 |
 |
Some points on the sciBAr and then broader issues: 1) Responding to Nick Allum. I don't think it was all science types attending, though there were a lot present. The four or five people I talked to had nothing to do with science at all. I suspect, however, that most people present were educated to degree level. My feeling was that the evening benefited from the mix of science communicators and the public. No doubt there will be less science communication groupies at future debates as some of us were just there out of curiosity. 2) Responding to Aebhin Cawley. The tone of the discussion at the sciBAr was erudite and inquisitive but certainly not academic. Also, should we encouraged about 50% of those attending being women? After all, only three women spoke compared to 15 men. The lack of participation of women in debates is well known. For example: * The Wellcome Trust ran a People's Parliament in 1997 called The People Decide. Half those attending were women but men made 77% of the contributions. * In the recent democraticscience e-conference hosted by the British Council, only 27% of the contributors were women. They contributed less frequently than men (16% of the messages). What surprises me, is that science communicators seem completely blind to participation issues. All they seem to care about is bums on seats; if the session is full it must be successful. But is it not important to involve the full community in debate, regardless of gender, ethnicity, education, etc.? And should not those leading debates take a specific responsibility to ensure that the broadest range of people contribute, not just those who shout loudest and quickest? Andy Boddington %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%