Chapter 9 provides a summary of the multitude of ways that informal science and formal science are connected. It seeks to disbar the common notion that informal science programs are just places for children to socialize.

It first talks about the use of multimedia methods to teach science. It’s great to know that the technology coming out today is being put to good use and educating children. I can attest to this, because I remember being at the Sony Wonder Technology Lab, where there was an exhibit featuring projected colored rings of light around my feet on a platform with other people. This exhibit, the Interactive Floor, allowed me to get a good sense of how powerful motion sensing technology can be. Other people on the floor had rings around their feet too. If our rings collided, they merged and morphed colors. It opened my eyes to the possibilities that projection and motion sensing technologies can offer. Yes, it was a place to socialize as a kid, but at the same time I got to play around with technology and learn about what it can do.

The chapter makes an effort to merge informal science and formal science in a manner which is most conducive to learning. For field trips, the chapter discusses how it’s important to follow the steps of pre-trip organization, active participation in the museum, chaperone involvement in the activity, and reinforcement after the trip. I believe that this should become more widespread knowledge for educators, because I can remember how my field trips were offered as a reward or as a break from class rather than an educational experience complementary to the class. Regardless, I would still learn at the aquarium, or zoo, or museum. But upon our return to class, we would return to our normal curriculum which was completely unrelated to the field trips.

It’s wonderful to know that experimental combinations of science learning, such as MERITO, are being used to pioneer the path to better education.

Chapter 9 concludes our topic by reminding us of the principles of informal learning: that learning should be constant and available in all settings. A key point the chapter touched upon was the need for a connection between formal and informal settings.

I agree that it is essential to connect new technologies with informal learning settings. Cellphone applications and interactive websites allow students to continue their learning experience outside of the museum or classroom. It is also beneficial that whenever someone has a spark of interest, the information can be at his or her fingertips. Students can look up information before this sudden curiosity dissipates. By using Twitter and Facebook, students can show their friends cool new things that they learn. At the rate that people read social feeds, they can be reading and sharing their learning experiences with their friends.

Field trips are an important tool for connecting informal and formal setting education. A topic that is introduced on a field trip might excite the students about a certain subject and entice them to learn about the topic when it comes up in a formal setting. When the field trip host organization provides ways to continue learning after the day of the field trip, the excitement experienced can continue to influence the way the student treats the topic. However, simply going on a field trip does not accomplish this goal. The field trip itself has to be planned and prepared. Out of what I noticed on my trips to various museums, the most effective way to excite students was to provide either demonstrations or tour guides to talk to the students about what they are looking at. Without these features, I have noticed, students do not focus much about what is learned. Rather they simply get excited for the games or random little buttons on the exhibit without really understanding the purpose behind them. A teacher, parent or guide can direct that excitement towards the knowledge presented in the exhibit.

I find this concluding chapter to be one that is the most important of all the previous ones. In order to have full effectiveness of the ideas and concepts presented in the other chapters, the idea presented in Chapter 9 is integral. Children spend a good number of hours of their lives as students. In order for them to have an interest in science outside the classroom, it is important to have an integration of inside the classroom material and outside experiences. For students to be interested in what they learn formally, it is important to also have hands-on experiments, field trips, and museum visits that elaborate on what they learned in order for their interest to be piqued and maintained. Additionally, before engaging in informal settings, scientific knowledge and background need to be set up and explained so that the students can get the most out of their informal learning experience. Informal and formal science education are two sides of the same coin. As a result, both areas need to be prepared for and worked on by both the students and teachers so that both settings can  be equally enjoyable and  effective learning experiences. By incorporating ideas from the previous chapters and tying these two settings together, learning science can be a constant experience for each and every individual.

I find these four articles on science communication to be extremely interesting. I think it is integral for scientific ideas and concepts to be explained and communicated to the public in a comprehensive way. I liked the comparison of science communication to the science enterprise. I feel that through this comparison, scientists can better understand the importance of communicating science to the public in a way that is effective and understandable. I also liked the call to scientists to be citizens. As a citizen, one is encouraged to be a contributing factor to society. By scientists  doing the research and explaining it to the public in technical terms, they are not helping society in the most beneficial manner. Therefore, it is important for scientists to explain complicated science terms in a way that the general public can understand. And, then, these individuals are able to make more informed decisions on these scientific concepts that are relevant to their everyday life.

Communicating science effectively is an important channel to widen, considering that the goal of science is to expand our knowledge of the world and benefit humanity. If this is truly the goal, then it would be immoral to reserve new scientific discoveries to an elite few group of researchers. I feel like it’s a good sign that scientific journals are now focusing on how best to communicate science rather than how best to improve the scientific method. It signifies that the the scientific method and peer-review process is well-perfected.

The first step to allow communication between scientists and the public is the removal of stereotypes that the public believes about scientists. Many people view scientists as an unhuman group which has no regard for morals or religion. An effort needs to be made to educate the public about the true intentions behind scientists’ work, and portray them as a diverse group of people from various backgrounds.

Even after stereotypes are removed, scientists must be trained to translate their work for the community. As Leshner describes in his article, many scientists are stubborn about this and complain that this isn’t part of their “job description.” That is why it’s important to teach new generation of scientists that it is part of their job description. Or we should at least make an attempt to find people who are qualified to to serve as mediators between researchers and the community, such as teachers. Thankfully, much is already underway in terms of designing a scientific method for communication. Nisbet and Mooney describe how it’s imperative to make new findings appear relevant to the communities they’re revealed to in order to spark interest in the public. Especially in older populations, these articles talk about how most people don’t care for science unless they feel as if it personally impacts them.

Finally, I believe it’s imperative to establish trust between scientists and the public. Much skepticism exists against scientific work among the public. Some of it can be linked to corruption within science, but much of it can also be connected to the fact that people choose a narrow set of sources when reading their news. Nisbet and Mooney call this the narrow “framework” from which people get their information. People who only read the Wall Street Journal, for example, only obtain information that leans toward republican arguments. The public also needs to be educated on where to find proper and neutral sources to access in order to receive the most honest information. It’s only when superfluous skepticism is eradicated that scientific discoveries can make a quick impact on society’s political and moral decisions.

Communicating scientific research is vital for its correct application in today’s modern world. If scientific research is misunderstood by those dealing with policy (lawmakers and voters), the wrong decisions will be made. A precedent we have seen for this can be learned from the way forensic science was treated in its early development (learned in my Bioethics course): When forensic science first came into the picture, prosecutors thought they had found the unbeatable method of catching criminals. They would use the DNA of the crime scene and match it with any DNA they had found in the data base assuming that they had caught the criminal. The science was still developing and yet the courts thought it was a perfect system. Long story short, many mistakes were made and many were falsely convicted despite the scientists’ warnings against only using these methods. Instead, DNA should be used to support already existing evidence, and not as the only evidence. This example of failure of communication between scientists and those that utilize the product of the science has caused many problems in individuals’ lives.

In relation to Alan Leshner’s “Capably Communicating Science,” I agree with the idea of utilizing a “translator” to explain what scientists are doing. Scientists often do not have time to write in ways for the masses to understand because what a scientist can say in one sentence would possibly need an entire book for the layman to understand. A personal example: when a friend of mine lost his grandmother, the doctor spent fifteen minutes explaining to the family what had happened while he only needed 30 seconds to explain it to a doctor of another field entirely. However, problems with this “translator” might come up when dealing with law making since the translator might present the facts in a biased way. And it is difficult for a scientist to keep tabs on whatever a translator says to his audience.

All four articles converge around a singular point. The articles stress the importance of scientists “framing” information in a way that makes it relevant to different audiences. In this day and age, with an amalgam of blogs and other sources of scientific information, scientists are competing with these outlets to be the source of scientific information.  The article entitled “Framing Science” by Matthew C. Nisbet and Chris Mooney notes how people tend to select news outlets and websites that match their own ideas and preconceived viewpoints.  Thus, rather than individuals looking to scientific journals as their sources of information, they select the outlets that mostly appeal to them. This can pose a major problem as these outlets can skew and distort the information, resulting in a general public with fallacious and misrepresented ideas about science. This can lead to faulty policy decisions, as Christopher points out in the article “Scientist Citizens.” Thereby, as the article goes on to note, is it vital that scientists become better trained in communicating their findings in an interesting and relevant way. This way, the facts being communicated are valid and undistorted. This overall breakdown between scientist and society communication has led to faulty notions pertaining to climate change and evolutionary concepts. Improvements therefore have to be made to rectify this disconnect, as “Even the most brilliant scientific discovery, if not communicated widely and accurately, is of little value,” as stated by Marcia McNutt in “Improving Scientific Communication.”

Upon reflecting over my own interaction with the communication of science, a particular point in “Framing Science” struck a nerve.  The article noted that the use of framing in science has led to increased support of antievolutionist theories. Rather than acknowledging the valid and proven facts pertaining to evolutionist theory, because of the use of “intelligent design” frames, the public is more interested in debunking these valid concepts. I remember that all throughout high school, in my science classes, evolution was viewed as a hot and controversial topic. Rather than simply laying out the ideas of the theory, the concepts were presented with a disbelieving bias. In fact, it was not until I entered college that I truly learned about what evolution truly entails. Overall, that memory allowed me to understand how important scientific concepts can go misinterpreted if correct scientific outlets are not provided. Thus, I understand the push for better communication of scientific concepts. Scientists must learn how to lure citizens to their outlets of information, rather than them going elsewhere. This would result in a much more “correctly” educated public, allowing science to move in only one direction: forward, rather than being funneled in various sub-argumentative pathways.