can share with you, which is with this kind of, sort

of, issue-based campaigning, the one thing to avoid

84
like the plague in any poster is an identifiable product, something they might think they can buy. And

this commits cardinal sin "A." Notice she's holding a mobile phone. Now, due to what's known as the "silk cut effect," by me anyway, that people just don't work

it out. They think, "Well, I don't understand it, but

it's got a mobile phone in it. They must be trying to

sell them."

Basically, that's what happens with that kind of

poster. You must avoid having consumer products in posters if you can, because the person just glancing

will immediately take it to be an advert for that product, which is a problem. There's a lovely one—the

Millennium Commission in London, who I'm deeply

grateful to because they paid for my first set of

posters—had a campaign to recruit more millennium

fellows to do things in their community. And it was

pictures of lots and lots of armchairs—big

billboard—lots and lots of armchairs, and at the end,

there was one guy who turned the armchair around

and was up there, about to become an active milleni f

1

nium fellow. And they were absolutely deluged with

calls asking, "Where'd you get the armchairs.''" And also, we got our only chance to date, because

the Institute of Physics are what's known as "jolly rich." None of them are here, are they? No. All right.

They're jolly rich, and they were willing to pay for us to put—to have to do something which is called,

and I do apologize for this, it is called "a mega rear," and this "mega rear" is on the back of a bus actually

in Trafalgar Square. And we devised this as part of the

physics set. The idea is to point up the role of physics

in medical imaging. So, these two naked characters

the acceptable bit are skin and the less acceptable bits are X-rays. That went fine in London, "Phull

Phrontal," it's called, and thanks to physics, of course, and "physics, physics, physics," but we were commissioned to do it twice. To put this same thing on the

back of a bus in Manchester, and they refused. We

thought that this would be fabulous publicity. It would be the first ever censored public understanding

of a science project. I was deeply disappointed. I had

really high hopes. But in the end, they tried editing

it, would you believe, making it all blue, which wasn't too brilliant. We negotiated a sort of, some kind

of—they put the number plates somewhere else, I think. Anyway, whatever they did.

So, that was the work of science on the buses. Where did it happen? Well, it happened all over the

UK. It happened in Cardif, in Bristol, in Leeds, in London, in Edinburgh, Belfast, Birmingham, and

Manchester. So, we ran campaigns—and

Cambridge—and we ran campaigns on different

scales. The ones in Manchester and Birmingham and

Science on the Buses

Cardiff

Bristol Leeds London

Edinburgh

Belfast Birmingham

Manchester Cambridge

85
London and Bristol, Edinburgh, and Belfast were funded by the government through the Office of

Science and Technology. That was the campaign in terms of organizing and paying for the space on the

buses. We already had the posters, and, of course, we

didn't own the copyright to the posters, but the people who did were absolutely thrilled to have the government put them up for them, so to speak, one more time. So, that was how we did it in the UK. We

got about 130,000 pounds from the government. But

to mount that kind of campaign, if you count all the

costs—costs about 400,000 pounds, so about

$500,000.

Very little bit of evaluation, there is more evaluation on the Web site. The Web site address will come

up, so you'll see this whole evaluation document, yes, but there's no time for it here. This is the actual age

distribution the bus users in the—in our sample,

what we did was we did 750 face-to-face interviews on buses around the country. So, we clambered

onboard buses where there were posters and we talked

about them to people in two ways. We talked to them

about whether they liked the poster, what they liked

about it or they didn't like about it. And also, we

talked to them a bit—and this is interesting, because

it comes back to this business about drawing people

into discussion—we also did then talk to them about

their attitudes toward science and explored that a bit frapkif

Evaluation

Age of Bus Users

with them. So, we gathered data on that, too, but

only after we, in a sense, got them talking about these

posters.

So, this business about "build-up to dialogue,"

rather then cold-turkey dialogue, is, I think, an important one. I mean, the devising of dialoguing

events, I'd like to think that that's something which

will become much more sophisticated. The preparation of people for dialogue, rather than the thrusting

of them into supposed arenas where they're meant to immediately express extremely cogent and interesting

opinions.

So, here's a little bit of a complicated slide, but it's an interesting one. To remind you, the target audi- ence for the poster was the 16 to 25 age group, so along the bottom here we've got all the age groups we

looked at. The code is, message in red means that the

response to the question, "What's this poster about?"

was, "It's something about science being central to everyday life," or words to that effect. The green is content, in other words, that's a response saying, "It's about physics." They must have seen it, "physics,

physics, physics." Anyway. "It's about physics" would

be green. Blue was about theme, so that would simply be,

"Oh, it's a science poster," or, "It's something about

science."

I think you'll probably

notice that for the target age group, you've got these kind of

percentages. You have the message, those who have the context, and these who have the

theme, and quite a lot of people have their own views. Look

at the oldest age group. Yeah.

Now, this is not because I have some kind of thesis that old

people are stupid or anything.

The reason that that happens, we think, is because they don't

pay a lot of attention to these

posters because they're not for- matted in ways which would

hold or draw or excite their -attention. So essentially, this is

86
graphic

Evaluation

What is the message of this poster?

aMessage eContent "Iheme oOthei

28%

more to do with attentiveness, it's a word that's been flying around quite a bit, then it is about some innate ability to read the meaning of our posters.

So, that's the bus story, and I now get on to the

advertising section—well, not quite. Science in the

buses actually is now in China. In fact, it's trumbling

around in Chun Ching, which I, would own up to having never heard of until we went to China to talk about

this project to the Chinese, originally to the Science and

Technology Commission of the Beijing government,

and then we were refererred on to Chun Ching, a massive city on the banks of the Yanghtze, estimated 30

million population, four times the size of London. They

have a pollution problem, and their interest is in, as they were saying to us, "We want to take science to the mass of the masses." Now, I'm not quite sure how you

decode that, but I would guess that in China they feel they don't want to go the way of the X-Tiger economies

in the Far East. They want to have a skills-based economy, and therefore they need to have many more people

retraining in science and technology or beginning to think about working in those kind of areas, at whatever

level. And so they're trying to reach people with this kind of message.

I put this up partly because we were in China, but

partly because it illustrates another advantage of working through graphics, which is people go on reprinting your

stuff! The papers like to have

pretty pictures, so if you generate pretty pictures, they'll

reprint them. This is the local paper in Bristol, and this is the

third time it's reprinted our

posters, because they say, "We're writing this piece.

What can you give us to illustrate it?" We say, "Oh, we've

got some posters." They say, "Fine, send us down a PDF

and we're offi"

If you've got those kinds of

things there they also are infectious. They disseminate

themselves to a significant extent. The next step for what is now "Sci-Bus" is a bit of an outrageous ambition, but

we're in the middle of trying to do it. We have funding

from the European Union to take a campaign, mount a campaign, simultaneously, in all 15 capitals of the

European Union during European Science and

Technology Week, which is November—it's burned to my brain— 4th to 10th, 2002, so we're coming up

quite close really. And the main coordinating began yesterday. I think, I raise it partly to show that's what we're doing next, but also—and the scope, but also to give

Science on the Buses

POSTERS TAKE THE

FAST BUS TO CHINA

Designers

prove a hit h Beijing

m

87
you an idea of what we're doing right now. So what are we doing right now? Well, now is the

audience research phase. We're carrying out focus

groups in five of these capitals, and we are looking to

see, "Who are these people? What are they like?" And

this is partly in terms of graphics, we're taking, actually, color panels to them, and also with different sorts of motifs. For example, we have a mechanical motif, or with a human figure motif, or with a highly

abstract motif We're looking to discover what would

capture their attention in this rather difficult environment of the bus. What do they dislike? One thing about our evaluation is, what people like in buses is color. They like the color pulse. What they don't want is loads of text. So, you may find there are some very text-heavy people in Europe—the French tend to be quite text- heavy, so who knows, maybe they'll want lots of text, but certainly in the UK, the amount of text has to be

Design and Production of Posters

• Test designs at every stage

• Pilot materials

very small; somewhere between 9 and 12 words is the

maximum, 9 or 12 words.

What are their needs? What are their interests? What will attract their attention—what do they want

to know about, and are buses the best way to reach

them? Those were our questions in terms of campaign

planning. We don't have to go on buses. We could go,

for example, on roadside advertising if we want, or we

could look at some trams. We don't have to stick with

buses, but is that the place to get to them?

The design and production of posters—we test the

designs, so we're going to go into this process, come

back to the focus group where we'll test the designs.

Then we'll go back to the focus groups and show

them what we've done, and we'll say, "Hows that grab

you?" basically, and get their comments, what they see

as being powerful, what they see as being irrelevant,

what they see as whatever. And we will then work

with that. We pilot materials. We evaluate, and we often

redesign. The posters which I showed you are actually

the third versions of the posters that we've created. On to something more immediate, even than

November, which is the Cheltenham Festival of

Science. The UK does this festival thing. It's probably

known, Cheltenham is a festival city. It has a festival of music, which goes back to just after the war, a festival of literature, and a festival of jazz. They asked us

to come up with a festival of science, and myself and

one other person, Kathy Sykes, have now devised a five-day science festival for Cheltenham, which will happen in May this year. The program has just been

published, and there are copies of the program out88
side on the table I set up with my stuff, which is sort of at the entrance to the poster sessions.

It has a number of ingredients. It's got to have

appearances by top popularizers of science in the UK.

That brings audiences in. So, Lord Winston who did

the Human Body, he'll be here, Richard Dawkins,

Adam Hart Davis, who does this local heroes pro- gram, which is very, very popular in the UK, Simon

Sing, who has written the Code Book, but is also a code specialist. And, of course, this is Cheltenham,

and you're not supposed to know but it's where all the

secret listening goes on. Because GCHQ, the big pair

of ears for NATO, is in Cheltenham—Collin

Blakemoore, one of my childhood heroes because he

wrote Mechanics ofthe Mind, which is one of the

great books about the brain, and Steve Jones.

So, we've got the names there, but I thought it's been interesting in the context of what we've been

discussing, just to show you a bit more, because in the program, and we've found this really easy to get

funding for I have to say, we have debates and discussions, both on a large scale and on a small scale. We've got discussions about human cloning, genetic

modification of plants, and because we're in a country

area, about the future of the countryside. Of course,

in the UK, the future of the countryside is an enor- mous issue, post-PSE, post-Foot in Mouth, post

everything that's happened. The future of the countryside is a huge, huge issue. Now remember that in the UK, we live amongst

our plants, our crops. There isn't an area where there's crops and then there's us. We live with them in our back garden. So, there's the whole business about the

future of the countryside, and, as I say, these are partly quite largely set pieces which are going to be hosted by Milton Bragg, who's very well-known in the

UK as a media figure, but also in much less formal

settings. There's a Cafe Scientifique within the festival, for example.

The theme is "pleasure," and there are going to be

events about music, about chocolate, yes, and about

sex. So, essentially, there'll be all aspects on how sci- ence bears on pleasure. The science behind music

we have a number of celebrity chefs. In fact, that pic- ture at the bottom of the last slide—if I can get to it, sorry—was Heston Blumenthal, who's Chef of the

Cheltenham Festival ofSCIGnCG

22 -26 May 2002

• five days of science in one ofthe UK's premier Festival cities

• appearances by top popularisers of science like: Lord Winston, Richard Dawkins, Adam Hart Davis, Simon Singh, Colin Blakemore and Steve Jones.

Cheltenha m Festival of Science

I 22-26 May 2002 | • a programme of debates and discussions about human cloning, genetic modification and the future ofthe country-side

• a theme, pleasure, and events about music, chocolate and sex

• a robot arena and a free hands-on science space for families

Year in Britain, and he uses a lot of science in his cooking.

And there will be a robot arena and a free hands- on space for families. So, that's what we're up to. That's a spectrum of what we do. I hope what I've done is given you a bunch of flowers to hold. I'm not

sure at all, I haven't had the time to give you a complete picture of where in the garden they came from,

though I hope you've got an idea of what we're up to and why we're up to it. And I would love to hear

from you.

Thank you very much.

89
Keynote Address: Sex^ Lies^ and Science Television

Paula Apsell, Executive Producer, NOVA, WGBH Public Television

Aspell: Thank you very much. As the saying goes, "No one has ever lost money underestimating the

taste of the American pubhc." That works in spades

for the television industry, where networks, cable

channels, and local broadcasters are racing down market at velocities literally approaching the speed of

light. And science isn't exempt from this ratings race.

It's even generated its own genre—weather porn. Not

to mention, monsters of the deep, alien abductions,

angels, ghosts, all of which pass for science in the

feeding frenzy that characterizes the television industry today.

Beginning next January, Noi^a will enter its 30th

season, and 30 years is an eternity in television. My

daughter would be pleased to know that General

Hospital still has a safe lead. It went on 40 years ago. But Nova has outlasted Seinfeld, I Love Lucy,

M.A.S.H., Hill Street Blues, and CBS Reports. Not that we haven't had our crises. In fact, with the intense

competition for eyeballs in the television industry, it

feels as if every moment is a crisis. It makes me nostalgic for the old days in the early '70s, when Michael

Ambrosino started Nova amidst almost universal

skepticism that any red-blooded American would

watch a science show on television. Science was for school. But Michael brought a new approach. He

believed that science is a story, and if told with visual

flare and strong characters, people would watch. And

watch they did. Nova was a success right out of the

box.

But nothing stays simple. With the advent of

cable, the broadcast environment has totally changed

since the beginning of Nova. Instead of four net- works, there are 40 and more. With the spectrum as crowded as it is, like everyone else, we're challenged

to get our message our. Now, speaking to a group of

science writers, it seems appropriate to quantify the

ups and downs of Nova.

From the beginning, in 1974, the sky was the

limit, until the late 80s, when cable really started to

cut into our audiences. In 1987, we began to fight

back, reinventing ourselves, producing programs with

higher production values, better storytelling, and more innovative formats. To better understand our

audience, we did a little study to assess how different

subject areas rated with our viewers. We learned, not

surprisingly, that topic counts a lot. Viewers clearly

preferred certain categories that we referred to by

code names, such as "boys and their toys," that's jet

fighters, lost airplanes, and random military hardware. "Old bones," dinosaurs and human origins, and

a category we referred to as "TRSH," for "transparent

ratings seeking hype," shipwrecks, pirate gold, the

Bermuda triangle, etc. By changing our program mix

even slightly, we were able to improve our ratings and

put Nova back into the game.

But, a decade later, with our competitors going

after the same topics and the same eyeballs, our fix stopped working. Ironically, the niche that opened up

is one that we should be occupying anyway: science:

the real thing: genomics, cosmology, and string theory. The name of the game now is tinker with style,

but not with substance. Maintain the mission, which

remains as valid and necessary today as it was at the

beginning. As all of you know, the level of science lit- eracy in the United States remains distressingly low,

and no less an expert that Jay Leno decided to investigate.

[video clip]

Leno: "You know, a recent survey by the National

Science Foundation found that the average American,

when tested on their knowledge of basic science,

answered correctly only 55 percent of the time. We

here at the Tonight Show felt that was way too high.

We talk to people every day. Not half, America, it's a

lot less than that. So we took our cameras. We went

down to city walk at University—just picked people

out of the crowd, asked them simple, basic questions.

90
What controls the tides, folks? That seems easy, doesn't it? What is a homo sapien? It's a person. All right, that seems to be an easy question, doesn't it?

"

"Rachel, where you from?"

"Jerico, Long Island." "Oh, did you go to Jerico High School?"

"Oh, yeah."

"Is that a good school?"

"It's amazing. I was valedictorian."

"You were valedictorian!"

"Yes." "How many moons does the earth have?"

"I guess, eight?"

"Eight moons?"

"Yeah."

"Where do the moon and stars go in the daytime?

No looking up for the answer."

"How long does it take the Earth to go around the sun?""Twenty-four hours."

"The earth goes around the sun in 24 hours."

"Yeah. I went to the planetarium. I know that's what it is."

"How long does it take the Earth to go around the sun?""Twenty-four hours, 360 degrees."

"360 degrees? It goes 24 hours at 360 degrees?"

"How many cells does a single-cell creature have?"

"Like 36."

"36 cells in each single-cell creature?" "Something like that."

"How many cells does a single-cell creature have?

Think about it." "One. I'm kidding. I don't know."

"What causes the tides?" "Wind?"

"What causes the tides?" "The boats."

"What causes the tides?" "Uh, fish?" "What causes low-tide?"

"Uh, not enough water." "Not enough water in the sea. Where does the

water go?"

"Uh, that's when people drink it out of their faucet." "Oh, they drink it out of the faucet, and that's why we have low-tide."

[end video clip]

Jay's survey may draw laughs, but the reality of the

situation is hardly funny. The Earth goes around the sun once a year. It's hard to think of a more basic sci- entific fact, yet one out of every two Americans doesn't know it. In Canada, half of all incoming college

freshman believe in astrology and can't say how it differs from astronomy. An NSF survey tells us that most Americans learn about science from television. Now, I don't know if that's the problem or the solution, but it does make our unique public television

mission all the more important. For in commercial

television, the bottom line is almost always the bottom line. If boosting ratings means stooping to sensa- tionalism and pseudo-science, so be it. The main

question for Nova is how to retain our dedication to cutting-edge scientific ideas. The ones that change the

way we see ourselves and the world around us, and at the same time, be entertaining.

People watch television voluntarily. We'd like to tie them to their chairs Tuesday at 8:00, but we can't. We

have to entice them with good stories that they can understand without an advanced degree. Striking the

right balance between education and entertainment is the essence of what we do. Occasionally, what we do

is so entertaining that Hollywood can't resist copying

us. In 1999, the special effects blockbuster. Twister, told the story of a young scientist struggling to uncover the mystery of tornadoes. Michael Crichton,

the screen writer, was sued by another writer who

91
claimed that the Twister script was based on his idea. Crichton countered that the idea actually came from

Nova's episode, Tornado. Take a look at a section of

the Hollywood film and the Nova, and see if you can

tell which is which. I'll give you a hint: the blonde

belongs to the Hollywood version:

[video clip]

"It's moving west. We're going to deploy Toto. Right here Steve. Somewhere in here. Somewhere in here."

"Deploy time is 19:02. A little farther Steve a little farther."

"We're moving to intercept guys. Get ready to set up. You've got it."

"Hurry. Let's go. Come on."

"Okay, that's good."

"Let's go. Let's go. Contact!"

[end video clip]

I mentioned a few minutes ago that one of the

few shows to have survived longer than Nova is General Hospital. That's no coincidence. Science has more in common with soap opera than meets the eye. Although we don't always succeed, we're after dramatic storytelling, not exposition. Fortunately, science

lends itself to that approach because science is a process. Our programs are less about the moment of

discovery than the blood, sweat, and tears that so often precede it. We try to humanize science by

revealing the passion and the people behind it. Most

great films have a simple three-part story structure:

conflict, climax, and resolution. The question is whether this structure can be applied to science documentaries without dumbing them down, I think the answer is 'yes.' A recent program that we did, called Runaway

Universe, is a classic example of how to take a really

complicated subject and make it dramatic. Let's take

a look at the very beginning, what we call the "prologue:"

[video clip]

"High above the deserts of southern Arizona, a team of scientists is about to unveil a new secret weapon. But first, they have to get it up the mountain. Engineer J.T. Williams is in charge of protecting

the 25-ton cargo. Around this next turn, we'll be

clearing the guardrail by inches. The whole trick is not to stop.'

With every hairpin turn, disaster looms. Finally,

the summit of Mt. Hopkins. And the $10 million

package can be unwrapped. 'Yes. Lift! Everybody get

hands on the mirror. Don't let that sucker move,

okay. Going up.'

Dozens of suction cups grasp the object. A colossal mirror, 23 feet across. A crane lifts it 100 feet into

the air and lowers it into its new home. An enormous

telescope. It is destined to play a key role in a dramatic new quest: to hunt down evidence of a mysteri- ous force lurking in outer space. Already, the discov- ery of this force is shaking the very foundations of

scientific thinking. 'These results have enormous

implications, and if they're correct, it really will revolutionize our understanding of what the universe is

like, and how it came to be.' This strange force was

predicted by Albert Einstein, who later discarded the

idea. Now, his bizarre theory is suddenly back in fashion, as scientists rethink their vision of our universe and its idtimate fate. 'In the distant future,

there'll be nothing in the universe left to see, it'll just

be us. And that seems to me to be the coldest, most

horrible end. This universe is weird. It's creepy.'

The world of astronomy is in an uproar about the

possibility of a 'runaway universe.'"

[end video clip]

By the way, it's always great to include Einstein in any program. He has the highest TV cue of any scientist. But the first principle, as the historian David

McCullough always puts it, is "Get your hero in trouble, and keep him there."

92
In Runaway Universe, the heroes are a group of

astronomers led by Brian Schmidt and Alex

FiUppenco, who are on the horns of a dilemma.

With telescopes in Chile and Hawaii, they're trying

to find some elusive exploding stars called type 1-A

supernovae. Like mileage markers in the universe,

these stars will help them measure how, fast the universe is expanding. But these guys have all kinds of

troubles. They're tired and scruffy. The weather is bad. The stars they find don't quite fit the bill. And

they have stiff competition from another cosmologist, Saul Pearlmutter, who developed many of the

techniques that they're using. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be rooting for these appealing

stud muffins of science. But as they learn, be careful what you wish for, because you may get it. When

Brian and his colleagues finally do get some data,

they are appalled. The findings are not what they

expected. They're the kind of findings that can make

careers, but can end them, too. Let's see why:

[video clip]

"The team expected the supernovae to confirm

that the expansion of the universe was slowing down,

but when the results finally came in, something

seemed terribly wrong. 'Well the other thing that worries me is that these are very narrow features,

right here.' Adam Riess and I were analyzing the

results, and Adam made a graph of brightness versus the red shift of the supernova, and the dots, the data

fell along a curve in the graph that did not indicate

that the universe was slowing down in its expansion.

It indicated that the universe was speeding up. And

my jaw just dropped.'

The data showed that the distant supernovae were dimmer and, therefore, much farther away than the

team expected. Instead of slowing down, the expansion of the universe has been speeding up. With

galaxies moving apart at greater and greater velocities.

'I was actually scared that I had made an error, and, you know, one-by-one we started checking off

sort of a long list of possible errors, and none of

them seemed to be the case. Finally, we had come to grips with this unusual result. I no longer looked at

it as a likely mistake, but rather as something very

bizarre that nature was trying to tell us.' The bizarre

message was that the universe is accelerating. For the

team's leader, Brian Schmidt, the results were especially difficult to swallow. 'It was not something that

I particularly wanted to be in my data. So I was horrified, because I knew that it was going to be very

difficult to sell this to my colleagues, because my col- leagues are the ones who have educated me, and

they're just as sickened by this thing as I am.' The discovery seemed to contradict everything we

thought we know about gravity and its impact on

galaxies and stars." 'If our discovery is correct, it suggests that the universe is beginning to accelerate in

its expansion, to go faster and faster. Now this is really reminiscent of what we think the universe

went through in it's first tiny fraction of a second of

existence. You know, the universe was created somehow, and then it went "whoosh," really fast, something pushed it out. And then that something

stopped, and the universe kept on coasting. So, we

think now it's beginning to go "whoosh" again,

maybe not quite so quickly, but a "whoosh,"

nonetheless.'

What could possibly be causing the "whoosh?"

Something must be countering gravity, pushing

all the galaxies apart. Some mysterious repulsive

force, unlike anything we've encountered on Earth.

The thought of such a form of energy is strange, but

it's not new. It sounds like Einstein's old idea, the

cosmological constant, which he had so famously

called his greatest blunder. Now, it seems, Einstein

may have been right, after all.

'If Einstein heard these results today, he would

say, "Yahoo!" It would be such a thrill for him, I think, to see that his original prediction that such

weird stuff might exist in the universe turned out to actually be true.'"

[end video clip]

A camera was there as the scientists grappled with

their dilemma. Before our eyes, science becomes

human drama. Science becomes a story. And story

and character are absolutely essential for a good

Nova. But, there's another ingredient: good visuals. We shot Runaway Universe on high-definition

93
video, which has six times the information of a nor- mal video frame. We got an NSF grant to help us find this program, and this enabled the National

Center for Supercomputing Applications to develop some fantastic animation, both for our show, and for the Hayden Planetarium.

The most extraordinary piece they did with us was

a four-minute voyage from inside our galaxy to the

heart of the Virgo Supercluster, an immense conglomeration of galaxies centered 50 million light years away. Unlike nearly all prior broadcasts, this animation was not simply based on artistic license, but it was a 3-D model developed from actual astronomical

data, both optical and infrared. Objects like nebulae

and galaxies were based on 2-D astrophotographs,

which were then interpolated in 3-D so that we could

fly through them. The simulation required about

10,000 hours of computer time. Let's take a look:

[video clip]

"Strange as it sounds, this is not the first time that

scientists have found evidence that behind the visible features of the universe lurk unseen and profoundly

mysterious forces. Since the days of Hubble and

Einstein, astronomers have explored the contours of

the universe, mapping landscapes shaped by the force

of gravity. Gravity binds our sun to 100 billion other

stars, interspersed with pockets of dust and gas, in a

vast rotating spiral we call the Milky Way Galaxy. But

things are not always what they seem. The galaxy is spinning so fast that centrifugal force should have

flung the stars into space. All the matter we can see does not exert enough gravitational pull to hold the

galaxy together. There has to be something else there,

but it's completely invisible. Beyond our galaxy, the mystery only deepens.

Gravity ties our galaxy to a group of 30 others within

a distance of 3 million light years—our cosmic neighborhood. This local group is bound to a still larger

region. It is 50 million light years away. The 10,000

galaxies that make up the Virgo Supercluster. These

galaxies move so fast, that some unseen presence must

be holding them in. Scientists call it "dark matter," a strange form of matter that exerts gravity, but does

not emit or reflect light. Little else is known about

dark matter, except there's a lot of it. In the regions of

space we can see, there seems to be 10 times more

dark matter than ordinary matter, and now there's another mysterious ingredient in the universe: 'dark

energy.'"

[end video clip]

Now, even animation like this won't work if it's just eye candy. It has to play a genuine role in the

unfolding of the story. And in this case, it did, giving

a scientific context for the Schmidt-Pearlmutter findings, and introducing the audience to the idea that some mysterious force, call it "dark energy, vacuum

energy, or quintessence," whatever you want to call it,

is causing the entire universe to not just expand, but

to accelerate. It's a truly profound discovery. Our

heroes are finally out of trouble, as their colleagues

embrace their work and struggle to fit their findings

into a picture of the universe that is becoming

stranger with every passing day.

Science producers have benefited enormously from

visualization techniques developed by scientists who

need to see things to understand them just as we do.

Photographic advances that were unthinkable when

Nova first went on the air now allow us to obtain

extraordinary microscopic visuals. None more compelling than those photographed by the well-known

Swedish cinematographer, Lennart Nilsson. Almost

20 years ago, we worked with Lennart on Miracle of

Life, a film about human reproduction that became

the most-watched Nova ever. A generation of

Americans learned about the birds and the bees from

it. But a few years ago, we decided to work with

Lennart again to make a new program. Life's Greatest Miracle, using improved photographic techniques,

and describing new science about the role of genes in human development:

[video clip]

"People do all sorts of things to get attention. And

why.'' It may be the last thing on his mind, but this man's body is working toward this. Whether we're thinking about it or not, our bodies want to make

babies. And our bodies are very good at it. Around

the world, about 365,000 new babies get made every

day. But as ordinary as it seems, creating a new

94
human being is no simple feat. Just think of it. No

matter who you are, once upon a time, you looked

like this. From a single cell, you built a body that has

100 trillion cells. You made hundreds of different

kinds of tissues and dozens of organs, including a brain that allows you to do remarkable things. How

did you do it? Today, we can look closer than ever before into the womb, into a cell, into the essence of

life itself. Not only can we see what's happening, but

now, we're beginning to see how it happens. The

forces that build the embryo. The molecules that drive this remarkable change. We're uncovering the

most intimate details of how life is created. The

secrets behind life's greatest miracle."

[end video clip]

Of the many advances that have taken place in tel- evision production since I've been with Nova, none is more astounding than the role of CGI, or Computer

Generated Imagery. Techniques like those used in fea- ture films, such as Jurassic Park, are coming down in price to the point where they're affordable for highend television production. Discovery

Communications and the BBC have taken advantage

of that to produce shows like Walking With Diijosatm

and Walking With Beasts that create for the viewer

entirely believable prehistoric worlds. I've heard that Walking With Cavemen is in the offing. These innovative shows entertain viewers with graphics that are

light years away from the old Encyclopedia Britannica

approach.

The problem with such intensely real computer

imagery is how easy it is to believe that the world it creates is real, instead of hypothetical. If we don't go

back to ask, how do we know? The essence of the sci- entific process is lost. Now, we don't have this problem, because for the most part, we can't afford these

techniques, and don't think that doesn't make us mad.

But with support from the NFS, Sloan, and the

Department of Energy, we'll be using CGI in an upcoming mini-series to explain one of the most

abstract and strangest of all the ideas in science. In a three-part series, physicist Brian Greene, author of the

best-selling book The Elegant Universe, will show how

the quest to unite general relativity—there's Einstein

again—and quantum mechanics has given rise to string theory, which some physicists consider the last best hope of finding a unified theory of everything.

What I'm going to show you now is a work in progress; two scenes from the first of the three-hour

mini-series to be broadcast next January. You'll see material we filmed in the studio with a green screen, and then you'll see how our animators replace the

green screen with a CGI background and what's

called a "composite image." When it's finished, the

first scene will be used to explain how electromagnetism is the unification of magnetism and electricity.

And the second scene demonstrates how this force is actually much more powerful than gravity. Intercut is a behind-the-scenes glimpse of life in the studio and some of the hardships that we forced Brian to endure

for the sake of public understanding of science. You'll

also see why we ask ourselves, "Why go on location

anymore?"

[video clip]

"If you've ever been on top of a mountain just

before it thunderstorms, you'll get the idea of how

electromagnetism is, itself, a unified theory. When a stream of electrically charged particles flows, like in a bolt of lightening, it creates a magnetic field, and you

can see evidence of this on a compass. 'We tend to think that gravity is powerful force. After all, it's the

force that, right now, is anchoring me to this ledge.

But, compared to electromagnetism, it's actually terri- bly feeble. In fact, there's a simple little test to show

this. Imagine that I was to leap from this rather tall building. Actually, let's not just imagine it. Let's do it. You'll see what I mean. Now, of course I really should

have been flattened, but the important question is, what kept me from crashing through the sidewalk and

hurdling right down to the center of the Earth? 'How

do you feel? All right?' 'Yeah.'"

[end video clip]

Now, lest you think we can't do without these

fancy, new fangled graphics, I'd like to show you how

sometimes, the most rudimentary approach does the

trick, as in "keep it simple, stupid." Last year, we

decided to make a two-hour program on the human

95
genome project, which turned out to be an enormous

challenge. We brought in a correspondent, ABC's

Robert Krulwich, who is, in my opinion, one of commercial televisions outstanding talents and one who is genuinely interested in science. But we were more

than a little nervous when Robert walked in to inter- view Eric Lander, with just about the cheesiest prop

IVe ever seen in my life, but it worked. Let's take a look:

[video clip]

"If it's DNA, if you turn it so that you can look at

it from just the right angle, you will see in the middle

what look like steps in a ladder. Each step is made up

of two chemicals, cytosine and guanine, or thymine

and adenine. They come, always, in pairs called "base

pairs," either C and G, or T and A, for short. This is, step by step, a code three billion steps long; the for- mula for a human being. 'We're all familiar with this thing. This shape is very familiar—double helix. First of all, Em wondering, this is my version of a DNA

molecule. Is this what DNA looks like?' 'Well, a car- toon version.' 'So there, in almost every cell in your

body, if you look deep enough, you will find this chain, here.' 'Oh, yes. Stuck in the nucleus of your

cell.''Now, how small is this? In a real DNA molecule,

the distance between the two walls is how wide?'

'Oh, golly. Look at this. He's asking for help.'

'This distance is about from—this distance is about 10 angstroms, which is...'

That's one billionth of a meter when it's clumped

up in a very particular way.

'Well, it's curled up something like that, but you

see, it's more that that. You can't curl it up too much,

because these little negatively charged things will repel each other, so you fold it—I'm going to break

your molecule. Well, you got this, and then it's folded

up like this, and then those are folded up on top of

each other, and so, in fact, if you were to stretch out

all of the DNA, it would run, oh, I don't know, thousands and thousands of feet.' 'OK.

'But the main thing about this is the steps of this ladder.'

'If I knew it was A and T and C and C and G and

G and A ...' 'Oh no, it's not G and G, it's G and C.'

'If I could read each of the individual ladders, I might find the picture of, what?'

'Well, of your children.'

'This is what you pass to your children.'

'You know, people have known for 2,000 years

that your kids look a lot like you. Well, it's because

you must pass them something, some instructions

that gives them the eyes they have and the hair color

they have and the nose shape they do. The only way

you pass it to them is in these sentences. That's it.'"

[end video clip]

So, what does the future hold? I'm tremendously

excited about the prospects for science programming,

especially on PBS. Paradoxically, all the competition

has opened up a niche for Nova to be what it really is: a unique vehicle to tell real stories about real science.

While our competitors are tripping over each other

for the best tsunami, the biggest shark, the most horrifying unsolved mystery, we're in a league of our own

with string theory. Striking just the right balance

between education and entertainment will always be a challenge, but I hope that Nova will continue to find

drama in the stories that reveal the quirky brilliance and grating persistence that so often pave the way for

scientific progress.

I'd love to take some questions from you in just a moment, but first, I'd like to show you a clip from

this season of Nova:

[video clip—music and video only, no narration]

I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you.

96
Poster Session Abstracts

Becoming Enthusiastic

About Moth and Science

U.S. Department of Energy's

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator

Facility (Jefferson Lab)

Contact

Janet H. Tyler

Science Education Manager

Jefferson Lab

1 2000 Jefferson Avenue, MS 1 6C

Newport News, VA 23606

Phone: (757) 269-7164

tyler@ilab.org

Budget

About $250,000 for 1 ,400 students

Web Sites

Program: http://education.ilab.org

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/beams, htm

In partnership with the local school

divisions and the surrounding community, Jefiferson Lab is dedicated to providing educational opportunities in math

and science to students, teachers, parents,

and the general public. During FY 200 1

about 10,500 students and 750 teachers

will interact with Jefiferson Lab scientists and engineers who share their knowledge,

experience, and enthusiasm.

The BEAMS—Becoming

Enthusiastic About Math and Science

program brings classes of sixth, seventh,

and eighth grade at-risk students with

their teachers to Jefiferson Lab for science and math interactive activities. The goals

of BEAMS are to: redress the problem that minorities and females are lost from the science,

mathematics, engineering, and technology career pipeline long before they

reach college,

strengthen the motivation and

academic preparation of students, and

provide teachers with activities based on the science and technology at

Jefiferson Lab.

Since 1991, BEAMS has involved

about 15,000 students and 375 teachers. Students participate in the BEAMS pro- gram for three consecutive years. In the

sixth grade, students come to Jefiferson Lab with their teachers for a specially

modified version of their regular aca- demic week. For five consecutive days

during school hours, the children and

their teacher are immersed in Jefiferson Lab's forefront research environment,

where they participate in science and

math events and activities conducted

with scientists, engineers, and technicians. BEAMS takes place in an on-site class- room, in laboratories, assembly areas, and

at the accelerator site. A family night is held for the participating students' families to increase the parents' understanding

of science, math, and technology;

stimulate greater involvement in their

child's education; and reinforce the BEAMS experience. The ongoing inter- actions in the seventh and eighth grades

extend the initial positive influence BEAMS has shown at the sixth-grade

level.The schools which participate in the BEAMS Program are chosen by representatives of Newport News City Public

Schools and Jefiferson Lab. Selection guidelines include students who:

would not normally have an

opportunity for exposure to science,

scientists, engineers, or a high-tech

workplace;

are traditionally under-represented

in math and science, including ethnic

minorities, females, and the economically

disadvantaged;

are traditionally not electing to take challenging math and science

courses. Results from the ongoing evaluation of BEAMS include: (1) students attend- ing BEAMS are significantly more positive about science and school than stu- dents not attending; (2) teachers report

that BEAMS increases their awareness of

hands-on science, applications of math

and science, and careers in math and sci- ence; and (3) parents report that the BEAMS program is a unique positive influence on their children. Preliminary

results from Virginia standardized test scores show that BEAMS is helping to

close the disparit)' gap between traditionally low scoring schools and average scor- ing schools. FJuntington Middle School,

where students attend BEAMS in grades

6, 7, and 8, showed improvements in test scores from 1 998 to 200 1 of 29 percent- age points in mathematics and 26 per- centage points in science. Huntington

Middle School's parent school division showed increases of 17 points in mathematics and 1 3 points in science.

99
Theater of Debate Program

Sponsors

Wellcome Trust The Office of Science and Technology

The Council on Bioethics

Copus

John Innes Centre

The Teacher Scientist Network

Contact

Nigel Townsend—Artistic Director

Y Touring Theatre Company

10 Lennox Road, London, N4 3JQ

Phone: 0202 7272 5755

Fax: 020 7272 8413

n.townsend@ytouring.org.uk

Budget

To research, develop and produce an

original play, debate, and support

materials for a 1 0-week tour of the

United Kingdom averaging eight per- formances a week, visiting 10 different regions and reaching over 150,000

young people, teachers, and adults is £100, 000.

Staffing: Project director, playwright,

education director tour administrator,

four actors, a company manager

Web Sites

Program: wv/w.ytouring. org.uk

Poster: wv/w. nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/ytouring.htm

"Ways ofengaging the public in debate on

scientific issues, like the applications ofgenetic

technology, are desperately needed. ...a highly

imaginative theatrical venture by Y Touring

Theatre Company havefoimd a brilliant

solution.

Prof Lewis Wolpert, The Independent

"Y Touring has shown that theatre can be a

powerful toolfor the communication ofscience

to a wide audience.

"

Prof Colin Blakemore

Professor of physiology, University of Oxford

Between 1995 and 2001 Y

Touring, Central YMCA's Touring theatre company, commissioned, developed, and

produced five plays exploring issues aris- ing from advances in biotechnology:

The Gift looks at genetic selection; Pig in the Middle considers Xenotransplantation; Cracked explores the biological basis of mental illness; SiueetAs You Are explores genetically modified

foods, and Learning to Love the Grey deals with cloning and stem cell therapy.

Each play is followed by a live debate involving the audience and the

cast who stay in character to field questions.

Each play is written in consultation with scientists, doctors, and patients

and is supported by a resource pack avail- able on CD and on the Web.

The programs are performed in schools, theatres, prisons, science centres, and at arts festivals such as the Edinburgh

Festival. Individual programs have been

performed at the House of Commons for MP's, at Whitehall for Government

Ministers, in Amsterdam for Dutch gov- ernment ministers, and other events.

Target Audiences

We primarily target young people

aged 14+ in schools, youth clubs, and

Science Centres. By May 2001, over 106,021 young people, teachers, governors, parents, scientists, and the general

public throughout the United Kingdom

will have seen one or more of the five programs.

Developments (a wider audience)

The Gift has been made into a video by Y Touring and Zenith

Productions shown on BBC 2. Sweet Als You Are as a theatre per- formance has been filmed by the BBC.

Pig in the Middle was translated into Dutch and toured throughout

Holland funded by the Rattneau

Institute.Learning to Love the Grey has been

adapted into a three-part television drama

commissioned by the Open University's

Open Science program.

Process Each play takes about 10-11 months

to research, write, produce, and tour. The

theatre company and partners establish the program's theme, aims, and target audience. A steering committee is estab- lished for each play.

Evaluation

There have been several evaluations of these programs. Conclusions include: Arts projects such as these are seen

to be very successful in delivering scientific education. The drama is a way into a

lot of areas, enhances the subject especially for those students who are alienated or threatened by science.

It successfully contributes to sci- ence teaching—its strength is in personalising science rather than delivering biological information.

Changes in the teaching of genetics has occurred at many of the participating schools—the program has brought

in the human element and the personal,

making it far more powerful.

100
Cool Science for Curious Kids

Cool Science for Curious Kids

Sponsor

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute Entry submitted by

Burness Communications

Contacts

Patricia Foster Howard Hughes Medical Institute 4000 Jones Bridge Rd. Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Phone: (301) 215-8860

fosterp@hhmi.org

Amanda Franks

Burness Communications

791 0 Woodmont Ave., Ste. 1 340

Bethesda, MD 20814

Phone: (301) 652-1558

afranks@burnesscommunications.com

Budget

Web Site Design & Development:

estimated budget $25,400

Promotion & Marketing:

estimated budget $1 1,000

Web Sites

Program: www.hhmi.org/coolscience

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/coolscience.htm

Science is not "for adults only." In September 1998, the Howard Hughes

Medical Institute launched a new Web

site containing hands-on science activities from five children's and science museums.

This site, called "Cool Science for Curi- ous Kids" at www.hhmi.org/coolscience.

features animation, sound, quizzes, and

other techniques to encourage kids to explore science. The activities were developed by five museums that received support fi-om HHMI's Precollege and Science

Education Program: the Chicago

Academy of Sciences, the Children's Discovery Museum in San Jose, the

Children's Museum in Boston, the Minnesota Children's Museum, and the

Scotia-Glenville Children's Museum in New York. Mark Herde, senior program officer of HHMI's Precollege and Science

Education Program, worked with the museums to determine the best activities for inclusion on the site. Once the activities (originally print-based for use in a museum or classroom setting) were identified and adapted to an interactive Web

format, the site was created by a team of

writers, artists, and Web developers, in collaboration with HHMI staff. (For the

list of credits see www.hhmi.org/

coolscience/credits.html.) Burness Communications worked

with HHMI to attract elementary school

children, parents, and educators to the

site. Prior to launch, Burness Communications identified Web sites, on- and offline publications, associations, lists, and

listserves used by our target audience.

Our multidimensional promotion

plan included a media outreach effort, a postcard mailing, and Web-marketing

efforts. We optimized search engine

placement, posted announcements on

listserves, and launched a link-solicitation campaign. The promotional effort was implemented by two members of the Burness Web team who specialize in Web

marketing and members of HHMI's

communications staff. The site was chosen as a USA Today

Hot Site, featured by Popular Science, Chicago Sun-Times, Chattanooga Free

Press, and St. Paul Pioneer Press.

Education organizations such as the National Science Teachers Association

and National Association of Elementary

School Principals promoted the site in their newsletters. More than 27 listserves posted infor- mation regarding the "Cool Science" site, including EARTHK-12: K-12 (Earth

science teachers discussion list); ECENET-L (early childhood education/

young children); and WYCOOL-L (Way

Cool software reviews by children, teachers, and parents). One month after pro- moting the site, more than 25 education

sites had established links to "Cool

Science for Curious Kids." These sites included ABC's of Parenting (www.

abcparenting.com/index.cfm/ 1 0), Berit's Best Sites for Children

(http://db.cochran.com/li_showElems:

theopage:theo:4590:o.db), and The

Online Educator (http://ole.net/ole/

educator).

From October 1998 (a few weeks

after the launch) to February 1999, when

the site received more than 1 million hits,

traffic to the site rose 76 percent.

Three major lessons were learned.

First, when promoting a new Web site, reach out to the target audience through

both on- and off-line mediums. Do not

limit efforts to on-line promotions such

as e-mail announcements, search engine

optimization, and establishing links. Print media coverage and postcard promotions

help maximize visibility. Second, a multidimensional marketing strategy is important to increase the probability of multiple visits by the target audience. Third,

present the product in a consumerfriendly way. HHMI was extremely successful in translating this print-based

work into a useful and exciting interactive

site for families, educators, and kids. At present, more than 2,000 sites link to "Cool Science," one of the most

visited (and useful) sections of the HHMI Web site.

101
Science Center Virtual World

ocneboi ^ home OOacK nsxtO

Sponsors

Cornell Theory Center with additional

support from Intel Corp., USDA - Agricultural Research Services, the

Cornell Presidential Research Fellows

program, the National Science

Foundation, the Spencer-Van Etten School District, the Ithaca Youth Bureau

Youth Employment Sen/ices, the Ithaca

Sciencenter's Computer Clubhouse and

Youth Alive projects, and the Learning

Web of Tompkins County, along with

other local and national organizations.

Contact

Margaret Corbit,

Outreach/Public Relations Manager,

Cornell Theory Center

533 Rhodes Hall, Cornell University,

Ithaca, NY 14853-3801

Phone: (607) 354-8716

Fax: (607) 254-8888

corbitm@tc.cornell.edu

Budget

About $40,000 for 2001 was bare

bones and includes staff and student

salaries and tools. Small equipment

donation from Intel Corp.: $26,000.

Web Sites

Related Program Web Page:

wvAV.scicentr.org

Poster: wvw/.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/sciencecenter.htm

The Cornell Theory Center (CTC),

Cornell University's high-performance

computing center began in 1998 to focus our science and technology outreach

efforts on the new multi-user 3D Internet technology, virtual worlds. Our belief was

that this new tool, which combines

online chat, gaming technology, and all the features of the World Wide Web in a secure and easily monitored environment,

appeals to youth and offers us the opportunity to engage them in fun, constructivist learning activities focused on our

research. Our goal is to found and support a hands-on virtual science center that exists only in cyberspace and to build a community of users engaged in its programs. We are now working in two areas: devel- opment of 3D interactive, multi-user

exhibits in the primary world, SciCentr,

created by undergraduates at Cornell

with help from high school student

interns; and a related after-school pro- gram for teens that takes place in the sister world, SciFair. Content for all projects

features research supported by CTC,

including crop genomics/bioinformatics, wave science, structural biology, and

materials science. World development is a team-based activity that takes place in a

secure online multi-user environment

that allows the teens, undergrads,

researchers, and experts to work together

from distant locations. The first SciFair team, 1 2 teens at rural Spencer-Van Etten High School in Chemung County, New York, has been

meeting with nvo undergraduate mentors coming online from Cornell. They come

"inworld" to learn about bioengineering

of crops, and to be introduced to a new

online digital medium. They call their project the Tomato Islands. It is a series of

virtual greenhouses that comprise a

knowledge space where they display what

they have learned about the crop's biodiversity, cultural requirements, history,

biogeography, and modern production.

SciFair teams at participating locations need to provide standard computers with

reliable network connections and adult supervision at the remote site. CTC has several approaches to the ongoing evaluation of the SciCentr virtual worlds project. These include demonstrations and recently have become more

focused on evaluating the prototype

exhibits. As ofJune 200 1 , several hundred youth (at least one-half girls) have

visited our worlds for tours hosted at CTC's Collaboratory in conjunction with

such programs as National Science and

Technology Week, 4H Career

Explorations, Expand Your Horizons, and

Cornell's Bring a Child to Work Day.

Nearly 50 teens have been involved in creating content for both SciCentr and

SciFair, more than 25 currently active. The response to exit questionnaires is consistently and overwhelmingly positive, even when girls are examined separately. Users tend to become "immersed" after 20 minutes in the environments. Recent

post-test results from the 4H workshop

suggest positive learning outcomes. We

are working with the department of communications at Cornell to implement

semantic network analysis of the chat logs

of the SciFair program. Early analyses of

sessions for fall 2000 independently confirm that the chat among the students and between students and mentors

focused on the activity of building and

filling out the content of the knowledge

space in a positive and supportive way.

102
MicroWorlds

MJCROWOR^CS

Expforing the Structure of Materiafs

Science education for grades 9- 72

from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LSNL)

wmttHi tor MuOrr^i m jOd 9-lJ ind itw iBiChm, MvcV>%<ldi lulura "ntonialion atxMi "wwrcfi pn>y»ffa it Uwrvncf fl«Tteicy Nation*; Utnmory. £jch irtjde hiS lomog JoWjo ic help itijil;«D onOcrtunc bJSc conaoo fdaied to Ihe 'wearch

'incnbnl.

For more information on MicroWorids, please contact

ElubediMoson AnnMuCrcirwr

fticioe(S10)«6-S7fiO Ptionc(S10)486-fi7II fix (SIO) «»S-21 1 1 He {110) <9i-21 1

Email ei'n<aon#tJ.90v EnuiL imqmnembl.gov

L«wrwite Botriw Niijop* Ldsorator/

Sponsor

Advanced Light Source, Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory

Contacts

Elizabeth Moxon

Berkeley Lab

One Cyclotron Rd, MS 4-230

Berkeley, CA 94720

Phone: (510) 486-5760

eimoxon@lbl.gov

Annette Greiner

Berkeley Lab

One Cyclotron Rd, MS 4-230

Berkeley, CA 94720

Phone: (510) 486-671

amgreiner@lbl.gov

Budget

$9000/year (for salaries)

Web Sites

Program: www.lbl.gov/MicroWorlds

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/microworlds.htm

, MicroWorlds is an electronic science magazine on the Web. Written primarily

for students in grades 7-12 and their teachers, it features information about

research and the people who make it happen at Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory's Advanced Light Source

(ALS). Each "article" has learning activities to help students understand basic concepts related to the research described. The site seeks to engage students in activities that help them learn about the type

of science going on at one of the newest DOE facilities and realize that science is accessible and fun. MicroWorlds has several unique fea- tures that set it apart from many educational projects: it features real science that

is happening today, rather than textbook

examples; it connects key science concepts like electromagnetism and light to the way the concepts are used in everyday

life, engineering, and science; the material

is integrated with hands-on activities that make the student a participant in the learning process; and it is developed by

ALS writers who are used to describing

science to a lay audience, in collaboration with teachers and students. It is also an integral part of the other ALS out- reach activities, which include teacher workshops, class visits, and curriculum

materials. Students and teachers have played a leading role in the development of

MicroWorlds. The initial articles were

developed with a teacher consultant, and

curriculum materials grew out of a

I teacher workshop held at the ALS. We

have taken advantage of Berkeley Lab summer programs for both students and

teachers to get input on an ongoing basis.

The Bright and Busy module that fea- tures people who work at the ALS is almost entirely written by student interns who get to learn about what people do in careers at a national laboratory. New sci- ence articles, also written by students,

include "the eXperiment files," which fol- lows an experiment at the ALS from start to finish, and "Students' Corner," which

is a first-person story about what it is like to be a summer student working with scientists at the ALS.

Microworlds is Internet based so that

it can reach a worldwide audience, especially students and teachers who may not have access to any real science facilities (versus science museums) or do not have

many curriculum materials on the science and engineering challenges of today.

The interactive nature of

Microworlds lets the students ask questions of the person featured in the biography section and try to figure out the answer to a related technical or scientific question. Besides getting feedback from the

teachers and students with whom we

work directly, we also have a registration

and feedback area. This is well utilized and often gives us a sense of what people

are reading most closely. In addition, we

collect information from server statistics. In the future, we would like to expand

Microworlds to allow students and teachers to contact scientists directly. Ultimately, we hope to permit stu- dents to be directly involved in the planning of an ALS experiment and/or in the

interpretation of actual scientific data from an experiment.

103
Passport to Knowledge

to KNOWLEDGE

Sponsor

Passport to Knowledge, through grants

from NASA, NSF, NOAA, in-kind support from science centers, universities,

and project-generated revenues (license

fees, sale of materials, etc.) Contact

Geoff Haines-Stiles, Project Director

(alternate: Erna Akuginow, Executive in Charge)

Passport to Knowledge

27 Washington Valley Road

Morristown, NJ 07960

ghs@passporttoknowledge.com

(ea@passporttoknowledge.com)

Budget

From 1994-2002, inclusive, P2K has

cost some $6 million, resulting in 65

hours of broadcast television, a family

of award-winning Web sites, and print

publications (Teacher's and

Implementation Guides, and Factbooks)

including 200 inquiry-based hands-on

activities. A small core staff (<20)

expands through contract employees to support live productions and major

events. LIVE FROM materials are avail- able from P2K: the PASSPORT TO

Modules are distributed via GPN, the

nation's leading educational AV

supplier

Web Sites

Program: passporttoknowledge.com

Poster: www. n ist.gov/pu bl ic_affa i rs/ Posters/p2k.htm

instruction to real-world research and

connecting students with leading scientists. Since 1994, P2Khas developed,

disseminated, and evaluated two complementary series of multiple media instructional materials and experiences. The

LIVE FROM "electronic field trips" have

become public television's longestrunning interactive learning project. They

are also carried by NASA-TV, and

streamed and archived on the Web. Four

PASSPORT TO Modules (Rainforest,

Weather and Climate, Antarctica, The

Solar System) each include eight 1 5- minute classroom videos and two 30-

minute teacher resource programs. These

Modules can be implemented using

videotape, the Internet, mail lists, and

inquiry-based hands-on activities at any

time throughout the school year. They

ofifer an integrated suite of current and

comprehensive instructional materials,

directly linked to core Earth, space, life, and physical science content targeted by

the National Science Education

Standards and Project 2061 s "Benchmarks." Each LIVE FROM miniseries reaches from 1.5 to 2 million viewers. PASSPORT TO Modules, broadcast

as instructional TV by PBS stations and

educational networks over multiple school years, may be seen by up to 10

million students. P2Ks interdisciplinary

team of media developers, education

researchers, classroom teachers, and consulting scientists has been supported by

NASA, NSF NOAA, the Department of

Energy, and public television and has partnered with major science museums,

planetariums, universities and school districts, and other public and private insti- tutions. A three-year evaluation by the Center for Children and Technology,

EDC, documented measurable improve- ments in learning outcomes (including

knowledge, attitudes, and skills) through

content analysis of student work, an

unusually large (3500+) survey of educators, and other scientifically based quantitative analyses. P2K has prototyped and

tested several innovative video and

Internet techniques, such as "You Are

There" tours of sites as remote as Earth's Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, and

as scientifically significant as Fermilab.

Online BlOgraphies and Field Journals

personalize the scientific enterprise and

provide role models for future careers in science and high technology through portraits of working researchers, both male

and female, and from varied backgrounds.

P2K has demonstrated the effective- ness of transforming the hard work of

real-world research into "teachable moments " that excite and inform stu- dents and their teachers. It has shown

that ongoing support is required to encourage mainstream educators to implement inquiry-based pedagogy and new technologies, but that in-service experiences using the Internet can be successful and reach national scale. Both

real-time and "evergreen" materials are required, in flexible formats, to accom- modate the great diversity of school

schedules and technical resources. Evaluation, however, has shown that this new kind of instructional resource can have measurable, positive impact on

students of diverse intelligences and

aptitudes, in schools of widely varying

demographics.

Both NSF and NASA have cited Passport to Knowledge as an example of

the successful integration of research with

education and outreach in reports to Congress. P2K was twice a finalist in the Education category of the Information

Infrastructure Awards, and was the winner of the 1997 EdNET "Hero" Award

for Excellence.

Passport to Knowledge's mission is to energize the core content of secondary

school science by relating classroom

104
Science Controversies: Online

Partnerships in Education (SCOPE)

Sponsors

Science magazine/AAAS,

Washington DC

University of California, Berkeley

University of Washington, Seattle Funded by the National Science

Foundation (NSF)

Contact

Pamela J. Mines, Ph.D.

Senior Editor

Sc/ence/AAAS

1 200 New York Ave. NW

Washington DC 20005

Phone: (202) 326-6509

Fax: (202) 289-3649

phines@aaas.org

Budget

$1,840,000 over 3 years

Web Sites

Program:

scope.educ.washington.edu/forum

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/scope.htm

"Science Ccntroversies, On-Line

Partnerships in Education" (SCOPE),

supported by a grant from the NSE

investigates use of computer resources to aid research and learning around unresolved scientific questions. The principal

investigators are Marcia Linn, (PI, U.C.-

Berkeley), Phil Bell (co-PI, U.

Washington), and Pamela Hines (co-PI,

Science, AAAS).

scope's goal is to bring knowledge

about the practice of science and unresolved scientific questions into middleschool classrooms, and to offer opportunities for research scientists to pursue

their own interests and contribute to educational efforts. The project aims to stimulate scientific knowledge acquisition and

debate between different segments, such

as scientists, policy makers, students, and

teachers. SCOPE has focused on selected scientific controversies, such as amphibian

growth and development, malaria control, and genetically modified food. With

each topic, we explore different ways to present information and promote interac- tions between participants. School teachers direct classroom projects using the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment

(WISE) combined with the material posted at die SCOPE Web site. WISE is an on-line science learning environment

for students in grades 4 through 1 2 that provides the necessary tools to participate

in a scientific debate. Students can inter- act by expressing their opinions and

ideas. Material posted at the SCOPE

Web site, the main resource for students, includes scientist-written commentaries on recent research, reports on scientific conferences, and a "virtual panel discussion" that highlights how divergent scientists' opinions can be. The SCOPE Web

site also leads to additional web resources. The dynamic and recorded nature of the SCOPE Web site allows students to see how researchers' ideas, questions, and

conclusions evolve over time. Additional

material developed by SCOPE team

members bridges the knowledge gap

between research scientists and middleschool students. For scientists and policy makers,

SCOPE supports multidisciplinary exploration, interaction, and collaboration. Additionally, SCOPE offers scientists an

opportunity to learn about the public's

understanding of science. We have used various measures to

assess the outcomes of SCOPE. Middleschool students' understanding of science

is assessed by pre- and post-tests, class- room observations, and various written

contributions. Participation in structured e-mail or classroom debates challenges the student to pose and substantiate an

opinion. The effectiveness of these debates and the extent to which the stu- dents' statements reflect current scientific understanding are assessed by the teachers. The teachers' involvement is observed

by SCOPE team members. Refinements

to the various curriculum units are made

by the SCOPE team on the basis of feed- back and teachers' experiences. Scientists' interactions are assessed by tracking Web

site usage statistics and e-mail discussion,

and by follow-up telephone interviews. The SCOPE/WISE project incorporates 1 5 years of classroom experience.

Formative research involved projects directed by Marcia Linn at U.C.-Berkeley

studying the use of computers as learning

tools in middle-school education. Other

formative experience relied on editorial experiences at Science magazine, working

with research scientists as authors and

readers, developing content suited to particular audiences, and exercising skills in science writing and editing.

The SCOPE resources have been

spontaneously adopted by various others not actively involved in SCOPE's class- room activities. For example, a scientific journal has reprinted a selection of the

scientist-written commentaries; a private

book-club has used the site to inform

their discussion; and a professor has used

the site to direct his undergraduate stu- dents through the debate about genetically modified foods.

105 J
The High School Biomedical Research

Program for Disadvantaged Youth

Universilv of Maivland

H^;J]_-&hooLBiomcdl£al Ri-senrch Program

Sponsors

The University of Maryland at Baltimore

The National Institutes of Health

Contact

Norbert R. Myslinski

Department of OCBS

School of Dentistry

University of Maryland

666 West Baltimore St. Baltimore, MD 21201

Phone: (410) 716-7258

nrmOOl @dental. umaryland.edu

Budget

$20,000 per year

Web Sites

Poster: v/ww.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/biomedical.htm

The High School Biomedical

Research Program is an opportunity for young men, women, and teachers to be

involved in important hands-on biomedical research at a great university. The

purpose of this program is to expand the horizons of disadvantaged high school

students, inspire them to pursue careers

in biomedical research, and give them

training and experience to help pursue

that goal. This program is significantly different from other high school scholastic experiences because training is intense and focused in a highly scientific environment, concentrating on scientific methods, scientific writing and oral communication. This full-time, eight week sum- mer program, which has been continuously funded by the National Institutes of

Health and the State of Matyland, was

started in 1988 by Dr. Norbert

Myslinski.

The primaty focus is the studentscientist relationship. Each participant is matched with a different research scientist

at the University of Matyland, Baltimore

campus. They are placed in the schools of

medicine, dentistty, pharmacy, and nursing, and the biotechnology and psychiatric institutes. Their projects involve

heart disease, cancer, molecular biology, the human genome, brain disorders,

pharmacology, psychiatty, and many others. They spent 80 percent of their time

in their mentors laboratoty and 20 per- cent in weekly group activities such as science seminars, career seminars,

bioethical/biomedical debates, oral pre- sentations, competitions, and lab visitations. Science seminar topics include the

use and care of lab animals, lab safety, biomedical informatics, scientific methods, ethical conduct, and oral and written

communication of scientific data.

Seventy-nine Baltimore area schools have participated. Since 1988 they

worked in 32 different basic, clinical, and

support departments under 76 different mentors. This Program has contributed more than 70,000 staff-hours of student

help during the 14 years of its existence. The evaluation process consists of six parts that are a modified version of the recommendations in the National Science

Foundation publication. User-friendly

Handbookfor Project Evaluation. These

evaluations help determine if the project meets its goals, the aspects of the project

that were the most effective, and if the

project could be replicated elsewhere. Ninety-five percent of the students have

gone on to college with 88 percent

majoring in the sciences. Some of the stu- dent projects have been published in medical journals and have won national awards. The Biomedical Research Program is a great way of communicating advances

in science and technology to todays

youth. High school teachers also participate and then transfer what they learned

to students in their schools. The seminars

and laboratoty experiences can be easily

adapted to other institutions of science

research. These disadvantaged students

are paid while they learn about the new

advances in science and technology, oral and written communication of science,

and career options. This experience helps

them in their admission and retention at the universities of their choice.

106
Base Pair

Sponsors

Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Univ. of Mississippi Medical Center

Contact

Rob Rockhold, Ph.D.

Dept. of Pharmacology & Toxicology

University of Mississippi Medical Center

2500 N. State St. Jackson, MS 39216-4505

Phone: (601) 984-1634

Fax: (601) 815-4100

rrockhold@pharmacology.umsmed.edu

Budget

Approx. $100,000 budgeted for 2001 academic year

Web Sites

Program: http://basepair. library.

umc.edu

Poster : v/ww. n i st . gov/pub! ic_affa i rs/ Posters/basepair.pdf

Base Pair, initiated in 1 992, is a bio- medical research mentorship program

that cultivates career awareness in public

high school students, trains such students

as effective "Communicators of Science"

to lay persons, and advances inquirybased science curricula within secondary

school districts. Base Pair was created from discussions among the leadership of

the University of Mississippi Medical

Center (UMC) and the Jackson Public

School District (JPSD) that articulated a

substantial need for stimulation of sec- ondary school education by exposure of

students and teachers to university-level

biomedical research. Incorporation of

electronic information and communication technologies in Base Pair activities followed the results of a district-wide formative evaluation ofJPSD technology

needs. Pairing of faculty from UMC with

students allows each student to spend a substantial portion of an academic year experiencing "hands-on" biomedical

research under UMC mentor guidance.

In preparation, Base Pair created a novel,

graduation credit-accruing high school

course. Biomedical Research, that pre- pares students for research activities. Mentors subsequently host students, in their laboratories, during afternoons for a

full semester. Teacher professional devel- opment during the summer and science curriculum enhancement activities throughout the year complement student

participation to create a highly coordinated impetus for communication of con- temporary biomedical science ethical concerns, techniques, and philosophies. Success in communicating science is highlighted by over 32 scientific abstracts/publications or presentations

co-authored/presented by high school

students in professional scientific forums,

while over a dozen teachers have accomplished similar professional goals. In addition, a Web site, http://basepair.library.

umc.edu, enhances communication with

the public and helps users locate Webbased and library resources relating to biomedical research and mentorship. The

program uses innovative communication

devices, such as videophones, to impart

greater flexibility for interactions among

mentors, students, and teachers.

Eighty-eight students have participated in Base Pair, of whom 52 percent have

been African-American, and 60 percent

have been women. Of those eligible ( 1

remain in high school), 100 percent have

continued to an undergraduate experi- ence, 41 of whom have chosen a science major. Twenty-four have completed

undergraduate training, and of those, 13

have either enrolled in graduate training or have entered a science-related career. Nine have entered an M.D. or an M.D./Ph.D. training program.

Intensive training of over two dozen

teachers, from six school districts, during summer sessions has emphasized grantsmanship, curriculum design, and con- temporary laboratory/information tech- nology. To date, 83 percent of Base Pair

teacher-initiated grant applications have

been funded, demonstrating a lasting influence on the communication ability

of teachers. Ancillary activities, including

hosting live, interactive presentations of

annual Howard Hughes Medical Institute Holiday Lectures in Science, and participation in electronic mentoring forums,

have extended the Base Pair influence to hundreds more.

Base Pair offers a unique, yet readily

reproducible, conjunction of mentorship,

information technology, biomedical

research, and curriculum development

that is a model for improving science lit- eracy among the American public.

Implementation of an advanced preparatoiy course, and application of the philosophy of mentorship that is fundamental

to all academic researchers, is an eminently "portable" concept that can be adopted

wherever professional scientific research is active (colleges, universities, corporate

research, government agencies).

107
Experion®

Sponsor

Science and Innovation Administration

Contact

Erik Jacquemyn, Managing Director

Technopolis

Technologielaan

2800 MECHELEN

Belgium

Phone: + 32 15 34 20 20

Fax: + 32 15 34 20 10

erik@technopolis.be

Budget

Starting costs: Lorr/: $340,000

Content: $290,000

Annual exploitation costs:

Total: $110,000

Staff and expenses (2 FT): $70,000

Transport: $19,000

Repairs and maintenance: $6,000

Communication & marketing: $8,000

Miscellaneous: $7,000

Pupils reached each year:

6,000 pupils at 15 locations

Web Sites

Program: www.technopolis.be/en

click "what is Technopolis?" then

"Technopolis is more"

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/experion . htm

In 1995 we wanted to set up a project proving to pupils in their first year of

secondary school (age 1 3) that science is related to everyday life and not boring. For this very critical public we had to cre- ate a challenging content (hands-on

experiments) in a nice cover. The practical problem of bringing pupils and project together was solved by transporting our project in a lorry covering a 750 sq. ft space once folded open. Experion® was born. Experienced in educational outreach, we knew we needed:

a compelling and appealing story

to present the experiments;

a final target: a "problem" that is "solved" if the experiments are conducted

accurately; and

experiments dealing with topics

corresponding to secondary education.

Thus, afterwards pupils can relate their experiences to the theory. Several stories and experiments were

tested. The result of three years of brain- storming, building, and testing was

revealed in October 1998. The pupils enter Experion® in a mysterious atmosphere. In true "Mission

Impossible" style they receive their mission from a very secret organization

through "live" satellite connection: "dis- close the secrets of a huge object which

fell down on Earth after collision with a

satellite." In teams of two or three, they

carry out tasks dealing with geography,

language, biology, physics, electricity, creativity... Each team carries out three of

the nine experiments. Their success in accomplishing an experiment provides

them with (part of) a picture. Two hours

of piecing together the picture leads to a code that prevents the disintegration of

the wreckage.

Carrying out the program contained rwo major parallel parts: design and construction of the lorry (carried out exter- nally under internal supervision) and

conception, design, and construction of

the interior (a mix of internal expertise on content and external expertise on

design). Coordination was done by

one project manager. Experion® is evaluated after each

session. Teachers think highly of it because of the availability of experiments

and the way science is "sold." The best proof of the success is the change of atti- tude in pupils during the session, changing from being skeptical to real die hards wanting to "save the wreckage." One

even fainted during the session.

If we had to do it again . .

.

1 . We would change the way the computers communicate (now linked in

a network) and look for other (wireless) means of data transfer (chips, . . .).

2. We underestimated the effort and

cost of exploitation. For this reason, the

original plan of going on school grounds was replaced with parking on a central

location:building up Experion® and set- ting up the experiments takes rwo to three hours

choosing locations is important

because of the size of the lorry; and

personnel have to travel and stay overnight.

3. We would consider the changing

mentality in the course of the first year of

secondary school (outgrowing child- hood). The skepticism about the story

increases as the school year progresses: luckily it doesn't survive during the sessions. At the end of the school year, the experiments become more easy to accomplish.

108
Special Forever

Sponsor

Murray-Darling Basin Commission

Contact

Lawrie Kirk, Manager Communication

Murray-Darling Basin Commission

(MDBC)

GPO Box 409

Canberra ACT Australia 2601

Phone: 61 2 6279 0107

Fax: 61 2 6248 8053

Budget

SI .2 M AUS over three years.This funds

all operating costs, staff development

and a full time project coordinator, and

part time clerical assistance.

Web Sites

Program: wwv/.mdbc. gov.au

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/speci aIforever. htm

Communication goaL Special Focever is a unique environmental communication project undertaken across the Murray-Darling Basin (the Basin) in east- ern Australia. It is funded by the MurrayDarHng Basin Commission and is implemented by the Primary English Teaching

Association of Australia. The project provides the opportunity for the personal

involvement of primary school students

in thinking, writing, and drawing what is important to them in the Basin, and

provides guidance in how to effectively express and communicate their views and

values.Through the involvement of over 400 schools (25 percent of the total in the Basin) and approximately 25,000

children each year, it has created: a "sense of belonging" and pride

in the Basin by students;

greater discussion of the Basin in schools and families; and

greater awareness of the topography, land use, cultural heritage, and flora and fauna of the Basin. Science content. Since 1 993 the pro- gram has been successful in making a unique connection between English and

science. Special Forever has given stu- dents another dimension to their science- based field activities by guiding and

encouraging them to write and express what they value about their "special" part

of the environment.

Contributions of artwork and writ- ing are collated with the best entries sent

for review and possible inclusion in an

annual Anthology. The National

Museum ofAustralia has featured Special Forever in a permanent exhibition and

regards the Anthologies as a unique col- lection and snapshot of children's perceptions of environmental and social issues over the last decade.

Target audience. The target audi- ences for this project are primary school

children (6 to 13 years old) and primary

school teachers within the MurrayDarling Basin. Background research and evaluation. The program evolved over seven

years before an evaluation was undertaken. Key findings from the 1999 review

indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the primary school teachers and stu- dents, and a perception by funding part- ners of outputs being of a very high stan- dard. This review became the foundation

for a restrticture, basis for the creation of new objectives and performance indicators. In 2000 it led to a 300 percent

increase in annual investment to $400

000 AUS p.a. The new investment strate- gy also moved the project from an annual

basis to a three-year term. Keys to success. An essential feature of the success of Special Forever is the use of a national professional organization

such as the Primary English Teaching

Association. This has ensured an ex- tremely high level of qualit)^ assurance and adherence to current national best

practice in English teaching.

The project could not be effective across the Basin without the assistance of

23 volunteer regional coordinators who

are either English teachers or librarians. Guidelines for the project are based on

the development of modules by the

regional coordinators ensuring relevance

to local and regional curriculum.

Special Forever is a substantial long- term investment in encouraging future generations to value the many natural and social assets of the Murray-Darling

Basin.

109
Communicating Science to Children

in Brazil

Sponsors

Museu da Vida (Museum of Life)/

Casa de Oswaldo Cruz/Fiocruz

Contact

Luisa Massarani

Science journalist

Museu da Vida (Museum of Life)/

Casa de Oswaldo Cruz/Fiocruz,

Rua General Polidoro 1 77/303, CEP

22280-001 , Rio de Janeiro, RJ, luisamassarani@uol.com.br and

massaran@gbl.com.br

Budget

We use the resources already available

in the Museu da Vida, including the

staff. There is a 10-person staff working

in this project, all of them sharing their time with other activities in the Museu.

Website:

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/brazil, htm

Educational experiments have shown

that in general children are very receptive

to ideas related to science and are extremely curious. Therefore, scientific popularization initiatives for this age can

succeed. Based upon our experience pro- ducing a science magazine and a book

series for children, and taking into account practical examples, we will dis- cuss the benefits, the obstacles, and the

limitations of this activity aimed for the

juvenile public. Both the science popularization magazine and the book series are products of Brazilian scientific community initiatives, involving science communication professionals. There is, therefore, in these cases, an intimate association between scientists and communicators

in the task of transmitting science for children. The magazine is Ciencia Hoje das

Criangas (Science Today for Children), a monthly publication of the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science

(equivalent to the AAAS). The criteria for the choice were: it is the most significant science popularization magazine in Brazil aimed at children and takes very seriously the issue of content accuracy (including

analysis of articles by scientific referees)

.

As the magazine editor for five years, I have several practical reflections on sci- ence popularization for children. With a circulation of around 200,000 copies,

Ciencia Hoje das Criangas has as its objective to stimulate, in young readers, interest about science, literature, and Brazilian

culture. Most of its articles (at least 80

percent) are signed by scientists from universities and research institutions. However, the texts

are "translated," adapting them for chil- dren's language, by the editorial team

prior to publication.

The other product considered in our

poster is a children's book series, created

this year by the Museum of Life, the sci- ence poptdarization unit of Oswaldo

Cruz Foundation (an important Brazilian

scientific institution). To design the book

series, we are using the know-how gener- ated by my experience. The subject of the

first volume is the importance of scientific collections (comparing scientific collec- tions with the children's habit of collect- ing things).

Some of the general aspects to be

considered in the process of science popularization for children are: to deal with

young readers as intelligent people, capable of understanding complex thoughts;

to make associations with everyday life; to make reference to history and popular

culture, but, at the same time, to be aware of international science scenario; to associate art and science; to make use of

analogies, metaphors, and humor; to pro- mote intimate associations between scientists and communicators; to actively involve children in science popularization, rendering them into actors of the

process; to present risks, uncertainties,

and ethical and moral aspects of science. The team for the children's book

series includes about 10 professionals,

with different backgrounds (biologists,

journalists, educators, and designers). The

evaluation also includes professionals with

different backgrounds and children,

embracing quantitative and qualitative

research.

110
Taking Science to Policy Makers

Participants in the Kansas Geological Surveys 1995

Field Conference board the bus after viewing a coal- mine reclamation project. Sponsor

Kansas Geological Survey,

University of Kansas

Contact

Rex Buchanan

Kansas Geological Survey

1930 Constant Ave.,

Lawrence, KS 66047

Phone: (785) 864-2106

rex@kgs.ukans.edu

Budget

2001 Field Conference

Expenses

Survey salaries and v>/ages

525,000

Direct costs (motels, meals, bus, etc.) $11,500

Income

(co-sponsorships, registration)

$1 1,500

In previous years, total expenses

ranged from about $30,400 to $35,500. Income ranged from

about $4,800 to about $8,300.

Web Sites

Program: www.kgs.ukans.edu

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/geological. htm

An important audience for scientific information is policy makers: legislators,

governmental agency staff, business leaders, environmental leaders, and others who need natural-resource information to make policy decisions. These are busy

people; they don't have the time or back- ground to read detailed, technical infor- mation. But they make natural-resource policy decisions every day.

The Kansas Geological Survey is a non-regulatory, research and service divi- sion of the University of Kansas. The

Survey studies and provides information

about the state's geologic resources and

hazards. A prime audience for that infor- mation is policy makers. To reach that audience—to provide scientific information in a form that policy makers would

take the time to understand—the Survey

developed an annual, three-day field conference. It takes policy makers into the

field, to locations where natural resources

are produced or used, to see, first-hand, the resources they make decisions about,

and to talk with researchers and people

who carry out (or are affected by) their decisions. The program was partially

modeled after a similar, national program

at the Colorado School of Mines.

The Survey has operated the Conference since 1995. Attendance is by

invitation. Participants are about onethird legislators, one-third agency staff, with the remainder being teachers, busi- ness leaders, and environmental leaders. Travel is by motor-coach (between stops, extensive conversations often ensue on

the bus's public-address system). A guidebook is sent to participants before the

trip. Lodging and meals are provided. A

small fee is charged, but most expenses

are covered by co-sponsors, chosen from

state agencies with expertise in issues being considered. A key to early success was the attendance of especially visible

legislators, which established the program's credibility and led to attendance

by other participants. Conferences focus on topics (such as energy) or specific

regions of the state. Most of the work is done by Survey extension staff (geologists

and writers/editors).

Results

Participants give the Conference high

marks. Written, post-conference evaluations are extremely positive and are used

in planning subsequent trips. During the law-making process, legislators refer to information learned during the conference, contributing to improved decision making. For example, when legislators

make laws about water in the Ogallala

aquifer of western Kansas (perhaps the

state's most important natural resource),

they call on Conference experiences

they have seen the Ogallala, they have

talked with irrigators and hydrologists.

The Conference has raised the Surveys

visibility within the Legislature and

improved relationships with state agencies

that act as co-sponsors. The Conference has evolved over seven years. The first conference was held

in October. Because legislators campaign

for office in the fall, the Conference

is now held in June. Early conferences included evening programs. But participants wanted time in the evening to informally talk about issues with each

other, so evening programs were

eliminated.

Bottom Line

The Kansas Geological Survey's

annual Field Conference is a highly effective way of providing scientific information to a difticult-to-reach audience. The

concept is being adopted by other state geological surveys and is applicable to a variety of scientific organizations.

Ill
Beyond Discovery

Sponsor

National Academy of Sciences

Contact

Erika C. Shugart, Ph.D.

Director

Office on Public Understanding of

Science

National Academy of Sciences

NAS 269, 2101 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20418

Phone: (202) 334-1575

eshugart@nas.edu

Donna Gerardi Riordan

Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Higher Education & Science Policy

Office of the Chancellor

University of California - Santa Cruz

296 McHenry

Santa Cruz, CA 95064

Phone; (831) 459-131

1

donna.riordan@adm.ucsc.edu

Budget

Approximately $60,000 per article including printing and dissemination

Web Sites

Program: wwv/. Beyond Discovery.org

Poster: v/wv/. nist.gov/public_affairs/ Posters/d i scovery. htm

The National Academy of Sciences' Office on Public Understanding of

Science (OPUS) has managed the Beyond Discovery project since its inception in 1995. The project currently pro- duces two products: eight-page, four- color print articles, and a Web site that contains the text of all articles with links to additional high-quality information

about each topic. Each article describes the often unanticipated role basic research

plays in the development of a medical or

technological breakthrough. The project

is intended to raise awareness of the importance of basic research and to help

the reader understand the processes of sci- ence. Since 1996, the project has pro- duced 1 7 articles on a wide variety of

topics.

The primary audience for the series

is "influential" individuals, including

members of the media, government and

political officials, industiy leaders, educators, and the science-interested lay public.

We print and distribute each article to approximately 1 2,000 members of this audience. The articles also are distributed

to libraries and science and technology

centers. In addition, the projects Web site receives over 40,000 unique visits per month. We undertook a year-long advertising campaign that promoted the Web

site in eight general science and science

teachers' publications.

Professional science writers draft the Beyond Discovery articles. The articles are vetted through an extensive review

process that includes, when possible, scientists who made the discoveries described. Due to the voluntary help

OPUS receives from members of the National Academy of Sciences, OPUS is

uniquely positioned to produce a series of

articles about modern science through

the personal accounts of those involved in the discoveries. OPUS staff manage each

article through several rounds of reviews

to ensure that the articles are accurate and

clear for a lay reader. Different aspects of the project have

been evaluated since its inception. At the onset of the project, two prototype articles were evaluated by focus groups, and

substantial changes were made in design,

graphics, and readability before the first prototype article was released in April

1996. Two other major evaluations were

conducted: One studied the use of the Beyond Discovery series by middle and

high school teachers; the other tested the

usability of the Beyond Discovery Web

site. In 1998, OPUS contracted with an independent evaluator to survey members

of the North Carolina Science Teachers

Association, who were sent copies of six

articles. The members were then asked to respond to a survey that was designed to evaluate their teaching style, the useful- ness of the publications, whether the

materials were shared, and the appropriateness of the materials as a teaching aid. The results indicated that the teachers found the articles to be useful, although

many teachers were interested in our

developing curricular materials to help

them introduce this kind of information

in their classrooms. In February 2001, OPUS conducted

a usability test on the Beyond Discovery

Web site. The feedback we received from

participants in the test was used to redesign the Web site, to improve navigation, and to add extra features.

112
Public Information Program for the

Groundwater Replenishment System

Sponsor

Orange County Water District and

Orange County Sanitation District Contact

Cindy Ferch, APR

Public Affairs Specialist

Orange County Water District PO Box 8300

Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Phone: (714) 378-3218

Fax: (714) 963-0291

cfercg@ocwd .com Communications budget

(1997 to date) Research: $30,000

Public Relations Consultant: $500,000

Staff hours: 1 0,000

Web Sites

Program: www.gwrsystem.com

Poste r : www. n i st . gov/pu b I i c_affa i rs/ Posters/orangecounty.htm

The Groundwater Replenishment

System is a wastewater reclamation project that will be the nations largest indirect potable reuse project using membrane purification. The purification process will use microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet disinfection to produce 35 billion gallons of water per

year to be put into the local groundwater

basin, using secondary treated wastewater

as its source water. The project's first phase will produce 75,000 acre-feet of

water per year (an acre-foot is 326,000

gallons) in 2005.

Communications Goal. The

overriding goal of the Groundwater

Replenishment System is for the project

to go on line without public or political

opposition.

Target Audience. Key to the success of the current communications program

has been the effective outreach to Orange

County political and business leaders and

active community members on the high

quality and safety of the near distilled water that comes from this treatment

process. Research. Public education and out- reach for this project began in late 1997

following focus group and telephone sur- vey research. Initial research focused out- reach on messages that were understandable and acceptable to the users of this future water supply. Research showed

that Orange County citizens did not

believe future water supplies would be

reliable. Our citizens also had a strong

desire for water independence and faith

in the reverse osmosis membrane technol- ogy used by many bottled water companies. The project was ultimately renamed

based on the results of this research. Description ofProgram. The major

elements of the program include

community presentations; active outreach

to local media; appearances on cable and

local television; distributing project video

and newsletters to libraries; and tours of

facilities. Program Implementation. The

public education program was implemented by the public affairs staffs of the Orange County Water District and the Orange County Sanitation District, with

assistance from public relations consultants. The public affairs staff members

worked with project technical staff to learn the technical aspects of the project

and find ways to explain concepts in everyday language. Explaining the hightech purification process in understandable and credible terms has prevented the "yuck" factor from turning people against the project. For example, explaining that the microfiltration process is also used to produce medicines, soft drinks, and water

for the manufacture of computer chips was very effective. Using a graphic dia- gram that shows the relative size and,

therefore, rejection of contaminants by

reverse osmosis resulted in audiences asking, why haven't we done this earlier? Research also told us that face-to-face presentations would be most effective in gaining support, so we have given about

500 presentations to key audiences in the

county. Lessons Learned. Being the first to

tell a story makes a big difference. Program Evaluation. By relating the sophisticated technological purifica- tion process to everyday items in a person's life, we were able to solicit over 1 00

organizations to support the project in writing and to gain the support of all the major business, political, and environmental groups in the county. Research

conducted in 2000 showed that awareness of the project has increased, and

opposition to the project has decreased.

113
Science and Technology Transforming

Public Health: Legislative Workshop

liv:].|jlr»- Workillop

Sponsor

Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health

Contacts

Patricia Anders, Director of Education

Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health

Box 509, Empire State Plaza

Albany, NY 12201-0509

panders@wadsworth.org

Phone 518-474-6196

Fax 518-474-5049, and

Katherine Zdeb,

Laboratory Media Specialist

Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health

Box 509, Empire State Plaza

Albany, NY 12201-0509

zdeb@wadsworth .org Phone: (518) 474-6713

Fax: (518) 474-5049

Budget

$225 for refreshments

$255 supplies

Mailing and printing are covered by

institutional services.

In-kind staff time: 40 hours for two

full-time staff; 15 hours for additional

staff involved in production of invita- tions, binders, etc. Web Sites

Poster: vmw.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/sciencetech . htm

Wadsworth Center, a research-intensive public health laboratory, provides the New York State Department of Health

with a scientific foundation for its policies

and practices. Those who craft healthrelated legislation can also benefit from

understanding the science behind public

health issues. To provide an educational

opportunity, and to establish Wadsworth

as a ready source of scientific expertise, the laboratory initiated an annual legislative workshop in 1993.

The target audience is staff of Senate and Assembly members, especially those who sit on Health, Environment,

Finance, and Ways and Means committees; policy and budget staff from the Governor's Executive Chamber; and

Health Department attorneys who draft regulations. The programs content changes yearly, but the goal remains constant: to explain in a concise, comprehensible manner what is known about a given subject, laboratory application of

that information to health threats, and

how researchers at Wadsworth are pursuing additional knowledge.

A questionnaire sent to potential attendees listing "hot topics" and signifi- cant research developments has proven

useful in developing the program. Topics

also are chosen based on past participant

feedback, laboratory advances, pending

legislative issues, and public health stories

in the media. Each day has a theme and

is composed of 40 minute presentations,

demonstrations, tours and informal inter- action. For example, a day on Genes and

Health in 1998 featured the following

units: Model Organisms and Human

Health; Hemochromatosis, A Study of

Genetics in Public Health; The

Continuing Promise of Gene Therapy;

and Maintaining the Quality of DNA

Paternity Tests. The workshop runs for three consecutive mornings and is held at the Wadsworth Center. It is coordinated by

the director of education and the labora- tory media specialist. Their areas of

expertise include educational program

development, implementation and assess- ment; science communication; and event promotion and management. Doctorallevel scientists who conduct research or

oversee service laboratories are the speakers. They meet with education staff to review the programs goals and to discuss

their topics in detail. Speakers draft an

annotated outline, glossary, and reading

list, which are reviewed for lay accessibility, length and format and are included in a binder, along with a brief bio and contact information. Surveys have indicated

that attendees keep the binder in their

office for future reference. A "save the date" card is mailed two

months before the program. A month in advance a brochure and registration form

are sent to potential attendees and to all

legislators, alerting them to an educational opportunity for their staff While atten- dance is kept deliberately small to encourage dialogue, it remains a chal- lenge to get busy legislative staff to attend. One remedy has been to schedule

the workshop very early, before they go to

their office. A challenge is picking the

best week to schedule the program, given

the busy legislative calendar. Impact evaluations are generally positive. Assessments include: 1) speakers'

[ knowledge and ability to convey informa- I tion in a comprehensible way; 2) pro- gram strengths and weaknesses; 3) meeting program goals and objectives; 4) benefits of the program; and 5) most/least

effective components. No method for measuring outcomes has been identified,

however. Follow-up phone calls or visits from legislative staff to workshop speakers I' are not tracked, nor has it been possible

to identify the workshop's role, if any, in policy decisions or legislation.

114
Diverse Educational Needs in Agricultural

Biotechnology

Sponsors

University of Nebraska and Colorado

State University; USDA through the

Initiative for Future Agriculture and

Food Systems program; American

Distance Education Consortium (ADEC)

Contact

Dr. Susan Fritz University of Nebraska

300 Agriculture Hall

Lincoln, NE 68583-0709

Phone: (402) 472-9559

sfriizl @unl.edu

Budget

5694,520

Web Sites

Program: croptechnology.unl.edu and

www.colostate.edu/programs/

lifesciences/TransgenicCrops

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/a g bi otech . htm

Plant breeders, nutritionists, and

agricultural education specialists familiar with genetic modification technology

have initiated a project (through the support of an USDA Initiative for Future

Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS)

grant) to provide reliable, accessible, complete and unbiased information on genetically modified crops and foods to as wide

an audience as possible. This information

is provided through two avenues. The

first is through day-long biotechnology

workshops. Workshop topics include

methods and applications of transgenic

crops, health and environmental concerns about their use, ethical dimensions of

agricultural biotechnology, and ways of

communicating biotechnology risks and

benefits. The target groups for these workshops include teachers, extension

educators, health and nutrition professionals, journalists, and other professionals who educate others about biotechnology-related subjects.

The second avenue is delivery of

information through a partnership of two

Web sites, funded in part by the American Distance Education

Consorrium (ADEC) and USDA-IFAFS,

and established to meet diverse educational needs in crop technology. The first Web site (croptechnology.unl.edu) consists of peer-reviewed lesson modules tar- geted toward credit and non-credit learners and science educators. This open

source database has been tested with over 500 students and utilized by teachers and

journalists internationally. Expansions are currently under way for topics in weed

science, nutrition, and food safety, with

possible translation to Spanish. The sec- ond site (www.colostate.edu/

programs/lifesciences/TransgenicCrops) is targeted for more general public use, focusing intensely on crop genetic engineering issues. It has been reviewed or mentioned in Science magazine. The

Chronicle ofHigher Education, and the

Internet Scout Project (an NSF-sponsored organization). Currently, over 125

other Web pages link to this site. Expansions in process include Spanish

translation and enhanced agricultural

biotechnology educational resources. Over 150 people (e.g., high school sci- ence teachers, agricultural and nutrition extension educators, seed company

employees) have attended the workshops.

Seventy-four participants voluntarily

completed surveys that measure

awareness, attitude, delivery, and

demographics.

Funding: Major funding for this project has been provided by the American Distance Education

Consordum (ADEC); the USDA

Cooperative State Research, Education

and Extension Service (CSREES), under

Agreement No. 98-EATP- 1-0403; and

the USDA Initiative for Future

Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS),

under Agreement No. 00-52100-9710.

115 J
A Bridge Not a Barrier

Sponsors

National Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Engineering

Institute of Medicine

National Research Council

Authors

Craig Hicks, Managing Editor

Tom Roberts, Deputy Managing Editor

Molly Galvin, Senior Online Producer

Contact

Craig Hicks

Managing Editor

National-Academies.org

2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20418

Phone:(202)334-2138

CHicks@nas.edu

Budget

$37,500 annually, using existing IT infrastructure

Web Sites

Program: vvww.national-academies.org

Poste r : vww. nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/bestpractices.pdf

What's New @ National-Acadenites.org

This is a weekly broadcast e-mail message distributed to some 5,000

subscribers. The mailing is a dissemination tool that effectively combines pre-existing content from the National Academies

Web site and original content written for the e-mail. The message highlights material generated by the news office and

other parts of the Academies. In all cases, messages are written for a non-technical,

science-interested public.

The mailing reaches a weekly audi- ence of demonstrated breadth and depth,

and the self-subscribed audience continues to grow at a regular rate. Of particular surprise to us was the high number of

subscribers registered through foreign

country domains—72 countries are rep- resented on the list. Also, 149 different

federal agencies or elected officials and

40 different state agencies are current

subscribers. In cooperation with the National

Academies publisher, the National

Academy Press, we have begun tracking

"click-throughs" from "What's New"

e-mails to individual NAP publications.

This gives us an indication of how fre- quently our list motivates subscribers to connect with our site to read or purchase

online publications.

Interactive Webcast Series

Working in close partnership with

the institutions information technology

and conference support departments, the

Electronic Outreach team developed a process for making this new dissemination option more readily available to our

research staff. Some of our more successful webcasts have featured discussions about

intellectual property rights, working conditions for postdoctoral researchers, the

safety and efficacy of mammography, and

counterterrorism. Our audiences include

university students and faculty, newspaper reporters, industry researchers, and

government officials from the United

States and abroad. We measure each program's impact by assessing server statistics and evaluating participant feedback

offered during and after the event. During 2001, we produced 30

webcasts with a total of 6,224 Web

participants.

Web Extra ' Series

The news office began producing the Web Extra series in May 2000 to help get the word out on reports that are of particular relevance to the public. Web

Extras provide comprehensive summaries

of the reports using clear, jargon-free lan- guage and visuals such as colorflil charts, graphs, maps, and photos.

Interactive features such as quizzes

and opinion polls draw people into the

subject matter. The news office works

closely with research staff to plan content and check accuracy. More than 140,000 individuals have

viewed Web Extra pages. The average person spent about 140 seconds viewing

each page—an encouraging statistic, since the Nielsen/Norman Group estimates

that most users spend an average of 5

1

seconds per page. In addition, several other organizations either provided links to the Web Extras or referred to them on

their own Web pages, including the American Hospitals Association, CNN,

Medscape, and Syracuse University.

The National Academies considers the World Wide Web its primary vehicle

for directly reaching consumer audiences. Because of consumer familiarity with

news-oriented formats, we intentionally

designed the front end of our Web site to emulate news programming—providing

updated news feeds about Academies

activities nearly every working day. The

Academies Office and News and Public

Information has managed the site's toplevel content since 1996. Since that time, the office's Electronic Outreach group,

led by Managing Editor Craig Hicks, has developed a constellation of projects

intended to engage a broad range of the

science-interested public.

116
Science@NASA

Science

(DNASA

Direct to People ! science.nasa.gov

Sponsor

NASA Marshal! Space Flight Center

Contact

Ron Koczor

Science Directorote/SDOl

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center

Huntsville, AL 35812

Phone: (256) 544-3078

ron.koczor@msfc.nasa.gov

Web Sites

Program: See below

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/nasa.htm

What WeAre. Science@NASA is a

science communication efFon sponsored

by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

It is the result of a four-year research project between Marshall Space Flight

Center, the University of Florida College

ofJournalism and Communications, and

the Internet communications company,

Bishop Web Works.

The goals of Science@NASA are to inform, inspire, and involve people in the excitement of NASA science by bringing

that science directly to them. We stress not only the reporting of the facts of a

particular topic but also the context and

importance of the research. Science@NASA involves several levels of activity—from academic communications research to production of content

for six Web sites—in an integrated process involving all phases of production. A Science Communications

Roundtable Process is in place that

includes scientists, managers, writers, editorS; and Web technical experts. The

close connection between the scientists and the writers/editors assures a high level of scientific accuracy in the finished products.

The Web sites each have unique

characters and are aimed at different audience segments:

1. http://science.nasa.gov. (SNG)

Carries stories featuring various aspects of

NASA science activity. The site carries two or three new stories each week in written and audio formats for scienceattentive adults.

2. http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov. Features stories from SNG that are recast for a high school level audience. J-Track

and J-Pass applets for tracking satellites are our most popular product.

3. http://kids.msfc.nasa.gov. This is the NASAKids site and is aimed at a middle school audience. The NASAKids

Club is a new feature at the site.

4. www.thursdaysclassroom.com.

This site features lesson plans and class- room activities for educators centered around one of the science stories carried on SNG.

5. www.spaceweather.com. This site gives the status of solar activity and its interactions with the Earths ionosphere

and magnetosphere.

6. http://ciencia.msfc.nasa.gov. This

site carries Spanish versions of SNG

stories. How WellAre We Doing?

In 2001, we were awarded the Pirelli INTERNETional Award as best science outreach process. Our Ciencia@NASA

site was selected by YAHOO!

International as the best Spanish language

science and technology site on the

Internet.

All of our Web sites showed an

increase in readership in 200 1 . Total number of hits for all sites was

637,000,000. The total number of visits (information downloaded to the same

Internet address within a 1 5 minute

period) was 54,000,000. This is a 90%

increase over 2000.

A significant part of our process is the development and analysis of statistics to measure audience response to our outreach. A survey was developed and analyzed with the help of the University of

Florida College ofJournalism and

Communications. It was sent to all of our

science.nasa.gov subscribers. Responses

totaled 28,000 (17% of subscribers).

Some of the more interesting results: 85% rated the quality of our articles

as good to excellent, 28% said they were students,

19% said they were teachers,

80% of the teachers said that they used our materials in

their classrooms,

68% said they read our services at home,

63% said that they pass our

information on to family

and friends,

3 1 % were outside the USA; and

25% said they were female. And the most gratifying statistic is that ftilly 96% of our respondents said that they actually did something as a

result of our stories, such as go outside and look for an aurora, meteor shower, or

satellite, or talk with their children or grandkids about science! A remarkable measure of impact on people as a result of our outreach efforts!

117
''Did You Ever Wonder?

The above image represents the design of one of the

first three bus posters, featuring Steven Louie. In a

modified form it serves as the banner on Louie's web

and print profile.

Sponsor

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Contact

Paul Preuss Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Public Information Department

1 Cyclotron Road, MS 65B

Berkeley, CA 94720

Phone:(510)486-6249

Fax: (510) 486-6641

paul_preuss@lbl.gov

Budget

Approximately $70,000 to date

including estimated salary time

Web Sites

Program: www.lbl.gov/wonder

Poster: v^ww. nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/wonder.htm

A Charlton Research Co. survey in October 1998 revealed that most resi- dents of Berkeley and nearby communities have heard of a place called Lawrence

Berkeley National Lab, but few know

who we are or what we do. Many of our

neighbors are friendly to science, would

welcome science help in local schools,

and would like to know more about our

research and the scientists who conduct

it. But 20 percent assume Berkeley Lab is involved in weapons work (we do no

classified research), and even more confuse us with Lawrence Livermore Lab,

well known for weapons development, or with the Lawrence Hall of Science, a sci- ence museum and education center. To give our neighbors a more accurate picture, "Did You Ever Wonder?"

takes advantage of media already in place,

namely the Labs shuttle buses and home

page. Our aim is to convey both the

diversity of our research—in basic sci- ence, technology, energy efficiency,

health, and environmental protection

and the diversity of the people doing it. Berkeley Lab is adjacent to the UC

Berkeley campus; our shuttle buses circle the campus and move through the heart of downtown Berkeley six times an hour

every working day. About every five weeks, new sets of colorful posters have

appeared on these buses, stimulating

curiosity with "Did you ever wonder"

questions.

"Did you ever wonder about the

invisible marvels of the nanoworld? ... How new discoveries could help cure

breast cancer? ... How a portable water

purifier saves children's lives?" For

answers, readers are invited to visit our Web site: "Visit Berkeley Lab at www.lbl.gov."

Personal profiles of researchers, writ- ten for nonspecialists interested in sci- ence, are posted on the Web site. So far we have featured the work of 1 2 scientists who differ in age, gender, ethnic origin,

and the varied paths that brought them

to scientific work—whether they were born into a family of Ivy League scientists or began life as a farmer's daughter in China.

Web profiles give short answers to the "Wonder" questions on the bus

posters and link to existing articles, press

releases, research papers, and other online

documents of increasing technical content. Printed broadsides, which are dis- tributed to schools, businesses, and community centers, contain the same material and also give URLs.

The program has required the part- time efforts of two writers, two designers, an editor, a photographer, and specialists in poster manufacture, Web layout, and

printing—all on staff—plus the Lab's bus drivers, who mount the posters themselves. The great challenge was coordinating

many separate departments and many

disparate tasks, meanwhile maintaining

the usual public-information-department

workload. In some cases, integration with

education, recruiting, or community outreach efforts has suffered. Web site hits have averaged about

1 1 ,000 a week, comparable to our online

magazine Science Beat. Apparently the majority of these are generated by bus

posters alone, judging from the jump in

hits following the appearance of new

posters with no other publicity. Better information may come from another professional community survey to be commissioned soon.

118

I
Current Science & Technology Center

Sponsor

Museum of Science

Contact

Carol Lynn Alpert, Manager

Current Science & Technology

Museum of Science

Science Park, Boston 021 14-1099

Calpert@mos.org

Budget

Capital Costs (Design, Construction,

Hardware, Systems): $2.5 million. (Lead corporate sponsor: EMC

Corporation)

Annual Operating Budget: $250,000

Grant-Funded Programs: $400,000

Web Sites

Program: www.mos.org/cst

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/currentscience.htm

ically suspended oval stage and large plasma screen array. Live presentations are given daily, backed by colorful digital

video and graphic displays, and include

opportunities for questions and discussion. Guest researchers with a knack for public speaking are invited in on a regular basis. Exhibits often feature new tech- nologies still under development, in part- nership with university and industry

R&D labs. Attractive touchscreen dis- plays carry science news and stories on

current research, utilizing text, images,

animation, audio, and video. News and

stories are updated daily from an in- house digital production studio by a team

of dedicated scientists, educators, and

multimedia producers, who also prepare and deliver the live presentations. Much

of the material also is uploaded to the centers web site, www.mos.org/cst, with

links to related sites. CS&T hosts live events, demonstrations, and forum-type gatherings. It has

live links to NASA-TV via satellite, to the

Gilliland Observatory telescopes, and to

cable, Web, and video-conferencing

resources. New fiber lines and robotically controlled cameras will allow CS&T to begin cablecasting in the spring of 2002

as a regular feature on New England

Cable News. CS&T also pursues opportunities for live communications with

research expeditions in the field, such as the International Trans Antarctic

Expedition and Woods Hole deep sea dive research expeditions.

Partnerships and grants help provide

staffing and resources for various areas of

research. For example, the center pursues

a major focus on health science research

in partnership with local research institutions, funded by a SEPA grant from the National Institutes of Healths National

Center for Research Resources. The NSFftinded Nanoscale Science and

Engineering Center headquartered at Harvai^d University includes CS&T as an

educational outreach collaborator. The museum has a NASA broker/facilitator grant that assists CS&T stalTin developing educational outreach in partnership

with space science researchers. Working

with the Public Understanding of

Research initiative at the National Science

Foundation, the CS&T Center also is exploring various ways of sharing and

networking educational resources with

other science centers and broadcast media.

The pace of research and innovation

is quickening, opening new possibilities, new career choices, and oft:en new controversies. CS&T seeks to empower public and school audiences with information

and perspective on science and technol- ogy in the news and to encourage widespread participation in meaningflil dia- logue on our future. The center serves as a safe place where some of the trickier ethical and social issues associated with

current research can be teased out and

understood on a factual basis, without

reference to political or cultural agendas.

The CS&T Center is an ongoing

experiment in designing the science and

technology center of the future. With the help of the Institute for Learning

Innovation, we are conducting a four- year formative and summative evaluation program in order to develop and improve on all aspects of the center's multifaceted

approach and to assess its value as a sci- ence communication model for further dissemination.

i The Current Science & Technology

Center is a museum-based experiment in science communication aimed at enhancing the public understanding of research by focusing on new discoveries, break- through technologies, and science in the news stories. The center serves as an

information resource, showcase, and

forum for many of the museum's

1.5 million annual visitors, while devel- oping new audiences through the Web,

cable television, and networking with

other science centers. The centerpiece of the roughly

5000-square-foot exhibit area is a dramat119
Physics to the People: Reinventing the

Fermilab Web Site

Physics to the People

Reinventing tine Fermilab Website

3SS.3I3

Fermi ^

t.T*'<."*< I. I. .'.'II

Sponsor

U.S. Department of Energy/Fermi

National Accelerator Laboratory

Contact

Mieke van den Bergen

Address: Fermi National Accelerator

Laboratory

PO. Box 500, MS 206

Batavia, IL 60510-0500

Phone: (630) 840-2326

bergen@fnal.gov

Budget

$60,000 for Web design consultant,

plus significant staff time and

expertise—the equivalent of about one full-time staff member.

Web Sites

Program: v/ww.fnal.gov

Poster: vww.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/fermilab.htm

The World Wide Web came from

high-energy physics, so perhaps it is not

surprising that Fermilab, a Department of

Energy high-energy physics laboratory, has an historic Web site: the second ever

established in the United States. Created

in 1 992 as tool for sharing physics data, the site developed through the 1990s into a tool for communicating with a wide

range of audiences. As for Web design,

navigation, architecture, graphic stan- dards—we made them up as we went

along. The result was a site that held a

trove of physics knowledge and other information but was all but inaccessible

to the average Web user. In 1999, the Fermilab Office of

Public Affairs undertook a complete over- haul of the laboratory's entire public Web

site: some 1 ,200 pages. Rather than

attempting to rehabilitate the current site, we elected to start fresh

tabula rasa. We

wanted to make the byzantine Fermilab

Web site into a supple and effective communication tool. The first step was to form a small,

focused laboratory Web Group with both

the requisite expertise and the authority

to make decisions. (Lesson learned: Avoid

big committees and long approval

chains.)

The Web Group took time and care

in the selection of a Web consultant. (Lesson learned: Unless you are a Web

design firm, dont try to do it yourself,

especially if you're a physics lab.) We

chose Xeno Media, a local company with

a portfolio of scientific and educational

Web sites and a collaborative approach.

We wanted great Web-design expertise

but also the opportunity for significant

participation ourselves. (Lesson learned: Location counts. E-mail proved no substitute for weekly onsite meetings

between the contractor and the Web

Group.)

We began the project with input

from the laboratory community, audience

analysis, a survey of comparable Web

sites, and technical specifications. A look

at the make-up of the audience reveals the biggest challenge we faced: physicists,

students, teachers, the interested public, the media, funding agencies, government

officials, employees, users—plus bird- watchers, folk-dancers, and patrons of the

arts, each seeking something different from the Fermilab site. Fiow to make it easy for all of them to find what they were looking for? Building the new Web site took

nearly a year. Xeno developed and refined the navigation scheme, with ongoing

feedback from users. Public affairs staff wrote and edited content. We designated one day a week as "Web Day," devoted

entirely to work on the new site, with the contractor toiling alongside laboratory

staffOn March 1, 2001, we rolled out

the new Web site, standing by to fix the

inevitable glitches. Response was fast, and

people liked it! Even the press weighed in. When Wired.com called our site "eurocute," we took it as a compliment.

Measuring the effectiveness of the new Web site in reaching audiences is straightforward. Weekly Webtrends

reports—shared with laboratory management—and plenty of direct e-mail feed- back tell us who uses the Web site and

how, and where the problems are, allow- ing us to change to meet the needs of

users, to build audiences and to strength- en our messages. (Lesson learned: A Web

site is never done; its care and feeding

must be someone's daily responsibility.)

120
Dive and Discover— Expeditions

to the Seafloor

Sponsor

Woods Hole Oceonogrophic Institution (WHOI), the Notional Science

Foundation (NSF), and Center of

Science and Industry (COSI)

Contact

Danielle Fino

Woods Hole Oceonogrophic Institution MS#40

Woods Hole, MA 02543

dfino@whoi.edu

Budget

We estimate that over the post two

years, Dive and Discover has cost approximately S500,000. This figure is on approximation because of the many

people hours volunteered to the project.

We ore currently in the process of deter- mining the cost of running Dive and

Discover on a per/cruise basis. Web Sites

Program: vAvw.divediscover.whoi.edu

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/dfino_poster.pdf

Dive and Discover is a live-from-sea Web site, which involves Internet users in the daily activities and discoveries of scientists at sea. The site is the brainchild of

Dr. Susan Humphris and Dr. Dan

Fornari, senior scientists in the Geology

& Geophysics Dept. at the Woods Hole

Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), the

world's largest independent oceanographic research and education institution. The project is ftinded through a grant

from the National Science Foundations

Awards for Geoscience Education

Program and WHOI. The Web site specifically targets middle school students and their teachers, engaging them in interactive distance learning. The primary

goal in creating the site was to show

young people how science is conducted

and to share with them the excitement

and sense of discovery scientists experi- ence while carrying out deep sea research

that uses submersible vehicles. Broadcast since January 2000, Dive

and Discover has covered five research expeditions to the seafloor in remote

regions of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

It is planned that the site wUl serve in the

future as a model and template for other

scientists conducting research at sea. Documentation exists to assist others in using the site or developing their own

near real-time at-sea Web sites based on

the Dive and Discover model.

Dive and Discovers most immediate

challenge was a technical one: How to transmit large amounts of data from a research vessel out in the open ocean where satellites are less numerous and more expensive. To solve this problem

Fornari and Humphris involved research engineers at WHOI who had developed a technology called SeaNET and were in the process of installing it on some ships

in the nation's fleet of research vessels. SeaNET provided Humphris and Fornari

with satellite and communications hard- ware and software protocols that permit

large quantities of data to be transmitted

relatively inexpensively between a shore- based server and the ship at sea. With the first technical hurdle over- come, Humphris and Fornari enlisted the help of WHOI Web Communications

Manager Danielle Fino to develop a Web

interface that would stimulate students

and still be a manageable size to transmit

from sea and to load quickly on the older, slower computers used in many class- rooms. Fino also made sure the interface was adaptable to expeditions focusing on

different scientific questions. WHOI

Illustrator Paul Oberlander, and WHOI

Science Editor Lawrence Lippsett worked

to help create the site's graphical and tex- tual components. These include: interactive learning modules; a daily journal;

detailed explanations of the research vessels, the remote vehicles, and other tools used in scientific research; a mail buoy for communicating with shipboard scientists; interviews; hot topics; videos; slide shows;

and quizzes. After the second expedition,

Humphris and Fornari embarked in a partnership with Ohio's Center of Science

and Industry, COSI, to expand the project's reach among teachers. COSI devel- oped a free educator's companion to give

to any teacher requesting it, and a WHOI-based outreach campaign fol- lowed, enlisting teachers in using and

helping to evaluate the site. Expedition 4

recruited more than 80 teachers from five countries to use the site and evaluate it. Dive and Discover uses access statistics, awards won, teacher response, and

verbal and email feedback to measure

success and effectiveness. Though it is near impossible to determine exactly who

is using the site, our access statistics show

that the site is being used extensively by

students and the general public, and feed- back and the list of awards won shows

that it is well-liked by Internet audiences. Access statistics indicate that 4,278,183

Dive and Discover pages were accessed from February 27, 2000, to May 20,

2001.

121
Virtual Labs and Animation Console

at Biolnteractive.org

Sponsor

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)

Contact

Donna Messersmith, Ph.D.

Program Analyst

Office of Grants and Special Programs

Howard Hughes Medical Institute 4000 Jones Bridge Road

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Phone: (301) 215-8500

biointeractive@hhmi.org

Budget

A single virtual lab requires approximately three full-time developers,

including outside technology consultants, for four months. Additional staff time is required to evaluate and make

modifications to labs. Some effort can

be saved in reusing some tools from

previously developed labs. Each animation requires approximately three full- time staff for three months.

Web Sites

Program: biointeractive.org

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/biointeractive.htm

The virtual labs (vlabs), animations,

and other supplemental instructional materials available at BioInteractive.org

are designed to teach, in an engaging manner, about important, cutting-edge

concepts in the biomedical sciences. Content is rigorously reviewed for scientific accuracy and designed to be of practical value to educators. The materials are intended primarily for high school AP

biology students, although they have

found wide use in introductory college

biology, and Web usage statistics indicate

that the materials are popular with a general audience.

Vlabs are used to prepare for, or rein- force a wet lab, or to provide an experi- ence when a wet lab is not possible. They

reveal science as a process while teaching

key biological concepts and current methods and technology for laboratory

investigation. In the Bacterial ID Lab, for example, students use PCR amplification,

DNA sequencing, and an actual BLAST

search engine to identify an unknown

pathogen. Other vlabs enable students to diagnose heart disease, assay human anti- bodies, and examine the function of the nervous system.

The animations cover diverse topics,

from E. coli infection to the molecular

basis of biological clocks. Although not

intrinsically interactive, they reveal hid- den worlds and complex biological fiinc- tions that cannot be easily conveyed via

text alone or static illustration. The ani- mations are bundled in an Animation

Console that incorporates indexing and

navigation features, making it easy to find and view them. Animations are displayed on one side of the screen and explanatory

text on the other, allowing students to study either the animation or the text. Some animations feature audio narration. "Tabs" link to background information,

references, and teaching tips.

The quality and effectiveness of the

vlabs and animations depend on a multidisciplinary team of staff and consultants:

scientific and educational advisers, animators and software designers, content

developers, and evaluation coordinators. A key member of the team is a science

liaison who coordinates and monitors the team's activities and is a critical link between the scientific advisers and the

artistic and technical developers. The sci- ence liaison must have a strong science and education background to balance scientific content with the interests of the

learner. A defined, iterative workflow

refines the vlabs and animations from

original concept to storyboard to final product.

During product development, the team conducts formative evaluations with

scientists and educators to assess scientific accuracy, concept and design, and infor- mational value. Large-scale summative

evaluations are conducted to determine if completed products meet the team's educational goals. Results of evaluations are used to refine materials and assessment

instruments.

We have learned that development of

materials with rigorous scientific content and complex technological requirements

requires a detailed work plan and a single individual—the science liaison—to manage the process. Originally, we intended

to publish our materials only on the

Biolnteractive Web site. However, feed- back from teachers and others convinced

us that there were advantages to publishing materials on CD-ROMs, which are portable and do not depend on an

Internet connection. We are preparing to publish in DVD video and DVD-ROM

formats to take advantage of superior

storage capacity, indexing, and interactive

features.

122
Choices and Challenges

Reinventin

"^^ Human

Designer Children

Sponsor

Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at Virginia Tech

Contact

Doris T. Zailen, Ph.D., Director

Jane L. Lehr, M.S., Research Associate

Choices and Challenges Project

Virginia Tech

Mail Code: 0227

Blacksburg, VA 24061

Phone: (540) 231-6476

Fax: (540) 231-7013

choices@vt.edu

Budget

The Choices and Challenges project's

budget has varied on a forum-to-forum

basis. No registration fee has ever been

charged so as to encourage a broad

spectrum of participation. The typical

forum budget ranges from $40,000 to $50,000, with significant cost-sharing

provided by the university.

Web Sites

Program: www.cddc.vt.edu/choices

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/choices, htm

Over the last 15 years, the project has received financial support fi"om foundations such as: the Virginia Foundation

for the Humanities and Public Policy,

NIH, and NEH. Support has also been

provided by various divisions, colleges,

and departments at Virginia Tech. Grant monies typically provide salary

support for one half-time Research

Associate; publicity; video/broadcast

services; forum production costs; and

travel expenses and small honorarium for invited speakers.

Foimded in 1985 at Virginia Tech,

each forum is designed to determine the

ethical and social issues created by

advances in science, technology, and

medicine and to examine the ofi:en highly

complex components—historical, philosophical, societal, legal—in a balanced manner. The 20 forums conducted since the

start of the series have covered a wide

range of topics in biology, medicine, psychology, chemistry, physics, and engineering. Each forum is tailored to the specific

needs of the subject under consideration

but there are three basic components:

tutorial sessions at the beginning

of the program to provide necessary background information to participants; a main session at which a panel of

scholars and practitioners discuss, with

each other and with the audience, the

various issues raised; and

closing sessions geared toward fos- tering individual decision-making and

examining how citizens can contribute to policymaking.

Our typical audience includes scientists, clinicians, lawyers, theologians, educators, businesspersons, students, the

press, and the general pubUc. Attendance now exceeds 500 at each fiill-day forum.

Professional societies for physicians,

teachers, nurses, dietitians, and social workers have granted continuing education credits or in-service credits. For more than a dozen years, the main session of each forum has been

broadcast throughout the U.S., thereby

bringing the forum to national audiences

in either an interactive teleconference for- mat or through the use of edited videotapes shown to community audiences

and schools. More than 700 sites nationwide (with an estimated viewing audience

of 25,000) have participated in this way. The Choices and Challenges series has received national awards for its work.

Most recently we are recipients of an

Innovation Award by The Woodrow

Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.

Our upcoming forum, Tood

Frights'—scheduled for April 1 1 , 2002

explores food safety issues such as genetically modified foods and the risk of

bioterrorism. We are currently seeking

funding for our next forum, tentatively entitled "Big Brother Technologies,"

scheduled for March 27, 2003.

By bringing the researcher together

with the practitioner, the scientist into dialogue with the humanist, the citizen into conversation with the legislator, the Choices and Challenges forums serve as a unique living laboratory for identifying,

exploring, and addressing some of the most crucial and demanding human

issues confronting modern society

What We Have Learned

u Involve community members at

all stages of planning, from topic selec- tion to program design.

Invite speakers and discussion

leaders with experience in developing

links to the public so as to promote part- nership over adversity in the discussions. Include local as well as national

discussants to encourage continued dia- logue following the scheduled event. Recognize and respect the expertise and knowledge that members of the public bring to the discussion. Allow no formal "papers" and

insist that participants speak in lay

language.

Use new technologies, but don't

rely on them as a "solution" to communication with the public.

123
The Why Files

Sponsor

The University of Wisconsin-Madison

Contact

Terry Devitt, Editor

102A Bascom Hall 500 Lincoln Drive

Madison, Wl 53706

Phone: (608) 262-8282

trdevitt@facstaff.wisc.edu

Budget

$1 10,895 annually

Web Sites

Program: http://v/hyfiles.org

Poster: vyww.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/whyfiles.htm

The Why Files (whyfiles.org) is a

non-profit. Web-based source of enter- taining and informative science information. Founded in 1 996 by the National

Institute for Science Education and fiind- ed by the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin-Madison since 1998, The Why Files has helped pioneer

the art of reaching mass audiences with

salient, accurate, and accessible science

stories via the Web. Each week, the site features clearly written, often humorous,

and always fact-checked stories explaining

"the science behind the news." News

hooks are the headlines; stories range from 800 to 3,500 words, and are richly

illustrated with photographs, drawings,

and tables. Each story includes links to relevant Web sites and a bibliography

with fiirther information.

Although humor is a vital component of the projects success, we take our

mission to explore the science behind the news seriously. When Princess Diana

died, we covered the science of grief

Wlien an ominous asteroid was sighted, we looked at the numbers and rationale

for worrying about stray rocks from

space. And when blackouts rolled through California, we looked at methane hydrates and nuclear energy. When the project started, the Internet was an untamed wilderness. With no models to follow and the excite- ment of the frontier ahead. The Why

Files began life based on the idea that

"the science behind the news" was an

opportunity to address myriad scientific topics in accessible language.

WTiile traditional journalistic stan- dards, snappy writing, and timely reporting have helped The Wliy Files achieve

international recognition, it is the nonparochial approach to reporting that sets

it apart from most university science Web

sites. Instead of focusing on Wisconsin

stories, we frequently avoid them.

Science goes far beyond a single institu- tion to form a foundation of modern

society. Our mission is to help people

realize the critical nature of science; an

understanding that ultimately benefits our university as well. Despite a small marketing effort, this formula has enabled our work to reach a broad and growing audience of science laymen, educators, and students. Currently, The Why Files reaches 130,000 computers per month—an

achievement that clearly demonstrates the educational potential of this vehicle. In

addition. The Why Files has sparked several for-credit courses based on our material. We have also expanded beyond higher education to K- 1 2 science teachers by

hotlinking from the national science stan- dards to more than 200 relevant Why

Files stories. Of course, there have been challenges. Constantly changing technology,

variations in user software, and the usual hurdles associated with news writing have

all added to the adventure. Yet, even with

these challenges. The Why Files has consistently functioned as a successful communications tool. The tiny staff (equivalent to three

full-time employees), rapid pace of scientific discovery, and dizzying news cycle means The Why Files model can be

adaptable to institutional communications programs with science news expertise. The model requires science writing savvy and a willingness to be innovative,

irreverent, and non-parochial. The latter requirement may be most difficult for

institutions used to promoting their own

programs, but is essential to success.

124
The Ashkui Project— Unking Traditional

Knowledge and Western Science

Sponsors

Environment Canada, the Innu Nation,

and Saint Mary's University

Authors

Geoff Hov/ell and Alex T. Bielak

Contact

Geoff Hov/ell, Environment Canada,

Ecosystem Science Division,

Environmental Conservation Branch,

5th Floor, 45 Alderney Drive,

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia,

Canada, B2Y 2N6

Phone: (902) 426-4196

Geoff.Howell@ec.gc.ca

Budget

Sponsoring Agency: $180,000

(Canadian) salary and 75K operational

Partner Leverage

250,000 per annum excluding partner

salaries. Web Sites

Program: wvAV.stmarys.ca/

administration/gorsebrook/ashkui.htm

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/ashkui. htm

The Innu people of Labrador have a world view of the land they occupy, known to them as Nitassinan, which

views the landscape, the processes that

interact with it, and the plants and ani- mals that live on it as a collection of

inseparable elements. Innu and western knowledge both provide valuable insights into the Labrador ecosystem, but we need

to develop new approaches to record,

understand, and transmit this knowledge

between scientists and the Innu. A cultural landscape unit concept has been devel- oped which starts with Innu terminology

and knowledge of an element on the landscape which has value and meaning

for them and then builds an enhanced

knowledge base from a number of differ- ent perspectives.

Zones known as Ashkui in the Innu

language have been identified by Innu

elders as being of primary importance to them and will form the basis of this case

study. Ashkui are areas of early or permanent open water on rivers, lakes, and

estuaries and are valued as areas for camping, hunting, fishing, and collection of

traditional medicines.

Innovative Communication Practices

The Ashkui project attempts to capture knowledge on the nature and function of Ashkui from Innu and western

science perspectives and then develops

ways of sharing the knowledge across cultures. The communication approach used

throughout the Ashkui project is based on three key elements: Special People,

Special Places, and Special Products.

Special People:

The concept of sharing knowledge

across culture requires that the project

attract special people that have an inher- ent respect for new and different ideas and perspectives. The Ashkui project is based on Innu knowledge and from the beginning has been developed with ideas derived from discussions with Innu elders and hunters. The science agenda for the

project has been developed from these discussions and as such has attracted scientists that recognize the value of knowledge based on lifelong experiences on the

land. From the outset, an Innu coresearcher has been an integral part of the

project team and is involved in all aspects

of the work. The co-researcher represents the project in the Innu community, provides information in the Innu language,

provides guidance to the project partners, and helps translate elder questions and

ideas into project activities.

Special Places: An essential component of the Ashkui project is communicating results back to the communir)^ in a setting that

has significance to the Innu people. The

In-country meeting concept—which

involves setting up traditional Innu

campsites at Ashkui sites—has been

extremely successful. A gathering of Innu

elders, hunters and families, and project

scientists spend up to three days living on

the land in an Innu camp where results are presented in an informal Labrador

tent setting, participants get a renewed

sense of the landscape, and collective dis- cussions generate new project ideas. The

Innu elders, in particular, appreciate the

scientists taking time to better understand

the landscape and the Innu way of life.

Special Products:

To be successful, the Ashkui project has attempted to develop new approaches

to the interpretation and presentation of

results. The general concept is to contin- ue to value the guidance of the Innu elders by building products which try to answer their questions in a way that is meaningftil to them. For example, rather than providing a technical report on

water chemistry, pictorial-based posters describe whether the water will make

good tea or will be favoured by wildlife. Educational CD-ROMs on the project

have also been produced for the Innu

school system. These describe the project

in both Innu and English through a series of games, photographs, and text snippets.

Program Evaluation:

The program is still relatively in the

early stages, and evaluation presently consists of input from the community and

others. This feedback has been very positive, the project is gaining considerable

attention and recognition for its innovative approach, and a number of the approaches used have been adopted by

other northern research projects.

Evaluation of progress also occurs annually during Branch project planning,

including review by external peers.

125
Revamping a Web Site to Improve

Navigation and Content

National Institute of • - "''^ Standards and Technology Nisr

Aboyf N!ST

9 bioadiy benelwial lectinclaBie;

Sponsor

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Contoct:

Sharon Shaffer

Public and Business Affairs

1 00 Bureau Dr., Mail Stop 3460

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3460

Phone: (301) 975-2768

sharon.shaffer@nist.gov

Budget

About $150,000 (includes salaries of

primary staff) Web Sites

Program: www.nist.gov

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/nist.htm

Prior to March 2001, the NIST Web

site was a hodgepodge of eclectic styles and types of content. Each of NIST s major departments maintained their own

set of Web pages using their own formats

and content outlines. Visitors to the site commented that they were not always

sure which pages were in fact part of the NIST site and which were not. Adopting the slogan, "One face for NIST," the NIST Public and Business

Affairs Division embarked on a year-long

effort to work with the NIST departments to implement a single visual for- mat and consistent content elements. At

the same time, an extensive set of new

pages was created to improve access to NIST research results for lay audiences

such as students, teachers, policy makers,

and science-interested adults. A key success of the program was its low cost and consensus building

approach.

Steps to Homepage Harmony

NIST's centrally managed external Web servers hold more than 300,000

individual Web pages, while additional

tens of thousands of NIST Web pages

reside on servers maintained directly by

NIST departments and program offices. The task of converting such a large

volume of information to a single format was daunting, especially given the

Institutes long-standing decentralized approach to Web page management.

Several important decisions made

early in the project helped to ensure its success. While primary design and management of the project resided with the Public and Business Affairs Division, a committee representing all NIST departments was actively involved from the earliest stages of the project.

Communication goals, content

needs, and navigation approaches were

determined first. With agreement on

these issues in hand, a design was created

to implement them. The design and the templates to implement it were simple

enough so that non-designers could be

taught to use them.

Research and Evaluation

Surveys of NIST stakeholders in 1998 and 2000 found that respondents

had trouble finding things on the NIST

Web site and were confused by the differ- ent formats for NIST's 12 different laboratories and other major units. They

wanted faster loading pages, crosslinked by topic areas, in plain English. In 2001, a focus group tested the new Web design. Among other things,

they suggested a "three click" standard for finding most information, multiple pathways for finding the same information,

and that the credibility of a Web page owner is just as important as the design

of the site for predicting usage. The study

results were used to make changes to the new NIST site prior to its public launch.

Key Lessons Learned

Start by adopting a uniform format

for top-level pages and work your way

down to interior pages. Don't demand

1 00 percent compliance before launching

a more uniform Web site. Half a band in uniform is better than no uniforms at all. Create a "Web Style Guide" and post

it on an internal site as an organizational

reference. The guide should include "cus- tomer service standards" like "All Web

pages will list a contact e-mail." Use this central location to post downloadable

HTML templates. Provide both written

directions and hands-on training for implementing the new design. Evaluate Web sites based on tasks successfully completed—information

successfully found. Don't just ask for opinions.

126
The Eye Site—A Traveling Exhibit

on Low Vision for Shopping Centers

Sponsor

National Eye Institute (NEI), National

Institutes of Health (NIH)

Contact

Jean Horrigan

National Eye Institute National Institutes of Health

BIdg. 31, Room 6A32

31 Center Drive MSG 2510

Bethesda, MD 20892-2510

Phone: (301 ) 496-5248

ih@nei.nih.gov

Budget

$200,000 (development cost)

| Web Sites I Program: wvvw.nei.nih.gov/nehep/

eyesite

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/eyesite.htm

Communications Goal

NEI created The Eye Site

Traveling Exhibit on Low Vision for Shopping Centers to provide information

for the approximately one of every 20

Americans with low vision, their families,

caregivers, and friends.

Target Audience

Low vision primarily affects people

over 65. Hispanics and African

Americans of any age are also at higher

risk. Defined as a visual impairment not

correctable by regular eyeglasses, contact

lenses, medicine, or surgery, low vision

interferes with the ability to perform

everyday activities. It can result from a

variety of diseases and disorders such as age-related macular degeneration,

cataract, glaucoma, or diabetic retinopathy, or from injuries.

Research

NEI conducted focus group research among individuals with low vision in

1 997, which resulted in the creation of

the Low Vision Education Program. The

program includes community education programs, public service campaigns

through the mass media, and The Eye

Site exhibit. The exhibit has undergone extensive

pilot testing and evaluation, including

interviews and observations during a pilot

test; telephone interviews with the sponsoring organizations; focus groups to obtain feedback on the appearance and

content of the information presented in the exhibit; and a suitability assessment by individuals with expertise in health communication, low vision, interactive technologies, and marketing.

Description ofthe Program

The Eye Site provides information in English and Spanish and consists of five colorful kiosks, which display booklets and local resource information, feature

assistive devices, and tell the stories of

people with low vision. An innovative

interactive multimedia touchscreen pro- gram explains the causes of low vision,

offers personal video accounts, and provides a low vision self-assessment. Two exhibits will tour shopping centers around the country for several years. NEI determined that shopping centers

Americas new town halls—provide an

ideal venue for communicating health information to a wide audience.

Program Implementation

NEI staff has expertise in health education, communications, and public outreach. Institute staff came up with the

initial concept and developed the format

and all content for the exhibit. NEI guided contractors in the fabrication of the

exhibit kiosks and the design and pro- gramming of the interactive touchscreen program.

In most communities, the exhibit

will be sponsored by a local Host

Committee composed of members from

NEI grantee institutions and community

organizations and groups interested in low vision. At each mall, the Host

Committee will sponsor education pro- grams featuring local experts.

Lessons Learned

Preliminary planning, strong local Host Committees, and the assistance of a

professional tour management company

are essential to the success of each tour.

Program Evaluation

While on tour, the exhibit will be

evaluated through onsite surveys; data

collected by the touchscreen program, which will report the age range and gender of users, track visits to each section of

the program, and report how many users

select the Spanish or English versions; ongoing referral tracking by local Host

Committees organizations that provide

low vision services; and tracking of media

coverage in each community.

127
The Weather Discovery Center

A school group creating their own wind to propel and steer a sailboat on the "high seas." Sponsor

The Mount Washington Observatory

Contact

John Hammer

Mount Washington Observatory

PO Box 2310

2936 White Mountain Highway

North Conway, NH 03860

Phone: (603) 356-2137

Fax: (603) 356-0307

j.hammer@mountwashington.org

Budget

a) Cost to build infrastructure and

exhibits in existing building: $800,000

b) Cost to build related and connected

exhibit on the summit of Mount

Washington: $100,000

c) Staff to run Weather Discovery Center

when fully staffed: About $105,000 for director of museums, two full-time floor

staff, two part-time floor staff (16 hours

a week), full-time exhibit fabricator/

maintenance worker

d) All financial administration including

accounting, book keeping, postage,

development, and Board of Trustees is shared with rest of Observatory and is currently incalculable.

e) Annual operating expenses after opening: $75,000

Web Sites

Program: www.mountwashington.org

Poster : vww/. n i st . gov/pu b I i c_affa i rs/ Posters/weather, htm

The Weather Discovery Center

(WDC) is the latest educational effort of

the Mount Washington Observatory

(MWO), a weather observatory located on the summit of the highest peak of the Northeast. Mount Washington hosts what many believe is the worst weather in the world and it is a perfect venue for the continuously staffed observatory that has

existed there since 1932. For decades the MWO has sought to augment its scientific endeavors with outreach and education, and the WDC was a natural exten- sion of this effort. The initial exhibit planners wanted to teach visitors about

weather, wind, the sciences of meteorology and atmospherics, the MWO, and

other related topics using high-tech

exhibits. It was the planner's intention to reach school age children and general

tourists, especially families. The Weather

Discovery Center opened on May 1

,

2000 in the Mount Washington Valley.

The MWO conducted focus groups and other formative evaluations before

the WDC opened. Findings indicated a strong interest in the public to learn more

about the weather and meteorology. The

most striking fmding was the desire of

the test group to learn more about what

meteorologists do, especially MWO

meteorologists, and to see and work with

real time weather data and maps. Using

this information the Observatory created

exhibits that connected the visitor as directly as possible to working meteorologists and developing weather patterns and

weather forecasting, including:

Two computer terminals that continuously update themselves with devel- oping weather data. A telecommunications link with

the staff at the Observatory on the summit for direct discussions on conditions

and projects.

A camera set on top of Mount

Washington whose image can be seen and manipulated at a console in the WDC to monitor conditions on the summit.

A blue screen exhibit that invites

visitors to role play being a television weather forecaster using up to the hour

weather maps.

An exhibit on Groundwinds—the Mount Washington Observatory's highest

profile research project.

The Observatory conducted surveys and traffic studies to judge the effective- ness of the exhibits in the Weather

Discovery Center. Several lessons were

learned quickly and often: People love weather and love viewing real weather data, but these are hard

to dependably provide with a fickle Internet connection.

A diversity of technologies should

be used in any exhibit area to deliver content. Don't promise real-time scientific data unless you know you can provide it

reliably.People love meeting the observers

via the teleconference exhibit. It seems to be the scientific version of "a piece of the

true cross" phenomenon history muse- ums know so well and know how to exploit to garner interest in historic

topics.

Never underestimate the public's,

including children's, interest in arcane scientific data and information, but never

overestimate their prior knowledge.

People seem to enjoy more, learn more, and spend more time at exhibits that involve another person. A second

person is needed to bounce ideas and

questions off of while exploring dififictilt information.

128
Dolan DNA Learning Center Web Sites

Sponsor

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Contact

Shirley Chan, Ph.D.

One Bungtown Road

Cold Spnng Harbor, NY 1 1 724

Phone: (516) 367 5179

Fax: (516) 367 5182

chanshir@cshl.org

Estimated Annual Budget

$500,000

Web Sites

Program: www.dnalc.org

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/dna.htm

The Dolan DNA Learning Center (DNALC) is the world's first science center devoted to public genetics education.

It is an operating unit of the Cold Spring

Harbor Laboratory, a world-renowned

basic research facility. The DNALC

develops and runs hands-on laboratory

courses for middle and high school stu- dents and provides teacher training workshops.In recent years, to broaden their audience, the DNALC started developing

educational material for the World Wide

Web. Gene Almanac (http://vector.cshl.

org) is DNALC s Web portal to all of the other major content sites produced by the Biomedia staff. Key among these content

sites are: DNAfivm the Beginning: the animated

primer to genetics and molecular biology.

vvsvw.dnaftb.org

Your Genes, Your Health: the multimedia

guide to genetic disorders. wvvw.yourgenesyourhealth.org

Digital Archive ofthe American Eugenics

Movement: the online archive chronicling

the American eugenics movement of the

1900's. www.eugenicsarchive.org

These and other DNALC Web sites cover the field of genetics and molecular

biology, highlighting the science, history,

social implications as well as the promise

of current and developing technologies.

The Web sites are meant to provide

information to the interested public,

teachers, and students. Professionals from

other fields can also use the Web site to

learn or update their knowledge about

topics that impinge on their specialties.

The Web sites are all free and have been

used for teaching and other research projects by teachers and students all over the world.The DNALC Web sites are supported by a number of grants, which helped

established the Biomedia Group: a small

staff of scientists, writers, artists and

designers, and computer programmers.

There are currendy seven full-time employees augmented by part-time staff and interns. The Biomedia Group has

regular meetings to decide on design,

style, and content for our Web sites. Everything on the Web sites is pro- duced inhouse.

Before each Web site was built, either an Internet assessment meeting (DNA

from the Beginning), an internal board

review meeting (Digital Archive), or a focus group meeting (Your Genes, Your

Health) was convened. These meetings

provided us with contacts, information

about current and upcoming technologies, and important feedback from other

professionals in the field. An important

insight that can be distilled from these meetings is the importance of flexibility and adaptability. New software and tech- nology change quickly; Web sites have to accommodate the largest number of users without being slow and dated.

Statistics on Web site usage have

been collected every month since the DNALC s Web sites have been online. Some of the things we track with statistics are user sessions, parts of the sites accessed, as well as time spent on the site. As the Web sites grew, so did the numbers. In addition to the ability to compile

numbers, each Web site has its own feed- back ftinction, which allows users to email their opinions, problems, and questions. An online survey was added six months ago to DNA from the Beginning

to solicit more specific information about

the user's needs and level of knowledge.

We plan to expand the online surveys and add them to other DNALC Web

sites in order to identify and target user needs.

Major Funding:

The Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation

National Institutes of Health, Ethical,

Legal, Social, Implications of the Human

Genome Initiative Program (NIH ELSI)

129
USGS Western Region Center,

Open House 2000

^USGS

science for a changing world

Sponsor

U.S. Geological Survey

Contact

Leslie C. Gordon

Geologist/Education Coordinator

U.S. Geological Survey

345 Middlefield Road, MS 919

Menio Park, CA 94025-3591

Phone: (650) 329-4006

Fax: (650) 329-5125

lgordon@usgs.gov

Budget

$100K materials and operating

expenses plus 1 3,800 staff hours

Web Sites

Program: openhouse.wr.usgs.gov

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/usgs.htm

high tech-industry, two major universities, and a highly educated, well-informed

populace. Bay Area residents typically seek out information and are tuned into

science and nature issues. We are filling a

large demand for timely and accurate natural science information. The first day of

the open house (Friday, 5/12/00) was by

invitation only to local school groups, Congressional representatives, local government officials, and our own

employees.

We wanted to show who we (USGS)

are, what we do, and why we do it. This

is our regular triennial event to give back

to the community in a fiin and educational manner. Our local community has not forgotten the 1 994 threat to abolish the USGS, nor the 1997 threat to move

us out of Menlo Park. Years later we still get regular inquiries about our continued

existence. The open house is one visible reminder of our commitment to the community

The USGS Western Region Center

is on the leading edge of a major tectonic

plate, and in a geologically active area. People have a need and desire to understand the natural processes at work all around us. The open house is a way for the USGS to share unfiltered information

about local earthquakes, landslides, water

pollution, and numerous other critical

issues affecting the 9 million people living in the Bay Area. We used every medium we could

think of in order to reach the widest

audience possible. This multi-media

extravaganza had something for eveiyone.

During the event, there were hands-on

activities and crafts for kids, poster dis- plays (technical and non-technical), a video theater, laboratory tours, and music

and dance performances. American Sign

Language interpreters were available

throughout the event and led guided

tours. The open house is a rare opportunity for the public to see behind the

scenes in a large government facility, and

speak to research scientists face-to-face in a friendly informal setting. It is a way for the taxpayer to see first-hand what we do. The event included more than 250

exhibits, a printed program, passport,

poster, a companion Web site with most

information online, and included both

the presentation of A/V materials and the

creation of them as a record of the event. The concept of a USGS open house

began in Menlo Park, Calif., in 1985,

and we've held them every three years since then. The successes of early open

houses led to the establishment of similar events in other USGS regional centers in Denver and Reston, Va. Questionnaires

distributed to the attendees beginning in 1985 greatly influenced later open houses. Starting in 1 997, we distributed a questionnaire to our own employees.

Responses to the questionnaires, and

countless anecdotal stories, led to the continued improvement of subsequent

open houses. With little advertising,

almost 20,000 people attend each three- day open house, many of them repeat visitors from past open houses. All year long we receive calls asking when the next open house is scheduled, and school groups are disappointed they have to wait } three years for the next one.

' Our success has become an enor- mous burden in recent years. The huge

amount of work involved in an event of

this size has led us to reconsider doing

another one of comparable scale. Instead, we are considering conducting much

^ smaller open-house-like events more

frequently. \

The U.S. Geological Survey's Western Region Center in Menlo Park,

Calif., has held public open houses every

three years since 1985. Our most recent Open House 2000 was a multi-media

event that attracted approximately 14,000

people over a period of three days, May

12, 13, & 14, 2000. May 12 was a special VIP and school preview day, and

May 13 & 14 were open to the general

public.

Multiple audiences were targeted.

The event, open to the general public, attracted children and families, college

students, teachers, neighbors, USGS

cooperators, and scientists from nearby

universities. The San Francisco Bay Area

is not only a very large metropolitan area, but it's also home to Silicon Valley, the

130
Science, Technology and Society Resident

Scholar Program (STS/RSP)

Sponsors

Institute for Science, Engineering and

Public Policy (lead organization) Oregon

Public Broadcasting (PBS/NPR), Oregon

University System (seven campuses), a dozen private colleges, a Community

College Consortium (six colleges),

statewide Kl 2 schools, Oregon Museum

of Science and Industry, Oregon Coast

Aquarium, a number of corporations

including Mentor Graphics, ESI, InFocus,

Intel, Tektronix, CH2M Hill, Precision

Castparts, the high-tech PR firm

Waggener Edstrom, and many more,

plus several banks and lav/ firms. Contact

Terry Bristol, President and CEO

Institute for Science, Engineering

and Public Policy

The Linus Pauling House

3945 SE Hav4horne Blvd. Portland, OR 97214

Phone: (503) 232-2300

Bristol@isepp.org

Budget

$350,000 (typical year breakout below)

Revenue

Co-sponsors: $150,000

Ticket sales: $200,000

Expenses

Speakers $125,000

Marketing $50,000

Staff $100,000

Overhead $75,000

Web Sites

Program: v7ww.isepp.org

Poster: wvAv.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/STS.htm

Audience targeted: Success has depended heavily on an active coalition of business, educational, media, and gov- ernment organizations. As a result there

are multiple target audiences (academics

(K12-graduate schools), business, other

non-profits, professional and trade organizations, government, and general public.

There was a successftil effort to achieve

ethnic diversity as well as gender and age

equity.

The problem, as we see it, is not to convey more scientific and technological

information to the public. Rather it is to develop a mtilti-disciplinary, cross-sector dialogue on issues of science, technology,

and society.

A broad range of key citizens in modern societies are inadequately

informed about recent scientific and tech- nological advances. However, the problem is symmetrical. The science and tech- nology communities have an equally poor

understanding of the nature of the larger

human enterprise, and their place in it. Critical self-reflection is required,

where we seriously consider: What is sci- ence? What is engineering? What is the aim of the social enterprise? There is a need to reconsider assumptions about

inquiry, innovation, and problem-solving.

An essential premise is that we are in a position to change the course of events. People want to understand the implications of advances in science and tech- nology. What does it mean to me, for us? What: The STS/RS Program, begun

as a Public Lecture Series, evolved—as the coalition evolved—into a Resident

Scholar Program with scholars interacting

with the community over a period of several days. The niche, unfulfilled by exist- ing institutions and programs, is multidisciplinary, cross-sector dialogue. The

strategy is not to educate as much as to

excite natural curiosity, create a sense of

intellectual community, and foster "formative experiences" for students. Who: ISEPP invited celebrity scientists and engineers as well as a mix of relative unknowns. Among the scholars: Carl

Sagan, Jane Goodall, David Suzuki,

Stephen Jay Gould, Philip Morrison, and

Stephen W. Hawking. The year 200 1 - 2002 line-up: James Burke, Brian

Greene, Robert Ballard, Jill Cornell

Tarter, David Albert, Lee Hood, Richard

Leakey, and Lawrence Krauss. When: The Series runs on the aca- demic calendar. Scholars arrive on

Tuesday evening, allowing for several classroom visits, radio and television interviews, and special breakfast/dinner

events for trade or professional groups. The main presentation is to a large audi- ence (1,200-3,000) on Friday evening.

Advice: The STS/RSP is conceived

as parallel to local theater and symphony.

This defines the genre as part of the cultural milieu. Price the events similarly,

and seek underwriters and co-sponsors support as do theater and music groups. Use a cooperative marketing strategy. Work with other local cultural entities, national science magazines like Scientific American, Science News, etc., and national

science organizations like AAAS, Sigma

Xi, etc. Seek publicity through newspapers,

radio, and TV media co-sponsors, as well

as contacting numerous professional and

trade newsletter editors. Each scholar was

asked to submit a "policy essay up to 1,500 words." Interviews were arranged,

both prior to and when visiting.

Use aggressive direct mail campaign;

creative, award-winning posters; newspaper space ads; radio/TV public service announcements; and so forth.

131
Bridging the Gap Between Scientific

Research and the Public

Sponsor

Adler Planetarium & Astronomy

Museum

Contact

Dr. Doug Roberts, Adler Planetarium

& Astronomy Museum

300 S. Lake Shore Drive

Chicago, IL 60605,

Phone: (312) 322-0529

doug-roberts@northwestern.edu

Budget

We describe two programs with very

different budgets.

Cosmology Gallery: total of about

35 person-months of staff (astronomer,

historian, educator, project manager)

CyberSpace Gallery: total of about

1 00 person-months of staff (astronomers, educators, information

technicians, production personnel,

exhibit designers).

Web Sites

Program: www.adlerplanetarium.org

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Poste rs/a d I er. htm

A key ingredient in successfiilly

developing exhibits, shows, and programs

for a museum whose mission is "to engage and educate a diverse audience in the exciting quest to understand our

evolving Universe" is the integral involve- ment of research scientists. Working with professional education

and exhibit staff, the scientists bring into the process a broad understanding of the

science, current knowledge of the field, contacts with colleagues, and the excite- ment and passion for science that are an

essential part of the scientific process. However, development of these

exhibits and programs requires a signifi- cant commitment of time on the part of

the scientist and also entails learning a new skill set for most. This is simply not

possible for most research scientists, who

are already balancing the demands of an

active research program with significant

teaching responsibilities (at the undergraduate and graduate level). Adler Planetarium & Astronomy

Museum has taken the lead in establish- ing an astronomy and astrophysics

research group in a museum setting.

Adler currently has eight Ph.D.

astronomers and astrophysicists on stafi^ including four who have joint appointments on the research faculty at the University of Chicago and two with joint

appointments at Northwestern

University. The nature of these joint

appointments strengthens the integration

of the Adler and its educational mission

with the world-class Chicago research community (including Fermilab), as well

as with the international research community: These positions are analogous to faculty positions at more traditional research institutions, with a requirement

that an active program of research be

maintained. However, instead of becoming experts in undergraduate education,

these scientists become expert in the area of public education. They contribute

directly to the development of museum

programs and exhibits, and also serve as translators between research colleagues

and museum professionals, facilitating the integration of new discoveries and

technologies into the museum and its programs.

In addition to close relationships

with active researchers, Adler carries out

evaluation of exhibits and shows at vari- ous stages in order to access and improve

their effectiveness. Generally, this process

involves a front-end evaluation to deter- mine the level of knowledge and familiarity that typical visitors have on a particular subject for a planned exhibit. The

development team then creates prototype

exhibit components and carries out evalu- ation of their ability to communicate key

concepts. The evaluation of the prototype

is then fed back into the final design.

132
Border Health Information and Education

Network ({BIEN!)

Sponsors

New Mexico State University Library

lead agency

jBIEN! is a partnership of 1 7 academic

and public libraries, hospitals, clinics, and other public health organizations in three southern New Mexico counties.

Contact

Sylvia Ortiz

New Mexico State University Library

RO. Box 30006

Las Cruces, NM 88003

Phone: (505) 646-7481

sortiz@lib.nmsu.edu

Budget

$204,000, including $60,480 for

salaries;! full-time librarian, 1 half-time

librarian Web Sites

Program: www.bienhealth.org

Poster : v/ww. n i st . gov/pu b I i c_affa i rs/ Posters/bien.htm

Southern New Mexico has an ethnically diverse population, a high poverty

rate, and has been designated as medically

underserved. The need for biomedical

information is great. jBIENl's mission is to contribute to improving the health behaviors of residents in this region by

providing increased access to quality health information in EngUsh and

Spanish, in multiple formats, for health

professionals, educators, and consumers. An extensive feasibility study was

conducted by means of a planning grant

received from the Paso del Norte Health

Foundation in El Paso, Texas. jBIEN!

partners and personnel also conducted

focus groups, trainee questionnaires, and

needs assessment surveys to ensure that health information and related technolo- gy needs would be met. Our goals:

1) Identify and provide quality con- sumer health information in electronic and other formats to targeted populations; 2) provide timely, quality healthrelated research information to health

professionals, educators, librarians, and

students; 3) develop an information net- work for participants; and 4) provide

information literacy training for health

professionals/educators and consumers. Our accomplishments:

Developed a technology infra- structure, including installation of

Internet accessible computers and printers at jBIEN! locations. Created a jBIEN! Internet Web

site accessible at www.bienhealth.org.

This site includes links to reliable consumer health information Web sites

in Spanish and English as well as links of

interest to health providers and educators. Purchased various Web-based

health databases for jBIEN! partners.

Purchased print and audiovisual

materials to facilitate the creation of con- sumer health information centers at each

site. Conducted electronic health infor- mation access training at jBIEN! partner

sites by project librarians. Provided training sessions that included presentation of jBIEN! Web site features and instruction on navigating the

site to locate and retrieve valid and

authoritative health information.

Training/instruction was also provided on searching selective biomedical databases. Each training session included time

for "hands-on" practice. Response to the

sessions by participants and trainers has been very positive, as documented by the evaluation forms completed at the end of

each session. Project staff have also responded to numerous information

requests via e-mail, phone, and in person. Two critical lessons were learned:

1 . A project of this scope was diffi- cult to accomplish within the grant established, one-year timeframe. Even with a planning grant, infrastructure had to be

developed before goals and objectives

could be accomplished.

2. The need for marketing was

underestimated. Marketing is crucial to the success of such a project and should

be initiated early on. Evaluation has been ongoing based on "Best Practices" and "Continuous

Quality Improvement" models. Changes

have been made to the project upon

review of data acquired through surveys, user feedback, and internal evaluations of

procedures. An external evaluator will provide a final examination of the goals

and objectives developed for the original

National Library of Medicine proposal.

133
Uve@Exploratorium:Origins

Sponsor

Exploratorium

Contact

Melissa Alexander, Project Director

3601 Lyon Street San Francisco, CA 941 23

melissaa@exploratonum.edu

Budget

Staff and fringe: (includes planning,

oversight and production for Web site, Webcosts, public programs, and

internal evaluation) $300,000

Production Supplies $90,000

Travel and Transportation $30,000

Telephone and connection $20,000

Consultants $10,000

External evaluation $65,000

Web Sites

www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern

vAvw.exploratorium.edu/origins/hubble

www.exploratorium.edu/origins/

antarctica

Poste r : www. nist.gov/public_affa i rs/ Posters/exploratorium.htm

Live@Exploratorium:Origins is a

pilot project that mixes live, Internet broadcasts (Webcasts), and streaming

media with interactive presentations held

in the museum's Wattis Webcast theater. Our efforts are designed to take visitors on virtual field trips to laboratories throughout the world where scientists are examining what we know about the for- mation of the universe, the creation of

matter, the shaping of the Earth, and the

origins of life. Origins goes beyond the science to showcase the settings where some of the most advanced technological achieve- ments occur and the extraordinary people

who bring these achievements to reality. We go into research institutions with a

collaborative spirit, involving the

researchers in the idea generation and cre- ation of the programs. Using Exploratorium staff scientists and educators as mediators, we invite our audiences into the process of scientific discovery

taking them to laboratories where special- ized instrumentation is created, into the

field where experiments are performed,

and into the hearts and minds of scientists who do basic research. In collabora- tion with staff at each facility we design

additional Web site resources about the

people, places, tools, and the scientific ideas for each location. We look over the shoulders of scientists in real time as they perform their research. Using low-cost, two-way video

conferencing technologies designed for business-to-business communications, we

host live Webcasts from the research facilities that are then archived at www.exploratorium.edu/origins.

Webcasts are accompanied by museumbased presentations that include hands-on

activities. When appropriate, museum

exhibits and specially designed interactive media augment the presentations in the Webcast studio. Webcasts are two-way,

enabling staff scientists and staff inter- preters to be both on location and at the museum, fostering a conversation

between the research environment and

the museum environment.

Evaluation is performed by the Center for Children and Technology

(CCT), part of the Education

Development Center. There are three questions that we hope to elucidate for informal educational Web projects: Who

exactly is the audience? What are they

doing online? How does this material contribute to their learning? Because of the remote and distrib- uted nature of the audience and the knowledge about users that Web data

provides, we rely on a mixture of surveys of existing data sets, web site analysis,

online questionnaires, and interviews. We

also seek to identify and disseminate

promising evaluation practices relevant to

this new type of learning experience.

On-site interviews with audience

members provide rapid feedback to staff, allowing us to modify our scripts and

shows before the following day's

production.

In collaboration with CCT we are conducting ongoing Web site reviews of

material with online audience members.

We expect that the project will give

insight into effective strategies for engaging remote viewers in the content and

subject matter, preparing viewers for Webcasts and determining the number of

follow-up contacts or deeper engagement

with the material.

134
Climate Stock

1°

Carbon Dioxide Concentration Sponsor

University Corporation for Atmospheric

Research

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

UCAR Communications

Contact

RO. Box 3000

Boulder, CO USA 80307-3000

Lucy Warner

(lwarner@ucar.edu, 303-497-8602)

Bob Henson

(bhenson@ucar.edu, 303-497-8605)

Budget

5100,000, including contracted animation and production services, studio

time, and satellite uplinks

Staff time: Roughly 800 person-hours

from UCAR Communications staff over

three years. Web Sites

Program: www.ucar.edu/climatestock

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/cl imatestock. htm

TV weathercasters are the single

most visible representatives of science in U.S. households. Yet by and large, they

focus on day-to-day weather events rather than the larger-scale, longer-term processes that make up climate. In their role as scientific emissaries, TV weathercasters have a imique opportimity to convey the

facts and uncertainties about global cli- mate change to the public. With support

from the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, UCAR Commimications pro- duced a series of B-roll videos from 1 997

to 2000 to help weathercasters understand global climate change issues and

address them in their programming.

These packages included:

interviews with leading scientists from UCAR/NCAR and other institutions; visualizations of weather and cli- mate concepts, produced in-house or acquired from other sources; stock footage of major weather

events, such as the Montreal ice storm of

1998 and the 1997 Red River flooding;

and

suggested scripts that index the appropriate ClimateStock segments and

provide additional narration. Each B-roll was made available free via satellite uplink at the time of release and afterward at nominal cost in Beta or VHS format. Weathercasters were notified of each uplink through fax and e- mail. Suggested scripts and shot lists were

placed on the ClimateStock Web site: www.ucar.edu/climatestock. ClimateStock topics included El Nino and La Nina, global temperature

and human-induced climate change, hurricanes, extreme weather events such as winter storms, and pollution. The timing

of the releases was determined largely by

news value (e.g., the hurricanes package was released during the hurricane season).

Over 200 weathercasters on a national e-mail listserve were polled infor- mally at the outset to find out what topics were of most interest and what type of

B-roll would best suit their needs. We

also took into account the findings of

Kris Wilson (University of Texas), who

had surveyed TV weathercasters to deter- mine their level of knowledge on global

warming and related science. After each

of several uplinks, a ratings service was employed for 30 days, reporting the sta- tion and viewership of any ClimateStock

segment more than one second in length.

More than 20 million viewers saw portions of at least one ClimateStock package. In addition, more than 100 Beta

tapes have been ordered since fall 1998,

many by documenrar}' producers, a group not targeted by the ClimateStock

plan. Some of the greatest visibility of

ClimateStock products—particularly ani- mations—has occurred in such documentaries as "What's Up with the Weather?" {NOVA/Frontline, April 2000)

and Hot Planet (The Weather Channel,

October 2000).

Overall, the greatest interest from

viewers and producers has been in dra- matic weather and climate events, while

pollution was one of the least popular

topics. The use of B-roll and suggested

scripts allowed us to emphasize key

points and control important aspects of

the scientific message, while granting

weathercasters the flexibility to tailor and

localize their stories as they saw fit. This

model could easily be transferred to other

large insdtutions carr}ing out research

that is highly relevant to society yet

difficult to translate.

135
Flying into the Future:

Global Hawk Down Under

DOWN U N D E II 2 0 01 Sponsor

Defence Science & Technology

Organization

Contact

Jimmy Hafesjee, Director Defence

Science Communications DSTO

Department of Defence

R1-6-A107 Russell Offices

Canberra ACT 2600 Australia

Phone: (612) 6265 7928

jimmy.hafesjee@cbr.defence.gov.au

Budget

AU$40,000 plus staff time

Web Sites

Program: www.dsto.defence.gov.au

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/globalhawk.htm

In April 2001 the U.S.-developed

Global Hawk high-altitude, longendurance surveillance aircraft: flew nonstop from California to South Australia,

setting a Guinness World Record for the

"longest flight ever by a full-scale unmanned aircraft." Research had shown public concern

that Australia may not have up-to-date

defence technology for coastal surveil- lance against people smuggling, drug traf- ficking, and illegal fishing. Following an

agreement between the U.S. authorities and the Defence Science & Technology

Organization (DSTO) of the Australian

Defence Department, Global Hawk

arrived in Australia to test its surveillance

capabilities during defence trials from 24

April to 7 June. This was an opportunity

to capture the public imagination, rein- force Australian-U.S. collaboration and

promote public confidence in Defence by

highlighting Australia's scientific contri- bution to a high-technology project.

To meet these goals a public awareness campaign was conducted by an

international team of public affairs communicators representing the Australian

Defence Department, U.S. Air Force, and aircraft builder Northrop Grumman.

Displays, talks, a dedicated Web site, and

targeted media activities were used to make the event an aviation landmark.

The communications campaign included

a crisis management plan to minimise

negative coverage in case of a mishap.

The media was used to reach a much

broader community audience not usually

interested in Defence issues. Messages were also targeted at the Australian Defence Organisation and government

decision-makers because Defence was

likely to purchase such an aircraft if it tested favorably in Australian conditions. The key messages highlighted

Australia's technological enhancements to Global Hawks capabilities—a DSTOredesigned sensor suite for more efficient maritime surveillance and a DSTOdeveloped ground station for imagery

analysis in near real time. To provide an Australian angle,

Global Hawk's trans-Pacific crossing was compared to the 1 928 San Francisco-to- Sydney flight by Australian aviator Charles Kingsford-Smith and his American colleagues flying the three- engine Southern Cross. Global Hawk was

re-badged Southern Cross II for its Australian deployment.

Media events were organized before

the aircraft's departure, during its take-off from California, on its arrival in South

Australia, and at a subsequent VIP function. The involvement of the Defence

Minister, his Parliamentary Secretary,

Australia's Air Force Chief, U.S. Air Force

personnel, and Northrop Grumman

executives gave these events a high profile

and credibility. A Global Hawk exhibit at the Australian International Air Show, a

lecture during National Science Week, a commemorative postage stamp, and

images of Australian landmarks taken by

Global Hawk from 55,000 feet for regular release to the media helped to sustain public interest. The Global Hawk coverage was the most extensive recorded by Defence for a comparable single event, generating 445

positive items in all Australian media,

including 1 54 items in mainstream

media.

International usage of the Web site was very high, including 70% from the United States. Between 9 April and 30

June 128,000 page views were recorded,

significantly surpassing the international average monthly benchmark. Average

user session was 10:05 minutes, i.e., one-third the usual surfing time. The campaign's success can be attrib- uted to effective teaming between the

Australian and U.S. communicators,

advance planning, coordinated implementation, an Australian theme, proactive, honest dealings with the media,

responsiveness to media requirements,

trained spokespersons, and an up-to-date,

information-rich Web site packed with

streaming audio and video. The Australian government has decided to purchase a Global Hawk-type

aircraft by 2007.

136
Medical Edge: Regular News

Insert for Local Television

Sponsor

Mayo Clinic

Contact

Chris Gade

Mayo Clinic

200 First Street S.W

Rochester, MN 55905

Phone: (507) 284-2430

cgade@mayo.edu

Budget

One-time start-up costs were $150,000

(camera, editing boy, and animation

work stations). Annual costs are approximately $250,000 (consultative

and talent producer fees; staff salaries;

travel; promotion; videotape duplication; and market research).

Web Sites

Program: vAvw.mayo.edu/edge/

Poster: vAvw.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/medicaledge.htm

Provide reliable information for the public on medicine and health. Increase awareness about Mayo

Clinic in national and international locations, including news media coverage. Increase awareness of Mayo Clinic

locations in Jacksonville, Fla., and

Scottsdale, Ariz. Increase awareness of Mayo Clinic

specialties, expertise, and research

activities.Increase awareness among minority populations.

Drive traffic to Mayo Clinic's health information Web site.

Target audience

The ultimate audience is women, age 25 and older, the primary health care decisionmaker in most U.S. households.

Research before launch

Before the product was launched,

focus groups were conducted among a sampling of potential viewers that closely

matched the potential audience.

Some specific findings included: Health reports hold strong interest for many local news viewers. Viewers' expectations for health/

medical reports center on relevance and

credibilit)^.

Description ofthe program

Each segment includes a flill package, nat sound version, animation and

graphics, promos, b-roU and sound bites. Custom outcues for affiliates are made

available on request. The reports are people-focused, reflecting a mix of

medical breakthroughs and the latest in general health information.

How is the program carried out? The primarily in-house production

team includes an executive producer;

talent/producer; videographer/editor;

illustrator; two animators; medical editor; and affiliate relations representative. In most cases. Medical Edge constitutes one-half or less of the individual s overall job responsibilities.

Lessons learned

Develop a product that carries credibility with journalists.

Develop an in-house team, if at all possible, that is responsible for production and affiliate relations. Ensure that your production team

meets with some frequency in order to stay on track with program objectives.

Produce a product that includes high-quality video and animation.

Include patients in the stories. Develop tools that make it easy

for local television stations to respond to inquiries from viewers.

Program evaluation

A variety of measurements evaluate

project success, including:

Quarterly surveys of affiliate sta- tions to track usage and feedback on the product.

Track total number of viewers

based on when the segments air during

November 2000; January, June, and

December 200 1

Pre- and post-implementation

awareness surveys in two markets. Page views on the Mayo Clinic health information Web site. For procedure-based stories, sur- veying patients to determine how they

became aware of the procedure.

Tracking time per segment contributed by physician subject experts to ensure that physicians' time with patients

is not compromised.

Medical Edge is a weekly, 90-second

television medical news insert that is made available at no cost on a marketexclusive basis to local television news sta- tions in the United States, Canada, and

other international locations. The seg- ments regularly air on 121 local television

affiliates in the United States and

Canada, along with stations in Turkey,

the Middle East, and Croatia.

Communications goal

The communications objectives of

Medical Edge include:

137
Going for the Gold: The Collider

Communications Program

Tracks of thousands of particles produced in one of the first collisions at Brookhaven Lab's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, as viewed by the STAR detector

This image has since been featured in countless news- paper stories, on posters, brochures, booklets, a cal- endar, and has even been recreated as an artwork of

silk embroidery featured at an international exhibit. Sponsor

U.S. Department of Energy's

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Contact

Karen McNulty Walsh

Senior Public Affairs Representative

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Media and Communications Office

BIdg. 134

PO Box 5000

Upton, NY 11973-5000

Phone: (631) 344-8350

or (631) 344-2345

kmcnulty@bnl.gov

Budget

Four full-time staff and $30,000 for

collateral materials

Web Sites

Program: v/ww.bni.gov/rhic/

Poster: vww.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/co1 1 i der. htm

The year 2000 was a major mile- stone for Brookhaven National

Laboratory, where the Relativistic Heavy

Ion Collider (RHIC) was expected to become operational and produce its first

scientific results. As with any complex, publicly funded scientific endeavor, keeping RHIC in the public eye in a positive way was and

is essential to its success. After all, taxpayers foot the bill. They have a right to understand the project's goals, feel safe in

its operation, and be in on the exciting

atmosphere of discovery.

We wanted these messages to reach

the science-attentive public; local community members; educators and school

children; local, regional, and national

elected officials; and Lab employees, who

could help spread news and enthusiasm

about RHIC.

But communicating about RHIC

posed a few unique challenges. For

starters, the science isn't an easy sell: RHIC's research goal—to create a state of

matter that last existed billions of years ago—^will offer insight into the evolution

of matter and atomic-scale forces, but

might never yield practical applications.

Furthermore, the collider had been under

construction for nearly a decade, with

eight prior years of engineering studies and an ongoing struggle for funding.

During construction, a radioactive leak from an unrelated Brookhaven facility

stirred up local environmental fears, fol- lowed by replacement of the Laboratory

management. Then, just as RHIC was

about to go online, a news story ignited an international media frenzy focused on

the possibility that RHIC might destroy

the world, triggering a deluge of e-mails accusing scientists of playing God.

Fortunately, our multifaceted communications strategy helped us meet

these challenges with success. We listened

to questions and fears to identify key

issues and gauge the level of explanation

needed. We selected and trained scientists to communicate RHIC's goals and used

these "spokespeople" for media inter- views, talks in schools and at community

meetings, and as guides for tours of

RHIC.

We also prepared news releases, Web

pages, photos, fact sheets, brochures, and

video to reach our various audiences

directly and via the news media. We especially targeted reporters focused on sci- ence, and even pitched to reporters from

scientists' hometowns to encourage cover- age of the RHIC story nationally and

from a "local" angle around the country

and world. Commemorative T-shirts, pins, and

postcards also helped spread enthusiasm

beyond our gates. We learned to adjust the science content to match the audience—and helped

the scientists do the same. We also learned to manage the competing interests of scientists from RHIC's four detector collaborations, and strengthened our

relationships with top-level science

reporters. These efforts paid off with more

than 200 print, Web, and TV news stories in the year 2000 alone, attendance by some top-level science writers at the Quark Matter 2001 conference, and a new sense of good will with our neighbors. We even turned interest in speculative disaster scenarios into additional opportunities to tell the physics story. Of course, the most exciting part of

RHIC's story is just beginning. We look

forward to sharing more milestones as the

science unfolds.

138
Research to Prevent Blindness Biennial

Science Writers Seminar in Eye Research

<s$B> Research to Prevent Blindness

5i5 Mac'scr Averje, New Yoc<. NY 1C022-1310

Sponsor

Research to Prevent Blindness

Contact

Thomas Furlong

Director of Public Information

Research to Prevent Blindness

645 Madison Avenue

New York, NY 1 0022

(212) 752-4333

Phone: (800) 621-0026

Fax: (212) 688-6231

tfurlong @ rpbusa.org

Budget

Approximately $185,000.

During 4-day Seminar: 5 staff; 2 for 8-10 hours a day; 3 for 1 0-1 6 hours

a day.

Also Program Director and Seminar

Moderator.

During Seminar year: Director of Public

Information and assistant fulfill regular

departmental responsibilities and inte- grate full slate of Seminar activities into the work flow. Two other staffers devote

time as well. One negotiates hotel arrangements and is involved in planning; another coordinates hotel booking. A Program Director is retained.

Web Sites

Program: www.rpbusa.org

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/preventblindness.htm

target audience includes the public,

17,000 eye doctors, and 2,200 vision scientists. We reach all three groups through

the press. We reach the latter two directly

by sending them a book of complete

seminar proceedings.

How did we determine the best ways

to reach the target audiences? We rely on

past experience and whatever flexibility

and ingenuity we can muster on a limited budget. It helps to start with a bucket of

elbow grease and to season it with humor.

Our approach has yielded international coverage in print, broadcast, and

electronic media.

To earn that, you must build a good

program and attract writers to cover it. To create the program, recruit a Program Director who knows science and

who knows news. The RPB program

includes 30 presentations by leading

vision scientists over four days. Topics

include all major and various other eye

diseases. At the conclusion of one seminar,

scouting begins for the next. We monitor

journals, trade press, and general media

reports. We seek nominations for speakers from past presenters, departments of

ophthalmology, the National Eye

Institute, and associations of vision scientists. As many as 300 nominees are considered for 30 spots on the program. The

Program Director interviews finalists. Many are pleased that we distribute the seminar monograph to their peers. We hold the seminar only when we

find enough news to justify asking a

writer to spend four days to absorb it. Each day's slate includes a story with a news edge sufficient for reporters who file

daily. We open the seminar to press, presenters, and selected guests only. We provide reporters ample access to scientists. The moderator adheres to a strict timetable. Scientists present 7- to 10-

minute talks followed by 1 5-minute

"Question and Answer" sessions. To

avoid delays, further Q & A and inter- views spillover to the press room. To

achieve that delightful scenario, you need

plenty of reporters. To publicize the meeting, we afFrx "Mark-Your Calendar" notes to selected communiques within a year of the seminar. We post the meeting on EurekAlert!,

in the NASW newsletter and on our Web

site. Four months prior to the meeting, we launch a series of four increasingly

detailed press alerts. We prune and build our media lists continually. We monitor news and write

to reporters interested in the eye. We

offer a limited number ofTraveling

Fellowships to help writers who would

otherwise lack the means to attend. With

the Seminar imminent, we increase contact with wire services and local press. Year round, we stay in touch via

press releases, newsletters and research

reports; attend meetings of writers (NASW, CASW and of scientists (AAAS, vision researchers); strive always

to be available for the press whether or not a story is likely to mention RPB; and

provide reliable information and refer- ences to experts. We try to be good hosts. As one

reporter from the West said, "You put on

a good feed!" We seek to earn and to maintain the

interest of a core group of reporters. We

build an extensive press kit that contains

the text of all presentations, updated statistics, eye dictionaries, and other materials. Weighing in at 4 pounds, the kit has proven ideal for aerobics workouts

between sessions to work off the good

feed!

The Research to Prevent Blindness

(RPB) Science Writers Seminar acquaints

science, health, and medical writers with

advances in basic and clinical eye

research. We seek to increase support for eye research by informing the public

about threats to vision and about scientific progress in combating blindness. The

139
Eurekalert! News Site

EurekAleiti

Sponsor

American Association for the

Advancement of Science

Contact

Catherine O'Molley

1 200 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: 202-326-6716

Fax: 202-898-0391

webmaster@eurekalert.org

Budget

Approximately $600,000

Web Sites

Program: vAvw.eurekalert.org

Poster: wv/w. nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/eurekalert.htm

EurekAlert! is a public service project

of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The

site was established in 1996 as a vehicle through which organizations could bring

word of their scientific achievements

through reporters to the public.

By targeting journalists and public

information officers (PIOs) at universities, medical centers, associations, and

other research organizations, EurekAlert! has attracted a large and diverse audience.

More than 400 organizations distribute news through EurekAlert!, and more than

4,000 journalists from over 45 countries use EurekAlert! as a source of story ideas. Thousands of researchers, students, educators, and others interested in science

also visit the site regularly. EurekAlert! is divided into three main sections: one for reporters, PIOs,

and the public. The reporter-only section

is designed to provide journalists with all of the information they need to publish

or broadcast breaking science news stories, including embargoed news releases, press packets for scientific journals, and a searchable database of experts. By providing qualified journalists with access to embargoed news, or news that has not

yet been released to the public, EurekAlert! helps them research and write

timely, well-informed stories for release at the moment an embargo lifts. The PlO-only section provides qualified users with an online interface through which they can submit press

releases, experts, and other items; monitor the traffic their news items receive; and keep up to date with scientific news

from other organizations. In order to dis- tribute news through EurekAlert!, a PIO

must belong to an organization that has purchased a EurekAlert! subscription.

The public section of the site highlights the wealth of news available on

EurekAlert! Elements include a searchable

archive of more than 25,000 press releases, a Breaking News section featuring

recently released news items, and a News

by Subject section, which breaks down

news by topic. EurekAlert! began as a very small

operation, with technical support and

hosting services provided by Stanford

University and a few staff working at AAAS. Technological and staff needs have

increased over time. Current day-to-day

operations require technical support, both

from an in-house technical specialist and

a private Web hosting company, a three- person editorial team, a marketing specialist, and a program associate. A direc- tor manages the project and guides

EurekAlert! policy with the help of an

advisory panel.

Creating a product that is secure,

reliable, international in scope, rich in content, and editorially consistent has been a challenging task. Despite the

obstacles, the numbers show that EurekAlert! has come to be a widely used

resource among the scientific community.

During a typical month, the site receives nearly 3 million hits. Other evaluation methods, such as online surveys, show a heavy degree of reliance among users. In

the most recent survey, nearly 90 percent

of journalists surveyed reported visiting EurekAlert! at least once a month for story ideas, and more than half said that they publish or broadcast items based on

information found on EurekAlert! several times each week.

140
The Internet and Stakeholder Outreach: The

Transportation Resource Exchange Center

Sponsors

U.S. Department of Energy National

Transportation Program

ATR Institute at the University

of New Mexico

Contact

Mary E. White, Program Coordinator

ATR Institute, University of New Mexico

Science and Technology Park

1001 University Blvd. SE, Ste. 103

Albuquerque, NM 87106

Phone: (505) 246-6483

Fax: (505) 246-6001

carino@unm.edu

Budget

S2.5 million over five years to develop,

maintain, and continually improve the

Web site Web Sites

Program: www.trex-center.org

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/trex.htm

The Transportation Resource Exchange Center (T-REX) at www.

trex-center.org is the first Virtual Library

dedicated to providing information about

the transportation of radioactive materials (RAM) to stakeholders. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National

Transponation Program (NTP), which

coordinates transportation activities for all DOE non-classified shipments of

radioactive and mixed wastes and provides information about these shipments

to stakeholders, recognized the need for greater outreach and responded. In June

1998, through a cooperative agreement,

die DOE NTP audiorized the ATR

Institute (ATRI), at the University of

New Mexico, to develop and maintain a Virtual Library that would serve as a "one-stop-shop" source of information

about RAM transport for non-DOE and

DOE stakeholders. The ATRI identified five primary

goals for the T-REX:

supply pertinent information to diverse audiences,

build relationships that promote

user assistance in developing and maintaining the T-REX,

develop training for utilizing the T-REX,

improve the management and dis- semination of needed information, and

provide reference and research

services without charge.

The ATRI created die T-REX to serve as a national clearinghouse for information. The overarching goal for the Center is to become the permanent

repository and principal distributor of

documents and information on the trans- port of RAM. Positioned as a public

interface for public outreach, the T-REX

is a vital conduit linking those stakeholders who are in need of information

and those who produce the public

information.

Three formative research tools were

developed by the T-REX Center. "The T- REX User Needs Assessment" and "The

National Transportation Information Resource Survey," were completed before the T-REX Web site was created. "The

Content Analyses of U.S. Department of

Energy Environmental Impact

Statements (EISs) Comments and

Questions," was begun shortly after the

Web site was launched. These tools were

developed to identify the gaps between

potential users' questions and the infor- mation that was available regarding stake- holder issues. In the most basic sense, the

results produced by the research tools informed the T-REX designers of what

information related to radioactive material transport is available and which infor- mation is the most highly prized by the

users. Information specialists at the T- REX Center have worked collaboratively

with the Virtual Library's database devel- opers throughout the life of the Web site. The T-REX Center also created an

internal questionnaire for evaluative research to ensure that diverse multiple

users can easily find the information they

need. Because patrons ofT-REX Center

vary greatly in knowledge and expertise, the T-REX Center offers information ref- erence and referral services to assist stake- holders in finding for themselves or obtaining for themselves the information

they need, without charge. The subject

categories include: Carriers,

Education/Training, Emergency

Management, Health, International,

Laws/Regulations, Packaging, Public

Participation, Routes, States, Students/Teachers, and Tribal. The

Center has online searchable databases for documents and contacts, and an annotat- ed bibliography series. The T-REX Program Manager,

Nancy Bennett, has an education back- ground in art, art history, and library sci- ence. Mary E. White has an undergraduate background in public relations and

advertising. Her master's thesis is studying

the Internet as a communication tool.

141
Health Behavior News Service & HABIT

^^^^k CENTER FOR THE

^^^H^ ADVANCEMENT OF HEALTH

Sponsor

Center for the Advancement

of Health

Contact

Ira R. Allen

2000 Florida Ave. NW, Suite 210

Washington, DC 20009

Phone: (202) 387-2829

Fax: (202) 387-2857

iallen@cfah.org

Budget

Approximately $500,000/pa

Web Sites:

Program: wvvw.cfah.org/

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/health behavior, htm

by e-mail and fax to individual reporters

and to a general journalism audience

through EurekAlert! and Ascribe. Nondeadline writers receive a packet of the month's news releases by postal delivery. In 2000, HBNS issued 189 press

releases, received 509 placements from

those releases, received 71 mentions of

the Center itself, and placed op-eds or

letters to the editor 21 times. It also handled more than 200 requests from

reporters. From the Abilene Reporter to the Wall StreetJournal, from wired.com

to Good Housekeeping, the Center has become a credible source of information

for the notion that when it comes to health and illness "behavior matters." The Center also publishes Facts of

Life 8 to 1 0 times a year, providing background information, fact sheets, inter- views, and sidebars on recent research findings on specific topics. In addition, the Health Behavior News Service refers news inquiries from ProfNet, from indi- vidual calls, and from our own Web site to a network of the nations leading

behavioral scientists. The Center also has been successhil

in uniting more than 4,000 health care

researchers from around the world by means of the Health and Behavior

Information Transfer (HABIT), an elec- tronic newsletter published every three weeks. HABIT reports on federal research policy and funding opportunities across disciplinary boundaries. It builds bridges

among disciplines that otherwise do not communicate with one another. The

Center serves HABIT s diverse audience

as an impartial, responsive advocate while

challenging science's narrow focus.

A fourth element of the Health

Behavior News Service is Good Behavior,

a monthly newsletter for 2,200 stal<;e- holders and friends of the Center. The

double-sided one-pager, in addition to announcing Center initiatives and news,

is known for pungent essays and pithy

"disconnects " about research findings that don't get put into day-to-day medical

practice.

The news releases and Facts ofLife

are handled by a single science writer (with freelance support) and an in-house

assistant, both under the supervision of

the public affairs director, who edits Good

Behavior. HABIT is edited by a program

associate. A second science writer may be

added.

Evaluation is difficult because most

of the media's attribution is to the journals and individuals that we promote and

not the HBNS. A lesson learned is the need to blow our own horn by branding

each release with our name as a byline

and using the initials and full name in every e-mail proffer of experts or background. We count clips through a limited subscription to Nexis and a full subscription to Luce. In another year's time, we

expect to choose one or the other. HBNS is adaptable by other small

organizations armed with:

a targeted press list, quick access to their field's experts, understanding of news media

needs for timeliness and clarity, and

a reputation for disseminating

only the highest quality research.

The Health Behavior News Service (HBNS) of the Center for the Advancement of Health informs the public of the latest research about the impact

of psychological, sociological, behavioral,

economic, and environmental factors on

health. The mission is to make the Center the "go-to" organization for journalists and the public interested in the unique niche we have carved out—trans- lating health research into effective policy

and practice.

The Center provides clear, concise

analysis of research findings across aca- demic and professional disciplines by dis- seminating embargoed news releases to about 1,300 media contacts on behalf of

22 social science journals. Distribution is

142
Cooks with Chemistry: The Elements of Chocolate

(2000) and the Formulas for Flavor (2001)

Sponsor

American Chemical Society

Contact

Denise Graveline, Director

Office of Communications

American Chemical Society

1155 Sixteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: (202) 872-6245

d_graveline@acs.org

Budget

Per workshop, $38,000 to $40,000,

including invitation design, printing,

and mailing; facility rental, all meals,

and accommodations for two days;

speaker honoraria and travel; video

archiving; and staff time.

Web Sites:

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/coo ks . htm

The American Chemical Society, the

world's largest scientific society, has sponsored two workshops, collectively called the Cooks with Chemistry series, to introduce food journalists and writers to our rich array of resources on food chemistry.The Office of Communications rec- ognized that an increasing number of

food writers were covering food chemistry research emanating from ACS journals and meetings—so much so that, by

the end of 2000, ACS-generated news

about food chemistry reached a greater

potential audience through media cover- age than any other single subject category, more than 80 million people. Research on topics such as chocolate, flavor chemistry, wine and beer, and antioxidants were especially popular.

The ACS Office of Communications, with input from a group of

prominent food scientists, journalists, and

authors, evaluated these findings and

decided to hold a workshop that would

offer food writers a new perspective on

the science of food. The resulting seminars—the Elements of Chocolate (2000)

and the Formulas for Flavor (200 1

)

were designed to provide journalists with

background information on topics that would appeal to their audiences and

introduce the American Chemical Society

as an objective, authoritative resource. We invited prominent experts to present sessions on topics ranging from

the history of chocolate to its health benefits. We prepared comprehensive lists that included print, radio, and television media and created an attractive invitation that appealed to reporters' visual and

olfactory senses. Reporters eagerly registered, later citing the quality of the presenters and the original, innovative pro- gram as some of the main reasons they were interested in attending.

The workshop was held at Belmont

Conference Center, the Society's worldclass facility conveniently located just

minutes from Baltimore-Washington

International Airport. The center, with its outstanding culinary and meeting services, offered attendees an intimate, relaxed atmosphere. To accommodate the busiest of schedules, the workshop started in the evening and ended in the early afternoon on the following day. Reporters had

access to top experts, participated in

hands-on activities and tastings, and were

sent home with materials—such as recipes and other background information—that they could use to develop

future stories. We measured the program's effective- ness in several ways. Speakers enthusiastically accepted our invitation to participate and were generous with their time

and resources. Reporters from some of

the nation's highest circulation newspapers and magazines attended the Elements of Chocolate seminar, including

Prevention and Good Housekeepmg magazines and daily newspapers such as the Portland Oregonian and the Albany TimesUnion. Coverage inspired by or about the workshop has reached a potential audi- ence of more than 3 million readers. Although the Formulas for Flavor workshop was disrupted by the events of

September 11 , we had enough interest to

fill two workshops, which boasted regis- trants from prestigious media outlets such

as Cooking Light magazine and the New

York Times. Among our lessons learned: Food

writers, generally lacking experience in science coverage, need more interpretive materials and respond well to experts

who can bridge the food and science worlds. An orientation to basic terminology and concepts of food chemistry was added to the start of the flavor workshop

and proved to be useful in defining terms

that would be used throughout the session, allowing more in-depth questioning. Finally, interest level in providing scientific information with accuracy is high

in this journalistic area, suggesting promise for more outreach to food writers.

143
Building a National Newswire for Scientific,

I, and Nonprofit institutions

AScribe

The Public Interest NewswM

Sponsor

AScribe - The Public Interest Newswire

Contact

Ron Wolf

AScribe

5464 College Avenue, Suite B Oakland, CA 94618

Phone: (510) 653-9400

rwolf@ascribe.org

Budget

$1 .5 million

Web Sites:

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/ascribe, htm

The University of California (UC)

system faced increased difficulty in the mid-1990s getting its news into major

daily newspapers. One problem: Papers

had gone digital but the university was

still distributing news by mail and fax. In

addition, the media landscape was becoming more complex. UC knew it also needed to distribute its news widely on the Internet and through the principal research database services. A small group investigating this situ- ation at Berkeley determined that higher

education and scientific institutions needed nothing less than their own dedicated

wire service. This service would deliver

releases directly to the computers of

major news organizations. And, the wire

also would handle the technical and legal

arrangements to get news into the myriad

Internet channels and major research

databases. No one institution acting alone

could create such a service, but many

institutions actively collectively could

support a new national wire. The group that designed the AScribe

service included journalists, public affairs professionals, newspaper publishers, and

computer systems specialists.

Key goals were to develop a system

that would allow public information specialists to: 1 ) cut through the incredible volume of news delivered daily to news

organizations; 2) respond to around-theclock news cycles; 3) explore new opportunities for coverage; 4) enhance credibili- ty by sending releases across a trusted wire in the company of other credible information; 5) take advantage of distri- bution technology that has worked well

for corporate news; and 6) extend the

shelf life of news through inclusion in electronic databases. The service also had

to be easy to use and affordable.

The wire was launched by four people working full-time using personal

hinds and outside investment by individuals involved in the media and higher

education. It was created with the assis- tance of the San Jose Mercury News and

The Associated Press.

Initially, the wire operated only within California, connecting the UC system

and other universities to the state's major

daily papers. After functioning for a year within the state, AScribe began to offer service to research institutions and media

outlets across the country. The wire now

moves news on behalf of 500 organizations and agencies and reaches top media

organizations across the country.

AScribe cannot evaluate performance

of the wire in accomplishing the diverse goals of over 500 separate organizations.

Therefore, AScribe relies upon several indirect measures to determine the service's effectiveness. Key measures include: 1 ) anecdotal

reports—users often report that they

receive additional media contacts and

broader coverage; 2) renewal rate

organizations renew their annual contracts with AScribe at rates above 95 percent; 3) usage rate—the average daily

and annual usage of the newswire has

risen steadily since inception; and 4) news

outlet adoption rate—additional newspapers and publications continue to request

AScribe's newsfeed for news-gathering purposes following their review. Ascribe Newswire has become an

important tool that public-interest organizations rely on to effectively deliver news

to both traditional and new media channels. AScribe provides a vehicle for collab- oration and collective action that demonstrates its value to the organizations that send news via the wire every day.

144
American Astronomical Society

Press Services

Internet hub in press room at an AAS meeting.

Reporters filing stories are Charles Petit (left, U.S. News ond World Report) and Bas den Hond (center, Trouw newspaper, Amsterdam). A PIO from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Obsen/atory, David

Aguilar, works at right. Two unattended laptops hold

positions for other journalists. AAS photo by Richard

Dreiser, (c) 2001 American Astronomical Society. Sponsor

American Astronomical Society

Authors

Stephen R Maran, NASA's Goddard

Space Flight Center

Lynn Cominsky, Sonoma State

University

Laurence A. Marschall, Gettysburg

College

Contact

Dr. Stephen Maran

NASA GSFC, Code 600

Greenbelt, MD 20771

Phone: (301) 286-5154

hrsmaran@eclair.gsfc.nasa.gov

Budget

$17,654 in 2000

Web Sites:

Poster: www.nist.gov/public_affairs/

Posters/astronomical. htm

Since 1985, the American

Astronomical Society has systematically increased services to the media to foster greater coverage of astronomical research. We have upgraded press activities at our

meetings and initiated an electronic press

release distribution service for cooperating

observatories, universities, and other

organizations. We developed written guidance on how to write press releases and how to present press conferences for

scientists participating in our meetings,

and offer counsel to institutional PIOs on

embargo and "story-marketing" issues. We operate a referral service to put

inquiring journalists in immediate touch

with specialist experts. During this period, press attendance at our meetings has

increased from a handfol of reporters to

as many as 204 registered journalists and

PIOs. An Internet hub in our press room

facilitates efficient filing of stories. Coverage of findings reported at the meetings has been sufficiently extensive

that on occasion newspaper editorials and

journalist trade-paper stories have been

devoted to the coverage itself Our press

activities are entirely separate from the

Society's programs in education.

Our electronic press release distribu- tion service is for journalists and is not

offered to the public or to our fellow scientists. We are serving the media, not competing with them. As of February 7, 2002, there were 1,163 persons in the news media and 216 PIOs on this distri- bution. PIOs are sent releases separately,

as some material cannot be sent to them

in advance of the respective embargo

times.We find that the most effective way

to obtain coverage of our field in all media is to direct our planning toward

best satisfying one media component:

daily newspapers and wire services. Wide

coverage in magazines, broadcast media,

and other outlets, we learned, is reliably attained when there is heavy coverage in the dailies. Some specific aspects of our program

are: ( 1 ) press officers are working scientists with undergraduate teaching experi- ence; (2) we feature stories we think

reporters will want to cover, not stories that scientists think are deserving of coverage; (3) we select the roughly 1 0 press conference topics and 60 other press

release topics per meeting according to perceived newsworthiness, not presumed

scientific significance; (4) there is no

preference for invited speakers, prize lecturers, etc., in press activities. Several Divisions of our Society also have press officers. The embargo policies,

briefing formats, etc. of their meetings

differ from procedures at national Society

meetings. Divisional policies reflect per- ceived ease or difficulty in attracting journalists. Reporters at the well-attended

national meetings receive releases not sent

to absentee journalists and national meeting press conferences are not available by

telephone, webcast, etc., to absentees. In

contrast, at Divisional meetings where

low press attendance is expected, briefings

may be by conference call, with illustra- tions posted on protected Web sites, and

embargoed press releases may be distrib- uted widely beforehand. Two Divisions

have also initiated science journalism

awards to foster excellence in reporting on their disciplines.

145
Science Communications Curriculum:

Communications Tools and Best Practices

Sponsor

Environment Canada

Authors

Alex T. Bielak, with Geoff Howell,

Jon Stone, Philip Enros, and Paul

Hempel

Contact

Dr. Alex T Bielak

Director, Science Liaison Branch

National Water Research Institute Environment Canada

867 Lakeshore Road, PO. Box 5050

Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6 Canada

Phone: (905) 336-4503

Alex.Bielak@ec.gc.ca

Budget

For communications training pilot course: Environment Canada (EC)

invested $50,000 (Canadian) plus

costs of participants travel. An organizing committee spent a substantial part

of their time, over and above their nor- mal duties, organizing the course and

producing a final report. Total amount

included translation costs (English to French) and report production. Cost per

participant of subsequent risk communications training course—delivered by

external contractors—is about $1,200

(Canadian) per participant.

community and communications specialists, EC has emerged as a leader in the

science communications field. An external Advisory Board has focused on science communications as a

priority area for advice to the Department. They developed a Science

Communications Framework and con- cluded there was a "need to make popular

communications a high priority." Among

their recommendations was that EC

should act on lessons learned from the communications pilot project described

below. A Communications Curriculum and

Toolkit: According to public opinion polling,

scientists are EC's most trusted spokespeople. In December 1998 we developed

a ground-breaking pilot training course

for a dozen up-and-coming scientists with an interest and aptitude for communications. Communications personnel

from across EC were also fully involved

to build linkages between the two

constituencies. The course included media training,

mentorship by EC Communications

"Masters," and a media panel. An intensive evaluation of the course allowed us to build a "road map" for fiiture training

sessions, including various logistic considerations. A proposed three-day curricu- lum was developed based on Core ses- sions (the Communications Environment, Science and Communications,

Science and Media/Panel Discussion,

Science and the Written Media, Media

Relations Training) complemented by

suggested Auxiliary Presentations. Our approach—which included

development of an extensive toolkit for future use—provided a baseline for applying the lessons learned in other

science-based institutions with a goal of

fostering collaborative communications

of science. Building on concepts devel- oped by EC, further pilot courses in "Risk communication media training"

intended as a basis for a co-ordinated

training program—were developed cooperatively by a group of federal science departments in early 200 1 . Furthermore,

EC-Atlantic staff have been active in helping develop training courses involv- ing students in the fields of journalism,

public relations, and science.

Other Best Practices: A number of other "best practices" across EC are emerging. EC's National

Water Research Institute requires scientists to provide a public summary with all

scientific manuscripts. EC-Atlantic staff have developed a variety of targeted

multi-media products to better dissemi- nate science results, including innovative

methods for making presentations to aboriginal groups (see "The Ashkui

Project" poster).

At the national level, EC's communication teams have developed four diverse products to bring science and technology

to Canadians. They are targeted, using

different media, to both general and specialized audiences, and include the news media as a message multiplier. (Each

product is available on our Green Lane—

Environment Canada's link to the World

Wide Web (www.ec.gc.ca). The materials produced nationally are tracked as to the media pickup resulting from each of

them.

Also, in collaboration with other federal natural resource departments, EC has taken a leadership role in a partnership

with the (Canadian) Discovery Channel

to produce Earthtones, a series of vignettes

showcasing science activities. These can be accessed at www.durable.gc.ca/radio- video/video/index_e.phtml)

.

J

Web Sites

Program: vAvw.ec.gc.ca

Poster: www.nist.gov/public affairs/

Canadians have a strong interest in science and technology, and there is an

increasing interest in science topics associ- ated with nature and the environment.

Interpreting and communicating scientific information is vital to EC's mandate.

In the context of a rather open communications policy in EC, the Department

needed to foster communications skills for scientists and also develop better links between communicating scientists and

departmental communications staff. With input from both the science

146
Appendix A
Conference Program

Wednesday, March 6

5:15 p.m. Bus service from Gaithersburg Holiday Inn to NIST

5:30 p.m. Poster setup begins

NIST Administration Bldg. (101) Hall of Flags

6 p.m. Welcoming Reception for all conference attendees

Hosted at the NIST in Your Community interactive public exhibit

Administration Bldg. lobby

8 p.m. Bus service to Gaithersburg Holiday Inn Dinner on your own

Thursday, March 7

7:45 a.m. Bus service from Gaithersburg Holiday Inn to NIST

8-9 a.m. Registration/Continental Breakfast

9 a.m. Welcome from NIST/DOE

William Ott, Deputy Director, NIST Physics Laboratory

William Valdez, Director, Office of Planning and Analysis, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

9:20 a.m. Introduction—Conference Co-chair

Earle Holland, Ohio State University

9:30 a.m. Keynote Address: Sense, Nonsense, and Science

Joseph Schwarcz, Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Office of Chemistry and Society, McGill

University

10:30 a.m. Break/Refreshments

10:45 a.m. Putting Communications Research and Evaluation into Practice Susanna Hornig Priest, Associate Professor, Texas A&M University Department of Journalism

James Grunig, Professor, University of Maryland Department of Communication

12 noon Panel Discussion: Case Studies in Successful Evaluation of Communications Programs

Jon Miller (moderator). Director, Center for Biomedical Communications, Northwestern University Medical

School

Kathy Geiger, Brookhaven National Laboratory, "Restoring Public Trust: Community Affairs Evaluation"

Chris Gade, Mayo Clinic, "Medical Edge: Distributing Health News Through Local Television"

Cindy Ferch, Orange County Water District, "Groundwater Replenishment Community Outreach Project"

Terry Devitt, University of Wisconsin, Madison, "The Why Files"

1 p.m. Lunch

2:30 p.m. Topical Lecture—The Future of Broadcast Journalism

Peggy Girshman, Assistant Managing Editor, National Public Radio News

3 p.m. Poster Session

4:30 p.m. Adjourn

Bus service to Gaithersburg Holiday Inn

6:30 p.m. Reception at Gaithersburg Holiday Inn

148
7:30 p.m. Dinner at Holiday Inn—"Live from rhe Field: Observing Science in Its Natural Habitat"

Hannah Holmes, freelance writer; reporter and columnist, Discovery Online; and author, The Secret

Life of Dust: From the Cosmos to the Kitchen Counter, the Big Consequences of Little Things

Friday, March 8

7:45 a.m. Bus service from Gaithersburg Holiday Inn to NIST

8-9 a.m. Late Registration/Continental Breakfast

9 a.m. Introduction—Conference Co-chair

Earle Holland, Ohio State University

9:10 a.m. Research Roadmap for Communicating Science and Technology in the 21st Century

Rick Borchelt, Director, Communications and Public Affairs, Whitehead Institute 9:45 a.m. Topical Lecture: How Science Books Drive Public Discussion Bruce Lewenstein, Associate Professor of Science Communication, Cornell University

10:15 a.m. Break/Refreshments

10:30 a.m. Graphic Science: New Venues for Science Communication

Frank Burnet, Faculty of Applied Science, University of the West of England

11:15 a.m. Panel Discussion: Broadening the Audience for Science and Technology

Frank Burnet, University of the West of England (moderator)

Yolanda S. George, American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Science Linkages in the Community"

Jan Tyler, U.S. Department of Energy Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, "BEAMS:

Becoming Enthusiastic about Math and Science"

Sylvia Ortiz, New Mexico State University, "Information at the Border: BIEN Health Network"

Alex Bielak, Environment Canada, "The Ashkui Project: Knowledge, Culture, and Landscape

"

12:30 p.m. Lunch

2:00 p.m. Keynote Address: Sex, Lies, and Science Television

Paula Apsell, Executive Producer, NOVA, WGBH Public Television

3:00 p.m. Poster Session

4:30 p.m. Audience Discussion: Next Steps (open microphone)

5:30 p.m. Adjourn

Bus service to Gaithersburg Holiday Inn

149

Appendix B
Communicating the Future

Best Practices for Communication of Science and

Technology to the Public

Call for Papers

Communicating science and technology to the pubhc has become an essential enterprise for research universities, national laboratories, science museums, foundations and granting agencies, other nonprofit scientific organizations and corporations. To advance the state of the art, a national conference on Best Practices for Public Communication of Science and Technology to the Public will be held Sept. 23-25 in the Washington,

D.C., area.

Co-chaired by Joann Rodgers of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions and Earle Holland of Ohio State University, the conference aims to assemble a comprehensive set of "best practices" in communicating science

and technology through an open call for papers. Entries will be judged by a panel of reviewers comprising dis- tinguished science writers, educators, and researchers. Judging criteria will include the suitability of an entry to be adapted for use by a variety of research and education institutions. Individuals whose papers are selected will be expected to present their "best practices" at the September 2001 [later postponed till March 2002] confer- ence and will receive a travel stipend and complimentary conference registration.

During the conference, distinguished communicators will lead discussions on fundamental issues and chal- lenges for science communicators, and selected participants will be asked to develop and interpret poster pre- sentations describing their entries. The best-practice poster presentations also will be archived electronically for wider distribution following the conference.

The conference is held under the auspices of the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and is co-sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The meeting will be held at the NIST campus in the Washington, D.C., suburb of Gaithersburg, Md.

General Criteria

Best practice entries will describe programs implemented by research and education institutions designed to communicate scientific and/or technological advances and/or research in general to a variety of lay audiences.

Individual communications vehicles or products such as news releases or videos will not be accepted. Rather,

the reviewers will evaluate entries that describe programs for communicating science and technology, and for fostering strong public outreach. Processes and methods must be included, and entrants are encouraged to pro- vide details of their program's "toolkits," such as print materials, interactive/electronic media, videos, animation

and graphics, radio, slide shows, exhibits, events, and so on.

Best practice entries may describe the following:

targeted direct-to-public campaigns,

programs for general and special media,

museum-style exhibits,

innovative use and training of scientists or other technical spokespersons,

campaigns to inform political debate or change health behaviors,

programs to reach non-traditional or special audiences,

entertainment projects,

innovative use of advertising and other paid media,

public relations and earned-media projects, and

news-based endeavors.

152
Entries should include best practices that are adaptable with minimal modification by other research institu- tions and science-based organizations and enterprises; should strategically target one or more audiences; should

include measures of effectiveness through evaluation and review; should clearly involve scientists/technical

experts in the program; and should illuminate both the product and process of scientific research.

Categories

Entries will be accepted from all areas of science and technology, including but not limited to biomedical sci- ence, environmental science, social sciences, biotechnology, and physical sciences. All entries must include substantive scientific content.

Entries may include public information and earned (free) media programs, paid media (advertising, infomercials) and/or special projects as components.

Lastly, entries should fit into one or more of the following six categories:

1 . Direct to Consumer Programs

2. Scientist-based Programs

3. Programs for General Media

4. Programs for Specialized Media

5. Programs for Legislators and Opinion Leaders

6. Programs intended for Children (outside of classroom instruction)

Eligibility

Entries will be considered from research-sponsoring institutions such as universities, government agencies, cor- porations, or non-profit organizations, from public education institutions such as museums or non-profit webbased enterprises, or from third parties engaged by these entities in their communications efforts. International

entries are welcome.

Submissions

Deadline for submitting entries is 16 July 2001. For instructions and an entry form see the conference web site

at http://www.nist.gov/bestpractices. For additional information contact: Rick Borchelt at DOE

(rick.borchelt@science.doe.gov) or Gail Porter at NIST (gail.porter@nist.gov)

Registration

The registration fee of $100 will cover conference materials, coffee breaks, lunches, a reception, and a dinner. Further agenda and registration information will be forwarded in July.

Electronic registration will be available at: https://saIes.nist.gov/conf/secure/CONF372/conf_register.htm

A block of rooms has been reserved at the Gaithersburg Holiday Inn, (301) 948-8900, at a special rate of $95

single or double, plus 12 % tax. Reservations must be received by 7 Sept. 2001.

Program Information Registration Information

Rick Borchelt You may also mail your information to: DOE, Office of Science, SC-5 Kimberly Snouffer

1000 Independence Ave., S.W. NIST

Washington, D.C. 20585 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 3461

Phone: (202) 586-6702 FAX: (202) 586-7719 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3461

email: rborchelt@nasw.org Phone: (301) 975-2776 FAX: (301) 948-2067

email: kimberly.snouffer@nist.gov

153
Entry Form r 1 N

A-I wetupoi*" C!>"'act NIST H«Sim«

Comtnuriiciiling the fiitmti Btast PrsKdic«ta m Communtt.-atin;; Science and Technology t<i

I :. ...iil!?^! wk-rf-ift &fi<>l..il FRFP

Sutomlssi-oti ts^mUHm ejEtertdfetS to July is W^i

^'OL car eiectrcnica ly = Jb^i: tne forr^ belcw c dcxwiilcsd a ?Dr *tie , anc 'ax z<r ma I tn s o^m :o:

fticK Borchell

Director Cf^mmunicstion

Offtce <J SdeiiLio. SC-5

U S Deparlnienl ol Energy

1000 hm^peiKlence Ave.. S W

WasNngtoii D.C 20585

Fax: {202) 586 7710

Please mart any a)i.i.i,it;teaa?,oi;?ry:,milftrialSi, lo the abovs address and indude the project (xxscfet^or's name

snd j^vyfic. nmt>m ^ SislM«i$!>ti;<a$ a»J stfiy supiSeifwnl^ nsatefwls nuisl M [Xtslfrarked hy July 16, 2001

Picjf&d o'xMimif w^ $elede<l to presenl Ih* '

i .. .• idice" at. Uw oiM^feronoe wii receivi; ; S

.'

;

travel'lodging sl^nd. free conference regssl; ..i ii -i 00 v^oe) and publicafon their pspL-- in ;lic-' ccinference pfCiostsdiiKiSi and •» im Best Pradices vv&{>sile. AB sulKniUers be ncilifted by en^iil tf their paper has been seleclVj or noi t", An; n i? ? 1 . 2001

Na«w 8«<i a:Ki!f)':s sjiiornialion an(:if<linal«:*f or inrgamzwr

First Name; Lii.si Name I

Acklress

State/Country: Zip Code; f

Fax f

OiKa*ion c4 the pcpcl, campaigr^, or program 1

154
OjsI (indudG an annual cx>st i oi>-goin:i

Aurienoe (iir<|dte<1

Entr»e.s «.hi vU\ fit irto or arm ,:i ihe fi ift:w,»iK| six ca(9<K>fles (C3»ck an<1 iTOkl the CW key for miilltpte setectjcos.

D recttc Ccisi.~e' P'cqram?

Sciertst oased Programs

Proqramsfcr General Vedia

Procrams for Special zee Vcd d Proc-a— s 'or ^eq -siab-'i and r- cn Leaders

Prog-u--^ ir-.cr-dcd ' jr L -ii c-ci (outside of classroom instruction)

; . , .ill. ;iii>; llidl s^^.;i-^"!«.; :|i s

<• < Ml .-.hi ^ ;.r'"|H>? <>iMi:«Hk|n < 'r |ir<X|rHlii

1

lyfje J ^rjjii/,jl . ,1 .Ji'.-'_-. I vi •. 1 J . li 11 -lie Clri key tor rnOspte setedicm

Unlversitv co'lsce Goverrtment acsrcv

Corporaticr

Web-basec enterp-ise

Museum

Other r"or -p-c'i' orcur- zation Other

Pteasft |X<:w«l« n iiaffa>ivf> <lesai|>l« *) o( IHb ixojw':!. 1 .n in i • ' •«) |)|.:>iihiii ;.'>i)0 wi tfds ij* f«v.'wr) Your descnplion st>3Uld answer all ine usual jiournalist -|iiesij<jniv-'.vno, wfial, VvTien v/here and v/hy - as

v>ell as higWigW ttiose wltinwots erf Um ixojy.jj i^niMiijii ;:i (Vi Qfaintlwl yixi hylitive Hns ea>.ily addplatrfe

* • 4l»r i fijaiiizaiKiiis lliM !t )iiiirmiiii:;atioiis «f(oft d6isaibw<l nuist induflw -suhstJiriUve science or techiKtogy ccfilent

Supplementary materials

flM\\r.€i^ material such as news releases videos, newsletters, web site addresses, photograptis,

siimrrwry rn|)or1s or rihiif itfems 3ssi;»(ialed vMU the (X<^ct, (^^impiaHy!, ix ixcxirfiiii rnay t>e altiicfwJ or sent

Neparatyly t< > Hoaxn:tany the .Mihint-ssK m {Please be reasonable. If 11 svi ml fil in a metlium size^J Fed Ex

box t's probably more than we need ) Ei^ries. aidudif^ st^jplemenlary materia. wi\ ncA be returned

155
Was (here » SVS'iMiiu'h: r!f^;;il t. . o I int. .'"vih.>!' .ir.-iil .iii:lii:ii.;;;s . >•> .- rIIIIH- ri ;iis iii!:.^ ;f (fwraliVe

re-seardii} I II 1 1" I : -III • :i I |i |. .' • {..ii in.. |.i .|i-iiii- '^ •• i i"

'

\h't,t, 'lltMt! a >,y^ti;!|l|.,|.- i'f'::|l I. I u'.i„u;i"(;: i|lt;! ytli:;. I: i'lrl |l!^^ >i ijlH Ki:tl, ;.^)lll|.'H!aii. iif |iHX|raOi

{evsiiistjye researcliv ll ;:.se3se dsscn&e IMs effort.

Please Wsi; a few rnomenls for yoi* ConfsrrnaiiOrs

Submit 1 Reset Form

The 'mil'. •,.< . i prcMCtd in this '-ni'-/ * -im •. ii i. i.-. :; B#SI I 'i.i. :i. : l.".'ling CCHIWS^lley ' h : Ml . -ilil i: .. ttie Best Practices, ill CcMTWTRjnical. • - • iii I I .•.jijiwkjQy so

file Piii>lK;o:>»ifefer«oe c»n Se|>if!ni|..i • -»§

seledecl to the axifereoce v;iii *:

; :u\ .in • u 1 1 i PrsdfCOR cr^fwencG proceediii.js mrl . i .1 • :i>iijiic6 wsb

isile iiii. • .ll . '!> ffCKTJ ai oiilffeti. holt* >iwltiU«'J a«xi iKit selwled,

fnay b.> •I cy the s-leewg oorrmllee m preparing a stsnrnary dfhe oonlerence

Addfesfes^ plione numbers faxes and em<i!l ad(lres<;es wil iiol

* . Ill I I

I nil I • > rii ml. > I'l II ' 'Hily

11- • I . ..•ii. 1 ; ll • . r :li.;- , iili •.;• : •! lo

. . . . Ill- III ll :i;iil,;. I .. . li. -I..!!: '.twillKOftp

,' III nil - I 11 . , fi«-sOth/tl • ' 11 I ll .III',,

^iif. Ill ^nces>Qn«lii- n . ill » ve

ycair nilcHinafioii (rcMn our fiie.s A Y -i ' " ' '

' i' ' ' ! • 1 • 'd fh«">e ni3lGn<ils Foi ^Msfiotwl inti im i n - 1 1 a\%

156
J