Peter Briggs caught my arm as I left the sciBAr last night. Anticipating
this write-up, he asked: "You've got to say it worked, it has worked!" Peter
is right, of course, the SciBAr did work rather well and it was an enjoyable
evening.

The event was held in the cellar wine bar in Central London (the BA's
local). The debate was in a narrow room where tables had been laid for
thirty-four winers and diners. Eighty-one people crammed into this room and
overflowed into the next: 41 men and 40 women. A dozen or more were seated
in the adjacent room but I could not see to count them. I recognised about a
dozen of the company as being science communication groupies and during the
debate, we learnt that 15 were actually scientists.

"Look at the age profile," whispered Peter as the debate started, "It's so
different from the BA." Again, he was right. Unlike the BA's annual meeting,
there were few older people in the room; just a handful were aged fifty or
over. I estimated that 32 people were 30 years or younger (40%; at the BA
Festival in Birmingham 57% of visitors were over 45).

The debate was about risk and was led, ably as always, by Colin Blakemore. A
fair summary is that the usual issues were raised and perspectives ranged
from anti-capitalist to the middle ground. GM and mobile phones were covered
but the discussion was generally at a higher level and concerned with
scientific governance and how we relate to risk as individuals. There were a
lot of questions asked but fewer answers given. Those who promoted firm
answers tended towards the "science as the evil tool of global capitalism"
perspective. As the young man next to me said as the Marxist spoke again:
"It's not that I disagree with all that he say's. It's the emphasis and his
unwillingness to listen." The evening did not come to any conclusions;
rightly so I think. The suggestion that one point of view might "win" is
contrary to the spirit of the sciBAr and would have encouraged more point
scoring from some members of the audience.

So was it a debate, did people listen? Indeed, who took part? We have a few
statistics on this.

There were 27 contributions from the floor, from 18 people (23% of those
present). 8 of these were scientists or had a detailed knowledge of science.
But men dominated the debate and only three women spoke. The men also spoke
for longer (in a few cases, for too long...).

Was it a debate? Almost. Think of it as a game of tennis.

Some people were determined to score "aces," making often lengthy statements
and were not expecting response. Eight of these statements took a generally
negative attitude to science, its involvement with capitalism, corruption of
governments, etc. Just one person hit an ace on a "science is good for you"
ticket. Blakemore skilfully responded to these statements by picking out a
point or two and batting questions back to the broader audience.

The majority of contributors returned the ball by referring to previous
speakers' or Blakemore's statements and questions (56%). There was, however,
only one good rally, when the topic was held for 6 contributions. So, in the
sense that debate is a discussion in which contributors react to each
other's views and develop their own arguments, it was only partly a debate.

My female neighbour, however, did not think it was a debate: "It's too
crowded and noisy in here. It's difficult to hear." In that sense, it was a
pity that so many turned up.

So, is there anything to be learnt from this first sciBAr? Firstly, the main
point is that the idea of a SciBAr seems to work well, and it is a pleasant
and useful way to spend an evening (but it would be useful to check this
with more of those who attended). Secondly, that further attention needs to
be paid to logistics but this is relatively straightforward.

More complex is the gender imbalance. Are we satisfied with events where men
make four in five contributions? We do not know if the women who attended
were particularly concerned about this. The two I spoke to felt they the
lacked confidence to comment themselves but one commented, "I'd come again."

What about the debate blockers: those only interested in scoring aces? I am
not suggesting that their views are invalid or should not be heard, just
reflecting that they do not contribute much to discussion rather than blast
us with unshakeable views. It is a shame really, because I quite warmed to
the technophile Marxist in yellow chequered trousers who preached to us from
his palm-top...

Andy Boddington





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%