Live Chat #2: Scientific Outreach and Advocacy in Latin America- October 27 12 p.m. EDT

[cebacio]

So. I tend to think more on culture and technology production. For ex. A simple citizen can be super creative just possessing the necessary knowledge to innovate. Even if he doesn’t manage or work at añ innovation center. Just by having a more scientific thought (about scientific method. Hypothesizing, testing and all). And access to info. I guess this would be a connecting piece to both increase of scientific discussion, creation and production in society.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson has a very interesting saying about this which is: we have to incorporate the way scientists think into general education, and into the many sectors of society. This would create the environment to happen what I described above.
So an education that is more concerned in also teaching how knowledge is produced and how to produce it would be, in my opinion, key for a more scientifically literate population

[amendez86]

Same happens in Uruguay. The actors that give public answers come from different places. Medical societies are most time not close to basic research, so lots of opinions appear. There is a really hard time to make clinical research coherent and close to basis studies…this does not help on coming up with unified consensus on what the role of science is…this has an impact on how to raise money and how to address societies

[maria_quintero_escobar]

Yes Gladys, thanks! That’s true… I was thinking that scientists won’t forget that science is for society, so our questions would be connected with general public needs… And it seems to me we are also assuming what others want to know when we address particular questions… but I can’t see a clear connection with society’s questions and needs (as we imposed those needs to them somehow).

[gabmh89]

That’s a really excellent question, I’m not even sure how can we get to know what the general public needs to know. I can think of one word: feedback. Probably most of the public have questions but doesn’t have the enough information to ask.

[gladysmaestre]

ANdres, iff you post a very very controversial issue, that is related to Neuroethics. How much should we know before Neuroscience is used to establish or modify legal aspects?
There are several roles for a scientist in the society. One of such roles is as arbiter, other is almost like a translator. All are needed!

[erickloi]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson was already cited here. Maybe we could see some reason to talk about celebrity scientists and their impact on science outreach. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/a_brief_history_of_scientific_celebrity

[vtramire]

You are right Cesar,
And that why, we, the PhD students need to be in touch with the new generations to try to communicate the science concepts.

[amendez86]

Cesar, When talking about education One concern on this is that how knowledge is produced is a complex topic. A country needs really well formed teacher trainers, teachers, professors, to address this. And many times this issues are not addressed in countries with other big problems or concerns. The question of “who teaches the teachers”. Scientist are a really low percent of the population and not all concerned with social aspects.

[gladysmaestre]

Cesar, I think that now days there are so many strategies to reach those who in other times were called “unreachable” like rural populations, people with special abilities or mental conditions…what do you think of social media, SMS, the entertainment industry -including music and musicians- mass media rol in science dissemination?

[Raquel Maria Campos]

I think in case of change leagal aspects not only neuroscience information should be relevant. Other areas as economy, sociology and others must give their opinion too

[erickloi]

In the case of cancer, I can even understand, as there is a passionate or desperation factor involved. But the in case of science in general, the public image of scientists should be of confidence. We can’t let people start to think about us what they think about politicians.

[amendez86]

I think the best lines of researches are those who really listen to Population needs or interests and not only concern with what is being oublished around the world. At least if you are intending to be heard in your countrry. For example, if you study Alheimer, maybe the first thing to do would be to get to get together with SoCal scientists and calculate prevalence, and then diagnostic priblems, altogether with other projects regarding basic sciences. This will give the line of research much more attention from general population than if you just run a line about mitochondrial damage in Alheimer with no other kind of research.

[gladysmaestre]

Again, framing is very important. Why you want to communicate something. Always think about that, this should shape your discourse, presentation, story. What is the effect you want to cause. Now days, there is so much information everywhere that just providing more information is not a good enough reason!

[eva_ramos]

Yes it is true, it is not only happening in Brazil, I am from Spain but permanent resident in Chile and I am fed up with the public media that always has sensacionalist messages, like we found the cure of Alzheimer, Cancer…

[quimtox]

I think the main question is…Who decide what the general population need to know. The press? Or the scientists? Or the general population per se…

[gabmh89]

What you are saying is that if I study depression and anxiety, get more envolved with that community?

[thaysbr]

I agree with the idea of explain how the knowledge taught in the classroom was produced, highlighting the scientific researches that generated it. This creates the notion of scientific method and a way to see the world and the information that you receive. In addition, community projects disseminating topics of interest, as those relate and relevant to public health or education are good options.

The problem, in my view, is that these activities are not highly valued by the market or financial support agencies, staying in the background as a professional goal for many! Futhermore, these activities need collaboration between researches rather than individual work, needing a mutual engagement.

[gladysmaestre]

Andrea, one thing is to communicate with the purpose of bringing more attention, and perhaps funding to the disease of interest. Other thing is communicating because you want to change something in your audience. This is basically, the main difference between advocacy and outreach.

[gabmh89]

Not more information, probably the right information for the right people. Like Andrés said, getting involved with the public you are interested in.

[gladysmaestre]

A more practical set of questions would be, Do I want to contribute to the public discussions around xx? Why? How would I do this while I am still in the early stages of my career?

[eva_ramos]

I am talking about both, it is a matter of equity but also I am concerned about young scientist, your choice is better if you know about you are choosing.

[cebacio]

I guess for general public to use comunication tech to discuss science. The discussion motivation has to be in them in the first place.
So, considering we are talking about a pop that has access to it in the fist place, I’d get back to the education strategy. The next step is public using the tools to access info and interact (discuss maybe? ).

[erickloi]

My previous work was in basic science. There were no diseases involved or any perspective of a new treatment of drug to be released. To my colleagues it was easy to explain my research, as they know the importance of basic science. But it was hard to explain to my friends or family, or the rest of the world, the reason I was studying that. What I used to do was to extrapolate the results to the future, where that knowledge would be useful in a target discovery for a disease treatment.

[Raquel Maria Campos]

One thing that lead me to choce a science career was the contact I had with science. I went to museums, expositions and science fair. This push me to go research something, maybe if I had nerve contact this, I would not chose this career

[gladysmaestre]

Thays,
yes, public engagement activities are highly collaborative. You can not do it alone! Bring your peers first, your academic community. To lead initiatives like that you need enthusiasm and dedication. It needs to make sense in your situation, what you get out of it. It is not a train built, this is true for Latin America and the Caribbean, and it is like that everywhere!

[CelesteR]

Hi, to all of you. I think that in the last time, there is a bigger concern in letting the general public kwon what scientist are doing. During my PhD in Italy I was able to participate in “open Days” (one day each year the doors of every lab in the city were opened and prepare to explain what we were doing) and there are some other activities were all the research groups of the city prepare stands in the main square and represent very easy the research lines. Nowadays in Argentina, I think we are beginning to do it, some Research centers are starting to open the doors, and letting the school and people to enter and discover that science is more normal that what its seems.

[amendez86]

At least in Uruguay, during bachelor, science carers have almost no social courses. Almost everything is science. No courses on where financial support comes from, or why should sociey finance studies, or what is the role of science. Then many students have no idea where to look when getting there undergraduate degree.

[gladysmaestre]

One issue that I would like to bring is the issue of Confirmation bias: the tendency to look for information that supports what people already believe and to dismiss disconfirming information.
What to do?? this is one of the things why round tables, discussions, music, movies, work much better with the public than lectures. Bringing people with diverse viewpoints together is one way to resist confirmation bias.

[cebacio]

I think this would be a political matter that needs scientific consult, more than any other thing. But I agree with you.

[gladysmaestre]

Celeste, that is great! Transparency is a way to attack certain perceptions of the public (from Frankestein to Jurassic Park!), so people may have more confidence in what we do!

[amendez86]

Yes. I agree with this. Here what many times happens is that people get together with others you are not an obstacle to what they think. There is no true discussion, and argument exchange.

[amendez86]

And many times round tables are organized in a way that there is no true difference in the speakers opinions.

[gladysmaestre]

It has been a pleasure sharing with you this time, I look forward to further comments and discussions on the so many different aspects of scientific outreach and advocacy in Latin America and the Caribbean. Please feel free to contact me at gem6@neurociencias.org.ve or gem6@cumc.columbia.edu.

[gabmh89]

That’s the key: Confidence. Transparency. We need to give the population the right information so the can have their own point of views very well made.

[thaysbr]

I also think that the scientific dissemination of these activities, as sharing the findings, the strategies that worked in a particular context, population and activity, would be a way to encourage and improve news actions. Most meetings already have special poster sessions to these topics, for example.

[CelesteR]

I think it’s also a way to show that we are working for the public benefit, and not spending the money of the state…
It’s also a way to show what we are doing and what we can do, and to attract the attention of potential sponsors that have nothing to do with science

[luluara]

Thank you for time. It was excellent to learn some aspects of scientific outreach.

[gladysmaestre]

You are very welcome, and look forward to learning from your initiatives to spread the word across our people!

[quimtox]

My university has a similar program called “open doors”. We receive several elementary and high school students and presented what we were researching. That was very rewarding. I think these strategies are a good way to stimulate young people to get more close to the science. And, maybe, in the adulthood they can interpretate all the science in a better way.

[maria_quintero_escobar]

Thank you so much Gladys. Your comments helped to fulfill somehow the need of purpose I feel we are looking for in our careers.

[cebacio]

These dissemination activities are valuable indeed. However, my critic to them is that they are too punctual in time, thus not presenting itself enough to the public. For me a more effective strategy would be to have a permanent project. This would create a long term action and, with time, maybe become more accessed as a cultural thing.
Of course, this requires a good amount of human resources that is difficult to recruit.

[CelesteR]

Well, It was a pleasure to share this online discussion, see you next time!
bye

[Marcos Aranda]

Hello everyone ! Andres , I agree with what you say. In Argentina , at least in the field we work , I think more feedback of information between researchers and physicians is necessary. I think a stronger interaction between scientific research and medicine is a good starting point for our investigations are reported to society