Interview Transcript

Angela gave a brief description of iGEM, how we are mining porcupine microbiome for genes that can be inserted into E. coli for glucose production and how it can be fed into a bioreactor with yeast to produce ethanol.
Bob: What is the advantage of doing it that way over the way ethanol is produced now?
Angela: It’s cleaner and more efficient, it is low maintenance, can produce large quantity without people looking over it constantly. It is also low pollution.
Bob: I think a lot of ethanol now is produced from corn, isn’t it? You’re saying making it from cellulose?
Angela: Yes, because cellulose is a waste product, and especially in Canada, in Atlantic Canada we have a great lumber industry, so we do have a lot of the waste just lying around. Nowadays we are just putting them into landfills just to get rid of them, but we are proposing another innovative idea that we can just utilize the waste and turn it into fuel.
Bob: Sounds great. So what do you need to ask me?
Angela: We are thinking of asking you about scientific communication. Because we have encountered instances where it is hard to get the audience engaged in the sciences and what we are doing. Sometimes they find it difficult and hard to talk to us. There seems to be a divide between scientific language and what they are used to. So we do want some of your insight on how to engage the public and how to reach out to more people to spread the love of science. Your radio program is good at doing that, so we want your advice on that.
Bob: We have a couple of criteria on our program and really what it is is storytelling. Telling a story, and stories have characters, stories have plotlines, stories have a location, a setting of some kind, and you see there is some kind of tension there, this is storytelling. You’ve got to frame your story. And in your case, what you are doing is really neat, this is really great. But before you start talking about cellulose, about bioreactors, and enzymes, and all that scientific jargon, you’ve got to set the stage. Why are you doing this? What is the point of doing this? Well, fossil fuel is limited, we would like to have an alternative source of energy, so ethanol is the answer to that. Although ethanol still produces carbon dioxide, but, anyways, that’s the point. You’ve got to put your story in human terms so the people who don’t understand the science will understand. So first set the scene, then get into what you’re doing, and do it in terms of what people might understand. I didn’t know that porcupines could digest cellulose. That’s really interesting. Who would have thought about looking at a porcupine to find something that I could put into my car? So yeah, that’s great. That’s what is going to get an audience. So you have to take a step back from the science, and think about how would a person who’s never heard about this understand it? What would get their attention? Relating porcupines and cars, you would’ve never thought of a relationship between porcupines and the fuel station, but this is what we are doing. And introduce it. Set the scene in human terms. Very often when I am talking to the scientists, and they start getting too deeply into the science themselves with all the jargon. I understand it, because I have been in the business for a long time. But, sometimes I’ll stop them and be like, hey, you are not talking to another scientist. You are not defending your phD. Right, I’m just a person interested in it. So, how would you explain this to me if I meet you at a party. If I met you at a party, and I said, what do you do for a living? You would just tell me in general terms what you do, you know well we are looking at alternative fuels, and one of them is ethanol. And hey, who would’ve thought that we get it from porcupines, we’ve taken a lesson from porcupines. Or how would you explain it to your dentist? Your dentist is someone who is well-educated, but doesn’t know what you are doing. Right? They know another field. Or, how would you explain over your backyard fence to a neighbor? That kind of thing. So start there, start with storytelling and set the context and if you want to get into the science of it, you don’t have to teach them everything about the science, you can introduce them to the science, and if they want to know more then give it to them. But don’t give it to them too much, because they would turn off. So, think more about the story, if they want to know more then they will ask you. So give them just enough to say, this is what we do, and this is how it works. Now, you just did a pretty good description of what you do, but I had to fill in the story about the context, because I know about ethanol fuels and I know a lot about alternative fuel technology, but a lot of people don’t. So before you even get into what you’re doing, set the stage. And then talk about why you do it, what are you interested in? People want to know about people. Why are you doing it, why are you interested in it?
Angela: We are the only team in Atlantic Canada, so we do try to cater our project towards what’s relevant to the province…
Bob: No no, that’s not what I asked. That’s your corporate line, that’s your official university line. What about you personally, why are you interested in it?
Angela: Well I guess it’s a team, so it’s not just about my personal interest, but you can say that we do have a zoo around here, it’s called the Shubenacadie Wild Life Park. So we actually visited the zoo and saw a bunch of porcupines, and then they are pretty cute.
Bob: Great great, that’s pretty great, that’s perfect. You just humanized it for me. So you’re looking at porcupines, and you realized that they metabolize cellulose. We have a lot of cellulose in Canada, and cellulose can be turned into ethanol. Hey, let’s take a lesson from porcupines, let’s see if we can do this in the lab. Now, you get to your science. Right? You see what I’m getting at? You set the stage. It’s ok to make it personal. It’s ok to include yourself. So how about your partner? Why did you get into it?
Nick: Well, I’m interested because I really like science that can do something, like, I’m not interested in the stuffs that are all theoretical, but I want to be able to make a difference, so I thought, there’s a lot of energy in cellulose, we are lucky if we can use that.
Bob: So that’s my point, don’t be afraid to make it personal.
Angela: Do you mind telling us about why you got into Quirks and Quarks? Like why did you become a radio host?
Bob: My story is not the normal story of a science journalist. Most people who are science journalists now in radio and television, they have a science degree, and they go to journalism school. And I think now in Halifax, you have one in King’s College that teaches journalism. So that you learn about journalism and how to tell stories, about the technology, how to record, how to build a story, how to put together a radio or a program. And you go out into the workplace and find a job. Well I didn’t do any of that. Well, I’ve always enjoyed science since I was a kid, I found science fascinating, the way it looks at the world, the way it finds out things that we didn’t know before and I’ve always liked it. But when I went into school I found out that I wasn’t very good at doing it. You know, I could understand, but I was terrible at math, and terrible at chemistry, I just had trouble with formulas and stuffs. I’m really good when someone tells me a story. I’m really good at listening when someone tells me something. So, I’m actually a university dropout. I didn’t finish getting a degree, and I didn’t know what I was going to do with myself so I worked construction and drove a truck. And the path to where I am now came about because friends and later colleagues and mentors opened doors for me and said, hey, why don’t you try this. And I always said, ok, I’ll try that, even though I had never done it. The first opportunity was to be an instructor at the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto, and they were looking for people who had an interest in science but could also communicate very well. When I was in school, I did a lot of drama. So standing before an audience was fun, I really liked that, so they were looking for people to do shows in science, at the science centre. So I got a job there doing that. So I had to learn the science very quickly, and I found that easy because I was interested in it, so I started to make science fun using props, demos, my own body, all kind of things, like standing people’s hair up with static electricity. Freeze flowers in liquid nitrogen and all the stuffs. So out of that, the media would come out once a while and said, would somebody come on and talk about something in space. I was also really interested in space. So I started appearing on television and news, and I was all excited about it. Like oh, here’s what happened, we landed on Mars today, so it was really great. And the television producer said, hey, you’re really good, do you want to come back and do our news program? So I started doing it. And one thing led to another led to another led to another. I was asked to do educational videos in the United States, I was asked to do a kids’ television show in the 80’s that was called Wonderstruck that was on CBC television, half hour preshow, and then Quirks and Quarks was looking for a host so they asked me to do that. So one thing just led to another and I always I said I’d try it. And each time I had to learn really fast how to do it, but I found that people would help if I wanted to do it. So that’s the story of my life. Took advantage of opportunities that came along and always said yes.
Angela: That’s great. The fact that you are interested in it. I am pretty sure you did a better job than some people who went to journalism school and they had a schema in their head that they have to do it certain ways… So I think what you are doing probably makes your program more fun and interesting.
Bob: Well, I find that my lack of phD actually puts me closer to my audience. Because the journalist is between the science and the audience. The scientists know a whole lot and they speak their own language. So, the journalist has to understand that language and translate it over here for the audience who doesn’t speak that language. We are translators. I have found that, I grew up speaking the lay language, I understand this so I can translate. But when I hear something in science, I am always thinking in my mind, I think pictures. So if you are talking about enzymes breaking down cellulose, I think of scissors cutting up those little threads. Which is sort of like what they do right? Making them into little pieces. So that’s what I’m thinking about, breaking spaghetti into smaller pieces. When I’m doing interviews, sometimes on Quirks and Quarks you’d hear me say, let me see if I’ve got this right, I say that a lot, that’s me thinking on the spot. Because you just said something really complicated, and I’m trying to spin it back in one sentence. You just spent the last two minutes telling me something, and I had to spin it back using one sentence, and usually with an analogy. Is it like breaking up spaghettis? And they would say yeah, and then that just crystallizes it for the audience, and then we move on to the next thing. We just take it step by step by step. And in radios, specially, it is really important to be clear. Not, I don’t like the term “dumb it down”. We don’t dumb it down. We just make it really clear, because in radio we hear it once, and in televisions you have pictures to help you. So you don’t understand it at least you can see it. And in newspapers and magazines if you don’t understand something, you could go back and read it again. But in radios it only go by once. You only hear it once and it’s gone. And if you hear something that you don’t understand, you go, what the heck was that? What did she just say? And while you’re thinking that, you are missing the next sentence. You’re falling behind, and when you try to catch up you can get lost. So it’s really important in radio to be really really clear. Make sure that we are stepping our way through the story and that we understand this point and let’s move on to the next one and don’t turn any sharp corners, you don’t want to go from one subject over here to something that’s totally different. So again, it’s storytelling. There’s a line, there’s a story plot, the setting, the characters, plot, and you come to the conclusion at the end. So it’s all about storytelling.
Angela: So have you encountered instances where the audience still doesn’t understand even after you summarize it? Or if there’s something that the scientists are staying that is just too complicated for you to summarize in one simple sentence, then what would you do?
Bob: Well I did have a scientist who got really complicated, and I said, could we try that again, could you express it in lay terms? And he said, I don’t know how to explain it in lay terms. And that interview never ended up on the air, we threw it away. We didn’t do it. We have 2 criteria. A good story, and a good storyteller. And before an interview gets to air, my producer who does all the research and all the hard work finds the story and we go find the scientist. We always go for the first author on the paper, the top name. And they call them up on the phone to first, learn about the story, and also to listen, how well they speak. And very often they can’t get it out, and you can tell from the phone that it won’t be a good interview, and almost half of the stories that we produce, that we chase do not make it to air, because people do not communicate well. And so, it’s good storytelling. And on the other side, we have people who have, their story isn’t really that big, it’s not really that exciting, but they are such good talkers, they are so enthusiastic that we put them on the air because it’s just good to listen to. There might be some little study about the sex life of some insects. We are like ok, this insect is somewhere off in Bonial, but their reproductive element is really really interesting and they tell the story really well, so yeah, we put them on the air.
Angela: Do you think there is any difference promoting science over the radio as opposed to using the social media, the internet? Do you think there’s a difference a more traditional means than using the popular platforms?
Bob: Right, so I can speak from my program. Ok, to start a program, we are communicating science. One thing that we do is that, we let the science speak for itself. That’s what we report on. Here’s what happened this week in science, here are some important issue in science, and here are the scientists who did the actual work we are speaking. We don’t talk to people with opinions. And in social media there are a lot of people with opinions. Here is what I think about this, well, who are you? Why should I care about your opinion? And there are a lot of people who are saying a lot but they don’t have any credibility, or people saying, oh I don’t believe this, so whatever, whether climate deniers, conspiracy theorists, or, you know, I got a letter, it just arrived here the other day, saying why don’t you do a story on doctor so and so who believes in tendrils and aliens controlling our brain and all this. So I actually looked the guy up, who’s this doctor guy who’s written books, and who’s appeared on all these television programs and everything talking about all these weird stuffs. And I looked at where he got his doctorate, and his doctorate came from an institution that I’ve never even heard about in Sri Lanka. And the doctor that he got was an honourary doctorate, it’s not a real, he didn’t actually get a phD, it’s an honourary doctorate. I have 11 honourary doctorates from universities across Canada. So, this guy is calling himself a doctor and he’s an expert but he’s not, but he’s doing this big scam, and he’s making a lot of money with speeches and writing books but he has no credibility himself. So he is not a real scientist. And that’s the difference between social media and what do we do on the radio. And we make sure that what we are doing is correct and it’s right. And it’s not just what we think about this and what we feel about it, but it’s the actual science itself. I’m really bothered by that by what I see in social media, and it’s a challenge for students in science to understand the difference between what’s real and what’s somebody’s opinion. It’s a real real challenge.
Angela: We have created a survey a few months ago just analyzing scientific literacy among the population. So we distributed the survey and got 271 respondents from all across the world. So most are university students, because we got other iGEM teams to do it. After analyzing the results, we realized that there are some trends that are a bit interesting, like you said, some people believe in pseudo science. We would like to ask you some of those questions if you don’t mind .
Nick: The data suggested that most people with a bachelor’s degree trust scientific reports with dramatic and opinionated language to some extent. What do you think that is?
Bob: Because it speaks to the person who is not expert in that field. Again, using everyday language is a very effective tool, but, you have to be careful that it’s still accurate. And discern the opinions from the facts, be able to tell them apart. But affective language is how we speak everyday, is using everyday language and dramatic language. But again, it’s all about the truth. You know, science is one of the few institutions that we have left that looks for the truth. There’s no opinions in that, it’s just how does it work? That’s all we want to know. What we do with that knowledge is something else. You folks are doing something with that knowledge, you are trying to turn it into a product. So, dramatic language yeah, it’s good, but you’ve got to make sure that it’s still accurate.
Nick: We also found that people with a bachelor’s degree share scientific news articles on social media based solely on the title. What risks do you associate the behaviour with.
Bob: Anyone can make a great title. You have to look at who wrote the article, where does it come from. Did it come from a university? Is this person a professor at the university? Or is this corporate propaganda? Or is it some activist group with a particular point of view? Is it another point of view? Is it a conspiracy theorist, is it a religious group? Who wrote that headline? Headlines are easy to write. Who wrote it?
Angela: Yeah, most headlines on the internet are just grabbing attentions and are not even true.
Bob: Yeah, it’s very dangerous to get into that.
Nick: Ok, so we found the most popular resources that people reference for scientific concepts are in order: Google Scholar, Wikipedia, NCIB, and PubMed. What are your view on the credibility of these resources?
Bob: I’m not familiar with all of them because I don’t use… Like I say, we go right to the source. We go right to the publications that come directly from scientific journals and from universities and or scientific magazines. So again, we don’t use so much of the social media to find the information. Although, we do get information from mothers. Mothers would call us or send us notes to say that my son or my daughter is about to publish in science magazines, and you should… We do get tipped off by mothers, what their sons and daughters are doing in the university about to get published.
Angela: So do you have any advice for the general public on where to find the right resources to validate a claim or to understand a concept?
Bob: Well, there are some good websites out there that gather good data like Space.com is great for everything involved in space; New Scientists Magazine has a great website on the latest in science news, there’s another one called science daily, that works with National Geographic of course and Canadian Geographic… So as long as it’s a notable publisher or university, then you are doing well. Again, it’s the source. It doesn’t matter where you’re getting it, you always have to look at the source, where it’s coming from. And if it’s coming from a reputable organization then it’s probably fine.
Nick: So, we found that groups without any university degrees show similar trends in terms of trusting skeptical claims and blindly distributing articles without assessments. Do you think general post-secondary education plays a significant role in scientific literacy?
Bob: Yes, absolutely. Because, if you pick up a skeptic, I mean, skepticism is good, we need some skepticism in science, that’s how science works. As soon as you publish something, you’re trying to prove it wrong. And if nobody can prove it wrong, then your theory will stand up or your hypothesis. But if you only take the skeptic’s point of view, you’re unbalanced. You need to find out what the other side of that story is, and very often there will be a huge body of knowledge that will say something say the world’s climate is changing, and a few very vocal skeptics who are getting equal airtime. And in journalism they call that balance, but it’s not always balanced. And you have to say who is the skeptic, is that skeptic qualified to be commenting on it. And very often you’ll find that no, they are just people with opinions. Or in the case of climate change, we’ve since found out that they are sponsored by the oil companies. So who is this skeptic? Again, go back to the source. Who are these people, Who give them the right to say what they are saying? If they are just somebody with an opinion then in most cases, it’s demonstrating their own ignorance by saying because they don’t know the full story. But what think is this, well I don’t care what you think. You can think whatever you like. Science is not based on think or opinions, it’s based on evidence and experimental results. So again, separate the science from the opinions.