Mike

Most of the points that Dr. Sanford was making can be applied to many science disciplines. The purpose of the post seems to be to point to the generalizations about the state of science in media and it’s penetration among its viewers. CIRM was just caught up in the cross-fire of a “science in the media” post.

I don’t think anyone will disagree that there is a lack of science knowledge among the broad American public. One of the problems is that the science industry moves so fast. It is much like the technology/gadget industry in that respect.

We need to find what magical set of events happened in the 1960’s to push science into the hearts and minds of the American people that allowed for us to put a man on the moon.

Just my 2 cents.

Dr. Stanford: I cannot think of a better person to talk about science in the media than you. It is your niche and you do a great job of it.

My intent in the post was not to “have a riff for my blog”, Don, but to create a conversation. That is what social media is about… allowing people to have a voice, and learning from one another.

CIRM is but one example of an organization who is doing amazing, important work, but could honestly use some help in using the potential avenues available for communicating science information to the public.

I am sorry that I got your back up, and that you felt the need to be defensive. The work that you are doing is a good start, but there is room to grow.

Science, not just stem cells, but all of science needs to take communication in this new media environment seriously.

I agree person to person communication is very valuable, and that is what new social media tools can allow you to do on a much bigger scale.

I have worked with faculty, and I do know the challenges that face someone trying to work with them. I appreciate that difficulty. However, it is time to work past that difficulty. The task at hand is too important to let excuses get in the way.

I’m glad that the audience in attendance found the lectures appropriate. I’m still not convinced that the lectures couldn’t have been improved significantly. I did find those two techniques used by the speakers useful, but the use of those techniques did not completely compensate for everything else.

Please, just hear me out that there was ample room for improvement. I was attempting to be critical of the event in a helpful manner, giving suggestions that can be used to get an even better response from the people you are trying to reach.

Thank you for organizing the town halls. They are important forums for this topic.

I would like to help you and other organizations like CIRM communicate more effectively. Please, contact me to talk about this further.

As you know, one of the first rules of social media engagement is that is is a two-way discussion not a one-way feed. Kiki attended your session, is an intelligent citizen and successful user of social media. She had a perspective on your program. There are valuable things to learn and leverage from that perspective.

You know that I work exclusively in the cell therapy field. I am a subscriber to CIRM’s emails, I have “CIRM” as a google-alert, I have YouTube subscriptions, and I do regular cell therapy industry blogging so I am constantly monitoring news in the sector. I was not aware you had a YouTube channel.

Kiki is an advocate of science as am I. Her feedback was meant to be constructive, useful, and used. I know you have a tough job and are required to defend the Institute but we’re just having a conversation here.

Kiki spend considerable time in this blog actually putting together some helpful suggestions to make her criticism constructive.

I give you full credit for being here, for posting comments on a blog, and for the facts you’ve shared. That’s outstanding! If the defensive tone were softened just a little (maybe even a ‘thank you Kiki for your insights’ that would go a long way to helping you let people help you.

Keep up the good work, Don. I know it’s tough sledding and you have (I am sure) a sometimes thankless job. We believe in what you’re doing and sometimes we can help if you let us.

Just my thoughts…

–Lee

My comment is that the event had the content and speaker quality for something exceptional. The only missing piece for me was greater audience involvement.

There is an easy cheap solution for this. It’s called a science cafe, an informal discussion that is driven by audience questions and comments. It was designed specifically to bring science to public lay audiences.

Many universities and museums are using this methodology for engaging and empowering their audiences. I run a science cafe in San Francisco called Down to a Science (http://www.sciencecafesf.com). The only additional expense versus a forum talk is the service of a moderator (which is fairly cheap). Bruce may speak at an upcoming cafe in May, it’ll be an interesting way to preview the format before investing in it.

I’d be happy to talk to you about the format and how CIRM can use it to more effectively engage a public audience. Drop me a line at khari at sciencecafesf.com

I can understand feeling put-upon for the implication of “you haven’t done enough.” But the idea here isn’t blame, it’s that “enough is not being done.” To claim otherwise is to turn a blind eye to the past 8 years’ worth of utter shenanigans with regards to science policy in the White House and the U.S.’s horrendous science education reputation compared to the rest of the world.

Of course, it also doesn’t sit too well with those with journalistic aims to be fed the implication that their work, the work of popularizing scientific research, getting it into the core of our culture rather than left on the fringes, is unneeded. Please excuse my reaction if that’s NOT what was implied, but reading your reaction in the comment above seems to reinforce it.

Do you have data on how many of those 100 views per day actually finish watching the video all the way to the end? How many referrals to the CIRM website come from video views? How many visits to the website result in a bounce in 30 seconds or less?

Finally, have you tried searching for “stem cell research” on YouTube (incidentally, the 2nd most popular search engine in the world)? CIRM isn’t on the first page of results. Penn Jilette is.

> No one watches an hour and a half of poor video on the web.<

More to the point, no one watches an hour and a half of ANY video on the web. (Unless it’s two back-to-back episodes of Dollhouse.)

Perhaps there is a reason TEDtalks limits their incredibly brilliant and fascinating presenters, many of whom I’m sure could talk your ear off, to a mere 20 minutes.

In closing, my suggestion is not for scientists to spend more money on video, but rather to reach out to the willing workforce of science journalists, bloggers, storytellers, podcasters, documentarians, search engine optimization experts, and social media mavens who are clamoring to have a hand in raising science awareness and education in this country.

We’re on the same side.

–Naomi

You make some good points, yet you haven’t addressed Dr. Sanford’s comments regarding engaging the audience during a live presentation. You had a live audience. Do you feel that more could have been done to make the evening better, easier to digest, less dry? This isn’t about slamming your intent, your hard work or that of your presenters that evening, but how to make the most of similar events — to make the public learn and want to learn more. I’m guessing that since your advertising was in the BART and Muni stations that you were hoping to attract members of the general community.

Honestly, I wasn’t there. I have, however, worked in cancer research and seen eyes glaze over the second I mentioned what I did. People thought it was “cool” and “interesting,” but felt it was over their heads because it was “science” and that’s “hard.” It was always rewarding to watch the glazed look leave those eyes when I was able to explain something in a way that made sense to the listener.

And I have met Dr. Sanford and know her to be very passionate about science and about making it interesting and engaging to those who aren’t very informed.

So what do you feel, if anything, could be done to address her points 2 and 3?

We audio-cast our board meetings on the web. We did a public science seminar as a video web cast in September, but found it prohibitively expensive, because I feel it requires two cameras to catch the speaker and the slides. If anyone wants to be constructive and direct me to a low cost/high quality service, I am listening. But quality is important. No one watches an hour and a half of poor video on the web.

Also, the entire ad campaign cost less the $14,000, so I don’t know where Mr. Foster’s wild estimate came from, and in fact, the vast majority of the audience filling out the exit survey said they learned of the event via the Muni/Bart posters. A tiny fraction indicated email lists.

I am a firm believer that a balanced communication program includes in-person communication.

I spoke with Don Gibbons, the Chief Communications Officer of CIRM, after the talks. I brought up internet relations efforts and he more or less halted my questioning by saying “oh we have a YouTube channel”, with an impatient tone of “enough said, we’ve done our part.” HMM. “Only just going through the motions” indeed.

It also wasn’t all bad. I learned a lot, though I (like you) worried about the rest of the audience.

Nice surprise running into you there!

Cheers,
Naomi