As its name suggests, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN smashes hadrons into one another – protons, to be precise. The energy from these collisions gets converted into matter, producing new particles that allow us to explore matter at the smallest scales. The LHC does not fire protons into one another individually; instead, they are circulated in approximately 2000 bunches each containing around 100 billion protons. When two bunches are focused magnetically to cross each other in the centre of detectors such as CMS and ATLAS, only 30 or so protons actually collide. The rest continue to fly through the LHC unimpeded until the next time that two bunches cross.
With scientists increasingly asked to engage the public and society-at-large with their research, and include outreach plans as part of grant applications, it helps to have a guide to various involvement possibilities and the research behind them. The second edition of the Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (henceforth referred to as “the Handbook”) provides a thorough introduction to public engagement – or outreach, as it is sometimes called – through a varied collection of articles on the subject. In particular, it brings to attention the underlying issues associated with the old “deficit model of science communication”, which presupposes a knowledge deficit about science among the general public that must be filled by scientists providing facts, and facts alone. Although primarily targeting science-communication practitioners and academics researching the field, the Handbook can also help scientists to reflect on their outreach efforts and to appreciate the interplay between science and society.
M. Bucchi and B. Trench, eds. (2014). Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Second Edition. London, UK: Routledge
The ever-changing nature of academic science communication discourse can make it challenging for those not intimately associated with the field — scientists and science-communication practitioners or new-comers to the field such as graduate students — to keep up with the research. This collection of articles provides a comprehensive overview of the subject and serves as a thorough reference book for students and practitioners of science communication.
Public understanding of science and technology; Representations of science and technology; Scholarly communication
The first edition of the Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (henceforth referred to as “the Handbook”) was reviewed in a previous edition of JCOM [Delfanti, 2008]. The second edition proves to be as insightful, thought provoking and well structured as its predecessor, while broadening its international perspectives on the theory and practice of science communication. This review is divided into two sections: the first address the structure of the Handbook and its contents, and the second provides the reviewer’s reflections.
The Handbook itself
Six years — the duration between the first and second editions of the Handbook — can be an eternity in academia. The contents of the second edition have been appropriately updated to reflect the changes in the science-communication landscape that have taken place in the interim, in particular the strengthening of the “public engagement” paradigm. Readers would do well to begin their exploration of the Handbook with the introductory chapter written by the editors, which articulates this shift towards “public engagement” from previous models of science communication.
One of the first things a reader will notice when attempting to compare the Indices of the first and second editions of the Handbook is the expanded international scope of the content; to quote the editors, “… specific chapters on developing countries and on the Internet [from the first edition] have given way to a broader treatment of globalisation and the consideration in almost all chapters of applications and implications of online media…”. Now, most discourse on science communication tends to come with a “Western” flavour containing certain socio-cultural beliefs and pre-suppositions — indeed the authors of all the chapters are themselves from (or based in) European or North American nations — so this attempt at addressing other perspectives and attitudes is crucial to having a truly global conversation around science communication. Fortunately for us, the editors are all too aware of this — “[the global nature of science communication] highlights how difficult and even misleading it would be to expect a single, straightforward response to contemporary challenges of science communication […] or to fulfil the expectation of eventually finding the best and most appropriate, one-size-fits-all model of science/public interaction” — and perhaps future editions of this valuable and widely read book will include contributions from a more diverse set of authors.
Another welcome change, at least from a student’s perspective, has been the inclusion of questions at the end of each chapter. The Handbook itself provides the reader with many opportunities to reflect on its content, but the questions help guide a student’s line of reasoning and reflection.
The modular nature of the chapters, each written by different (groups of) experts, makes it easy for readers to dive right into the Handbook by exploring the topic of their choice. The chapters cover a rich variety of themes one would encounter in studying science communication: vectors of engagement (books, museums, film), policy (public relations, participation), actors (scientists, journalists, publics), “hot-button” issues (climate, health) as well as methodology (surveys, assessment). While the Handbook caters mainly to new-comers to the field, one of its main strengths lies in the depth of references included with each chapter: even if the reader is somewhat familiar with the topic being addressed, there are adequate pointers for further reading. However, readers should note that although the language encountered throughout the Handbook is clear and precise, it can be intimidating in places: a lack of contextual definitions of academic terminology may impede fluent, straightforward reading.
Given the complexity of the themes covered in the Handbook, it is by no means intended for casual or rapid reading. That said, the conversational style employed by some of the authors makes for very engaging reading. Over the course of my research, I have found myself returning to previously read chapters and sections in order to clarify my own line of thought. On more than one occasion I turned to the Handbook just to consult the references at the end of chapters pertaining to my area of study. It has proven to be a very valuable resource indeed!
One aspect that I found a little lacking was the diversity of science domains covered: although the editors state emphatically that it is “problematic to continue using traditional expressions like scientific community, implying internal homogeneity and a shared commitment to specific norms and values…” they nonetheless only afford the aforementioned “hot-button” issues their own chapters. To my mind, certain domains of science lend themselves more easily to “public engagement”, perhaps due to their direct or immediate impact on broader society; think climate change or GMOs. Other — possibly esoteric — domains of research, less so; think theoretical particle physics or network topology. These, in some sense less-accessible, areas of research present their own science-communication challenges, and discourse that both contextualises these challenges and proposes ideas for facing them would benefit a large number of academics and practitioners.
Nevertheless, the Handbook holds open a captivating door into the world of science communication and makes for an excellent point-of-entry for those wishing to explore this field of research. Every university library would do well to have a copy in stock for its researchers as well as its students.
Delfanti, A. (2008). ‘How-to establish PCST. Two handbooks on science communication’. JCOM 7 (4), R01. URL: http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/07/04/Jcom0704(2008)R01.
How to cite
Rao, A. (2015). ‘A handy guide to science-communication theory and practice’. JCOM 14 (04), R01. URL: http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/14/04/JCOM_1404_2015_R01.
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0: This article is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivativeWorks 4.0 License.
ISSN 1824 – 2049. Published by SISSA Medialab. http://jcom.sissa.it
Originally published at: http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/14/04/JCOM_1404_2015_R01
Nuclear and electron spins in a quantum wire may spontaneously form an ordered state at very low temperatures, according to work recently carried out by an international team of physicists. The team was studying the conductance of gallium-arsenide quantum wires and discovered that, at temperatures of 0.1 K and lower, the conductance of the wires dropped below the universal quantized value. This reduced quantization is explained using a theoretical model that proposes that the nuclear and electron spins order themselves in a helical formation at these temperatures.
The data from CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is exotic, complicated, and big. At peak performance, about one billion proton collisions take place every second inside the CMS detector at the LHC. CMS has collected around 64 petabytes of analyzable data from these collisions so far.
The masses of 33 rare, exotic neutron-heavy nuclides have been measured with high precision by scientists at the Argonne National Laboratory’s CAlifornium Rare Isotope Breeder Upgrade (CARIBU) facility in the US. The findings are crucial to understanding how elements that are heavier than iron might have formed. Following the mass measurements, the researchers also compared simulations of astrophysical nuclear reactions using both the measured masses and theoretical models.
Three years after resuming operation at a centre-of-mass energy of 7 TeV in 2010 and ramping up to 8 TeV last year, the LHC is now taking a break for its first long shutdown, LS1. During the long period of highly successful running, the CMS collaboration took advantage of the accelerator’s superb performance to produce high-quality results in a variety of physics analyses, the most significant of which being the joint discovery with ATLAS of a new, Higgs-boson-like particle in July 2012.
The first direct evidence that galactic cosmic rays are accelerated within supernova remnants has been provided by observations by the Fermi Large Area Telescope collaboration. The results make use of four years of data collected by the telescope observing two supernova remnants – IC 443 and W44 – within our galaxy. The observations fit very neatly with predictions of neutral pion decay.
The rate at which protons capture muons has been accurately measured for the first time by the MuCap collaboration at the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) in Switzerland. This process, which can be thought of as beta decay in reverse, results in the formation of a neutron and a neutrino. The team has also determined a dimensionless factor that influences the rate of muon capture, which was found to be in excellent agreement with theoretical predictions that are based on very complex calculations.
Muons are cousins of the electron that are around 200 times heavier. Beta decays demonstrate the weak nuclear force in which a neutron gets converted into a proton by emitting an electron and a neutrino. Now, replace the electron with the heavier muon and run the process backwards: a proton captures a muon and transforms into a neutron while emitting a neutrino. This process – known as ordinary muon capture (OMC) – is crucial to understanding the weak interaction involving protons.
The BaBar collaboration has made the first direct observation of time-reversal (T) violation. The results are in agreement with the basic tenets of quantum field theory and reveal differences in the rates at which the quantum states of the B0 meson transform into one another. The researchers say that this measured lack of symmetry is statistically significant and consistent with indirect observations.
The BaBar detector at the PEP-II facility at SLAC in California was designed to study the collisions of electrons and positrons and to determine the differences between matter and antimatter. In particular, physicists working on the experiment are interested in the violation of the charge–parity symmetry (or CP violation). Although the detector was decommissioned in the spring of 2008, data collected during the period of operation continue to be analysed.