GeoLog | outreach Archives

Call for new EGU network blogs!

Olivia Trani September 3, 2019

Do you have a passion for writing about the geosciences? You can hone your science communication skills by joining the EGU blog network!

Here is your chance to join the EGU blog network! Since 2013, the Union’s network blogs have enjoyed thought-provoking and engaging contributions on a range of topics: from the workings of the inner Earth and palaeontology, through to geomorphology and air quality. The network aims to foster a diverse community of geoscience bloggers, sharing accurate information about geoscientific research in a language understandable not only to fellow scientists but also to the broader public. The network blogs complement the EGU official blog and division blogs.

If you are an Earth, planetary or space researcher (whether you’re an early career scientist, or a more established one) with a passion for communicating your work, or a geoscience communicator, we’d like to hear from you!

We currently feature blogs that cover international development (Geology for Global Development), volcanology (VolcanicDegassing), and groundwater (Water Underground). We’d love to receive blog proposals from fields within the Earth, planetary and space sciences we don’t yet feature, including interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary topics (e.g. ‘Sustainability’ or ‘Geoscience and Art’).

The benefits: apart from your site gaining exposure by having its posts listed on the front pages of the EGU website and the EGU blogs, we will also share highlights of your work on our social media channels (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram) and advertise the blog network at our annual General Assembly, which has over 16,000 attendees. And, of course, you’ll get to join a great community of bloggers (21 blogs run by more than 60 volunteers)!

Having an existing blog is not a requirement for application. However, if you don’t have a blog already, we’d like you to have at least some experience of writing for a broader audience, be it as a guest blogger, or contributing to outlets such as The Conversation. In this case, let us know what you’d like your blog to be called, what topics you would cover, and link to articles you’ve published in the past. Interested in blogging, but don’t want to go solo? We also are accepting applications submitted by a blog team!

If you’d like your blog (or blog idea) to be considered for our network, fill out this form by 16 September.

Network bloggers should be prepared to publish at least 1-3 blog posts a month. Please note that only blogs in English will be considered, as this is the EGU working language, and the language of the EGU blogs. We particularly encourage applications from all European countries, not just English-speaking countries, but bloggers from outside Europe can also apply.

Feel free to contact the EGU Communications Officer Olivia Trani if you have any questions. In the meantime – happy blogging!

By Olivia Trani, EGU Communications Officer

Pole to Paris: Communicating climate change in a divided society

Erlend Moster Knudsen August 2, 2019

In today's politically divided landscape, what is the role of science? Climate scientists Daniel Price and Erlend Moster Knudsen established an outreach campaign, Pole to Paris, to break down barriers and create dialogues on climate change. Right photo: London February 15 2019 (27) School Students Strike for Climate Action. Credit: David Holt via Flickr. Left photo: Trump Digs Coal LAGOP GOTVR Dec2016 140. Credit: Tammy Anthony Baker via Flickr

The recent European Parliament election illustrated how divided Europe has become politically and intergenerationally. While the established parties lost their ground, both far-right populistic, anti-EU and liberal, green pro-EU parties grew in popularity among voters¹, with the younger generation favoring the latter and the generations above the former². What role is there for science in this divided landscape? Climate scientists Daniel Price and Erlend Moster Knudsen established an outreach campaign, Pole to Paris, to break down barriers and create dialogues on climate change with a broad audience from all corners of the Earth. The discoveries they made from this initiative were published recently in EGU’s new open access journal Geoscience Communication.

To build bridges in a divided terrain, our recently published paper makes a strong case for the importance of science communication training. In this publication³, we argue that the politicisation[i] and polarisation[ii] of climate change over the last decades call for a new role for climate scientists, in which scientists more actively engage with society at large. The role of the ‘pure scientist’, one that generates facts without consideration for its usage or users, is outdated, and the need for the ‘science communicator’ and the ‘honest broker of the policy alternatives’⁴ is rising. The time has come for climate scientists to offer expert interpretation of climate science and draw attention to its implications.

Just how is the key.

In the paper, we suggest five key components for successful science communication with non-academic audiences. Discussed in more detail in the publication, these are relevance, listening, positivity, perseverance and passion. They derive from our experience with science communication in 45 countries, through 10 languages, to audiences from three to 90 years old, within a wide range of societal groups. This experience comes from giving workshops on climate science, acting in a theatre play on climate skepticism, producing a biodiversity documentary, being a TV spokesperson on climate issues and writing two comic books on climate change and biodiversity loss, but – more importantly – from the 3000-km run and 10,000-km bike ride outreach campaign called Pole to Paris.

In the 7.5 months leading up to the climate summit COP 21⁵ in Paris 2015, we were part of the climate awareness campaign Pole to Paris⁶. This outreach project focused on reshaping the way climate scientists engage with the public on climate change issues. Instead of communicating pure scientific facts, Pole to Paris highlighted the human faces of climate change. We did so by leaving our academic offices, running and cycling across half the globe, from Earth’s polar regions to Paris, to interact with a wide range of audiences along the way and through traditional news outlets and social media. Along the way, we carried with us flags from the Arctic and the Antarctic, symbolizing the global significance of climate change near the poles, and in a sense bringing these regions closer to the people.

Map of the two Pole to Paris journeys: the Northern Run (blue trajectory) and the Southern Cycle (red trajectory). Also included
are the Global Voices events organized in collaboration with the partner United Nations Development Programme (green dots). Credit: E. M. Knudsen and O. J. de Bolsée 2019.

It was fundamental to the journeys that we engaged an audience not normally reached by scientific messages. Dan and I, two climate scientists with PhDs in Antarctic and Arctic climate change, respectively, led these journeys, which contributed to this goal, but there was more to the picture than just a one-way communication from the bike saddle and running shoes. To create a two-way interaction, we strove to use a familiar language and a known format in their home forums. Moreover, by establishing these dialogues, we were lucky to hear their own personal experiences of a changing environment.

As climate scientists, we are more used to talk in scientific terms like 2°C and 450 ppm, but human stories of climate change connect on a whole different level with laypeople. We therefore retold these stories at the open events and educational institutions along the way, and we shared them in traditional news outlets and social media. Overall, we estimated that the latter gave us a reach of more than 1 million people. Through video analyses and a follower survey, we propose that the inspirational messages of climate action by a younger generation were among the key reasons for this reach. Our 10 team members were all in our 20s, possibly explaining why we were especially successful in reaching other millennials and the Generation Z.

Left photo: Hundreds of cyclists joining Daniel Price for a morning ride in Jakarta, Indonesia. Right photo: Group run with Erlend Moster Knudsen in Trondheim. Credit Paul Kopperud/Tekna

Messages of climate action from climate scientists, however, can be problematic, as they question our objectivity. Our professional credibility as scientists, as defined by Nordhagen et al. (2014)⁹, comes from our peer-reviewed publication record, which scientific co-authors we collaborate with and what research institutions we are affiliated with. However, by advocating for positive personal and societal action on climate change, we moved beyond our core scientific base. Nevertheless, by making the problem tangible, concrete and possible to mitigate, climate change moves from something far away in space and time to something here and now. According to theories on science communication^7,8, such actions do not foster climate denial, which was also our experience.

When doing outreach on a divisive topic like climate change, scientists need in any case to tread carefully to maintain their credibility as well as that of the scientific community. During Pole to Paris, we did so by avoiding partnerships with either side of the climate advocacy fringes and not favoring one political party over another. Instead, we partnered with scientific institutions and international organizations like the United Nations Development Programme and the World Meteorological Organization. By following these measures, along with giving talks and interviews, interacting with politicians and literally walking the talk, we experienced a boost in personal and public credibility, which altogether enhanced our overall researcher credibility.

Photo from a Pole to Paris open event in Kabelvåg, Lofoten Islands (Credit: Espen Mortensen)

Our experience supports suggestions published in a previous study¹⁰ that science participation and outreach can indeed rebuild the credibility among communities most critical of scientists. This is encouraging considering that post-factual societies have arisen in many parts of the world, from the US to Brazil and from Hungary to the Philippines, where a significant number of people accept an argument based on their emotions and beliefs rather than scientific facts. Fake news has become a threat to science, researchers and institutions alike, as highlighted at the 2019 EGU General Assembly¹¹. Fostering constructive conversations about science and society, on the other hand, can improve decision-making, promote trust and credibility in scientific findings, and strengthen democratic processes^12,13, ultimately counteracting the politicisation and polarisation of science and post-factual movements, respectively.

In our paper, we argue that the current training to become a scientist does not fulfill the position climate science and scientists has received in our daily discourse. To adapt to and play our new role as providers of trustworthy information of climate change, we argue that more emphasis should be placed on teaching researchers how to communicate science and interact with media, policymakers and pseudoskepticism, while less focus should be on the published record. This training will not only help narrow the widening gap between academia and the rest of society but, within academia, also provide better tools for teaching, mentoring, taking part in scientific discussions as well as contributing to better-written research proposals and journal publications.

As a scientific community, we will all benefit from reducing the politicisation and polarisation of climate change, depressing the breeding ground for post-factual movements, and acquiring tools to deal with a new generation of students angry about the older generations’ lack of climate action. Predominantly paid by taxpayers, we have a self-interest in providing recognizable services back to our society. Publishing an academic paper in scientific jargon being a paywall is not enough in itself. Rather, we need to better position ourselves through communication training to engage non-academic audiences in scientific facts about one of the biggest threats of our time: climate change.

By Erlend Moster Knudsen

You can learn more about the Pole to Paris campaign on their Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/poletoparis/

Erlend Moster Knudsen is a climate science researcher and communicator, currently working as a Senior Data Scientist for StormGeo in Bergen, Norway, and as the Deputy Director of Pole to Paris in Christchurch, New Zealand. He holds a PhD in Arctic climate dynamics from the University of Bergen. Erlend tweets at @ErlendMK

References

[i] Referring to how the science behind political decisions is increasingly promoted and attacked by advocates and opponents.

[ii] Referring to the growing division between elites, organizations and political parties viewing climate change as a negative consequence of industrial capitalism and those opposing such views.

FRANCE 24: Populist push, green wave, establishment in turmoil: a round-up of the EU elections, France 24, 2019.
Schminke, T. G.: How different generations voted in the EU election, Europe Elects, 2019.
Knudsen, E. M., and de Bolsée, O. J.: Communicating climate change in a “post-factual” society: lessons learned from the Pole to Paris campaign, Geosci. Commun., 2, 83–93, doi:10.5194/gc-2-83-2019, 2019.
Rapley, C., and De Meyer, K.: Climate science reconsidered, Nat. Clim. Change, 4, 745–746, doi: 10.1038/nclimate2352, 2014.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: COP 21, United Nations Climate Change, 2015.
Price, D., Knudsen, E. M., Gillman, T., Willis, J., de Bolsée, O. J., Jones, C., Ward, B., Gustafson, J., Woodhouse, K.-S., Miao, W.: Pole to Paris, 2019.
Witte, K.: Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model, Commun. Monogr., 59, 329–349, https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276, 1992.
Stoknes, P. E.: What we think about when we try not to think about global warming: Toward a new psychology of climate action, Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, USA, ISBN 978-1-60358- 583-5, 2015.
Nordhagen, S., Calverley, D., Foulds, C., O’Keefe, L., and Wang, X.: Climate change research and credibility: balancing tensions across professional, personal, and public domains, Climatic Change, 125, 149–162, doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1167-3, 2014.
Gauchat, G., O’Brien, T., and Mirosa, O.: The legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere, Climatic Change, 143, 297–306, doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2015-z, 2017.
Hill, C.: GeoPolicy: Fake news and populism – a threat to science in Europe, GeoLog, 2019.
Wooden, R.: The principles of public engagement: at the nexus of science, public policy influence, and citizen education, Soc. Res., 73, 1057–1063, 2006.
Nisbet, M.: Scientists in civic life: facilitating dialogue-based communication, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2018.

GeoPolicy: What really drives political decision-making?

Chloe Hill July 26, 2019

Credit: Angelocordeschi, Adobe Stock, 2019

On July 17 2019, the EU Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) published a report highlighting how thinking is challenged by today’s information environment and the role of evidence-informed policymaking in a well-functioning democracy. Titled Understanding our political nature, the report was produced with the assistance of 60 international experts in the humanities, behavioural and social sciences who analysed how and why emotions, values and identity impact how we think, talk and vote.

The report underscores that rebutting myths, fact checking and increasing scientific literacy are necessary but still not sufficient to improve policymaking, enable scientific evidence or maintain a healthy democracy. How citizens take political decisions at an individual, collective and institutional level must also be understood and addressed.

Key findings

Misperception and disinformation

People don’t always think rationally. While this isn’t necessarily a problem, neglecting it and basing politics on that assumption is.

The way in which people receive information has changed rapidly with the introduction of the internet and social media. This transformation has enabled political actors to communicate in an un-mediated and often targeted way with citizens. Furthermore, fake news is diffused farther and faster than the truth [1].

To address this, the authors of the report state that governments should: request that social media platforms expand activities that counter fake news, examine how people interpret information, teach basic critical thinking skills and make greater efforts to disentangle facts from values. The report also recommends that policymakers spend more time debating the values around the facts than the facts themselves. The authors argue that motivated reasoning, an emotion-biased decision-making process, results in many people distrusting facts that counter their beliefs. And while facts can counter misconceptions in some instances, they don’t alleviate the concerns that caused those initial misconceptions in the first place.

Collective intelligence

Credit Rodney_F via Flickr

Collective intelligence is the combined intellect that emerges from the collaboration of a group of diverse individuals. When collaborative processes are designed effectively and all critical information and expertise is shared openly, the quality of political decisions can be significantly improved. Research has shown that the more diverse views a group has, the higher the level of accuracy in their collective response [2]. Collective intelligence also helps to neutralise individual biases.

An effort to reduce barriers to collective intelligence, such as groupthink and polarisation should be avoided and new ideas, questions and dissenting opinions should be accepted willingly.

The authors of the report recommended creating scenarios that can help policymakers’ reason, anticipate and develop a better understanding of the paths that lead to different scenarios. They also recommended tried and tested techniques such as the Devil’s Advocate method to establish an environment of psychological safety, reduce conformity pressure and deliberately create dissent.

Emotions

Emotions are a part of our everyday lives and separating them from reason is close to impossible for most people. Research shows that humans tend to remember emotionally-laden and threat-related information better than neutral information [3]. And while this may sound like a negative, it does have a positive side. Emotions allow rapid decisions on complex issues that would otherwise exceed our ability to reason [4].

The report reasons that creating a system that is more sensitive to the emotions of citizens will allow policymakers to better understand and address concerns, fears, hopes and suffering more effectively and thereby improve their ability to make effective policy. The authors recommend that policymakers improve their emotional literacy and learn how to acknowledge, integrate and use their own emotions, rather than trying to suppress them.

Values and identity

Values, identity, worldviews and ideologies not only influence our behaviour but also our political views and our perception of facts. People are usually members of multiple overlapping groups that play a significant part in shaping their identity.

Conservative ideologies are based on values like respect for tradition and order, which directly address the human needs to manage uncertainty and threat and therefore the desire to preserve the social system, while a liberal ideology strives to challenge it.

Because values are important in driving political behaviour, the report argues, they should be considered throughout the policy cycle. Policymakers and scientists should be mindful of own values preferences and aware that they are not universally shared. Training scientists and policymakers in emotional literacy will assist with this.

Framing, Metaphor and Narrative

Framing is both a communication tool and a mental model that shapes the way the world is viewed. For example, issues can be framed by what users will lose or what users will gain. Although generally, framing isn’t this straight forward.

There is no such thing as a neutral frame. You can’t include everything when you’re explaining a concept, result or idea – you create a frame by deciding what the most important aspects are and how they should be included. A strong belief in the existence of a neutral frame could even be counterproductive as it may result in policymakers or scientists being less aware of their bias and worldviews.

Metaphors allow individuals to understand certain things while preventing them from considering others. Metaphors allow people to explain an issue or concept by drawing from everyday, non specialised language. In this way, they also shape how people think about the world.

Narratives and stories have been used to convey ideas for thousands of years and through suspense, induce higher levels of dopamine which can increase focus, motivation and memory retention. For example, talking about how climate change is likely to impact people creates a narrative and will probably get the audience’s attention more than outlining the numbers.

Books. Credit: FUMIGRAPHIK_Photographist via Flickr

“Facts don’t speak for themselves. Framing, metaphors and narratives need to be used responsibly if evidence is to be heard and understood”

The authors of the report underscored the importance of maintaining factual accuracy and scientific integrity regardless of the communication techniques used. They also highlighted the possible ethical consequences of using framing, metaphor and narrative techniques in a democratic process and recommended that policymakers be transparent about the techniques being used throughout the decision-making process.

Trust and Openness

“The erosion of trust in experts and in government can only be addressed by greater honesty and public deliberation about interests and values”

Trust in science is still relatively high but any erosion of this trust is a real threat as it would make any societal issue or challenge more difficult to solve [5]. While excellent science is obviously vital, it is not the only factor that should be considered when building trust.

The report explains that scientists can build trust with the public by being transparent about their values and interests and opening their research to scrutiny regarding the methods and assumptions used. Researchers who actively engage with stakeholders either online or in person can help increase mutual trust but they should be mindful of the language used as scientific jargon can be both confusing and seen as elitist by non-scientists.

Discussing controversial issues in public or online can result in polarised debates, reducing trust in democratic institutions. However, deliberative and co-creation techniques (which encourage participants to exchange information, examine an issue and to come to an agreement) can cultivate civil and informed discourse and help resolve disagreements on controversial issues [6].

Evidence-informed Policy

The link between using scientific evidence in the policymaking process and the increase in the quality and efficiency of resulting policies are well established [7]. Using evidence allows decision-makers to better understand policy options and more informed choices about policy development and implementation [8].

Despite this, policymaking remains a political process with interests and values impacting the ways in which problems are defined.

It is important to recognise that the framing of policy problems determines the selection of what research is needed, what evidence counts and what should be ignored.

There is also a number barriers preventing effective evidence informed policymaking.

European Parliament Journalism Prize. Credit European Parliament via Flickr

1. The science and policy communities have different “norms, cultures and languages”
2. The time and budgetary constraints of the two communities are often misaligned
3. The way in which scientific evidence is presented is often not conducive to the needs of policymakers
4. Many policymakers have insufficient scientific literacy
5. The public is not necessarily equipped to understand and assess evidence critically

To address these issues, the authors of the report suggest that policymakers and scientists embrace co-creation techniques and work together on an issue from the beginning. They also highlight the need to further develop the evidence-informed policy system and to include knowledge brokers and organisations working at the science-policy interface in the process.

They go on to state that scientific literacy within government institutions should be improved including the understanding of scientific evidence, risk literacy, statistical literacy and critical thinking. On the other hand, additional skills and a better understanding of key drivers of the policy process is needed by scientists. This includes networking and facilitation skills to overcome inter-disciplinary and inter-departmental boundaries, the ability to apply research synthesis and meta-analytical approaches and how to engage with citizens and stakeholders.

The report acknowledges while it’s unrealistic to expect policymakers and scientists to master all of these skills, it should be possible to build teams of policymakers and scientists with all of them. Both the policy and scientific communities will need to implement better incentives for this work.

The next steps

The JRC hopes that the findings in the Understanding our political nature report will be used by policymakers throughout EU institutions to “improve policymaking, enabling scientific evidence and reason to contribute to democracy”. The next JRC study will build on the outcomes found in this report and focus on improving “the understanding of the values held by European citizens and political parties” . A call for experts willing to contribute to the report is open until September 10 2019.

Full report: Understanding our political nature

References

Strickland, A. A., Taber, C. S., Lodge, M., ‘Motivated reasoning and public opinion’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, Vol. 36, No 6, 2011, pp. 89-122. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-1460524
Compton, R. J., ‘The interface between emotion and attention: A review of evidence from psychology and neuroscience’, Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, Vol. 2, No 2, 2003, pp. 115-129.
Jacobson, J., Dobbs-Marsh, J., Liberman, V., Minson, J. A., ‘Predicting Civil Jury Verdicts: How Attorneys
Use (and Misuse) a Second Opinion’, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Vol. 8, No S1, 2011, pp. 99-119
Shackman, A. J., Fox, A. S., Seminowicz, D., ‘The cognitive-emotional brain: Opportunities and challenges
Pornpitakpan, C., ‘The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 34, No 2, 2004, pp. 243-281.
Turner, S., ‘What is the problem with expert judgement?’, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No 1, 2001,
pp. 123-149.
Castellani, T., Valente, A., Cori, L., Bianchi, F., ‘Detecting the use of evidence in a meta-policy’, Evidence & Policy:
A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, Vol. 12, No 1, 2016, pp. 91-107.
Aravind, M., Chung, K. C., ‘Evidence-based medicine and hospital reform: tracing origins back to Florence Nightingale’, Plastic and reconstructive surgery, Vol. 125, No 1, 2010, pp. 403-409. http://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c2bb89

GeoTalk: Creative communication for science education – meet scientific artist Kelly Stanford

Olivia Trani July 17, 2019

Meet scientific artist Kelly Stanford, who uses creative communication (such as STEM Pusheen cartoons) to teach people about science! (Illustration by Kelly Stanford)

GeoTalk interviews usually feature the work of early career researchers, but this month we deviate from the standard format to speak to Kelly Stanford, an artist based in Manchester, UK who focuses on creating works of art that embody scientific concepts in an accessible and aesthetically pleasing manner which can be used to communicate science to the public. Here we talk to her about her career path into science art (SciArt) and science communication (SciComm), her recent projects, lessons learned as a science communicator, and more!

Hi Kelly, thanks for talking to me today! To start off, could you introduce yourself and tell us a little more about your career path so far?

I’m a scientific artist/illustrator based in Manchester, in the UK, who uses art as a form of science communication. My academic background was originally History of Art which I did as an undergrad at the University of Manchester (my dissertation was on Eduardo Paolozzi’s Turing Suite – a series of overlooked prints themed around the life of Alan Turing and technological progress), before I focused my career path exclusively to SciArt and SciComm after I graduated.

My practices have always been rooted in science and art, so I wanted to continue to develop these during my time at university. During my time in Manchester, I started to network and collaborate with scientists from the university’s physics department in order to develop my work further. I was amazed at how accommodating the university was towards interdisciplinary work; I had access to labs so I could experiment with new materials and figure out how to incorporate them into my work. This eventually this led to me collaborating with the National Graphene Institute, which is currently in the process of hanging my art up around the building for permanent exhibition, plus some future projects with other departments too.

All my work is freelance so I get to work on a diverse range of stuff. Most of the time I will be commissioned by a scientist and then we will work closely together to realise their project ideas (like an educational card game) and other times I set my own personal projects to work on with companies (such as public art sculptures).

How did you first get interested in SciArt and SciComm?

I first got interested in SciArt during my college days. The SciComm element came later as I noticed that the pieces I made in the studio space led to numerous people asking me about their inspiration and general science questions. A few fellow students pointed out that I was able to break topics down and simplify them so that even those from non-science backgrounds could understand the subject. I also noticed that they were taking note of science in the news more after our discussions and looking things up. Eventually this led to us projecting NASA live streams onto the studio wall during lessons, much to the dismay of our skeptical art professor. It really made me focus on SciArt’s inherent SciComm potential so it became a main focus during and after my university days to develop it further.

One of your most recent works is Science Pusheen: where you create illustrations of the cartoon cat Pusheen in various STEM roles. What was your inspiration and goal for this project, and what has been the response so far?

Originally, I made them as a bit of fun in between my main work and as a response to the lack of positive STEM representation in cartoon media. I was disappointed that there was no science-themed Pusheen’s (not even a simple lab technician) so I made my own! The project started as a set of four basic drawings I made on my iPad and uploaded to my Twitter (@TheLabArtist), I had no idea they’d blow up as much as they did. I let people use the illustrations so they’re now being incorporated into classrooms, labs, presentations and outreach events!

: The Pusheen cartoon character as a palaeontologist, volcanologist, meteorologist, and glaciologist (top to bottom left clockwise) (Illustrations by Kelly Stanford)

I now take requests for science fields to cover in the project – I’m aiming to cover most science fields so that everyone has their own Pusheen. Geoscientific fields gets requested a lot so I’ve already made a few covering this area. I’m currently working on a climate scientist and communicator Pusheen as we speak!

In your opinion, why is having STEM representation in media (such as your Pusheen cartoons) important?

STEM is a part of everyday life so I feel that people should be made more aware of it. I also think science has these cultural stereotypes where you have to be a certain type of person to be a scientist, which isn’t the case. I believe anyone can get involved with STEM, so the more representation in popular media these fields get hopefully the more normalized it will become.

Besides Science Pusheen, you have been involved in a number of other projects, from designing science education themed card games to creating science communication sculptures! What have been some of your favorite projects recently?

Well one of my favorites was the ‘STEM Bee’ science communication sculpture I made for the Bee in the City last year in Manchester. The STEM Bee was a 1.8 metre tall bee sculpture that was embellished with imagery from Manchester research papers, portraits of famous scientists, science facts, a list of the city’s scientific achievements and the signatures of roughly 80 local researchers (including a Nobel Prize winner!). The signatures were a nice touch as it represented current-day research being done in the city, rather than just focusing on the historical stuff. It also allowed me to meet and collaborate with a whole bunch of researchers from different backgrounds.

The bee was outside Manchester Oxford Road train station (one of the main ones in the city) for two months so loads of people got to see it. I worked with my sponsor, ARUP (engineering firm behind the Sydney Opera House) to promote the project through free posters/postcards and a free DIY Bee Hotel guide which was unlockable via a QR code on the bee’s base. Eventually my sculpture was auctioned off and raised an amazing £22,000 for local charities – SciComm and charity fundraising in one!

At the start of the year I collaborated with Chris Skinner a research fellow at the University of Hull, UK, to design a flood defense card game he created called ‘Resilience’ for the University of Hull’s SeriousGeoGames Lab. My job was to design all of the graphics (card layout, branding and the card artwork); it was a really fun project and was great seeing the test version shown at this year’s EGU conference. We want to work on the game some more, tweaking a few things to make it play better and even introduce some special cards ready for EGU2020!

More recently, I’ve just finished making two more SciComm sculptures, this time gorillas for the Jersey Zoo, on the island of Jersey in the English Channel. The first is more of a fun one for children that’s themed around space and glows in the dark. The other is dedicated to Gerald Durrell, the founder of the zoo and the Durrell Conservation Trust. Gerald was crucial in influencing change in how zoos worldwide operate, shifting from a mere attraction to an ‘ark’ where endangered species are conserved for repopulation purposes. He was also a massive influence for future wildlife presenters such as David Attenborough. It’s an honor to be commissioned for such a piece and I hope my sculpture does a good job at communicating Durrell’s importance in species conservation!

You also have given workshops teaching different scientific topics through art and discussing how art can be used as an effective tool for science communication. What strategy do you use and impart to educators when it comes to teaching science through art?

I try to create a calm environment in the classroom and don’t exert too much pressure on the students during lessons. If you exert too much pressure (which is becoming a major problem in UK schools), they’ll be too stressed to take anything in. The main objective is for them to have fun, learn some interesting facts and come away with a physical object that they’ve made. In my recent workshop I got a school of 150 students to create their own illustrated ecology books focused on a creature of their choice and its habitat, complete with annotations. The workshop not only got them to do research ecology research, but it also produced something they can take home and look at. I find that visual learning such as the SciArt workshops is great in that the art helps reinforce the science subject its themed around and it can also be therapeutic and boost creativity.

What are some of the biggest lessons you have learned as a scientific artist? What advice would you impart to aspiring science communicators?

Just dive in head first – as science communicators our job is to find new, unthought of methods of science outreach. So, don’t be afraid of trying new things, even if it’s outside of your discipline. Sometimes starting as an outsider and working inward can give you a good insight on how to help others do the same.

Interview by Olivia Trani, EGU Communications Officer

You can learn more about Kelly Stanford as well as her ongoing and past projects via her website: https://www.kellystanford.co.uk/. You can follow her work on twitter via @TheLabArtist.