Last week, I gave a talk for the spring conference of the Heads of University Biosciences focused on how best to develop science communication to achieve impact from research. Here's the talk:
Today, the first evidence session of the Select Committee inquiry into Science Communication takes place at 215pm. The focus is the NERC team and the #BoatyMcBoatFace phenomenon. In a nutshell, this involved a research council inviting the public to name a new boat. The internets had a bit of fun and voted for the funny one, not the most historically serious and important one. In the end, NERC went with 'Sir David Attenborough' - who just turned 90 - but then the Internets campaigned for Sir David to change his name to #BoatyMcBoatFace. We all lolled. So, today, NERC is outlining what happened. Aside from that, here's what I submitted as evidence to the Committee.
To watch the live hearing at 215pm GMT, click HERE
Science Communication 2.0:
Priorities Going Forward
Written evidence submitted by
Professor Andy Miah, University of Salford, Manchester.
Chair in Science Communication & Future Media
Summary
1. Examine how the Research Excellence Framework ‘Impact’ category can be better audited to measure and reward science communication work.
2. Consider how best to embed DIY science communication into university training courses, particularly around using social media channels for communication.
3. Audit the work of university press officers and their relationships with science journalists.
4. Assess the extent to which science communication in public engagement events such as science festivals, meets the higher expectations of science communication – based around the ‘upstream’ model.
5. Find ways to support best practice in the science communication industry to diminish the economic black hole of such work, which relies heavily on the good will of scientists to undertake such labour.
6. Examine the involvement of citizen panels within funding councils.
7. Take into account how media consumption habits are changing for the younger generation – the next generation of science audiences – particularly around mobile media.
“the UK public are as enthusiastic about science as they have ever been”… but misconceptions about how scientists work, concerns about how well science is regulated and a low level of trust in mainstream science journalism.
To understand why a lack of trust in science media is apparent, it is crucial to come to terms with the dramatic changes in media consumption and communication that have taken place over the last decade. Furthermore, it is important to take into account how science communication has evolved methodologically and whether science journalism responds to this effectively enough. This submission of evidence focuses on the following key points:
· The Impact of Media Change
· Recognition and Reward for Science Communicators
· The Expansion of the Science Communication Sector
In 1985, the Bodmer Report highlighted the importance of science communication through public engagement and, since then, research in science communication has flourished, with the creation of dedicated scientific journals and University Chairs in the field emerging in several institutions around the UK.
Research discoveries have drawn attention to the inadequacies of the conventional model of science communication, which assumed a deficit in the public’s comprehension of science that needed to be filled. This assumption has been criticised heavily for inadequately characterising who are the public and for its presumption that they lack knowledge. Furthermore, this unidirectional approach to science communication is now considered an inadequate basis on which to educate. Instead, learning must involve more than simply receiving information, and integrate aspects of participation, experience, and co-production.
These insights have led to a shift from ‘deficit’ to ‘dialogue’, which recognises the importance of conversation, which is now a core part of what science communicators are doing – not just explaining work but, but conversing with audiences about it and involving them in the production of findings – as evidenced by the rise of citizen science projects.
Within the field of communication, more generally, we now see the consequence of this shift, particularly in how the media industry has evolved (Miah, 2005). Today’s dominant media are those that prioritise sharing and co-production of content. Notably, social media has transformed the media ecosystem and, along with it, the expectations of audiences. Traditional formats of journalism must find ways to adapt, but this is just beginning to happen. Examples of such platforms as Storify, Snapchat, and Facebook Instant Articles, speak to this shift, but science communicators and science journalists are not using these formats very much yet.
Audiences are no longer content with just consuming journalism, but want to play an active part in its curation. Science journalism may be inherently resistant to this, as it relies on the authoritative figure of the scientist to verify knowledge. In this respect, diminished trust may be a product of the shift in mainstream journalism towards co-creation, which may not have happened as much within science journalism. It is also important to come to terms with the relationship between the public and the media – we are in the wake of a decade of distrust about our media industry, epitomised by the Leveson Inquiry and the rise of Wikileaks.
However, achieving dialogue is not sufficient to address the concerns of the Inquiry about how to better develop trust in science. Focusing on the state of science journalism misses a big part of the picture. Rather, the state of the art in science communication methodology recognises the importance of ‘upstream’ engagement with the public. This means involving and empowering the public in decision making processes in advance of the science industry deciding where it makes investments and, despite a few attempts to embed such an approach in science over the last 10 years, it is still not a core part of how science works.
The pressures on journalists has also grown in recent years and this may have been to the detriment of science journalism. Editors expect their staff to be capable of producing work across media formats now, rather than just working as specialists. Radio is now a visual medium; writers are now also photographers. Staff numbers have been cut across newspaper platforms and yet content is expected to be developed for many more digital environments than was previously required. In turn, this has led to a greater reliance on science publicists to help produce stories, which may also contribute to diminishing trust.
Alongside this, the world of science has become much more astute at managing media stories, which may help the science industry control their narrative, but doesn’t necessarily help audiences trust science journalism or science at all. A good example of this is synthetic biology, which hit the headlines in 2007 when Craig Ventor ran a UK lecture tour, book launch, and made the front page of tabloids with research that was still in development, rather than fully realised.
Equally, there are cases where the debates around a science story seem to betray trust and this shifting sand of science stories may be an inherent problem. For example, in 2005, I was invited to comment on a story for the BBC about mitochondrial DNA transfer, an experimental technique to address the seriously debilitating consequences of having dysfunctional mtDNA. The report shows how the scientists involved made great efforts to state that any resulting, modified egg would ‘never be allowed to develop into a baby’ (BBC, 2005). Yet, a decade later, MPs have approved such use for assisting the creation of healthy lives (Mason & Devlin, 2005). While I believe this is a sensible decision in this case, for the public, it can create a sense of uncertainty about whether any new discovery and the limits to which it may be put, can ever really be trusted.
In the United Kingdom, we have a number of institutions and communities who may be better unified in their work on science communication. These include: The Science Media Centre, The UK Science Festivals Network, FameLab, The Science Museums Group, Debating Matters, Sense About Science, The MAKER Movement and, this, year, the European City of Science programme in Manchester.
There is also a range of other events/institutions who are in the business of communicating science, even if they do not identify themselves as science communication organizations. This includes a range of art festivals around the UK, such as Future Everything, Abandon Normal Devices, Future Fest, to name a few. On this point specifically, the relationship between art and science – from STEM to STEAM education – is a crucial way to make more out of the science communication opportunities within the UK – which themselves are ways of engaging the science media in a more meaningful way. Making more of bringing these two spheres together, would be a formidable way of building more opportunities to undertake science communication work.
Finally, it is crucial that the Committee takes into account the growing number of freelance science communicators around the UK, which are well supported by the BIG STEM Communicators Network, but which are presently undervalued and under supported financially and institutionally. Even the most successful Science Festivals around the UK do not have sufficient investment around them to financially remunerate their contributors and, more widely, there is an economic black hole around science communication that needs to be filled, in order for the community to grow and be appropriately valued for their work. A sound basis for engendering more interest within the university community is to build on the Research Excellence Framework’s interest in recognising ‘impact’, though more effective mechanisms of evaluating aspects of science communication within it should be developed.
In sum, the different approaches towards science communication, research impact, public engagement, public involvement, and citizen science, must be better differentiated and supported, to optimise their value and promote more opportunities to nurture trust in science communication and science journalism.
References
BBC (2005) Embryo with Two Mothers Approved, BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4225564.stm
Mason, R. & Devlin, H. (2015) MPs vote in favour of 'three-person embryo' law, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/03/mps-vote-favour-three-person-embryo-law
Miah, A. (2005) Genetics, cyberspace and bioethics: why not a public engagement with ethics?, Public Understanding of Science, 14(4), 409-421.
Biography
Professor Andy Miah is Chair in Science Communication and Future Media, at the University of Salford, Manchester. He is 2015 winner of the Josh Award for Science Communication, and works with a range of news organizations, including the Press Association special interest group in Social Media. He is Advisory Board Member to the Museum of Science and Industry, Manchester, and Board Member to Manchester 2016 European City of Science. He is a member of the Scottish Government’s Ministerial Advisory Group for Digital Participation and has contributed to various European Parliament inquiries into future technology and communications. He can be reached by email at email@andymiah.net and followed on Twitter http://twitter.com/andymiah
This week, I was over in Dublin for a Virtual Reality conference organized by Professor Timothy Jung in collaboration with the Dublin Institute of Technology. I covered all things virtual and sport, here's what I said....
This last few days, I have been working with an amazing group of people from Salford in producing the Virtual Chernobyl Experience around the 30th Anniversary of the Disaster.
This video is still the best overview of what we did.
All of these people need credit for their extraordinary efforts in making it happen. They all came through at short notice and put time in well beyond the job description and they are all yet more reasons for why I feel very lucky at Salford to have such talented, versatile people.
They are:
Dr Mike Wood, Lead Scientist - will literally fly through the night to get the job done
Simon Campion - VR wizard who worked the Oculus content
Mikhail Polshaw - VR go to for 360 rendering at short notice
Dr Gary Kerr - sci comm agitator, evaluator, and all round 'can doer'
Ross Fawkes - science guy, PhD aspiring
Moo - puts radiation detectors on Reindeer
Rosie Mawdsley - Producing ninja at MSI Manchester
Justin Webb - Press master at MSI
Gareth Holllyman - Press 2.0 doer at Salford Uni
Nicol Caplin - the fastest sci comm'r in town. all the way up from Bristol
Darren Langlands - videographer at Salford Uni
...and a whole bunch of STEM volunteers who went the extra mile
And here's what we did...CBBC Newsround
Last week, I was interviewed by the Danish media outlet Zetland, a cool new online portal for all kinds of radical news. This feature was about the possibility of a Danish Paralympian being competitive for a medal at the Olympic Games. While Oscar Pistorius may have been the first prosthetically enhanced athlete to take part in the Olympic Games, Markus Rehm may be a medal contender, providing he is allowed to compete.
Here is the full article, in Danish. Google translate doesn't do a bad job.
It includes this neat little video of Markus jumping
My talk at the Sport Accord in Lausanne this year focused on e-sports, an area of focus for my forthcoming book for The MIT Press, out later this year. My talk was followed by a panel debate with Patrick Nally (President, International Federation of Poker), Alex Lim (Sec Gen, International e-Sport Federation), and Chris Osborne (BBC Sport).
Here's the livestream recording
Here's the prezi...
Last week in my penultimate seminar for our ELS Study Skills course, we covered revision tips, but instead of just running through ideas, we thought we'd try to come up with a top 10 list, based on the range of top tips others provide. Here's what revision looks like for the student who lives in a world of social media and mobile apps. Hope it's useful for you!
Contributors include: Flossie Washborne, Lydia Watts, Steven Wheelhouse, Rhona Wood,
- Make Revision a Multi-Media Experience
Search YouTube or TED for your topics, even MOOC content to bring it to life more - Make it a Maker Thing
Summarise your notes by creating pictures - draw cartoons, illustrations embed knowledge - Bootstrap Intelligence
Progressively condense your notes - discard content, once you know it - Re-vist the Art of Handwriting
Hand writing notes activates a different part of your memory compared to typing (probably) so don't forget this! - Make it Flashy
Use Flash cards answers on one side - Gamify the Whole Thing
Applications like @HeadsUp, or even apps to help with definitions and key terms can make it a much more playful thing - Schedule, but Don't Overschedule
Hourly slots - plan out by day - don't forget the 3 Es - Eat, Exercise, Entertainment - Location, Location, Location
Changes everything, consider moving around to keep it active - Make it Social
Group revision - 3-4 people - round table sessions - back and forth on answers - use social media for revision chat - Full Dress Rehearsal
Access past papers and answers, put yourself through it at least once before
Yes, Vice said it best "Dear 2016, Fuck You"
I spent my evening with the back catalogue, reminiscing about the live shows I've seen, including back stage at the sound check in Las Vegas. The last one I saw was also the best, reinventing music from years gone by. Anyway, for the newbies, here's what you need to know.
The 10 best Prince songs you have never heard of (or can no longer remember the lyrics to)
1. I Miss You
2. Electric Intercourse
3. There is lonely
4. Don't talk to strangers
5. Get Wild
6. Movie Star
7. Wasted Kisses
8. Free
9. Bambi
10. Anna Stesia
10 really important political prince songs you should know know
1. Free
2. Dear Mr. Man
3. Sign O' the Times
4. Ronnie talk to Russia
5. Race
6. Money don't matter 2nite
7. Emancipation
8. Controversy
9. Musicology
10. Pop Life
The 10 steamiest songs that will push you into adulthood
1. Pheromone
2. Erotic City
3. When we're dancing, close and slow
4. I wanna be your lover
5. Do me baby
6. If I was your girlfriend
7. The beautiful ones
8. Darling Nikki
9. Dirty Mind
10. Insatiable
The 10 best love songs by prince
1. If I love you to nite
2. The most beautiful girl in the world.
3.i wish you heaven
4. When 2 r in love
5. Adore
6. 5 women
7. Don't talk to stranger.
8. Nothing compares 2 u
9. When doves cry
10. How come you don't call me anymore?
The 10 best break up songs by Prince for all you lovers
1. How come you don't call me anymore?
2. Why you wanna treat me so bad?
3. If u break my heart one more time
4. Nothing compares 2 u
5. Purple Rain
6. Strange relationship
7. Anotherloverholeinyohead
8. The Arms of Orion
9. If I was your girlfriend
10. I hate you
The 10 funkiest tracks by Prince
1. Get Wild
2. House quake
3. Musicology
4. 319
5. House quake
6. Hot thing
7. Kiss
8. Billy Jack Bitch
9. We can funk
10. Now
In an interview with Chris Rock, Prince talked about how it was a challenge to bring humour into music, so i leave you with 5 of the funniest tracks by Prince. In interviews, his sense of humour always came through...
1. International lover
2. Movie star
3. Come on
4. Starfish and coffee
5. Dead on it
* yes, some major classics are missing from these lists, but everyone else is writing about those.
Over the last few months, I've been building the momentum around our flagship activity for the European City of Science in Manchester. Essentially, I want to create a digital encounters experience for visitors and residents, through which they can encounter the city differently and see its historical and contemporary science scene.
We've just put out an invitation to curators to assist in making this, so that it's not a top down history and a much more democratised version of what science entails. We are targeting individuals who we think would like to take part, but if you are interested, please drop me a line.
Here's a link to the Eventbrite for further info on project dimensions. Each core strand needs more team members, so if you see an entry point or would like to get involved, email me.
It's not just for Manchester based folk, so if you are keen and are from elsewhere, feel welcome to take part!
Last week, I interviewed for BBC's Chris Osborne on the use of virtual reality in sport. A great article followed.
This week, I took part in a really excellent panel on Life - and how it is changing - as part of Future Everything. My co-presenters were Abi Glencross and David Benque Here's my manuscript...
LIFE 2.0
When would less equal more?
Andy Miah
1
A few years ago, Gaia theorist James Lovelock was interviewed by the Guardian about how he saw the world today, after decades of providing warnings for humanity about its failing to turn the tide on our devastating impact on the environment. Amongst other things, he concluded with one piece of advice for everyone,
2/3
“enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan”
He also claimed that
“about 80%" of the world's population to be wiped out by 2100”
which is only 84 years away folks.
4
Unlike other species, we are incredibly inefficient when it comes to our utilization of resources and this inefficiency has grown over time, as our societies have become ever more complex.
- We eat more than we need.
- We exercise less than we should.
- We waste more food than ever before – 53% of fruit and veg, for eg..
- New materials have led to increasingly dead, toxic resources occupying our natural world, taking its toll on wildlife.
And the accumulation of these systemic imbalances means that identifying points where efficiencies could be made has also become incredibly complicated.
Consider our movement around this planet, which relies heavily on the availability of fuel for vehicles.
We could do less of this.
We could share our cars more. We could use video conferencing more. We could stop going on holiday, or at least holiday closer. We could send things via slower means and wait more patiently for them to arrive.
5/6
But instead we have the Amazon Dash button and drone delivery emerging to satisfy even greater desires for immediacy.
In any case, these are all social solutions to the problem of how to get more out of our resources, to reduce the pace at which we use them and buy ourselves more time to find alternative sources to keep this planet going – but especially to keep us going within it!
7/8
However, there are also technological solutions. Indeed, seen in this way, the behavioural fix to diminish our exploitation of natural resources by being less wasteful is just a stop-gap towards a more long term solution, and we have a few already.
- We can produce in-vitro meat, instead of growing it through lived beings. This would reduce the carbon footprint of our food considerably.
- We can staple our stomachs to reduce the feeling of hunger, which is said to drive us to eat more than we need – with the caveat that feelings of hunger may also have become a matter of social ritual, rather than biological need.
- We can use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to identify and select for healthier embryos, which may allow us to create a population that is less reliant on already overburdened health care system.
- We can modify seeds to ensure a crop yield is more able to withstand harmful climatic realities, such as harsh winds, low rainfall, and so on – themselves a product of climate change.
9
So, while our inefficiency is supreme among the animal kingdom, we are incredibly well endowed in our capacity to think up efficiency saving devices. Our cognitive capacity allows us to discover ways of transforming our environment to optimize efficiencies, such as by controlling water flow and generating power with hydroelectric dams, or by creating wind turbines or solar cells, which draw from renewable sources of energy.
However, the worry of those who criticise any such technological solutions is that technology has a habit of biting back. We don’t trust the technological solution.
There is a feeling of mistrust in these solutions because we believe that human habits have a tendency to continue, despite such changes. We may staple our stomachs, but we will continue to stretch them, eating more – because hunger is no longer simply a biological response, but a cultural need born out of changes to our modern life – the time we get up, the time we go to bed and what happens in between.
10
So, we may find more ways of generating energy from renewable resources, but our species will continue to escalate the number of things it seeks to power, more rockets to fuel, more discoveries to be made, more artifacts to consume, more devices to connect – 50bn by 2020 if the predictions about the Internet of Things are accurate.
We also worry that environmental interventions may have unforeseen consequences, which could be even more catastrophic than if we just left things alone and accept what Erik Parens describes as the ‘goodness of our fragility’. In closing his critique of pursuing Paradise – through biotechnological enhancements, he quotes writer Milan Kundera who says,
“Humankind’s longing for Paradise is humankind’s longing not to be human’
and goes on to write about the peril of this longing.
Yet, the pursuit of a posthuman form of existence seems also written into our DNA. As a species, we seem bound to the pursuit of transcendence - physically, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.
11
To this end, finding a solution to our problem of resource limitation – how we make more out of less - relies in part on how we curtail this ambition, which is no simple task, especially when we also believe that its presence in our lives – the fact that we are ambitious, in the positive sense – seems also to be the currency that allows us to flourish as individuals, populations, or as a species.
Many of our kind aspire to live healthier, longer lives, which involve a boundless thirst for enjoyment, happiness, fulfilment, and satisfaction. We have employed medicine, science and technology to make this possible. We have used it to bring more people into the world, to make their lives less subject to suffering, to allow us to traverse the world more fully, to experience more of what it has to offer – even if we have failed to distribute these goods evenly across our populations.
Indeed, let’s be honest, it’s not working for everyone. Far from it.
12
In any case, take a look at your own life and consider where you could make efficiencies. Write down 3 things that you could do that would ensure that you make a difference to this problem, bearing in mind Lovelock’s 20 year prediction. Here’s some examples.
I will reduce the amount of food waste in my home.
I will ensure I recycle more of what I use.
I will use public transport more frequently.
I will get off my bus/train one stop before the one I typically use, to walk a little more each day.
13
These are really simple goals and pretty easy to achieve, but if 50% of you leave today and make even 1 such change, I would be surprised.
But that’s ok, because it’s not just about you.
It’s also about the institutions around you who make it harder for you to be more efficient. And this is where your list may need to change. Instead of focusing on what you can do to change your lifestyle, you might focus on what you can do to change those institutions.
But, the last thing I want to tell you is that we should curtail our desire to transcend.
14/15/16
So here’s an alternative for Future Everything to consider:
17/18
Could we engineer our biology to be more environmentally friendly?
I’m not sure anyone has asked this question before and I’m not sure many environmentalists would endorse this approach at all. The idea of tampering with nature seems fundamentally in conflict with environmental philosophy, assuming that such beliefs consider the human species to be mostly an unwelcome disruptive force on our planet, capable of introducing artificial and intractable imbalances within the ecosystem.
Nevertheless, it may be time to stop thinking about science as being in the service of ourselves and more how it can help us serve the environment better.
So many of the debates about HE have focused on functionality and the capacity of HE to improve the range of options in our lives. Its primary purpose is about our individual freedom to determine our futures and quality of life.
It is all about us.
But could this be different?
Could human enhancement environmentally friendly?
19
A few years ago, this document came my way via a US based professor.
PERFECT PEOPLE 2020
I didn’t really know what to make of it, but so much made sense.
It talked of how
· human enhancement would be a step towards realising the perfect soldier and perfect astronaut.
· How the blurring distinction between therapy and enhancement was state sponsored to promote complicity, with support from the media
· How bioethicists were part of the process by which complicity and experimentation could take place
· How limitless life extension would be enabled by a ‘magic’ pill that would call for a need to recognise suicide as a legitimate means of exiting our lives
But of course, human enhancement was in the national interests in terms of security, defence, and economic prosperity.
Of course, the human genome project race was about the proprietary interests in cell lines and our growing reliance on genetically modified biological matter.
And of course human experimentation didn’t stop with Nuermberg.
I just didn’t realise how extensive the ethical recklessness was back then, nor how complicit the bioethics community were in endorsing such work. It seemed almost as if bioethics was invented in order to allow science to become more reckless.
Perfect people 2020 made me realise that we needed a new strategy for human enhancement.
But what would an enhanced human look like, where the basis for such changes is all about supporting the environment?
27 2.0
So, LIFE 2.0 approaches things a little differently
I propose a form of what may be called Human offsetting
If a carbon offset is a ‘reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases made in order to compensate for or to offset an emission made elsewhere.”
Then
a human offset is an ‘efficiency gain in consumption or generation of resource, made in order to compensate for some other resource expenditure”
The manner of this offset could vary and I don’t want to separate out a biotechnological fix from any other kind.
In fact, I think there’s a lot we can change about how we currently do things, which could quickly change the equation of who gets what and how much.
Consider organ and blood donation. Why is there a shortage of either? There should not be, but we’ve allowed people to think of such needs among our species as acceptable to not meet. This is completely wrong and, back in 2007, the Big Donor Show in the Netherlands spoke eloquently of this social failure.
Human offsetting is the process by which we modify biology in order to provide an exponential return on our actions as depleting natural resources.
But here’s another problem, exemplified by a simple fact: The single biggest contribution you can make to reducing your use of resources is to not have children, but will you stop having children just because of this? No, you won’t!
All being well, having children is one significant aspect of what gives life value and, even the prospect that these children may have worse of lives by us all having too many of them does not dissuade us from pursuing this selfish act. And just to be clear, even if our act is born out of a desire to nurture life from a position of care or even altruism, it still remains a selfish act. It is about us and what we need.
Lovelock may provide some basis for thinking that this could be a good strategy. He recognises that there is a precedent for this, albeit simply synthesised food like quorn – hardly, hardcore human enhancement – but then it may be a starting point for a game changing intervention.
Going back to that Perfect People 2020 document – creating people who have gills and the capacity to live underwater was one proposition for figuring out how to live on this planet.
We are not quite there yet, but advances in using graphene may allow us to at least start to desalify sea water more efficiently, providing a new source of drinkable water for us.
- Desalination technologyhttp://news.mit.edu/2015/desalination-gets-graphene-boost-jeffrey-grossman-1102
We constantly make discoveries that were previously thought impossible to achieve and this alone makes it hard to write off even the wackiest of ideas.
It’s also important to recognise that more radical transhumanist applications have roots in longer-term pursuits in design. We may yet use gene editing to modify our germ-line and ready us for a time and some of the ethical concerns we have about this will diminish as the need to undertake such modifications grows, as a result of other environmental factors that limit our ability to thrive.
But the bigger picture around all of this has to do with the history of innovation around any one design proposition and unravelling that to more adeautely see why technological solutions are not absent of sociology.
28-40Patents
Let’s take one example, which is pertinent to our inquiry
Could we modify our capacity to regulate our body heat better, so that we need not rely on heating or air conditioning as much? Could we engineer ourselves to store heat, when we are warm, to later be used when we are cold?
We have tried figuring out this problem for over a century
- 1882 – water filled tubes
- 1930 - hat
- 1967 – space suit
- 1970 – cooling suit
- 2012 – cooling device dramatically affects performance capacity
- 2014 - Wristify – does away with Air Con using electrical pulses which make u feel warmer/colder
- 2016 – store solar heat in clothing
- http://news.mit.edu/2016/store-solar-heat-0107 - eg to heat an internal wire mesh within the clothes - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.201502006/abstract;jsessionid=FB1102B5EBE3D32249FE440CEF1EBB65.f02t02
In fact, the technological fix that we are often so mistrustful of, is in fact a complex web of trajectories that tells us that technology is first and foremost a social solution – with every design increment, we get closer towards fixing a problem and that boot strapping happens across decades and across the globe.
So, to conclude, when we think about what it is to operate as a posthuman – to think beyond the human – we first need to think beyond our species, not beyond our species typical functioning.
Life 2.0 denotes a break not just in our evolutionary trajectory, but in our beliefs about what we think we should be doing on this planet. We are so focused on putting to work other aspects of our environment – the wind, the water, the sun – that we have omitted to consider ourselves as vehicles of resource regeneration.
This shift in how we regard what could be done, will inform more deeply our sense of what needs to be done to ensure the longer term survivability of our species and those around us whose existence enables our own.
49
“If we can’t reverse our catastrophic impact on the environment by being more careful, then we need to reverse engineer ourselves”
And if you want to summarise this talk in less than 140 characters, here you go
“More bees, less drone beetles!” Thx #Futr16 @andymiah”
Last week, I was in Paris for another City Events conference, at which the focus was on the social responsibility of mega events. While the buzz word around events for the last 20 years has been 'legacy', we tried to unpack this idea a bit and explore further what events can do to make a meaningful contribution to society. I chaired a session which brought together expertise in development, social science, anthropology, officiating, and playing sports.
Some of the interesting ideas were around the role of other role models in sport - such as referees and officials who provide a crucial educative role for young people in understanding the value of rule-keeping. Also, we talked about how sports can contribute to promoting individual rights, especially the rights of the child.
In my summary, I talked about the importance of event organizers looking at the community, talking with it, and understanding what are the most urgent and pressing social issues, so that events can be a vehicle for addressing areas of most need. In the absence of other ideas, this seems a useful process through which to begin any such journey.
Last week, I was over in Karachi as part of a British Council project, exploring the possibilities of twinning the city with Manchester. Here are some photos from the week, which was spent mostly in a bullet proof car, or in offices. It was a unique way of seeing a place, that's for sure, and we met some really extraordinary people.
Today, I produced an event connected to the European City of Science, which brought together some fantastic experts in science blogging. We had Stephen Harris from The Conversation, Sam Illingworth from Manchester Metropolitan University, and Laura Wheelers from Digital Science.
It was great to assemble this community and work towards producing work around ESOF and ECOS.
My second talk in South Africa allowed me to reprise my forthcoming book for MIT Press on eSports - and all things digital about sport. It was a lot of fun, especially going across the breadth of subjects that come together. There are so many ways in which the future of sports are digitally constituted and this one covered some key trajectories...
My first talk at the Sports Institute of South Africa's 10th meeting on Sport & Fitness focused on the mobile health industry. I wanted to focus on the economics, in part because they are so hard to unravel. The key thing to know is that the mobile health industry is promising efficiencies, but a new era of ingestible sensors is also upon us!
This week, I produced a day long research event for the University of Salford, bringing together interested academics and professional services to talk about how we might use drones within our work. It drew interest from a range of schools across the university and was a really great deep dive into the subject, bringing external expertise - such as world-leading drone conservationist Prof Serge Wich. It was a fantastic day with some excellent presentations.
Last week, I took part in an event run by the British Film Institute focused on the use of drones in film making. It brought together architect film maker Liam Young, extraordinary drone film makers The Helicopter Girls, and the amazing Seb Hagemeister who's worked with Marshmallow Laser Feast on our Project Daedalus.
The conversation was pretty far reaching and I opened the event with a video essay, taking people through the recent history of drone creativity and innovation. It felt like such a privilege to be amongst such amazing people who are at the cutting edge of film production.
My video essay is being held for live presentation only, so I'm not posting it online. However, you can find out more about my drones in a piece I wrote for the Conversation.
This week, I was down at the Royal College of Art again to give a talk for the Jewellery and Metals Department. Their brief was to imagine how we deal with a future where our survival is under threat...
This week, i gave a talk with colleagues at Salford University, focusing on how we want to build collaboration with industry partners and work towards more co-creation of research. Here's the presentation.