Very exciting day here spurred by an article about Science Cheerleader’s efforts to increase adult science literacy in the Chronicle of Higher Education and today’s FOX News “headline news story” about our Brain Makeover! The traffic brought this site to its knees. Might still be slow at times.  Thanks for your patience and persistence. We should have it all fixed soon.
And, welcome, to all of our new subscribers!

Cheers,
Darlene

This morning, we officially unveil the Brain Makeover project in our quest to diminish the gap between science and society. (Check out George Mason University’s sweet announcement on their homepage.)

Watch the videos of the 76ers cheerleaders, read the accompanying descriptions by GMU’s Professor Trefil, then  take the quiz to see how you stack up against others when it comes to understanding how our universe works. Pass the quiz and you’ve scored yourself a very cheeky “I’m a science literate!” certificate.
Then, find out how you can apply your science knowledge and get involved in research projects and federal policy discussions.
Step one: give your brain a makeover. Get started!

It’s not an uncommon question, particularly after a speaking engagement when folks learn this site isn’t underwritten by a secret society of cheerleaders-turned-science advocates or sponsored by Final Net etc. The contributors and I do this because 1) we enjoy it and 2) it’s our personal passion to turn people on to science/engineering, get people involved in citizen science projects, and create novel opportunities for “average” people to weigh in on major sci/tech policy discussions.

We also have “day jobs”:  One of our writers has a PhD and works at the Department of Defense (Dr. Ohab also hosts Armed with Science). Nathan plays a key role in pushing engineering advancements out of the National Academies and into the public sphere. Stephen works at the Mind/Brain Institute at Johns Hopkins University while Sarah’s about to earn her PhD from UPenn in biochem and molecular biophysics (and she *just* got married!). Georgette, our newest addition, is a senior at UPenn majoring in Science, Technology and Society. We’ve yet to figure out what the skeptical cheerleader, Occam’s Razor, does all day besides daydream about cheerleaders and the Pittsburgh Steelers. Last, but not least, is my “project X” partner, Michael, who is a journalist and partner of a firm that helps major science publications transition to the web.

From time to time, I write for Discover Magazine but I spend more time in my role as senior advisor building collaborations to bring science to the public. For example, Discover is wrapping up the first of a multi-year partnership with the National Science Foundation I direct. The NSF sponsors a 7-part series of Discover round tables examining grand challenges of science and engineering, hosted by various museums and universities throughout the country. You can read about them in the magazine and online and view videos here. The NSF and Discover have extended the partnership to include a 4-part series on Capitol Hill titled “The Road to the New Energy Economy” and we’re working with the professional engineering societies IEEE and ASME to make this happen. The first event (June 18) took a sharp look at the scientific, political and economic challenges and opportunities surrounding BioFuels. The next one, July 16, will examine Energy Storage and two more will follow in September and October. I’ll post details here later. These events are free and open to the public. (Contact Events@discovermagazine.com if you’re interested in attending.) If you’re not able to attend the Capitol Hill events, no worries! The (very cool) summaries can be viewed here.

Cheers!

Today, Discover Magazine features the Science Cheerleader’s efforts to open a Congressional Office to provide sound science policy advice to Congress…equally important is the new emphasis on public participation in federal science policy discussions. 
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/03/31/the-push-for-restarting-the-congressional-office-of-technology-assessment/

And here’s a related story from Science Progress:
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/03/restart-ota/

Harnessing the Power of Citizen Scientists Congress should bring back the OTA, but this time with a prominent role for the public, especially the burgeoning numbers of citizen scientists. By Darlene Cavalier

Fishing for Answers The old Office of Technology Assessment had answers to Pennsylvania’s shad problem today. That’s only one reason why efforts to revive the congressional office are gaining traction. By Darlene Cavalier

Aw, I’m blushing. See Penn and Teller and watch as the Science Cheerleader wins her court case against the Status Quo to bring science to the PEOPLE!

When you have a few minutes, check this out. I hope you enjoy it! (If this doesn’t play on your computer, try this link.)

(Many thanks to the talented folks at Gyro Worldwide, Inc. and Backseat Conceptions.)

Here’s how you can take action–it’s SO simple and important. Spread the word if the spirit moves you!

And, how would YOU reply to these questions? Leave a response, below, for thousands to read and react to. Let’s get these parties started!

Seven Questions for the Congressional Candidates: (plug in your zip code to pester your local candidates to answer the questions…and see how some have already answered)

Find your candidates,
ask where they stand.

Zip Code:

It’s Sunday, May 11th (Happy Mother’s Day!) and I am very excited because my opinion piece on the proposed presidential science debate (“Science Debate 2008“) was just published in the Philadelphia Inquirer and already picked up by the University of Pennsylvania’s Newsweek.com feed and the National Basketball Association’s newsfeed.

Here’s the published version. Posted in its entirety below.   Let me know what you think. I’d like your opinions on my opinions.  Cheers!

Sometimes, when an event doesn’t happen, it’s significant news.

Last month, the presidential candidates did not gather at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia for a debate about the role of science in national policy and prosperity. An effort billed as “Sciencedebate 2008″ had promised to make that dialogue happen. It flopped. And not because the candidate’s weren’t interested.

By all accounts, the candidates took their lead from the public-which wasn’t connecting. Such apathy says much about the crisis in science literacy and citizen engagement in science.

ScienceDebate 2008 could have done much better in enlisting the public, in creating a true collaboration. Positioned by organizers as a “citizen-led, grassroots initiative,” the debate was supposed to open discussions too often confined to academe: the environment, health, medicine, sound science policy, and support for American research. An influential corps of organizers and co-sponsors had lined up, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, and more than 160 American universities. 

And it never happened.

Well, it should have, it still can, and I hope it does. The need for a real science debate is clear. Let’s make it a pocketbook issue: Roughly half the nation’s growth in GDP over the past 50 years has arisen from science-related innovation, yet the U.S. government invests less in all physical sciences research than IBM spends a year on R&D. The United States, long the center of science innovation, is producing fewer scientists. Lawrence Krauss at Case Western University projects that more than 90 percent of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia by 2010. 

Anxiety over China’s booming R&D efforts and concerns that we are losing our competitive edge are valid. Yet there is hope if we shift our thinking and decide to function as a unit: scientists, government and the public.

One way to respond is to involve the public, especially skeptical groups, in policy decisions. Bruce Gellin is the head of the National Vaccine Program Office. His office is developing safety questions about immunization _ and also making an effort to include vaccine critics in the development of the questions.  Other nations have been quicker to recognize the need to engage the public. The European Union and Denmark include public participation when setting national science policy, for example.

Sciencedebate 2008 failed in part because it did not try hard enough to include the public.  It seems as if this judgment, from the journal Nature, might fit: “For all that it claims to be a `grass-roots’ phenomenon, the proposed debate can be seen as an attempt by various elite institutions to grab the microphone and set the agenda from the top down.”

 Without public support, it is not surprising the ScienceDebate did not materialize. There’s a better way forward. Average citizens, untrained in the sciences, are clamoring to be engaged in science. A growing number of so-called “citizen scientists” are not waiting for an invitation, or hoping the next generation will improve on its dismal science literacy rates. Instead, they are jumping in to change the way science gets done. 

Citizen scientists monitor water quality, tag butterflies, count birds, record earthquake tremors, observe and record celestial patterns.

In July, news of Sky Survey, an international collaboration mapping a large section of the universe, spread over the Web. Within a few months, more than 100,000 volunteer citizen scientists classified more than 1 million galaxies. 

John Fitzpatrick, director of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology in Ithaca, N.Y, notes that as “more and more amateurs and the researchers they work with realize the potential, and people see that their contributions matter, the era of the citizen scientist will explode.”

The organizers of Sciencedebate should draw on the impressive energy of the collective science organizations to find new ways to engage the public. Trust the public’s capacity to learn, draw conclusions, and contribute. Invite the public to do science. Put a process in place so citizens and scientists can impart sound policy advice to Congress. 

Without public support, science policy will languish for the next presidential term and the next. 

Darlene Cavalier (darlene@sciencecheerleader.com) is a former Philadelphia 76ers cheerleader who studied the role of citizens in science policy as a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania. [Professionally] she  creates public science programs for Discover Magazine, Disney, Space.com and the National Science Foundation and is the voice of the ScienceCheerleader.com.

Our time has come!

As a kid, perhaps you wanted to grow up and be a scientist…and baseball player, famous chef, president, or first [fill-in-the-blank] astronaut.

Then came middle school and the emergence of hormones/testosterone and stereotypical overtures reminding you that science is for geeky boys or socially dysfunctional girls. High school just ramped all of this up but at least in middle school you did some cool classroom science experiments.

Some science-loving adolescents (like the Science Cheerleader) weren’t swayed by any of this, but couldn’t afford college, started a family or chose other careers.

Well, have I got news for you folks! People like us, untrained in the sciences, are clamoring to be engaged in science at rates unmatched since the days of Ben Franklin. A growing number of so-called “citizen scientists” are not waiting for invitations to participate in science policy discussions or hoping the next generation will improve its dismal science literacy rates. Instead, they are jumping in to change the way science gets done. And having a lot of fun in the process!

Citizen scientists monitor water quality, tag butterflies , count birds, record earthquake tremors and observe and record celestial patterns. Here are three good resource sites where you can learn about other cool citizen science opportunities: Terrie Miller’s Citizen Science blog, Cornell University’s Citizen Science ToolKit and the Society for Amateur Scientists.

In July, news of Sky Survey,an international collaboration mapping a large section of the universe, spread over the web. Within a few months, more than 100,000 volunteer citizen scientists classified more than 1 million galaxies.

John Fitzpatrick, director of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, notes that as “more and more amateurs and the researchers they work with realize the potential, and people see that their contributions matter, the era of the citizen scientist will explode.”

Are more scientists learning to trust the public’s capacity to learn, draw conclusions, and contribute to science discussions? It appears so.

I hope they invite the public to do more science.

An important step towards building teamwork between the public, scientists and the government.

Are you a Citizen Scientist? Tell us about your experience!

Where do you think the Citizen Science movement is heading? What does the future hold?

Cheers!

-The Science Cheerleader