Wednesday, 6 September 2000 Workshop Sessions - Day three of the conference was devoted to workshop sessions. Their purpose was to gather together leading
scientific and industrial researchers to generate new collaborative research proposals and to target appropriate funding opportunities. Workshop Sessions:
Alternative Antifoulants - Mary Sue Brancato and John Toll
The TBT Legacy - Chris Frid
The Public Understanding and Awareness of Science and Technology - Stewart Evans
Wednesday, September 13, 2000
– After the intense meetings of the first two days, organizers were not expecting a big turnout for the workshop sessions. They were
pleasantly surprised to find that more than half of the delegates at ENSUS 2000 were in attendance at the workshop sessions.Stewart Evans of the University of Newcastle was pleased with the turnout. He
welcomed the opportunity for "this super mix of people from different backgrounds to take the opportunity for collaboration" on important topics in science.
Delegates chose to attend and join in creating recommendations for three topics:
- Alternative Antifoulants: the need for fundamental research into antifouling science and technology; evaluating new generation antifoulants and
monitoring their environmental impacts. Led by Mary Sue Brancato and John Toll.
- The TBT Legacy: What do we do with TBT contaminated sediments? Led by Chris Frid.
The Public Understanding and Awareness of Science and Technology:
What measures can be taken to make society as a whole more aware of scientific
issues and more supportive of scientific research? Led by Stewart Evans.
Workshop Reports: The Public Understanding and Awareness of Science and Technology:
What measures can be taken to make society as a whole more aware of scientific issues and more supportive of scientific research?
Chris Swanson of CQD Journal for the Maritime Environment Industry posted the report from this workshop. The following basic recommendations were made by members of the workshop.
Their desire in making these recommendations was to assist in creating an atmosphere of better communications between scientists and the general public.
1. Create Interactive Presentations by Scientists to the Public – In an effort to generate a more interactive approach and hence gain more interest of
science in the general public, it is recommended to provide Interactive Presentations to the Public. This involves a two step approach:
- Offer large group workshops on a particular theme, for example – Pollution in a local river. Focus group size should be about 300 and the presentations should include a question and answer session.
- Following the large group presentation, offer workshops on similar themes but tailored to certain concepts of the original presentation. These small
group workshops should be intensely interactive and are designed to allow for direct interplay with scientists, even hands-on interaction. Typical small
group workshops related to river pollution may be "what are my risks," or "the history of pollutant inputs," etc.
- The presentations should be targeted to a defined audience, but should never be designed to keep out or close the concept to anyone in the general public.
2. Better Train Scientists on Presentation Skills – Provide scientists with training in proper presentation skills. Teach scientists methods and techniques to
effectively communicate with their audience as well as with each other.
3. Open University Doors to the Public – this can be accomplished with a
number of specific recommendations such as:
- Dissolve the "Ivory Tower" mystique and avoid distinctions of "we the scientists" versus "them the people".
- Bring scientists into schools of all levels not to teach but to act as mentors and trainers.
- Create a University Post whose job shall be to interact with the press, the public and scientists. This person's goal will be to facilitate interactions and
understanding between the university and the public.
4. Train Journalists in Reporting Science – Steer away from present mass media trends of sensationalistic reporting. Instead, make sure examples of good
practice science are placed into the media. Examples of good practice science include opportunities where people become engaged in part of the scientific process and hence part of the democratic process.
5. Promote Public Involvement in Projects Collecting Data - Train citizen volunteers to become part of producing scientific reports and creating action plans
for further science. The benefits of direct public involvement in collecting data are:
- Raises the self-esteem of participating members.
- Opens doors to people – gives them a sense of belonging.
- Reduces the fear or misunderstanding between scientists and citizens.
6. Public Jury Concept – Gather together groups of non-experts to see presentations on particular issues of importance. The Public Jury would then make
an educated opinion or answer on the topic at hand. The goal of the Public Jury concept shall be to make sure science issues are put into the dialogue and debate of political issues. Return to Top of Page |
