There’s been much debate about the forthcoming Code of Conduct on Public Engagement the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman, is working on with the Royal Society of New Zealand.
This piece of work is part of the Government’s Science in Society Strategy and is laid out in Annex 4 of this document, which outlines initiatives that will be rolled out as part of the Strategy including:
“The RSNZ will lead development of a code of practice on engagement for scientists. To begin 2014/15.”
I was involved in a expert reference group for the Science in Society project so I heard about the proposed code early on.
From my perspective, it would be useful to clarify the type of interactions with the public scientists can engage in. I manage the Science Media Centre, which collects and publishes commentary from scientists often at short notice and often on controversial issues. As such, we rely on the ability of scientists to be able to speak freely on issues in their areas of expertise that are of importance to society. We quote more university scientists than Crown research institute scientists because the former group has more freedom to comment – and turn things around quickly for the media.
The situation varies by organisation – some university departments tightly manage access to the media, particularly if the scientists are involved in industry collaborations. Others would rather journalists deal directly with scientists and have little interest in monitoring what their scientists are commenting on. Some CRIs require all media-related queries to go through a central communications unit. Others let scientists use their own judgement and talk to the media without prior authorisation – according to pre-agreed ground rules.
We navigate all scenarios, not always successfully. The point is, there is no one way of engaging with the public or the media. I’d love more clarity around what scientists can and can’t say and when.
From the answers to the New Zealand Association of Scientists’ most recent survey, if appears scientists would also like the ground rules clarified.
When asked in the survey: “Have ever been prevented from making a public comment on a controversial issue by your management’s policy, or by fear of losing research funding, the results were as follow:
Source: NZAS Survey 2014
So that is around 40 per cent of survey respondents who have been prevented from making a public statement, either because their management said they couldn’t or because they feared having funding cut.
The anonymous comments collected as part of the survey and published on the NZAS website outline numerous examples of this. They include:
[redacted] terminated my employment because of unauthorised media comment
We are expressly prevented from making any comment to the public without prior approval. On contentious issues such as GMOs and plant import we are not to make any comment at all under any circumstance. That role is now exclusively the mandate of management.
In my university there have certainly been attempts by the senior leadership team to place constraints on academics speaking in public on controversial issues or on issues that might impact on the reputation of the institution itself. These attempts have been in breach of the principle of academic freedom and undermine our statutory duty to act as critic and conscience of society.
This mirrors the sort of anecdotes I regularly hear as scientists sheepishly tell me why they can’t contribute to one of our SMC expert round-ups on an issue in their area of expertise.
On the other hand, there may be good reasons why it is inappropriate for a scientist to go public on an issue. Maybe a colleague is far better qualified to talk about it, is more media savvy and better at communicating risk and uncertainty.
When is and isn’t it legitimate for management to instruct scientists not to speak out on an issue relevant to their area of expertise?
This is the sort of thing I hope the consultation around the development of the Code of Practice will flush out. The NZAS survey is a helpful precursor to that.
If the covertly organised smear campaigns and secretly-funded attacks on public health experts outlined in Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics seem more suited to an episode of House of Cards, that’s because they could easily be lifted from the dirty politics of Washington D.C. that inspired aspects of the show.
As I blogged about earlier this week, Nicky Hager alleges in Dirty Politics that Cameron Slater has been paid by a lobbyist to run pre-written blog posts on the Whale Oil website under his own name, posts that attack individuals raising concerns about alcohol, tobacco, sugary beverages and obesity. The main accusations have been largely left unanswered by the key protagonists, people such as lobbyist Carrick Graham and Food and Grocery Council chief executive Katherine Rich.
Meanwhile, we get an insight into what lobbyists in Washington D.C. will do on a much larger scale to influence discussion on health-related issues in the US. The Center for Public Integrity’s Wendell Potter, an insurance industry executive turned whistleblower, writes today about secret payments from a major health insurance lobby group to fund a TV ad campaign:
America’s Health Insurance Plans, the big lobbying and PR group for health insurers, secretly funneled US$1.593 million to its longtime ally, the National Federation of Independent Business, to pay for a TV ad targeting Democratic senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas. The ad blames Pryor for making it harder for small businesses to make a profit as a result of his vote for “Obamacare.” The ad didn’t mention that the funds to pay for it came from health insurers or that the spot was part of a continuing effort by AHIP to get Congress to eliminate a fee that was imposed on insurers to help offset the cost of expanding coverage to the uninsured.
The payments only came to light when the New York Times queried tax records which revealed the payments and the parties involved. It turns out that the US$1.6 million for the TV ads was a relatively modest spend.
As the National Journal reported in 2012, AHIP funnelled more than $100 million to the Chamber to finance it’s campaign to shape the health care reform debate in 2009 and 2010. As with the Times’ disclosure of the AHIP-NFIB alliance, the AHIP-Chamber of Commerce relationship was discovered only after a couple of reporters checked tax filings.
Then, more broadly, there is this type of carry on…
Earlier this year, the National Republican Congressional Committee created several fake Democratic candidate websites. The organization’s latest effort is a brand new set of deceptive websites, this time designed to look like local news sources. The NRCC has created about two dozen “faux news sites,” the National Journal reported, all of which feature articles that “begin in the impartial voice of a political fact-checking site, hoping to lure in readers.” After a few such paragraphs, the articles “gradually morph into more biting language.”
Now you see where Whale Oil and his collaborators get their inspiration from… Dirty Politics details numerous points where the protagonists looked to US political tactics to inform their efforts here. Read the book or Google “rat f*cking” for more on one such tactic drawn from the Republican Party play book.
That’s the way the game is played in Washington, where ethical principles that apply elsewhere are blatantly flouted. And where the consequence of getting caught in a lie or deception is rarely more severe than a bad PR day.
A bad PR day indeed for those implicated in the leaked emails.
Next week is going to be science-central in Auckland – literally thousands of scientists will be in town for a number of major conferences, many of which are accompanied by public events.
World New Zealand Science Week groups together everything from the SCAR Antarctic research conference to the ICSU General Assembly.
I’m even hosting my Science Media Centre colleagues from around the world who will be meeting in Auckland for the first time ever, a proud moment for me and the SMC team.
The Royal Society of New Zealand has a detailed breakdown of the events that will be running next week.
Here are a few of the highlights…
The 31st triennial General Assembly of the International Council for Science (ICSU). Established in 1931 and based in Paris, ICSU represents more than 121 national science academies and 31 scientific unions. 25th August – 3rd September
The annual general meeting of the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP). Symposium Auckland 25 August, AGM Christchurch 27 – 29 August
The 4th biennial United States – New Zealand Joint Committee Meeting on Science and Technology Cooperation (JCM), a joint dialogue on areas such as natural hazards and resilience, climate change, and oceans. 25th -26th August
The Science and Diplomacy Symposium, focusing on how scientists can input into foreign affairs. 27th August
Inaugural Science Advice to Governments conference involving the world’s most eminent Science Advisors. The conference will focus on the practice of providing policy-relevant science advice to governments. 28th – 29th August
The 2nd APEC Chief Science Advisors and equivalents meeting, a forum for informal discussion on the science and policy interface amongst science advisors to the highest level of government within APEC economies. 30th August
The Chief Scientists gather
Sir Peter Gluckman will be bringing together scientific advisors from all over the world for a two-day summit that I’ll be present at and live blogging from. Check out the line up of guest speakers – it will be a high-powered event and highly relevant to some of the big science-related issues we are grappling with in New Zealand at the moment.
Negotiating science communication minefields
Also head along to listen to myself, Dr Susannah Elliot and Fiona Fox, the founders of the NZ, Australian and UK Science Media Centres respectively, talk about some of the big science-related controversies we’ve worked on over the last decade.
It is a public event organised by PRINZ, the Public Relations Institute. There’s a cover charge, but there will be booze and nibbles…
Nicky Hager’s new book Dirty Politics appears set to colour the whole tone of the current election campaign and have some impact on the election’s outcome.
It has also given us a window into the tactics of rightwing bloggers, lobbyists and political strategists intent on discrediting scientists who present evidence that conflicts with their political and commercial interests.
Nick Naylor, the unscrupulous lobbyist in Thank You for Smoking
The movie Thank You for Smoking gets several mentions in Dirty Politics. It follows the exploits of Washington D.C. big tobacco lobbyist Nick Naylor and his efforts to use pseudoscience and spin to defend the tobacco industry. Nick meets regularly for lunch with a collection of lobbyist colleagues who represent the alcohol, fast food, firearms, oil drilling and hazardous waste industries. They call themselves the MOD Squad – the merchants of death.
Dirty Politics, based largely on emails and chat transcripts hacked from the Gmail and Facebook accounts of Cameron Slater, founder of the Whaleoil blog, reveals that we have our own MOD Squad, who coordinate attacks on scientists and public health researchers and funnel money from big business to the bloggers willing to uncritically push the corporate line.
Some will shrug and suggest that it isn’t news that this sort of stuff goes on here in New Zealand. That may be true. But for the first time, we are able to connect the dots between some of the main players and their financial backers and the way they attempt to discredit scientists commenting on major public health issues such as obesity and smoking.
Whale Oil and the “troughers”
Lobbyist Carrick Graham
The scientist most targeted by the MOD Squad in Dirty Politics is Professor Doug Sellman, an expert in addiction treatment and Director of the National Addiction Centre at the University of Otago. Sellman is an outspoken advocate of greater alcohol control. With other public health experts, he set up Alcohol Action NZ, an advocacy group aimed at providing evidence-based solutions to New Zealand’s drinking culture. It’s tagline is: We need more than just tinkering.
The majority of us enjoy drinking alcohol, but all are alarmed about the way alcohol dominates many social situations and the scale of unhealthy and dangerous drinking in contemporary New Zealand – a crisis that enriches the liquor industry while causing immense harm to individuals and society as a whole.
This advocacy has put Sellman on a collision course with the MOD Squad, and in particular Carrick Graham, a lobbyist who worked for British American Tobacco for 10 years and is the son of former National Cabinet minister Doug Graham. Hager alleges that Carrick Graham, still in business as a lobbyist for hire, pays Cameron Slater to run blog posts critical of people endorsing efforts to tighten up alcohol and tobacco regulation.
From Dirty Politics:
“Slater earns his living by putting articles on his website written by Graham, and others, as if they were his own work. Graham and others send Slater the completed articles, with the heading already written and often the pictures supplied, and he simply pastes them onto his site and publishes them at the specified time. As the country’s largest audience political blog, it is a potent platform for planting corporate messages.
“For this, Slater is paid $6,500 each month, for what in total would be about an hour of work.
“On 26 February 2014, for instance, Slater received an e-mail from Carrick Graham, which contained the finished text of a snide attack on Professor Doug Sellman, head of the National Addiction Centre. The next morning, pre-set for 8.a.m. publication, the post appeared on the Whale Oil site headed ‘Confirmed: Doug Sellman Gone Mad’. It said by ‘Cameron Slater’ but every word, and the headline, had come from Graham or perhaps Graham’s client. It is for this that Slater gets paid.
“Carrick Graham is the main person, year after year, who has paid Cameron Slater most of his income.”
That particular attack on Sellman was in response to a news story Sellman had commented on about alcoholics stealing bottles of hand sanitizer from Waikato Hospital so they could drink the liquid, which is high in alcohol. Sellman commented that this is the sort of thing you’d expect in a society like New Zealand’s with a heavy drinking culture and “excessive alcohol marketing”.
The Carrick Whale Oil piece went for the throat:
“If there was ever a case of demonstrating once and for all that Professor Doug Sellman is mad, this article ‘Drunks steal sanitiser for alcohol’ proves it… any ounce of credibility that this guy once had has long-since evaporated.”
This is one of numerous attacks on Professor Sellman that usually result from him being quoted in the mainstream media on some alcohol-related story. But Professor Sellman isn’t alone in being targeted by MOD Squad hits. Epidemiology and biostatistics expert, Professor Boyd Swinburn of the University of Auckland, also gets regular mentions, as well as Professor Janet Hoek, marketing expert at the University of Otago.
As with climate change deniers’ attacks on climate scientists, the framing of the attacks is to label scientists “troughers” – living off the taxpayer, obsessed with amassing research funding by playing up risks to society to enhance their own research careers. A very cynical view of science indeed.
For Christmas of 2013, the MOD Squad even went to the trouble of creating an animated Christmas card featuring the faces of Doug Sellman, Boyd Swinburm and others dancing as Christmas elves with health minister Tony Ryall. The video was posted to Whale Oil’s Youtube channel, but who created it is hard to tell – Slater, Graham… or a woman called Katherine Rich??
The KR “hits”
Carrick Graham is a middle man. Who is he actually working for? Hager alleges that the client behind the Doug Sellman attack outlined above was Katherine Rich, the former National Party MP who is chief executive of the New Zealand Food and Grocery Council, which represents companies selling alcohol, soft drinks, tobacco – everything you can buy at a supermarket. Rich is also on the board of the Health Promotion Agency, which is supposed to, well promote health!.
Many emails are outlined in Dirty Politics that include the reference to “KR hit”, in other words, a pre-packaged blog post commissioned by Katherine Rich and sent to Whale Oil via Carrick Graham.
Hager asks rhetorically: “But why would a respectable person like her be involved in a snide attack on a university professor? The obvious answer is because it was in the interests of the big companies she represents, and could be done secretly.”
Other KR “hits” destined for Whale Oil all related to food and public health – there’s one outlined about Fonterra’s recall of bottles of cream in January due to E. coli contamination.
Hager: “Graham sent an e-mail to Slater with the subject line ‘KR – Fonterra (first thing in the morning)’ The prepared text, headed ‘Calm down, move on’, said, “Better circle the wagons… Fonterra is recalling a few thousand bottles of cream. Nothing strange about that, yet, as typical of most lightweight MSM journalists you’d think the plague had hit New Zealand… People need to calm the f**k down’. It appeared on the blog word for word first thing the next morning.”
Rich led the charge on behalf of the industry against mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid, cherrypicking scientific experts to support the industry view that fortification was unnecessary and potentially dangerous. This flew in the fact of a strong body of evidence to support the case for fortification, which is undertaken in numerous countries and which reduces neural tube defects. The Government opted not to require mandatory fortification, a big win for Rich.
Rich was interviewed last year for the New Zealand Herald’s 12 question series. Her answer to question 10 should definitely be read in a different light now…
10. Do lobbyists get a bad name?
They shouldn’t. New Zealand has a wonderfully open democracy, everyone can have their say. There’s no secret about the sort of issues industry associations work on. If it’s a consumer goods or food issue, I’ll be working on it.
To what extent big beverage companies are involved in funding the likes of Slater isn’t clear from the emails quoted in Dirty Politics. But the email exchanges between Slater and Carrick Graham suggest these companies were at least involved in coordinating some of the “hit” material. Take this exchange, which followed a TV news item featuring calls for a ban on energy drinks in schools.
Hager: “Slater sent an e-mail with a link for the news story to Graham, who replied ‘Yes, have forwarded to KR and Frucor.’ He said that Frucor would not do anything (‘they’re useless’) but ‘Coke keeps sending stuff to KR expecting her to do something (where we come in). Hit pending.”
No Joy in Dirty Politics
Carrick Graham has pay masters other than Rich, claims Hager, a situation that results in some rather funny contradictions. For instance, as Graham was lining up the hit on Professor Sellman, he was also allegedly working for Dominion Breweries undertaking a ” IL hit” against rival liquor company Independent Liquor, which sells ready to drink mixers. A series of posts slamming RTDs followed on Whale Oil, all ghost-written by Graham who as also had a go, via the blog, on plain cigarette packaging and anti-obesity efforts. Just to strengthen the facade, Carrick Graham maintains numerous anonymous commenter profiles, chipping in on the Whale Oil blog posts he himself has authored with such pearls as:
“Cigarette companies don’t kill New Zealanders. Which part of that don’t people understand. Anyone who thinks breathing smoke into their lungs is a good idea is a complete loser. People have a choice and the ability to think about this. Oh, and don’t try the pathetic line about children not having any idea what they are doing – that’s crap.”
According to Hager, Graham posted that under the name “Naylor” with the email address A tip of the hat to the anti-hero of Thank You for Smoking.
Surprisingly, there isn’t a coordinated hit-job identified for another common punching bag of the right – freshwater scientist Dr Mike Joy. That’s likely because no paymaster was there to write a cheque specifically to go after Joy. But that didn’t stop Slater from engaging in some pro bono work for his MOD Squad buddies. Here’s what he wrote in November 2012 on Whale Oil when the New Zealand picked up on the fact that the New York TImes had interviewed Dr Joy about the state of our rivers:
Of course the Herald Tribune cites Massey’s Eel Man Mike Joy who sucks on the tit of taxpayers as a paid up member of Massey’s academic Green Taliban.
My response is f*ck all this Green PR spin and crap. It ain’t worth a cent to NZ apart from giving santimonious pricks something to bang ourselves over the head with. It is all a 100% Pure Wank.
Three days later, PR man Mark Unsworth totally undermined Slater’s chance to earn a retainer for attacks on Joy, when he released an email he had sent Joy, attacking him directly. There was no pay day for Whale Oil but he covered it anyway:
Does it make a difference?
So is it worth it? Do Slater’s not-so-secret-anymore clients actually get value for money? After all, anyone reading Whale Oil probably knows what to expect on issues like tobacco and alcohol control, dirty dairying, climate change and the obesity epidemic. Most of the attacks on Professor Sellman were in response to quotes he made in the mainstream media. He had already had his say and the mainstream media continue to quote him widely. So efforts to discredit him seem to have failed.
However, what the strategy does do, something learned from Republicans in the US apparently, is that by feeding highly partisan stuff to the blogosphere, it makes the likes of Katherine Rich look so much more moderate when she submits her op-ed piece to one of the major newspapers – which she does on a regular basis. She comes across rational and evidence-based compared to the Whale Oil rants.
It also allows any little tidbit – the fact a scientist is going to a conference in an exotic country for instance, to be turned into a “trougher goes on taxpayer-funded junket” hit on a blog, something that wouldn’t be likely to get traction in the mainstream media.
Ultimately, we are better off for knowing some of the tactics used by these people and the linkages between them. Next time someone orders a “hit” to run on Whale Oil, it will be that much easier to trace back the chain of command and see where the money is coming from.
The impression I’m left with I having read Dirty Politics, is very similar to that expressed by Andrew Geddis and Danyl McLauchlan - that these are toxic people who seem to revel in the nastiness of what they do – just like Naylor’s MOD Squad did. I get that these are quick-witted, cynical, occasionally funny people. I used to chuckle form time to time over the blog posts of Cactus Kate, another Slater hit collaborator who has been outed in Dirty Politics. But this isn’t just about ego and winding up their opponents. It is about an ideological campaign to attack anything that stands in their way, with money changing hands along the way to sustain the attacks. I think we always had a sense this sort of stuff probably went on, but the reality of it laid bare in these leaked emails is jarring and disturbing all the same.
A lot of people in the scientific community are struggling to come to terms with the death of Antarctic historian and museum curator Natalie Cadenhead, who died at Christchurch Hospital on July 24 of influenza.
She didn’t get the flu vaccine, because, her husband George Rogers explained, she had allergies to certain medicines:
“Reflecting now, it probably would have been good to have her immunised, but being healthy and with her allergies, it seemed like the right thing to do.”
I didn’t know Natalie, but plenty of colleagues did. Natalie spent several seasons on the ice at Scott Base. Her research interests included aspects of the heroic era of Antarctic exploration, the TAE/IGY base buildings and Antarctic science. She was also responsible for the Antarctic object based collection at Canterbury Museum and was associate editor of Antarctic, the journal of the New Zealand Antarctic Society.
She was, I’m told, also one of the original members of the Science Communicator’s Association.
In a fitting tribute, friends and colleagues flew the New Zealand flag at Scott Base at half mast.
Natalie’s death is a reminder of the fact that the swine flu virus (H1N1) killed a number of healthy people when the pandemic hit in 2009.
This Science article from 2010 reports on research by paediatrician Fernando Polack of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee that suggests a reason why swine flu hits the young and healthy particularly hard:
After looking at lung samples from 75 young and middle-aged adult victims of the 2009 pandemic, they found an uncanny amount of a protein called C4d, a molecule that normally binds to antibodies to form virus-fighting immune complexes.
When antibodies fight a virus under normal conditions, Polack says, they call in C4d, a compound that can destroy viruses. In the case of flu, most people had antibodies to seasonally circulating influenza strains, but these antibodies were a poor match to the pandemic virus. Although they recognized the virus and latched on to it, they weren’t able to stop it from replicating, says Polack. When the antibodies and the C4d formed the immune complexes, Polack speculates that the system spiraled out of control. Instead of punching holes in the viruses, the immune complexes punched holes in the victims’ veins and flooded their lungs with water and plasma. “The immune system gets fooled into activating this particular immune defense, and it causes harm,” says Niranjan Bhat, an infectious disease physician at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center in Baltimore, Maryland, who was not part of the research.
This was less likely to happen in young children and infants, with few or no antibodies against seasonal flu strains, says Polack. And elderly people had antibodies to the H1N1 strain that circulated in the United States until 1957—a descendant of the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918—which are known to be a much better match to the 2009 H1N1 strain; so the flood of C4d generally didn’t occur in them. When the team looked at lung samples from victims of the seasonal flu, they found only trace amounts of C4d, which seemed to confirm their suspicions.
Natalie’s death is a good reminder of the importance of getting vaccinated in time for the flu season each year.
Below is a video that feature’s Natalie and Sir David Attenborough talking about Scott’s Hut at Cape Evans.
I was part of an expert working group that MBIE consulted, a group that was mainly made up of education experts, which indicates the strategy’s core focus – children and their relationship with science or the so-called STEM subjects (science, technology, education and mathematics).
That isn’t my area of expertise, so it was fascinating to listen to the experts debate the best way to get kids interested in those types of subjects in the hope that they will become the “curious minds” we need to do creative things later in life.
My job was to give input about engaging the public, particularly via the media, which is still the main channel where people get information about science – though increasingly new media and social media are the first port of call.
The Science Media Centre gets a mention in the report which I’m happy about. We’ve got some big plans for later this year which the Government, our funder, thankfully likes the sound of.
But here is what I told Sir Peter Gluckman and the rest of the panel – the media’s appetite for science is actually very good – as long as the science is presented in a compelling way and fronted by confident and media savvy scientists.
If we want better coverage of science by the media and therefore better understanding of the big science related issues by the public, the science sector needs to improve its game. Too many big science-related issues come up that, for a multitude of reasons, aren’t well articulated by the scientists that are best positioned to explain them.
Too many times we at the Science Media Centre are left scrambling around trying to find people to talk to the media on issues that are of vital importance to society, the environment and the economy.
So what I’ve been telling the Government is that the media will do better science coverage, when science does better media.
That means scientists need the support and encouragement of their institutions to speak out, to engage in science communication. They need to be incentivised – and required to do so, as happens in the US and Australia, where taxpayer-funded grants often come with science communication requirements and incentives.
We need to see a culture change in our universities and CRIs where the efforts of scientists to communicate their work and have input on the big issues when society most needs it, are recognised to a greater extent.
They need training and access to resources. There needs to be recognition of the fact that scientists may spend less time in the lab but more time making TV shows, leading citizen science projects and fronting to the media on controversial science subjects. Institutions need to set clear guidelines so that scientists who are engaged in commercial work, but are also funded by the taxpayer, are free to speak about the fundamental science they are working on.
I speak to too many scientists who are being told that being a scientist and a science communicator are not mutually compatible – that their career progression depends solely on the papers they publish, the science they do. Excellence in science will always be key, but the acceptance of that science by society and therefore the funding of it, depends on the ability of the science sector to engage the public in it. The SMC’s submission to the PBRF Review outlined exactly that argument and called for greater recognition of non-academic outputs, such as science communication.
The bits I like the sound of…
I’m pleased to see that the strategy actually does address a lot of these things.
- It calls for the Royal Society of New Zealand to develop a code of practice for public engagement for scientists. This should clarify the expectations on scientists and the rights and freedom they have to talk about their science.
- It allows for access to public engagement training for researchers – the sort of support and up-skilling that will allow scientists to more confidently communicate their science.
- It outlines a requirement for public engagement in the National Science Challenges – I was pushing for mandatory science communication requirements in National Science Challenges contracts, and evaluation of the science communication outputs. The strategy language is woolly: “Public research funding bodies will review and update the knowledge translation expectations for research contracts, and assess the current state of publicly relevant knowledge transfer…”
- A key aspect is the development of a participatory science platform – think a network of citizen science projects and tools that engage kids, their families and communities and scientists.
- There will be a contestable fund for outreach activities, particularly for hard-to-reach audiences.
- Initiatives to increase the profile of Maori researchers and their work.
I’m happy to see all of those planned activities.
The devil is in the detail, obviously. To what extent, for instance, will they result in the culture change in scientific institutions that promotes the type of science communication I outline above? Fluffy language in a National Science Challenge contract about “efforts to communicate the science” won’t necessarily cut it.
And the big question – how much funding will there be for all these activities? The participatory science platform in particular will not be cheap to do properly.
Until we know the answers to those questions, its hard to know how effective the strategy will be.
But what we have here is similar to strategies overseas, such as the Inspiring Australia initiative which had some really good aspects to it. Every country is trying to figure how to better engage society with science. This is a pretty good plan, the details of which will hopefully clarify how much resource will be available and the requirements placed on the funded parties.
I asked people on Twitter what they thought of the strategy – here are some of the responses…
At page 8 of A Nation of Curious Minds & I’m in despair re the crap writing. Let’s not let science literacy to come at the cost of literacy.
If you like listening to science podcasts, you’ll love the live shows that are coming up in Auckland and Wellington featuring Dr Chris Smith who leads the merry band of scientists and journalists known as The Naked Scientists.
Chris was an early pioneer of science podcasting, starting The Naked Scientists in 1999 as a podcast and radio show. It has grown in popularity to become of the most listened to science podcast in the world.
Now Radio New Zealand National, and BBC Radio 5 Live’s ‘Naked Scientists’, in conjunction with AUT University and the Science Media Centre, are producing two lively one-hour shows in Auckland and Wellington based on the Naked show.
Dr Chris Smith and Radio New Zealand’s This Way Up host Simon Morton will be co-hosting the shows in front of live audiences in the two cities, showcasing the best in New Zealand science and technology to the world. There’ll be interviews with some of New Zealand’s leading scientists and live demos.
The Auckland show will be broadcast live on Radio New Zealand National, and material from both shows will be featured on BBC Radio 5 Live, and The Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Here’s more about The Naked Scientists:
The Naked Scientists are a media-savvy group of physicians and researchers from Cambridge University who use radio, live lectures, and the Internet to strip science down to its bare essentials, and promote it to the general public. Their award winning BBC weekly radio programme, The Naked Scientists, reaches a potential audience of 6 million listeners across the east of England, and also has an international following on the web.
Each week, listeners of all ages and backgrounds tune in on a Sunday evening to hear creator Dr. Chris Smith, together with his entertaining sidekicks, interview renowned scientists and researchers from all over the world and take science questions on any subject live from the listening public.
In addition to the radio show, the group has organised Naked Science at Borders, a public lecture series enabling the community to attend informative presentations given by some of the UK’s most celebrated scientists. They have also put together this website to allow the radio show, lectures, and much more to be accessible world-wide. According to Dr. Smith, the basic goal of the Naked Scientists “is to help people enjoy science as much as we do and, at the same time, to have fun.”
Both events are free and open to the public, but seating is limited at both venues. So please register using the links below to ensure your seat.
12-1pm Saturday 9 August 2014
The Wave Room, AUT University, Sir Paul Reeves Building WG, cnr Mayoral Drive and Governor Fitzroy Place
To register your seat via Eventbrite: Auckland: The Naked Scientist Live
Wouldn’t it be great if more New Zealand science was give the Naked Scientists treatment? We’ll be offering New Zealand scientists who want to try their hand at podcasting, the opportunity to learn some tips and techniques from Dr Chris Smith in free science podcasting workshops we are hosting in Auckland and Wellington.
If you are a scientist in New Zealand, or involved in the science system, this should be very important to you. The document lays out the priorities for funding, as the Government sees them, for the next decade of public investment in science and innovation.
It covers things like the National Science Challenges which are just getting off the ground, Callaghan Innovation, the Primary Growth Partnership, the Marsden Fund, the Centres of Research Excellence and business R&D grants. These are all things the Government is currently doing, and which it will continue to use as tools for investment in the next decade. Some of them are also things I hear a lot of scientists grumbling about for various reasons.
Everyone seems to have a different idea about how best to leverage science dollars for the good of the country. For instance, at the launch event, one scientist told Joyce that if the Government wanted to make a real difference with its science investment it should double the size of the Marsden Fund which is funded to the tune of around $52 million a year. Joyce said that may well be true, but the case would have to be well made because it would require the funding being taken from some other area of science investment.
Well, at the moment we have the chance to make that case or any other case for science investment. The “draft” in the document title means that the strategy for the next decade isn’t yet set in stone and everyone has until August 22 to give feedback on it.
The feedback form is available here - fill it out and get it back to MBIE to have your say.
In addition, next week I’ll be chairing a panel discussion here in Wellington on the future of New Zealand science funding featuring some pretty experienced and opinionated people giving their views on where science funding should be invested.
I’ll be asking them plenty of questions – if you can’t make it along (see details below), leave your questions in the comments below or send them to be privately via the contact form and I’ll make sure to put them to the panel…
Shaping our science system, a SCANZ panel event
Wednesday 30 July | 5.30pm, 6pm start | members $10 non members $20
Royal Society of New Zealand 11 Turnbull Street, Thorndon Wellington
Does investment in science influence society? Can we really expect it to meet New Zealand’s economic, social, environmental and cultural needs? Is it the level of investment or the areas in which the investment is made?
On 22 August consultation closes on the government’s draft National Statement of Science Investment, a document that sets the scene for a discussion about New Zealand’s science funding strategy for years to come. What does this mean for scientists and the average New Zealander?
Join SCANZ for a panel discussion that will examine the issues from a range of viewpoints.
The Government is seeking a wide and open discussion about the shape of New Zealand’s science system, so come along and be part of the conversation.
Panellists Professor Adam Jaffe, Director Motu Economic & Public Policy Research
Wendy McGuinness, Founder & Chief Executive McGuiness Institute
Dr Ian Ferguson, Departmental Science Advisor at the New Zealand Ministry of Primary Industries, with a joint appointment with Plant & Food Research.
Panel chair: Peter Griffin, co-founder of Sciblogs and Science Media Centre manager
NIWA’s research ship Tangaroa has spent the last few weeks in dry dock at the Devonport Naval Base where it is receiving an overhaul that will set it up well for many more voyages of discovery.
But the inclement weather in Auckland has hampered efforts to get a fresh coat of paint onto Tangaroa’s bottom.
Said NIWA’s operations manager John Hadfield:
“Fortunately the antifouling paint on the under hull (the part that sits under the water) was in very good condition and required minimal preparation before re-coating. However, above the water line, on the topsides, we get marking and minor damage to the coatings from, wharves and scientific gear that is deployed over the side. This requires remedial work to be carried out.
“We are still hopeful that weather conditions will allow us to get a full coat on the blue topsides before Tangaroa departs the dock on the 15th July.
“We have had a paint expert from Altex Coatings calling the shots on when we can paint to ensure it bonds and then lasts. If the wind gets up we can’t spray paint and even on a fine day, if there is high humidity we can’t paint.”
Along with a new paint job and other maintenance, a $1 million sub-bottom profiler is being mounted in a pod on Tangaroa’s hull. The expensive piece of equipment, known as TOPAS PS 18, allows scientists to identify marine sediment layers up to 200 metres below the sea bed.
Tangaroa leaves dry dock on July 15 before heading for the Tasman Sea.
As a kid heading north out of Auckland on holiday road trips I used to love going past the big satellite earth station near Warkworth.
For decades, the earth station, which was built by the New Zealand Post Office in 1971 and is owned by Telecom, formed a major link for voice and data communications and even broadcast TV links to other countries.
With the Southern Cross Cable and other satellite connections available to it, the earth station has been surplus to requirements at Telecom for years, but the landmark will live on as a research installation for AUT University’s Institute for Radio Astronomy and Space Research.
The earth station is sited just a few hundred metres away from a 12-metre radio telescope operated by AUT on land also owned by Telecom.
Use of the 30-metre dish is a boon for AUT’s Professor of Astronomy, Sergei Gulyaev, as it significantly increases the collecting area and spectrum range its radio telescope can access.
What is the team looking skyward for? Galactic nuclei, star formation, the Milky Way’s centre, cosmic masers and gaseous components of our Galaxy are some of the things they are studying.
The dish is now a major piece of research infrastructure for the New Zealand science system, with the dish working in conjunction with with Australian radio telescopes to form the long-baseline array.
The Institute is also using the dish as a base for some interesting commercial work. As Delwyn Dickey from the Rodney Times reports:
The Warkworth facility is also the last one in the Pacific before the Mauna Kea Observatory 7000km away in Hawaii.
This has led to IRASR picking up a 10-year contract to track the Space-X vehicle servicing the International Space Station as it heads across the Pacific
The Institution of Professional Engineers has an interesting background article on the construction of the Warkworth satellite earth station:
The first step in the project was to select a site. This was not an easy task because of various considerations. The criteria included screening from other radio transmissions, such as radar, a good horizon to enable a clear view of the sky, easy access for power, a communications link back to the international telephone exchange at Auckland, access to mains power supply, and good weather without excessive wind speeds. A site north of Auckland was also preferred to avoid the antenna having to ‘look’ through the aircraft flight paths and holding patterns associated with Auckland International Airport. Good rock foundation conditions were vital as well, in order to support the 2,300 ton weight of the 30 metre diameter antenna with its massive reinforced concrete pedestal.
Sciblogs is the biggest blog network of scientists in New Zealand, an online forum for discussion of everything from clinical health to climate change. Our Scibloggers are either practising scientists or have been writing on science-related issues for some time. They welcome your feedback!