…and, together, we kick off the World Science Festival, this morning at Columbia University during a world-class Science Summit. Really, no joke! I’m included among the “125 leaders from science, business, government, media, and academia who will explore how today’s scientific discoveries will shape tomorrow.” (Columbia’s homepage news.)

(I did have to squirrel my way into this invitation. Finally, the old cheerleading uniform came in handy.)

“The 21st century will be shaped by science,” said Brian Greene, co-founder of the World Science Festival and professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University. “From the enormous challenges we face and opportunities we have available, science will be the critical driver. To make informed decisions, we need a general public that is not put off by science; rather, the public needs to be excited by science and prepared to engage with its implications for the future.”

The Festival seeks to transform the public perception of science by producing high caliber, entertaining and thought-provoking programs–for five days throughout New York City–that make science exciting, accessible, compelling, and inspirational. That’s Brian’s stated goal for the World Science Festival. A terrific goal and one we should all support.  

I hope I have an opportunity to share some thoughts with Brian and the 123 other leaders in the room. Engaging the public in science is critical and helps us make better decisions, particularly when it comes to science policy decisions. But we need authentic opportunities to inject our values and opinions into important discussions of science and science policy.  Let the public, us, displace the lobbyists. Scientists and policy makers can and should do more to trust the public’s desire and capacity to participate in real science activities and discussions. I’ll bring the empirical data with me just in case they don’t believe me.

Speaking of trust, if they haven’t already yanked the mic from my hands, I might suggest that we need more reasons to trust science in spite of the recent abuses by government and industry–and some scientists–covered in this book which I’ve read, and this new one I have yet to read, among many other publications. Depressing stuff, really.

Let’s move back to the happier, more optimistic approach, shall we? The World Science Festival!

I am hopeful Brian can generate enough support from the very public he is aiming to inspire, to help him rattle the old dog–the old model of scientists, lobbyists and government locked behind closed doors to determine important science policy–and motivate all involved to create a transparent and inclusive, forward-thinking science policy process. A process that trusts the voice of the citizen. Let’s hear those voices!

Not sure where to start or what to say? If you’re in the NYC area this week, find your voice at any one of the 40 public events of the World Science Festival beginning Thursday, May 29 through June 1.
If you go, report back about your experience! I’ll be sure to post highlights from the kick off Summit right here.

There’s another way to voice your opinion, of course. Sign the Science Cheerleader’s petition to reopen the Office of Technology Assessment, a terrific nonpartisan legislative office that provided sound science policy advice to Congress.  ”Hey, hey! What do you say? Let’s reopen the OTA!”

Cheers!

The X2 Project, sponsored by the National Academies and the Department of Defense.  An opportunity to play with the big boys!

The creators of the X2 Project, a collaborative forecasting experiment, understand the future is shaped by all of us. The old model–small groups of rocket scientists, CEOs and politicians determining our future–is crumbling. That’s a good thing because that model eroded public trust and contributed to the current, incestuous state-of-affairs when it comes to science policy (and science education, one could argue).

Get to the good stuff, you say? Ok! 

I asked X2 Project’s founder, Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, to give us the low-down on this wild experiment. Here are highlights of our chat. Note: You’ve got to log on and participate! I did. Such fun and I’ve earned three points so far. Log on, you’ll understand.

Science Cheerleader:  Kindly summarize the project in terms I can understand.

Alex:  This is an effort to forecast the future of science and innovation: what new ideas or research areas are going to impact our future; where is this most likely to occur in the world; what will future scientists–researchers, entrepreneurs, independent scientists or citizen scientists–think about their prospects and the future of science.

SC:  Why can’t you just call a professor at MIT and ask him for this information, like they did in the good old days?

Alex: Because we live in a different world which is increasingly changing from the bottom-up, so to speak. Today, so-called citizen scientists, people from all walks of life, can use scientific instruments to monitor everything from rainfall to rainforest destruction and high school students can manipulate DNA. Science is more accessible now than anytime in recent history.

SC: GO!!  How can the X2 Project benefit me, I mean, society?

Alex: At the broadest level, society benefits by better understanding the futures it has to choose from. Everything we do as individuals or as members of a community affects the future; but too often we either don’t think about what our actions could mean, or don’t have the information to fully explore the consequences of our choices.  More specifically, X2′s benefits could come in a few forms. For our sponsors (the National Academies and the Department of Defense), it’s a chance to get a handle on big trends and disruptions that could be important in the future, with an eye towards making smarter policy. For scientists, I hope it can turn into a resource they can turn to when making big career decisions. And for the general public, it’ll be a place to contribute to and think about the social and economic impacts of scientific trends.

SC: How can we participate? And, it’s free and easy, right?

Alex: Yes it is. And there are a couple of ways you and your audience can get involved. First, we are always looking for “signals” or things that are happening in the sciences that people think are the leading edge of important new trends or disruptions. Anyone can become a member of X2 and add signals.  We are also organizing a series of online games exploring different possible futures for science. These are open to anyone. In fact, the more varied perspectives we get, the better the game.  People who are really enthusiastic, or have a good eye for interesting trends, can become more deeply involved in the project by writing forecasts, participating in mapping workshops, etc

And, here’s my favorite reply from Alex: I think what we’re creating here is a platform that could have uses we haven’t yet imagined, by people we haven’t thought about–teachers, journalists, advocates–anyone who wants to participate and who could benefit from having access to tools that help them think more systematically about their future.

Now that’s teamwork in science! Cheers.

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.

Recently, I came across the Technically Speaking website, which takes a look at the benefits and challenges of developing a more tech savvy citizenry. The website is a project of the National Academy of Engineering whose mission it is to “promote the technological welfare of the nation by marshaling the knowledge and insights of eminent members of the engineering profession.”

I invited Greg Pearson, a senior program officer at the National Academy of Engineering, to share his insights about public engagement in science and technology. He agreed. (Thank you, Greg!) So today, I present to you the Science Cheerleader’s very first exclusive–hooray!  

(I invite all visitors to reply with questions and comments. Oh, and check out Greg’s reference to the game “Decide.” How cool!)

From Greg:

Public engagement in science and technology should be a no-brainer.

Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, an informed citizenry is necessary to the maintenance of democracy.  And to be informed in the 21st century, some level of scientific and technological literacy is needed.  Put in more blunt terms, if we don’t make an effort to understand the influence of science and technology on our lives, then we probably get what we deserve.  (Global warming, anyone?)  

Engagement requires at least two things:  a basic level of understanding of the issues at hand, and a way to communicate our concerns to people who can do something, such as legislators, government officials, industry CEOs, social activists, and the media.  While there is very real satisfaction-and value-in taking individual action (like swapping out your incandescent bulbs for compact fluorescents), really big change often requires action at a higher level.

Effective engagement faces challenges.  Surveys and other data suggest most Americans have a relatively limited understanding of science, technology, and engineering.  But there is evidence that people can self-educate quickly when they have a reason to, such as when diagnosed with a serious illness.  The Internet has made it possible for anyone with a computer and modem to become, if not an instant expert, at least informed enough to ask intelligent questions.  There is no limit to what we can, and perhaps should, ask questions about. 

You get a sense of the scale of the “big” issues facing the nation (and, really, the world) by examining the list of “grand challenges for engineering” recently published by the National Academy of Engineering (www.engineeringchallenges.org).  Of course, being informed about science and technology can help us navigate the complexities of our day-to-day lives, too.  Ought we to eat GMO foods?  How private are our Internet communications?  What kind of recycling really makes sense? Given fuel prices, what kind of new car should I buy?

Unfortunately, Americans currently get few opportunities to weigh in on the larger debates involving science and technology.  There are a few exceptions, such as locally organized science cafes (www.sciencecafe.org), which encourage informal dialog between technical experts and those without a technical background.  A group of informal learning centers in the United States has designed museum-based forums to support public discussion of nanotechnology (www.nisenet.org/forums). And the game Decide (www.playdecide.org) provides a framework for collecting citizen input about controversial S&T issues.  

 

A good case for why we ought to know more about science and, especially, technology, is presented at the Technically Speaking website (www.nae.edu/techlit).  As this site makes clear, the challenge of developing a more tech savvy citizenry in significant, but it is an important goal to be aiming for.

 

Being plastic on the outside is tacky.  But plastic on the inside might be a killer. 

A couple of weeks ago, the National Institutes of Health sided with an independent scientific panel expressing concerns about some possible effects of bisphenol A –an ingredient in plastics–on the brains of fetuses, infants and young children. 

Bisphenol A is found in practically everything we use on a daily basis from reusable food containers, to plastic baby bottles to the interior linings of soup cans. 

On April 18th,  the Canadian government announced plans to ban the import, sale, and advertising of plastic baby bottles containing bisphenol A (the rate of exposure to infant brains is greater than the exposure to larger adult brains). The chemical can disrupt estrogen activities, has been linked to obesity and is suspected of impairing normal brain development.  

 The FDA and other regulatory authorities worldwide, the plastics industry, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Grocery Manufacturers Association say plastics containing bisphenol A are safe. The ACC says media coverage of the controversy is “unnecessarily confusing and frightening the public.” 

Certainly confusing. Who’s a girl to trust here? 

And most definitely, frightening. According to this statement ”Recent studies have confirmed that bisphenol A exposure during development has carcinogenic effects and produce precursors of breast cancer.” Yet neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency nor the International Agency for Research on Cancer have evaluated bisphenol A for a human cancer connection. What gives?

Confused and frightened citizens are demanding answers.

The good news is there are lots of smart people looking into whether or not bisphenol A is harmful to us. I’ll keep an eye on this and report back on developments.

In the interim and in response to consumer concerns,  Walmart and Toys-R-Us are pulling from their shelves plastic baby bottles made with bisphenol A. Whole Foods already did in 2006. Playtex Infant Care is distributing one million free no-BPA “Playtex Drop-Ins Original Nurser Systems” bottle liners. And  the Energy and Commerce Committee is looking into how and why the FDA approved this chemical. 

And here’s what you can do, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer:

For suspect plastics in general

• Avoid placing hot food or liquids in plastic containers. 
• When heating in a microwave oven, use only cookware labeled “microwave safe.” 
• Buy products in cardboard cartons instead of plastic containers.
• Check recycling codes for clues about plastics components you may want to avoid: Recycling code 7 may mean the product contains bisphenol A. 

For bisphenol A

• Look for “BPA-free” claims on toys, baby bottles and containers. 
• Reduce use of canned food.
• Avoid polycarbonate and PVC 
• If you use hard polycarbonate plastics (Nalgene bottles, baby bottles, sippy cups), do not heat or use them for warm or hot liquids.
• Do not wash polycarbonate plastic containers in the dishwasher with harsh detergents.

For phthalates

A group of compounds called phthalates has raised concerns similar to those involving BPA.

• Look for phthalate-free toys or those approved by the European Union (EU).
• Plastic wraps generally should not be heated or placed in a microwave oven.
• Avoid synthetic fragrance in personal-care products. 
• Check nail polish labels.(Phthalates are used in some nail polishes to reduce cracking.)

I just read this article currently featured on Scientific American Magazine’s website examining the risks and benefits of the so-called Science 2.0, also known as Open Access Science.  

“Science 2.0 generally refers to new practices of scientists who post raw experimental results, nascent theories, claims of discovery and draft papers on the Web for others to see and comment on,” writes M. Mitchell Waldrop.

Are we witnessing a potential, fundamental shift in how science will intersect with society in general?

Although Science 2.0 aims to create a platform for scientists to collect, share and react to knowledge, the greatest (accidental?) outcome may be a new era of public trust in science.  Because Science 2.0 is accessible to anyone on the Web,  research and conversations –so often confined to laboratories and academic conferences–are accessible to the public. Anyone interested can tap into the conversation.

Back in the Ben Franklin era, science (or “philosophy” as it was known) was as much a topic of dinner-time conversation as sports and politics are today. Somewhere along the line, science was delineated from the masses. (I don’t know enough about the history of science to explain why. If you do, tell us! How did this happen? Who did this? We want names!)

Unfortunately, the separation of science from the public resulted in our current state of illiteracy and mistrust.

Science 2.0 might just be the ticket needed to enable scientists and citizens to ask questions,  express concerns, and exchange viewpoints. Right off the bat, I see two critical items needed for this to happen:

1) Context: Science 2.0 might benefit from a moderator of sorts. A translator to bridge the communication gap between the public and the scientists, and between the (often super-specialized) scientists themselves.

2) The science establishment will need to feel comfortable practicing what they preach: science builds upon science; the sum is greater than its parts; think global. And focus far less on issues of copyrights, authorships and the barometer of “credible” science: publishing research in peer-reviewed journals before breathing a word to anyone else. 

Can we use Science 2.0 to travel back to the future where discussions of science are as commonplace as guessing who will be America’s Next Top Model?  

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