The premier of all the student films from the Science Communication course were held at the regent on Saturday, and the evening was a huge success. We had a lot of positive feedback on our film, most of which showed that it had achieved its aim of communicating the issues around the 1080 debate, as well as the science behind some of the arguments.

There are a lot of people in the general public who are aware that 1080 is an issue, and is a cause of a lot of debate. The aim of our film was to educate people on what the various issues, risks and benefits are around the 1080 debate, and explain the science behind them.

If you were not able to get the the regent on Saturday then I would be more than happy to supply you with a copy on DVD and then I would welcome any comments you may have.
If anyone would like to comment further on the 1080 debate, or obtain a DVD of our film, please check out our blog on http://www.1080documentary.wordpress.co.nz
or e-mail at 1080documentary@gmail.com

I would also like to draw your readers attention to the reply that was made by ‘geo’ to your article in the ODT, which I feel makes some very good points regarding the fact that
1) Communication needs to involve all parties, and so “telling” people the facts is not good communication.
2) Science is and always has been about debate. Would many major scientific breakthroughs have been achieved if healthy debate had not been encouraged?
3) With regards to “get the correct information out” – Who decides what is the correct information and what is not?
4) Effective science communication is about communicating science in a way that is engaging and interesting.

I would also like to add that science is rarely about concrete “facts”. As a scientist yourself you will be aware that most science, especially ecological science is about determining likelihoods based upon statistical modelling. Carrying out a survey which involves a few hundred birds will not gives us a 100% guaranteed “fact”, but it does give us a measure of risk or benefit.
By describing the issues, risks and benefits we have aimed to give people enough information that they can come to a more informed opinion on 1080, as opposed to people who “do not have all the information to make a decision on this situation, but do have their opinions”.

I couldn’t agree more.

This one appeared in the Aucklander (http://www.quitsmokingclinic.co.nz/aucklander-article.html) and although it wasn’t (as I recollect) marked as an advertorial, it certainly read like one.

They really are a blight on our journalistic landscape.