Engaging the Public with Science

One of the biggest parts of my Science and the Public class this year has been working with just those things. Science, and the Public.

The ways in which we bring science to the public have varied, but most often it has been work in our "service learning experience." Going out into the community (or sometimes even bringing the community to us) and participating in science related activities is a great way to spread knowledge and get people engaged.

Instead of just telling you readers about it, I'll give examples of some of the projects that I have personally been involved with.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Beginning with the start of the year, one of the first service learning experiences we had was having guest speaker Brian McHarg come in to teach us a little bit about how to engage with the public on an example topic of climate change.

We had to come up with different potential ways to engage with target audiences of different age groups.

It was actually a bit more challenging than I might've first expected, especially when thinking about how to engage with senior citizens.

One of the next things I was a part of was volunteer work experience.

Several classes of first grade students came to app to have a day of science related activities, and I had to manage several different stations throughout the day.

This example to the right was when I was helping the students look through microscopes to see their "geodes" (eggshells with colored crystals of salt and borax at the bottom).

A following project I was a part of was a community dinner that focused around sustainability.

A lot of people from the university and beyond came to have a completely waste free dinner with locally grown produce and compostable plates and utensils.

They also provided live music, played by university professors, which was really interesting to hear.







The next few projects focused back on elementary school students and participating in activities for them.

Here me and a classmate are setting up for a "treasure" game, where students have to solve clues to unlock the box to find what's inside.

The students are all working on opening their locks

They're trying to solve our clue, using pH tests to figure out which bottles contain acids. When they find them all, they match the symbols on the bottle to the symbols on the envelopes in front of me. These lead them to find the next set of numbers to unlock the next lock.

Here me and another classmate are performing the same activity with a different group of kids. This time in a local library.

It was a little different this time, as we used red cabbage juice to change the color of the liquid itself, rather than using pH strips to test acidity. It leads to the same results though.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Overall the service learning experiences were fun for me. I had a good time with most of them, and I could tell they were enjoyable for most everyone else involved. In my opinion, they were a very good way of getting the public (especially younger kids) interested in and involved with science.

Helping People Understand Science

Science has long been one of the "foundations" of a world based in logic and reason and its importance remains the same today. To look at things in a scientific manner has been the driving force behind some of the greatest discoveries of mankind. However, like all periods throughout history, science is (still, somehow) being contested in its legitimacy. Let's take a look at just one controversial issue...climate change. According to Skeptical Science, an Australian website dedicated to the skepticism of climate change skepticism, an astounding 97% of scientists agree humans are causing global warming, 2% don't say, and 1% disagree. On the other side, only 72% of normal Australians believe that global warming is cause by humans, 23% don't say, and 5% disagree. While an obvious majority of Australians believe it is caused by humans, a large amount of the population surveyed either weren't sure or disagreed, many more so than the percentage of scientists surveyed. (source for percentages - https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=31)

A reason why this could be is that the general population may not have enough information on the subject to create an informed opinion. They might rely on non-scientific sources to get information on something that should really only be looked at scientifically (like climate change). One way to explain these things to the general public would be through the vast and easily accessible medium that is the internet. YouTube alone has hundreds, if not thousands, of content creators that are solely dedicated to covering scientific topics in a very comprehensive manner.

Some of my own personal favorite scientific content creators on YouTube are listed below:
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
Smarter Every Day
Veritasium
Minutephysics
Periodic Videos (also, go check out Brady's whole slew of other science or math channels!)

Our Science and the Public class, however, has taken a more hands on approach than just watching videos on YouTube. One such tactic to help people understand science is an example like this very blog post. People on blogs are constantly giving updates on the latest science news and discoveries. They also might just cover anything that peaks their interest. Generally, these blogs are reliable and creditable, but sometimes they might be pushing a certain biased  agenda, so make sure you find a good blog to get your information!

Another way of helping people understand science was by hosting and attending a panel of scientists who were able to give information and respond to questions. It was probably helped in class by the fact that there were so few people, and direct interactions were easier to accomplish, but it still presented a very interesting way to engage scientists directly and ask them questions about their work.


(Our panel of scientists in the class)



Yet another example of helping people to understand science is to take it to the people directly, in this case, the youth. Several groups of first grade students from a local elementary school came to App on a trip, and some people from our class volunteered to help them do their science and understand the different parts of geology and paleontology.


(Me helping a first grader look into her microscope at her "geode")


I feel these experiences have greatly impacted not only the class, but all of those involved in them. I personally thought they were very good ways of getting information out to those involved, and show potential to be applied to nearly everything in science as a way to help people better understand it.

Big, Complex, Scary Words: The Rise of Chemophobia in America

The term "Chemophobia" has only been around for some 50 years (Chin, Flood, & Petrun, 2015). However, the fear of chemicals most likely runs back further than just a half century. Humans have been making synthetic chemicals for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Plastic, as an example, was invented in 1856, and it's use quickly spread across the industrial world (The Patent Office, 1876). And even before things like plastic were made, chemicals were being regulated in things like our food and medicine by organizations like the FDA, which had its beginnings in 1848 (Office of the Commissioner, n.d.).

But before we cover all of this history, and how it leads into the modern day, let's first cover some definitions. What exactly are chemicals? And what are the differences between "natural" and "synthetic" ones?

A "chemical," is defined as "a form of matter having constant chemical composition and characteristic properties" (Hale, 2013). Simply put, that means that anything that is made up of atoms and cannot be separated by physical actions (like, for example, trying to run them through a strainer) is a chemical. Water is, in fact, a chemical. A diamond is a chemical. Table salt is a chemical. Everything we see around us a chemical in some form or another. Only things that are not made up of matter at all, such as light, are not chemicals.

By this definition, the only separating "natural" from "synthetic" chemicals is how they are procured. A natural chemical is a chemical obtained through completely natural means. Oranges naturally contain Vitamin C, known by its chemical name as "ascorbic acid." Humans did not create the Vitamin C found in oranges we eat. However, Vitamin C can also be chemically synthesized from glucose (another "natural" chemical). The only difference between this Vitamin C and the Vitamin C found in an orange is that this Vitamin C was created by humans through non-natural processes (Reeser, 2013).

Here is a good diagram to show this distinction (it also includes ethanol, "the alcohol that gets your drunk so that means it's objectively more natural and more safe than other types of alcohol")

That's it.

It's the same Vitamin C, it's still just as essential for all of us, and our bodies will use it in the exact same way as it would as if we had just eaten the orange.

So why do people still separate natural and synthetic? Why are people afraid to use the word "chemical?" How did this come about?

There are several main players in the game of spreading something like chemophobia, and it all begins with the individuals who believe it. These people come in all forms, from normal individuals who want to be "healthy" to parents who simply want the best for their children (Chin, Flood, & Petrun, 2015).

By extension, the other main players in this game are the people who want individuals to believe in chemophobia. These people are often indifferent on the subject they write about, but simply choose to indulge in spreading misinformation due to external motivations, mainly in the form of social or financial gain (Marsh, 2016). For instance, this article on BPA being present in paper reciepts was not written by a chemist, but by a doctor. Another article about how beauty products could be killing you was written, again, not by a chemist, but by a personal injury lawyer. These people have no interest in the chemistry behind their claims, only that they make money or gain popularity.

But that still doesn't answer the question of "why?"

Researchers have done many, many studies to try to answer this question, and it seems to be linked to one thing...

Education.

Studies done involving mothers of school aged-children found that the more scientific language and jargon was present in chemical information and explantions, the more likely they were to develop negative feelings towards it. (Chin, Flood, & Petrun, 2015). Other studies done on the public found that those who were "suspicious" of chemistry (out of five groups surveyed) reported that 73% agreed that natural chemicals were safer than man made chemicals, compared to an average of 41% in the other groups, and that 50% believed that ALL chemicals are harmful compared to a 20% average from the other groups (TNS BMRB & The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2015).

These same "suspicious" people also reported that they were more interested in chemistry that only impacted their lives, such as food processing or chemicals used in everyday living.

I myself have even found that chemophobia is mostly related to things that go into our bodies. After going to Subway to get a delicious meatball sandwich, it strikes me that their motto is "eat fresh," referring to a want for its consumers to believe they are being healthier by eating "fresh" and "natural" ingredients. I even found that the X2 green tea I had bought from that very same Subway was covered in designs and marketing that showed off just how "natural" it was.

The ingredients on the can are listed as follows:
"Filtered Water, Cane Sugar, Glucose, Clover Honey, Natural Lemon Flavor, Green Tea, Citric Acid, Ribose, Black Tea, Salt."

Seems natural to me. Must be healthy. There's nothing else in that can.

But we can't just use one example to show off how natural a completely "natural" product is.

Let's move to something even more natural than a canned drink. What about a banana? A fruit grown on a tree, picked, and shipped to a store near you. Can't get more natural than that. So let's see what Kennedy (2016) has to say and take a look at all of the ingredients inside of a naturally grown banana.

Oh...









But I digress.

Where we stand today on chemicals is like all other misunderstood scientific topics. From GMOs to climate change, it's directly related to how educated people are on the subject at hand. Most of the population responded that the word "chemical" only applied to things that were synthetic, or that were toxic or harmful to people and the environment. (TNS BMRB & The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2015). Alongside this, 40% of the population agreed that "natural" chemicals are safer than synthetic chemicals.

How I see things, this is far too much of the population. Words like natural and synthetic chemicals are pointless. Chemicals are chemicals. Any and all chemicals of a certain type respond the exact same way, whether or not they were made by humans or made by nature. This idea of a "natural" lifestyle is only damaging to the scientific community, and impedes potential progress made. The most important thing that people need to realize is that the dosage makes the poison. Anything in sufficient amounts is deadly. The fact that, for example, certain plastics are found on receipts isn't something to worry about, as you only come into contact with this receipt for mere seconds, and only the tips of your fingers ever touch it. The amount of plastic you take in is comparable to nothing.


References and Websites

Office of the Commissioner. (n.d.). The History of FDA's Fight for Consumer Protection and Public Health. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/History/default.htm

Chin, H., Flood, T., & Petrun, E. (2015). Is it “Chemophobia” or Fear of the Unknown? IFIC Foundation Study Gets to Heart of Moms’ Fears About Food. Food Insight, 1–3. Retrieved from https://login.proxy006.nclive.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=109796441&site=eds-live&scope=site

Marsh, S. (2016, September 28) The rise of 'chemophobia' and what to do about it. Retrieved from https://coach.nine.com.au/2016/09/28/15/28/the-rise-of-chemophobia

TNS BMRB, The Royal Society of Chemistry (2015) Public attitudes to chemistry. Retrieved from http://www.rsc.org/globalassets/04-campaigning-outreach/campaigning/public-attitudes-to-chemistry/public-attitudes-to-chemistry-research-report.pdf

Greger, M. (2018, Novermber 28) BPA on reciepts: Getting under your skin.. Retrieved from https://www.care2.com/greenliving/bpa-on-receipts-getting-under-your-skin.html

The Patent Office (1876, July) Patents for inventions. Abridgments of specifications, Page 80. London, England: The Commissioners of Patents for Inventions.
https://books.google.com/books?id=0nCoU-2tAx8C&pg=PA255#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kennedy, J. (2016, June 10) ‘Chemophobia’ is irrational, harmful – and hard to break. Retrieved from https://aeon.co/ideas/chemophobia-is-irrational-harmful-and-hard-to-break

Reeser, D. (2013, April 10) Natural vs synthetic chemicals is a gray matter. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natural-vs-synthetic-chemicals-is-a-gray-matter/

Hale, B. (2013) Necessary beings: An essay on ontology, modality, and the relations between them. Ney York, NY: Oxford University Press. Available from https://books.google.com/books?id=L7poAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Console, R. (n. y., March 5) The ugly truth about beauty products: What's in your cosmetics could be killing you. Retrieved from https://www.myinjuryattorney.com/law-blog/the-ugly-truth-about-beauty-products-whats-in-your-cosmetics-could-be-killing-you/

Engaging Scientists in Public Discourse

(image curtesy of https://theinvisibleagent.wordpress.com/tag/science/)

Scientists are often involved in very complex and meticulous work, focusing on research or data collecting or some other...complicated science thing that they like to do. People outside of the science fields may not always understand what goes on behind those clean-cut curtains of scientific study, yet it's very important that they learn at least a little bit of what happens. However, learning what goes on in science is not a one-sided battle. The part of the public to become curious about scientific work may be imbalanced by a lack of communication on the part of the scientific community. If scientists wants to get people's attention, learning to engage with people is something just as important to learn about as their field of study.

One such way scientists can engage with the public is, by speaking at a panel. Luckily, I had the privilege of being able to attend one such panel in my Science and Public class. The panel consisted of several professors (all Dr.'s) who teach several different classes at App State (where I go to college). Dr. Scott Marshall, Dr. Jamie Leville, and Dr. Sarah Carmichael all teach Geology, while Dr. Andy Bellemer teaches Biology, and Dr. Marc Kissel teaches Anthropology. As with any panel, questions were asked and answers were given, but only a few things really stood out to me the most.
First, was the answer to a question about why they became scientists in the first place. The answer that was given was that they were not seeking to find answers in the world, but instead were simply interested in the discovery of new things, and the analyzing of collected data. I had never before thought about this as something that I was interested in as a part of science. I've always wanted to go into science for just the opposite, to find answers for questions that no answer has ever been found before. I can definitely see the reason why they answered with that. If you don't have a love for finding the new, and all the work that goes along with that, science may not be for you.

Another answer was given to the question something along the lines of "how did you know you wanted to become a (whatever type of scientist the person who was answering was)?" The thing that shocked me the most was that a majority of the scientists there seemed to say that they never knew they wanted to work with what they do until they tried it. Some even studied completely different things before finding what they work with today. I, on the other hand, have always known I wanted to become a scientist ever since I was little. I have changed what type of scientist, and what field of study as I grew up, but I've always known I wanted to be a scientist. Right now, I'm set on Archaeology, but if I am to learn from them, maybe I will find it's not what I'm meant for. Who knows?

What I'm trying to say here though is that I do feel scientists need to learn to better interact with the public about their work. Instead of focusing on getting that next article in that one journal, maybe work on talking with kids, teens, or young adults about exactly what it is scientists do. Show them that scientists can be anyone, and are just as real and down to Earth people as you there, reading this blog post. Showing the simple and human side of science is what I feel would work best to help get interest from the public. From there, show the findings science are coming up with.

Bad Data (and Good Data Turned Bad)

(Provided by "worker" from "openclipart.org" created 2015-12-08)
Scientific data is represented and called upon a lot in modern times. Everywhere from books to internet articles to TV news stations will use graphs, statistics, and any other legitimate enough looking data to provide their audience with information they want them to know.

However, there are problems with this supposed "scientific data" that people can often miss...if it's presented to them in a certain way.

Let's start with the example of Climate Change, and a good graph from a credible source to back up the claims that human caused climate change is steadily and dangerously warming the planet.


Figure 1
(Data source: Reconstruction from ice cores. Credit: NOAA. Found on climate.nasa.gov)

Figure 2

(Data source: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Credit: NASA/GISS. Found on climate.nasa.gov)

These two graphs provide clear, clean, and simple data and show an obvious trend in not only the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (Figure 1), but the rising temperature as well (Figure 2), Figure 2 even being taken from a yearly updated and currently live feed from Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

These two graphs are reliable. They are provided by a scientific institution that uses pure numerical data to represent their information.

However, not all graphs are given in such scientific and clear ways.

Take for example, the graph below.

Figure 3

( Posted to Twitter by National Review (@NRO) at 4:36 PM - 14 Dec 2015)

Just look at how little the average global temperature has actually changed! (according to the graph) Guess we won't ever need to worry about anymore.

While obviously Figure 3 a satire of graphs used to show climate change, the graph itself is still a perfect example of what is considered "Good Data Turned Bad." Inputting the average annual global temperature data onto a graph is still technically showing the data, but manipulations can be made to that graph to make it appear as though the data isn't significant. In this example, National Review scaled up the Y-axis of the graph (temperature in degrees Fahrenheit) to a massive level, beginning at -10 at the bottom and working up to 110 at the top. Of course, on this scale, the temperature change is going to be an essentially flat line. However, if one were to scale down the Y-axis, there would be a very clear, and even drastic, upwards trend between 55 and 60 degrees from 1880 to 2015.

All in all, it's not a bad thing to trust data. Numbers can't lie to you. But, you should be on the lookout for any data that may be represented wrongly, or by a potentially biased source that wants you to believe what they're trying to tell you. Learning to spot the difference between good and bad data can help you gain more and better insight and knowledge for the future.

Wine to Water (And Mountains to Mountains)

(Image from https://www.winetowater.org/)

Being there for Mountains to Mountains was a very emotional experience.

The first thing I felt was a sense of empathy and sadness at the hearing of the destruction left in the wake of the 2015 Nepal Earthquake. I remember sitting at my computer on that day, the 25th of April, and going to YouTube to watch some videos. I remember seeing a particularly interesting video at the very top of the page.

"Hit by Avalanche in Everest Basecamp 25.04.2015"

I remember watching the video, and being absolutely stunned at what I had just seen. I remember looking up more about it, and reading a news report on how 22 people had died in the avalanche, making it the largest Everest disaster in history.

Hearing about that earthquake brought back that memory immediately, and for the rest of the seminar I was captivated by the people and their work in Nepal. To see them bring fresh, abundant water to a remote village with a major lack of water access, and to actually see and hear the people who were responsible for helping several thousand in Nepal get fresh water following the earthquake was inspiring to me. To know that they were able to coordinate and bring a team together with supplies and help those in need as soon as they could was just...it made me happy.

Following that, the speech given by Doc Hendley almost brought tears to my eyes. His personal story moved me in a way I can't describe, especially to hear how he met his wife, and how he "doesn't belong with a girl like her." It reminded me greatly of my own girlfriend, who is almost 3 hours away in Chapel Hill right now.

Besides that though, the major things I got out of this was just the feeling for the drive to do good and help people, all around the world. The feeling of knowing that you are improving not just your own life, but everyone's' lives is something to strive for.

Science and I

(Image from https://slidex.tips/download/the-good-companions-seniors-centre-4)

My experience with science has been something that has spanned my whole life. One of my earliest memories of something related to science was a little plastic solar system toy I had as a kid. It had cartoon pictures of the planets on it, and you could press down on the planets and it would say their names. I remember sitting with this toy and looking at the planets, and wondering to myself "what do they actually look like?" I didn't want to see the little cartoon planets anymore, I wanted to see actual pictures of them, or maybe even see them with my own eyes.Of course, at the time, I was too young to know what the internet was and how to use it, or else I would've just looked up a picture of them.

Science is now a much larger part of my life, physics being what I plan on majoring in, and my fascination towards science has only grown since my childhood. Not every part of science is something I'm willing to study and put time into, but just about every field of science definitely has something neat to offer to learn about. How do jet engines work? What exactly do plants do with the CO2 in the air? Why does concrete need steel reinforcement? Simple questions that people don't often stop and take the time to think about. These are things that interest me most, and I'm always willing to take the time to open up google and find their answers for myself (from credible sources, I might add).

This natural curiosity is the largest part of my experience with science, and the world in general. I would even go so far as to say that curiosity is one of the most important aspects of being human. Maybe that's a little bold of a statement though. I'm just glad that I have a sense of it.