This post is part of our ongoing “SMASH Reflections” series, authored by our inaugural class of Fellows. by Shaena Montanari With an event like SMASH, gathering science media professionals and scientists from around the world, it can be difficult to distill the incredibly action-packed week into take-home lessons—but I’m going to give it a try. As a Fellow of the conference, I had the opportunity to attend every session and talk to a diverse array of people. Through my lens as a scientist who is driven by a need to communicate, here are my three take-home messages from SMASH: Science communication is important and can drive change Despite questions in policy, the popular press, and even among scientists themselves around the utility of science communication, a major takeaway of this summit was that almost everyone working at the intersection of science and media agrees that science communication is important. At the end of the day, documentary filmmakers, podcasters, TV producers, journalists, thinkers, and scientists are all striving towards getting science out to every segment of the population they possibly can in extremely diverse ways. There is a wide world of media out there seeking to engage the public on different platforms. For me as a scientist, it is invaluable to learn how those in different forms of media view science and how to communicate it. From documentaries to podcasts, I realized there is a place and a need for experts to communicate their research with clarity and disseminate their messages. As a scientist, sometimes it seems difficult to connect with the public, but scores of experienced communication professionals are excited and energized by those of us who want to share our messages with the public—we just need to connect with them. Above all, SMASH brought home to me how important science communication is for advocacy and promoting curiosity in society. We heard from Dan Kahan from Yale University, whose research on science communication shows that scientific curiosity is intimately tied to the public’s understanding of often “controversial” topics like climate change and evolution. If we scientists can connect with the media to broadcast our message, perhaps we can increase scientific curiosity and change the world in a positive way. The world of possibility of science communication is enormous From the 30-second Facebook video to long-form documentary, there is no shortage of ways to share your science. While traditional forms such as the epic nature documentary will always have their place, new forms of media are taking over the world of science communication and reaching new sets of eyes on all parts of the Internet. As a scientist of the younger generation that essentially grew up online, the “Beyond Clickbait” panel at SMASH resonated the most with me. It highlighted how the world of communication is changing in general, and how scientists can ride the wave in this world of viral videos and Internet celebrity. Hearing from creators of YouTube series like Anna Rothschild of “Gross Science” and Joe Hanson of “It’s Okay To Be Smart” really drove home how new media on YouTube and Snapchat is the delivery method of science for the Millennial generation of thinkers—and beyond. Erin Chapman at the American Museum of Natural History is creating the series “Shelf Life” and revolutionizing the way a nearly 150-year-old institution communicates science to the public, while promoting the work of researchers who may not have previously had a voice. While the most popular videos on Facebook are now captioned because people aren’t using headphones, there is still space for immersive science media that captivates listeners—as we learned in the panel on podcasting. This panel featured unbelievably creative producers like Mary E. Harris of WNYC’s “Only Human”, who is personalizing health stories for popular audiences. And if someone only has a few moments to listen to a podcast, they can check out a 10 second Snapchat story, like those from National Geographic that change every day. I was genuinely impressed and inspired by the idea of transmedia—disseminating a message across platforms—and saw how vital it is and will continue to be to touch many different groups of people across the world. We have no idea where we might be in 5 years—and that’s the most exciting thing of all As science communicators, we are constantly evolving and changing how we disseminate our message. Where we will be in even 5 short years will likely be completely uncharted territory. The entire summit kicked off with a keynote from Director of the MIT Media Lab Joi Ito, who emphasized that what we think of as bizarre now, like self-driving cars, will become an accepted fact of life in at most two generations. In another panel, we heard about the uses of virtual reality and saw an award-winning use of this for medical education in HoloAnatomy. The scientists that spoke at SMASH are doing truly groundbreaking things— for example Steve Ramirez at Harvard University who is manipulating memories, or Kim Arcand from NASA who is visualizing the furthest reaches of the universe. These are just a selection of the scientists who are pushing the very bounds of the disciplines we’ve grown to accept. Both science and communication are going to new places at breakneck speeds, so not only do we need to figure out how to communicate boundary-pushing science, but we need to do it in a way that brings together design, science, and creativity. New spaces between disciplines are being created that innovators will thrive in—as Ito calls it: “antidisciplinary space”— and will likely create things we haven’t even dreamed up yet. There is a world of possibility and opportunity. We just need to keep unraveling it. About the author: As a Newton International Fellow at the University of Edinburgh, Shaena Montanari works on uncovering archives of modern and ancient ecology locked in bones. She is also a contributor at Forbes online, where she writes about paleontology, natural history, and comparative biology. She received her PhD from the Richard Gilder Graduate School at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.
0 Comments
By: Peter Hamilton We are enjoying a swing of the pendulum back to signature, big-budget documentaries, including science-based films. The biggest is the profound structural change in viewing from broadcast and cable/satellite channels to online platforms. The other driver is Financial. Let’s look at the shift in industry structure first. We are entering the “Post Schedule Documentary Economy.” US channel viewing has dropped around 20% in recent years, and much more among the most desirable younger demo. Channels are being challenged by SVOD (subscription video on-demand) platforms, particularly Netflix and Amazon, and now Hulu and Vimeo, as well as niche players like CuriosityStream. The SVOD platforms developed a programming strategy of acquiring and then commissioning original docs. The SVODs are expanding this strategy and commissioning more original docs. Meanwhile, the channels like National Geographic, Discovery and History had relied for many years on a schedule based heavily on reality series. But reality lost the leading-edge following it had earned when shows like Ice Road Truckers, Jersey Shore and Pawn Stars dominated the conversation around the office water cooler. The reality television era left another challenge for the networks: their programs had become commodified, and all-too-often interchangeable. Their once distinct brands had become diluted in the quest for a hit, character-based series. For example, Duck Dynasty could have been scheduled on several channels, and it muddied the A&E brand. There wasn’t much history on History. And National Geographic strayed from the promise of the famous Yellow Border brand with series like Border Wars. Now, in the “Post Schedule” economy led by Netflix and Amazon, channels that rely on factual programs need to return to their brands if they want to compete with Netflix, and the signature, event documentary is one of the keys to this process. Discovery, History and particularly Nat Geo are leading the effort to boost their documentary commissioning teams, and many of the less-distributed channels are following suit. What are the financial factors driving this trend? The SVOD era is dominated by big, scripted, multi-season series like House of Cards. It’s the binge-watching era! The platforms can only afford so many scripted series with A-List talent like Kevin Spacey, and documentaries are relatively affordable in comparison. Even a higher budget documentary is much less expensive than a scripted series involving even B-List stars, but brings along the passionate audience that B-Listers don’t. Documentaries also attract A-Listers as executive producers rather than as performers. Beginning with Netflix’s Virunga, Leonardo Dicaprio now seems to have his name on a half-dozen projects including The Ivory Game. Making a documentary to address social and environmental issues is part of the zeitgeist today, so A-Listers are really motivated to become involved. Celebs also raise the odds of winning that invaluable Oscar nom against hundreds of competitors. Another financial factor is that documentaries attract passionate affinity audiences who promote their favorite docs across their own press and social media communities. The message of The Ivory Game will be amplified through networks of conservationists, elephant-lovers, schools, and of course Dicaprio fans. To sum up, docs are financially efficient because they are relatively affordable to produce or acquire by SVOD platforms, and they bring along their own passionate audiences. Where is Science in the editorial mix in this ‘Post-schedule Documentary Economy’? The History and Science genres are the big winners. Archive based ‘event’ docs are nearly always about celebrities and historical figures with huge name recognition, and therefore the film is presold to the audience. And anniversaries are a big deal, because programs ride on their buzz. This matters a lot in a universe where there are thousands of channels, and networks can’t afford to develop and market a concept from a standing start. Of a recent sample of eleven productions announced by National Geographic Channel, Amazon and Netflix, five involve extensive use of the archive, and six are science-themed. They are Werner Herzog on Volcanoes, Leo Dicaprio on Ivory, a Katie Couric project on the Gender Revolution from Nat Geo, a Jane Goodall retrospective, and another on the global water crisis. Looking over this list of big, signature docs, there seems to be little room here for revealing and compelling but untold stories about unheralded scientists working on obscure scientific challenges. There’s not much of an opening for newbie and mid-scale doc creatives, unless the film has broken through at a major festival, or unless you control access to a stunning archive. The big signature productions are typically packaged by agents, include A-List talent, and are sold to the nets in advance. That is definitely a trend. Peter Hamilton directs Peter Hamilton Consultants, Inc. where he helps his clients to successfully develop, produce and market video content. With decades of experience in the documentary business, he’s a keen observer of trends in unscripted programming, captured in his weekly newsletter DocumentaryTelevision.com Peter will be leading the "Science Storytelling: What's Trending Now?" session at SMASH - the Science Media Awards & Summit. Passes are still available! Join us here: http://www.sciencemediasummit.org/summit.html We reached out to our Science Media Awards finalists with five questions about the experience of making their projects. Uranium - Twisting the Dragon's Tail is a finalist in five categories. Uranium - Twisting the Dragon's Tail is three- part series examining the history and role of one of Earth's most mysterious and dangerous rock - uranium. The series is a finalist in the Long Form Series Category. The first episode of the series, The Rock That Became a Bomb, is a finalist in the categories: Physical, Science Ambassador, Writing and Visualization. What inspired this story? It began with a mad commitment to tell a cracking story of the most desirable and hated rock on Earth. Uranium changed the world. It revolutionized physics and changed the way we think about the nature of reality. Uranium bent our culture. Uranium is the rock in rock- and-roll. Uranium has the power to take us into a future of clean, limitless energy, or kill every single one of us on this planet. Those are high stakes, and that’s a story that needed telling. Describe some of the challenges faced while making this film? Making the series was quite simply the most arduous, intensive, exhausting, dangerous and wonderful working experience. We shot the series in eight weeks in nine countries. Our crew was small, only five people, and they humped equipment up cliffs in Northern Australia in 45 degree heat. They rattled down a dilapidated Soviet mineshaft in a squealing metal cage in wet darkness, and they suited up with spacesuits and respirators and descended into lethal radiation zones. Shooting in high radiation environments has some unique challenges. The main danger in a radiation zone is time. In one place inside the Chernobyl exclusion zone, we were limited to only four minutes exposure to the intense radiation. It’s surprising how scary this can be. Walking in torchlight through abandoned underground buildings holding a shrieking Geiger counter concentrates the mind wonderfully. All in all, not an ordinary day at the office and not, ordinary film making. How do you approach science storytelling? Service the audience that you can count on to watch your film, but court the other audience, the one who isn’t automatically drawn to the subject. We apply dramatic principles to our stories. We thought of Uranium as many things, but mostly, as a character. Complex, beguiling, savage. And the series became an autobiography of this character. I think our audience understood this. This character thrilled them, scared them and intrigued them to watch three hours of science and story about a rock. Did the film team use any unusual techniques or unique imaging technology? We used a variety of animations to convey complexities of nuclear physics and uranium. What happens when an atomic nucleus splits? What is an element? Why does Uranium split? What is half-life? It was essential to illuminate these concepts for a broad audience, but it was just as essential that an informed audience be engaged and so, animated metaphor was used and the decay chain of uranium became a metamorphosis of baby dragons changing form. The dragon motif is a brave and radical departure from traditional rendering of uranium and it was discussed at length with our team of science advisors and physics experts. The magic realism approach is a gamble in films about science but one that we feel allows people – especially family viewers and school students – to connect and engage. All of our animations are deliberately quirky and fun and hugely entertaining because we wanted to make uranium clear and powerful and engaging for a diverse global audience. Why did you pick Derek Muller to be the on-camera host telling this story?
URANIUM – Twisting the Dragon’s Tail sees Dr Derek Muller hosting his first television documentary series. Derek is a physicist. He also has a substantial online presence that demonstrated to our team and our broadcast partners, an infectious enthusiasm for science. Derek unleashes a historian’s passion for detail, a physicist’s understanding of science, and a journalist’s nose for a good story. He loves science, but he also loves the poetry and the beauty of science. Derek took the audience with him on this journey. He invited us to wonder, and charmed us to listen. We reached out to our Science Media Awards finalists with five questions about the experience of making their projects. Invisibilia is a finalist in the Audible Science category. What inspired this story? Observation. For nearly a decade Alix Spiegel was reporting on mental health for NPR, and during that time, realized she was watching the tail end of a slow sea-tide change in the therapeutic community. While many therapists used to believe that thoughts revealed some inner wishes of the soul, and that following a thought to its source was the way to achieve insight and ultimately healing in a distressed person (an idea popularized by Freud), newer schools of thought challenge that notion and believe that a thought may not reveal anything at all about your inner wishes. As one therapist we interviewed, Dr. Tom Corboy, put it, thoughts "are just synapses popping off and we don't have to take them all so seriously." As Alix noticed that there was this quiet revolution going on in the therapeutic community about what our thoughts mean (by the time of broadcast, a majority of therapist offices practice CBT or "Third Wave Therapy" which do not believe thoughts are as revealing of inner wishes as Freud), she also realized that this seemingly subtle and small shift in how we see thoughts, could actually have huge consequences for how we live our lives. In her reporting on this, she met a man who suffered from extremely violent thoughts -- everywhere he looked he pictured people being stabbed or mutilated in horrific ways -- and was ultimately tremendously healed by a therapist who told him he could ignore his thoughts. In fact, this man received a kind of exposure therapy in which he was asked to hold a butcher's knife to his therapist's throat in order to "prove" that his thoughts had no relation to his inner desires and that he wouldn't hurt anybody. It was shortly after meeting this man, that Alix met Lulu Miller, and the two journeyed to visit the man with violent thoughts and try to tell his story, and more broadly, the 'secret history' of this revolution in what therapists think about thoughts. That first reporting adventure turned into a melding of radio styles that created their very first episode and ultimately set the tone for the kinds of stories they wanted to tell: mixes of narrative and social science that reveal to listeners new way of thinking about their own behavior. Press play for a clip of the upcoming Invisibilia season Describe some of the challenges faced while making this project? Blending our two techniques could sometimes be a challenge! Alix came from a more scripted and writerly background of piecing together radio stories (which she learned as one of the founding producers of This American Life) and Lulu came from a more conversational method (which she learned at Radiolab). There was a lot of forcing each other out of our comfort zones to try new ways, which wasn't always easy. We also had to understand who were were as 'co-hosts'. What was our relationship to the material, the listener, each other. In season one, we eventually settled on a sort of hybrid, in which the narration for the stories is largely written, but with the occasional raw conversational moment (a moment of teasing or authentic inquiry or confusion) popping through and blowing up the tightly orchestrated narrative. We also forced ourselves to take an improv class to get more comfortable playing around with our rapport. Which was fun. And terrifying. Alix Spiegel, Hanna Rosin and Lulu Miller: team Invisibilia How do you approach science storytelling? We try to always start with an interesting story. The kinds of human mysteries or dramas, or predicaments, that have always hooked listeners since the time of the campfire. And then bring in the science just at the moment where suspense has made a person really wonder. In the story of the man with the violent thoughts, for example, we turned to the science just at the moment where the man was wondering what these thoughts meant. He was so terrified that he was losing weight, suffering at his job, afraid to have knives in the house with his wife, and wondering whether he needed to check himself into a mental hospital. The thing he really needed to understand was, what do these thoughts mean. At that moment and only at that moment, do we turn to the scientists. In other words, we try to always make the science feel like a relief, a deepening of the puzzle, and never 'dutiful.' Never like class, or like 'vegetables.' What impact do you hope this project will have? Our biggest hope is that Invisibilia will make people feel a little less alone in the world. Revealing through story and science that there are other ways of approaching life. That they have more tools in their psychological toolbelt than they may realize for approaching the emotional challenges of life-- overcoming fear, for example, or strengthening relationships. Another aspect of the show is that we are not afraid to talk about the dark, or scary, or seemingly shameful things (violent thoughts, paralyzing fear, suicidal thoughts, concern one is going "mad," family struggles, etc). It's our belief that when you talk about these things (and hear about others talking about these things on the radio), when you shine a little light on this stuff, that it steals its power. We hope our stories will make people feel less shame, less stigma around the kinds of struggles everyone faces. What are the biggest challenges of an audio–only medium?
Is this a trick question!? We adore the audio-only medium of radio! Freed from visual judgments we believe that a listener can connect in a deeper way with the people in the stories. That said, every now and then, a visual is simply so stunning that radio can't do it justice. For example: a blind man riding a bicycle or removing his eyeballs from his head. An atom becoming temporarily entangled with another atom, right before our eyes. These are all moments we have included in our stories and without visuals, it forces us to be extra vivid in our descriptions. Sometimes, we surely fail to capture the visual reality before us. Alas. That's what video extras are for!
by Caitlin Kossmann
Our relationship with technology is always fraught. Each new social media platform gives us more ways to connect with people we know--and people we don’t--from all over the world. But each new development also provokes fear of increasing isolation and alienation. There have been many articles voicing concerns that technology makes us less social and less aware of one another's humanity (e.g. here or here). But technology can be a powerful empathy-building tool, as well, giving us access to other people’s experiences in new and more immersive ways. Here are three different examples of how technologies can be used to promote empathy and widen our horizons. 1. Virtual Reality: Bodyswapping to reduce racial bias
From the start, one of the major selling points of VR has been its ability to provide a convincing experience of being someone other than yourself—its ability to provoke empathy, in other words. Take a simple bodyswapping example. Several labs have been experimenting with ways to make participants feel ownership of a different body. This can be as simple as touching a hidden part of the participant's body (hand or face) while simultaneously touching a virtual or unrelated hand or face. Or it can be inhabiting a body of another race or even another gender through VR. It might not seem like a big deal. Simply changing the color of your skin in an only semi-realistic avatar, even if that avatar’s face is touched at the same time as yours, shouldn’t be that convincing, right? Yet Implicit Association Tests (IATs) have shown slightly decreased negative bias toward pictures of black faces when white subjects experienced “being” black with a VR headset. Controlling an avatar with a different skin tone by moving your own body may look more puppeteering than real bodyswapping. But it’s a powerfully simple model. Could we decrease racial bias across whole populations through just a quick VR demonstration?
2. Exoskeleton: Instant aging
An even more immersive experience of inhabiting another body has been developed by Applied Minds, LLC for Genworth Financial, Inc. The R70i Exoskeleton Aging Suit gives you the works. The 40-lb suit includes attachments to restrict joint movement, headphones that can simulate tinnitus (ringing in your ears) and aphasia (a speech impediment often provoked by stroke), and VR-simulated cataracts or vertigo. Restricting joint movement isn’t the same as the internal pain of arthritis. But the makers of the Aging Suit have tapped into a particularly effective combination, involving both brain and body in several ways. The exoskeleton makes you really feel the unresponsiveness of creaky joints or a damaged leg, giving you a full sensory experience of living in a different body. It seems to work: several participants immediately made promises to be kinder and more understanding of elderly people after the experience.
3. The Homeless GoPro Project
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gopro-project-claims-technology-making-people-lose-empathy-homeless-1445134
Here’s a project that argues both sides of the technology and empathy question. The Homeless GoPro Project in San Francisco aims to combat the decreased empathy that they argue is caused by technology with... more technology. Homeless participants wear a GoPro two hours a day and the footage is uploaded onto the web. The aim is to share the daily experience of being homeless in San Francisco with a wider population. The project leaders refer to this project as recording “extreme living”, a clear reference to the extreme sports the camera is more often used for. It is likely also an attempt to make the project sound more appealing. However, such a formulation highlights a potential downside: charges of voyeurism or a kind of disaster tourism. Founder Kevin Adler assures us he was aware of this potential from the start, and took steps to insure this project was pursued with all due respect. Still, awareness of a potential problem isn’t the same as solving it. There haven’t been any follow-ups to see if viewers found this experience to deepen their empathy, as it was intended to do, but Adler reports plenty of positive feedback, and an ever-growing community of people who want to help move the project forward and give the homeless a voice. So, can technology build empathy? Film has long been an effective medium for showing us a world and getting us to connect to others’ experiences. But it seems that affective empathy--really feeling what another person feels--is more easily accessed if we are given other clues to make it seem as if these problems or aspects are our own. VR has been billed as “the ultimate empathy machine” because of these immersive capabilities. However, how much any of these experiences will affect your actions, particularly in the longer term, is not clear. They certainly confuse our perception. But each of these examples is a mediated experience, and uses technologies still strongly associated with games and entertainment. The moment it stops, you’re back to being yourself. We’re still left with the question: does it work? In the moment, weighed down by the exoskeleton and reeling from simulated aphasia, you can’t help feeling empathetic for others who suffer this way every day. As that memory fades, will you still be able to hold on to that increased empathy? Without significant follow-ups to see if these modifications of thought and behavior stick, it seems too early to put too much faith in a technological fix for problems of social justice. But can technology change your behavior, individually? That one’s easy—try for yourself and see. SMASH attendees will have an opportunity to try VR for themselves on Tuesday, September 20 at 6:00PM at an immersive technology exhibition and reception. More information can be found on our website at www.sciencemediasummit.org. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter @scienceSMASH, and join the conversation using the hashtag #sciencemedia. Caitlin Kossmann is a production assistant for SMASH. We reached out to our Science Media Awards finalists with five questions about the experience of making their projects. Sonic Sea is a finalist in the categories Science of Life, Science Journalism, and Changing Planet. What inspired this story? Sonic Sea was inspired by the whales, dolphins and other marine life that are suffering and dying from our mindless sonic assault. Whales evolved over millions of years to favor sound over light. But the intense noises we’re making in the ocean with massive ships, oil and gas surveys and military sonar are killing marine mammals, driving some populations toward extinction and making it harder for many species to prosper. We can save these majestic creatures and restore the acoustic habitat they depend on for their survival, but only by raising global awareness of the problem and showing that there is real hope for a solution. Describe some of the challenges faced while making this film? The biggest challenge making Sonic Sea was that its subject – sound in the ocean – is both invisible and outside normal human experience. Whereas people depend primarily on their sense of sight, whales and many other marine species depend primarily on making and hearing sounds. In order to convey what their acoustic life is like, we used animations to depict sound visually, and also built a rich sound design based on thousands of actual underwater recordings. Our goal was to plunge the audience through the waves and deep into an ocean flowing with sound. How do you approach science storytelling? Our approach to science storytelling is first to ensure that we are accurate and fair. Next, it is to tell a scientific story in a way that is intriguing and suspenseful. Sonic Sea is therefore constructed like a crime drama. It opens with a mysterious mass stranding and mortality of whales. The story of solving that mystery – the investigation into what killed the whales and who was responsible – forms the central dramatic arc of the film. Along the way, other scientific findings about the behavior and impact of sound in the ocean provide moments of realization, wonder and amazement. What impact do you hope this film will have? Our hope is that Sonic Sea is emotionally engaging and scientifically informative enough to propel change. We can solve the problem of ocean noise pollution with better technology and policy. But that will only happen if a critical mass of people is aware of the problem and understands that solutions are feasible. Sonic Sea is being seen by millions of people around the world on Discovery Network and by tens of thousands of people in screenings targeted at students, ocean enthusiasts, ocean industry professionals, legislators and ocean policy makers. We believe the film has put the issue of ocean noise pollution on the table for discussion. Were there any surprising or meaningful moments/experiences you want to share?
Making Sonic Sea was an adventure because the film introduced us to fascinating people dedicated to understanding and protecting marine life. For instance, we visited Paul Spong, PhD., the founder of Orca Lab, a small land-based whale research station nestled against the evergreen forest of Hanson Island in the waters of the "Inside Passage" of northern Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada. Paul and his team use hydrophones to listen to and record orcas. They can identify every pod and even every whale by their distinct dialect and calls. Hanson Island is a remarkably beautiful and peaceful place and the lab’s work is adding enormously to our understanding of whales without interfering with their lives or habitat. Sonic Sea also led us to Ken Balcomb, the former Navy pilot and acoustics expert who proved to the world that naval sonar is killing whales. His work has led to extensive reforms in the way the U.S. and other nations use sonar in testing and training. Ken’s Whale Research Center, on San Juan Island in Washington State, is a perfectly situated post from which to observe whales in Haro Strait. The building is full of amazing artifacts, including several enormous whale skulls that dominate the main room and shock first-time visitors. One of the most satisfying moments in making the film was meeting our narrator, the wonderfully talented actress Rachel McAdams. When Rachel arrived to record the narration she told us she’d just watched the film a second time and that it had once again reduced her to tears. By: Kathryn Jeffords On Thursday, September 22, the renowned psychologist Steven Pinker and primatologist Richard Wrangham will sit down with Marco Werman, host of PRI’s The World, to discuss the past and future of violence in humanity. Their discussion may surprise you. Despite the perception of worsening war and global conflict, both scholars provide a reality check on our views of violence today. Here’s a sneak peek of what they might discuss. 1. Let’s Quit Romanticizing the Past When you ask them, virtually everyone believes that violence has increased over time. In fact, you've probably already read about a senseless act of violence or a terrorist bombing in today's news. In a time of ISIS, Syria, and 9/11, the claim that we are living in an unusually peaceful time may seem hallucinatory. However, the data disproves this on every count.* Steven Pinker argues that this information is fundamental to the human existence. Despite popular belief, we are actually making things better on Earth. Declines in violence are a product of social, cultural and material conditions. If these conditions persist, violence will remain low or decline further. 2. Media creates a sense of solidarity and interconnectedness but… It also allows the weak to look strong. Modern terrorist groups like ISIS seek publicity and attention to inspire fear. Terrorism is a form of asymmetrical warfare: a battle of the weak vs. the strong. Terrorist groups leverage fear and emotional damage that is disproportionate to the actual damage to our lives or land. According to Pinker, Americans are 300 times more likely to be murdered in an everyday homicide than in a terrorist attack, and 3,000 times more likely to die in an accident.* Unfortunately, the human brain is unable to accurately perceive the true risk of groups like ISIS. Fallacies in risk perception cause us to exaggerate threats and thus distort public policy. 3. In Areas Where Women are Empowered, There is Less Violence It’s very clear that in primates and humans, males are more aggressive than women. Richard Wrangham’s research shows that juvenile female chimpanzees use sticks as play things or sit with it while they are feeding. Juvenile male chimpanzees use them as weapons. As leaders, women are more thoughtful about the outcome of potential conflict; they are better at taking the perspective of the opponent and less likely to be ego driven.* For example Rwanda became the first country to have more women in the legislature. Pinker's research identifies feminism as an "angel of our kind," or a main factor in the decline of violence over time. Want to learn more about the science of human nature? Join us at the Science Media Awards and Summit in the Hub (SMASH) this September, where Marco Werman of PRI's The World will be leading the closing keynote with Richard Wrangham and Steven Pinker. Check it out here: http://bit.ly/1OgXfXD. Find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter @scienceSMASH, #sciencemedia. Citations: *Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New York: Viking, 2011. Print. *Wrangham, Richard. "Why We Kill" and "Powerful Women = Fewer Wars," online interview with Big Think. http://bigthink.com/experts/richardwrangham *Washington Blog. "What is the Real Risk from Terrorism in America." Centre for Research on Globalization. June 2015. http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-is-the-real-risk-from-terrorism-in-america/5454480 We reached out to our Science Media Awards finalists with five questions about the experience of making their projects. HoloAnatomy is a finalist the Virtual Reality category. What inspired this story? This story began with a new building. Case Western Reserve University is constructing a new Health Education Campus in collaboration with the Cleveland Clinic that will open in 2019. This campus will be the centerpiece of a new way to educate physicians, nurses and dentists. Right now, each of these different professions are educated in isolation, but are then thrown together in the clinic and often struggle to understand their part in the broader patient-care team. They’re not always familiar with the capabilities of their colleagues. This new building was meant to change that. Students will be educated together, and will come out of school as a team. Early on in this building planning, we committed to bringing our students the best possible technology. As part of this, our team was specifically tasked with finding a way to replace hundreds of years of anatomy education with digital technology. The augmented reality experience we’re showing this year is just a taste of the kinds of educational programs that we’ll be offering in this new space using Microsoft HoloLens. Describe some of the challenges faced while making this film? Nobody has ever had access to Microsoft HoloLens before, and nobody has ever taught a large class with this kind of technology, so nearly everything has been challenging. We’ve even had to develop a new language to describe what’s happening, for example, how do you describe what is “real” in a physical sense versus what is “real” in a holographic sense? It has completely distorted our view as to whether something is present in our space or not. Because of this, probably the most challenging part of the past year has been trying to explain our work to people who haven’t experienced HoloLens. It is a technology you truly have to see to believe. What impact do you hope this film will have? We hope this augmented reality anatomy experience will be a first step towards changing the way medical professionals are educated across the globe. Cadaver labs are incredibly difficult to establish and maintain, so if we are successful, this could provide access to high-quality anatomy and physiology education to all kinds of students. Longer term, we hope that this type of technology can be used to teach any subject at any level. Case Western Reserve University has committed to this technology because we truly believe Microsoft HoloLens is a key part of the future of education and research. Were there any surprising or meaningful moments/experiences you want to share? We have had more than 300 people go through our experience. Every time we ask people to walk from one side of the model to the other, 100 percent of the time, they walk AROUND our holographic person—even though he’s not physically there. It’s amazing how quickly our brains adapt to believing that this hologram is in the room with us. Another fascinating experience is siting without a HoloLens and watching groups of people interacting with holographic data. You see groups of people intently focusing and pointing at things in thin air. They are definitely talking about something that is real to them, but from the outside we see nothing. It is highly entertaining! What next? Over the next year, we will be continuing our educational developments. We will also be bringing this kind of experience into new and diverse areas, such as museums and manufacturing facilities. It’s amazing how much overlap we see in terms of needs and requests from very different disciplines and industries. Any tips for those interested in exploring VR/AR production?
Be prepared to make a lot of mistakes, but don’t stop trying new ways to approach the medium. This is truly a new way of seeing and interacting with the world, and we are far from having this figured out. Do a lot of experiments with people who aren’t on your team. They will give you insight you would never find on your own. By Caitlin Kossmann It’s almost the end of summer, and your summer reading goals have fallen woefully by the wayside. But it’s not too late to start now! Are you looking for something fun, something science-y, something deep and and insightful into what it means to be human? We’ve gathered a few of this summer’s releases to fulfill all three criteria: I Contain Multitudes: The Microbes Within Us and a Grander View of Life by Ed Yong HarperCollins (Ecco), August 2016 Just released today, August 9, I Contain Multitudes is the first book of renowned and prolific British science writer Ed Yong. He has written for Wired Magazine, Nature, The New Yorker, Scientific American, National Geographic, and The Atlantic, among others. Those familiar with his work will know that Yong has long been interested in the role of microorganisms in human health for a while, and this book is his deepest dive yet. Learn about all the roles microbes play in our health—not just in digestion, but in our immunity, providing immunity to infants via mother’s milk, our moods, and even our genetics. And we’re not the only organisms to have such intimate relationships with microbe. But I’ll let him tell you about that. Written in Yong’s accessible and humorous style, this hot new read will remind you that we’re all connected, and you’re never alone, even in your own body. The Human Superorganism: How the Microbiome is Revolutionizing the Pursuit of a Healthy Life by Rodney Dietert Penguin (Dutton), July 2016 Ok, so you respect Ed Yong. But if you want to go further into the science of this microbiome thing, try The Human Superorganism by Rodney Dietert. Dietert is a professor of immunotoxicology at Cornell University with several academic books on disease and immunity to his name. The Human Superorganism addresses much of what we’ve heard through the media grapevine regarding modern ailments—obesity, allergies, depression, even cancer—from a practicing scientist’s perspective. We aren’t just in a symbiosis, we’re an ecological system. And as any ecologist can tell you, diversity and species distribution matter for the ecosystem’s overall health. Dietert wants to tell us what we can do with this information, too, focusing on changes that could be made in health care as well as do-it-yourself tips for maintaining a happy community. Wow your friends with your new medical knowledge—and feel free to start using the Royal We. The Gene: An Intimate History by Siddhartha Mukherjee Scribner, May 2016 This one came out a bit before summer, but no science summer reading list would be complete without it. Mukherjee is a distinguished physician, scientist, and author of one of the most-read and best-written books on cancer out there, The Emperor of All Maladies (Scribner, 2010). He returns six years later for an equally moving and comprehensive look at the concept of the gene. It’s a carefully researched work of scientific and medical history, but it’s also deeply personal. Mukherjee weaves in stories of familial mental illness, and how their conditions drove his interest in understanding genes—what they are, what they do, how they do it. He also focuses on ethical and philosophical questions. If that sounds too heavy for a summer read, don’t get scared away! Mukherjee is one of our truly talented science writers. Not only does he have a firm understanding of science and medicine, and communicate it clearly, but he’s a good enough writer to scratch that literary reading itch. This one’s a tome, but, really, it’s worth it. Patient H.M.: A Story of Memory, Madness, and Family Secrets by Luke Dittrich Random House, August 2016 Another of today’s releases, Patient H.M. tackles the oft-cited but not deeply known story of Henry Molaison, a factory worker who became the most-studied subject in all of neuroscience. Known in studies as simply “H.M.”, Molaison suffered complete amnesia after undergoing brain surgery for epilepsy. Like Mukherjee, Dittrich writes about his personal connection to the story: Dittrich’s grandfather was one of the surgeons who operated on Molaison. If the previous suggestions weren’t soul-searching enough for you, give this one a try. Dittrich tackles the science of memory as well as the emotional resonance of memories through generations, melding a history of science with modern science writing and memoir. He raises thorny questions about human subjects in science—what do we do if taking inappropriate advantage of one subject led to important advances in neuroscience and subsequent patient care? This story is eerie and fascinating, with a touch of the tabloid exposé (the seedy underbelly of neuroscience’s history!), and it will keep you reading into the night like a good thriller. Want to learn more about the science of human nature? Join us at the Science Media Awards and Summit in the Hub (SMASH) this September, where Graham Townsley will be leading a session on “Being Human.” Check it out here: http://www.sciencemediasummit.org/programming.html. To register for the conference or learn more about SMASH, check out our website at http://www.sciencemediasummit.org. Find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter @scienceSMASH, #sciencemedia. Caitlin Kossmann is an assistant producer for SMASH. By Caitlin Kossmann Imagine growing up in the 1920s and 30s. You live in posh Beacon Hill, Boston, where your mother meticulously tends a beautiful garden. Movies are largely silent, and there is no such thing as the Internet. So what do you do on the weekends? For Beatrice Lowell, born in 1918, your mother takes you to see a new shipment of glass flowers, just sent over from Germany. Throughout her youth and teenage years, Beatrice went with her mother to the Harvard Museum of Natural History to see the famous collection of glass flowers. From delicate root systems convincingly clotted with dirt, to translucent petals, to cutaways of flower parts like magnified microscope slides, these exquisite models were a big draw. During the 1940s, some 250,000 people were said to come to the exhibit each year. The anatomical precision of these stunning artworks has captivated audiences and prompted an interest in the natural world since the beginning of the twentieth century. The flowers were hand-crafted by a Bohemian father and son team, Leopold and Rudolf Blaschka, between the 1880s and the early 1900s. Rudolf, the son, continued sending specimens to the exhibit until 1936, just three years before his death in 1939. All told, they made 4,300 models for Harvard. When these models were made, there were few ways to study plants.. There were live specimens, but they could die and were not always in bloom. Drawings and herbaria (plants pressed on sheets of paper) gave only a two-dimensional representation and tended to brittle with age. This is where the glass flowers came in. Although beautiful pieces of art in their own right, they could also serve as excellent scientific models. Unlike paper maché or wax, glass offered the appropriate medium to create highly accurate, detailed, three-dimensional models. Researchers could compare plants that might live in widely different places without flipping between book pages or traveling to different greenhouses. In their own time, the Blaschkas were more well-known for their glass models of marine invertebrates, which were explicitly made as teaching tools and research objects and not for museum display. In their own twentieth century way, Leopold and Rudolf Blaschka were early proponents of “STEAM,” or re-integration of the arts into traditionally rigid fields of science, technology, engineering and math. Their flowers are emblematic of this kind of multi-disciplinary combination. The flowers were originally displayed in long, upright cabinets. That is how Beatrice Lowell would have seen them. Today, the exhibit is constantly rotating. Pieces that have not been on display since the early 1900s have been dusted off and repaired, and will be slowly revealed over the next several years. (The insect pollinator series, out now, has some gorgeous honey bees almost the size of my palm.) Some seventy years later, Beatrice’s fascination with the glass exhibit has been passed down to her daughter, Blue Magruder, who is now the Director of Public Affairs and Marketing of the Harvard Museum of Natural History. This September, delegates attending the Science Media Awards Summit in the Hub (SMASH) will have unfettered access to the Glass Flowers exhibit, as well as a new gallery tour led by Jennifer Brown, Collections Manager for the Ware Collection of Blaschka Glass Models of Plants, on Thursday, September 22 at 3pm. Caitlin Kossmann is a production assistant for the Science Media Awards and Summit in the Hub (SMASH). For more science storytelling, follow SMASH on our blog, on Facebook, or tweet us @scienceSMASH. |
AuthorAs the curators of the Science Media Awards Summit in the Hub (SMASH), we believe storytelling is a common thread in our shared human experience, and that new media allows us to convey the wonders of scientific discovery in new and compelling ways. Archives
October 2018
Categories |