Finally, the government has realised that WE know everything about sci com, and they should ask US. Well, OK, they are asking everybody, but hey, we can answer. Special fancy new Web 2.0 Science and Society consultation site from DIUS.
It's possibly a bit more fancy than it needs to be. And not entirely clear what's going on. But hey, nice idea. If someone works out what we are actually supposed to do where on the site, can they let me know?
7 comments:
Wired reviewed it quite well, I thought.
"The British government wants to get people excited about science, and they desperately need your ideas, because their initial effort seems to be tremendously uninspired.
At the heart of the Vision for Science and Society campaign is a cluttered website sprinkled with twitter feeds, facebook groups, and embedded youtube videos.
Its take home message: We desperately want to get everyone excited about science, or at least comfortable with it, for the sake of our economy. You can save our great nation from financial collapse... by reading a convoluted document and then making some comments.
Although their website is disorganized and bloated with clips of elite people saying uninteresting things, the effort is noble, and it looks like they really do need a lot of help. If you want to answer their survey questions, do it by October 17th."
Hmmm. I have now read the consultation document.
Hmmm.
I've downloaded it.... errrm, Care to post a synopsis? Like, perhaps in two sentences?
Ok. How about.
"We're not very good at communicating clearly or concisely. We want to hear from people who are willing to read through a 57-page document, which has no clear lines of argument, and is schizophrenic about whether we are doing terribly well already or whether we need to do far more right now."
Reckon that about covers it. For a flavour of some of the more pointless verbiage:
"We believe there is a strong leadership role to be played by government" - right. Who is 'we' and why are they wasting words making such obvious points?
"We are keen to see evidence of an increased willingness to work together on the
part of all members of the science and society community" - Well that blows my 'lets work together less' argument right out of the water.
Debate mainly seems to center around the question 'is there any point to any of this consultation', rather than the issues therein. Which does suggest that they've not done a very good job.
Accessibility-wise, well, grr. 1 out of 10. Maybe not even that many.
Ah well. That all said, it's a noble cause, even if a very poor effort.
My suggestions would be something like - increase the level of science funding and make it more available outside the academy (why can't I get a grant for my own private projects? Hmmm?). Increase the level of R&D tax credits for small claims. Currently a rebate on 9% of the value of qualifying research (and lots doesn't qualify) against corporation tax isn't enough to make it worthwhile me applying, due to the level of record keeping required.
Increase the level of pay for science, maths and engineering teachers. Get rid of the ones that aren't very good. Teach kids more stuff.
Any more for any more?
(N.b., how do we feel about breaking the privacy of aPOU by 'tagging this item for:scisoc on the social bookmarking service del.icio.us?')
Perhaps we could condense the document down into something worth debating by removing all the low-meaning bumf?
You just made me laugh out loud with that.
Although to be fair, I think "We are keen to see evidence of an increased willingness to work together on the
part of all members of the science and society community" actually means, 'we think they don't work together enough'.
So it's not contradicting the statement 'let's work together less', but the statement, 'we are doing enough already'.
But I completely agree. And website looks as if they've just decided to stick every possible web 2.0 thing they've heard of in there, without any clarity or sense to it.
Also, very strange that they didn't email psci-com about it. I mean, you think to yourself, 'where shall I publicise something to the science communication community?', it's a fairly obvious place to start. I only found out about it because Shane saw it due to some e-democracy thing he was looking at. If Shane finds a sci-com site before I do, then that's really very odd.
Although maybe they did that on purpose 'cos they don't want the usual suspects? But in that case why have Brian Cox and Martin Rees as your poster boys? (Although where's Kathy Sykes? Surely she must be there somewhere?)
I'm happy to break purdah, but what does Alec think?
BTW, as for my suggestions of what to do. I actually think the new How Science Works curriculum for GCSE has a lot going for it (although I know Ian as an embittered old teacher is a bit more sceptical).
It's obviously been strongly influenced by a science and society/science communication/science engagement viewpoint. If it succeeds in getting the ideas over to kids then we will hopefully end up eventually with a populace with a more realistic, discursive, understanding of science, ability to understand science stories, make decisions about MMR jabs, etc, etc.
But, not all teachers 'get it' as a lot of them are old school 'science is objective/facts are best' types. And there aren't the good quality resources to teach it.
I'm writing up the evaluation report for I'm a Scientist at the mo, loads of teachers told us that it's really difficult to find good HSW resources. The textbooks, etc were all rushed out with the new GCSE and are not very well put together. Often they don't seem to get what HSW is really about - they focus on 'scientific enquiry' skills, and not on the understanding ethical, social and environmental implications, understanding sources of bias, etc, etc parts of HSW.
Obviously, I think I'm a Scientist is fantastic at developing a more complex understanding of HSW issues, and crucially, the skills and confidence to discuss science issues. Oh, and also enthuses and inspires students. So I think DIUS should fund us to roll IAS out across the country. However, I can see that that might be a somewhat personal viewpoint.
But, I do think that HSW, done right, and given time, can make a big difference. But it needs to be better supported, there needs to be some way to convince lots of old guard teachers to get it, and similar elements need to be included in the A Level and uni curricula. (I think A Level is coming in soon).
That doesn't address the better R+D side of things, but it does address a lot of the science's relationship with society and science education side of things. And perhaps a science education which relies less on 'right answers' and encourages more creative thinking will have a knock on effect on future R+D...
If we are going to have a proper conversation on here and try to be useful then we should try and get more of the others involved. Liam - I'll email you separately up-to-date email addresses for Ian and Richard. Anyone got more details for anyone else?
Post a Comment