I attended my first ever Café Scientifique event last week. The venue could not be faulted – a brew pub with good food, outstanding beer, and a view of the harbour and the North Shore mountains. However there were a couple of barriers to the organisation’s stated aim of “promoting public engagement with science and […] making science accountable”.
The first was that most of the audience were scientists – I’ve been for after-work beers with at least seven of them, and there were several other familiar faces dotted about the room. My friend and I chatted to the organisers after the event, and asked them how they had advertised the evening. Mass all-staff emails had been sent around my workplace and around several other large academic research centres, attracting plenty of local scientists to the event. There had apparently been an advert in one local free paper, but I had only heard about the event through scientific channels. There is a Facebook group, but again it is populated largely by scientists. Perhaps an appearance by one of the experts on the local morning TV news might have brought more non-scientists into the mix.
The second obstacle was the talk’s title, Stopping cancer where it starts: Do recently-discovered cancer stem cells hold the key?. Cancer stem cells are one of the hottest and most controversial topics in cancer research, as evidenced by a multitude of recent high-profile research papers and reviews1. Hell, even the name is controversial, with many researchers preferring variations on “tumour initiating cells”. Even better, much of the early work in the field was done in Canada – perfect for a Vancouver audience, right?
Wrong.
While the talk was very interesting to me, I don’t think the non-scientists in the audience really grasped the nature of the controversy. The questions asked at the end suggested that half of them were there because they’d heard the word “cancer”, while the other half had heard “stem cells”, and that there was not much understanding of the nature or significance of the overlap between the two. It didn’t help that, due to the very preliminary nature of the hypothesis, hard evidence one way or the other is still in rather short supply. And non-scientists seem to prefer their experts to sound a little more convinced about their subject matter.
For example, one question about the future benefits of cancer stem cell research resulted in a discussion about the very nature of scientific research and its translation to the clinic. People do need to know this – but it didn’t really answer the question. Surprisingly, none of the panelists mentioned the success of bone marrow transplants and retinoic acid therapy in the treatment of leukemia – successes that many scientists now believe to be due to the (originally almost inadvertent) targeting of cancer stem cells. Given the state of government support for research in Canada at the moment, we need to trumpet the successes of past studies for all we’re worth.
So what would make a good Café Scientifique topic?
People need to be able to relate to the topic, and join in the ensuing debate with a feeling of confidence. The discussion should not be limited only to the scientists in the audience, no matter how badly they want to discuss induced pluripotent stem cells. However, one of the organisers related a horror story of an earlier discussion about the ethics of stem cell research that had to be stopped due to one participant repeatedly screaming that these scientists were killing babies. Yes, these events should be open to all points of view, but not at the expense of reasonable and civilised debate.
One idea that I had is the new Human Papilloma Virus vaccine that protects against cervical (and penile) cancer. A presentation on the well-established science of the topic – how the virus causes cancer, how the vaccine works – could be followed by the kind of debate in which anyone can take part. Should vaccination be compulsory for girls enrolled in the public school system? How about boys – should they be vaccinated to help us reach herd immunity and provide further protection against cervical cancer? (penile cancer is a much rarer disease). Should we grant exemptions on religious or cultural grounds?
What do you think – what makes for a good juicy controversy at this level of public engagement?
—————————
(There must have been another public debate taking place in Vancouver that night, judging by the passengers on my bus. One guy was proudly wearing a Flying Spaghetti Monster t-shirt, another had a God Squad hat. The girl opposite me was reading a pamphlet about the role of religion in society. I wondered if they’d been discussing the humanist bus advertising campaign, which has finally (and controversially) reached these shores. I bet that was a good debate.
I wonder if the Café Scientifique event might have attracted more attention if it had advertised itself with “There’s probably no cancer stem cells. Now stop worrying and enjoy your government”.)
(Edited to add:
Ha!)
1 Reviews:
Cancer stem cells: a model in the making”, Lauren L Campbell Marotta & Kornelia Polyak, Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 2008: 19:1-7
Looking ahead in cancer stem cell research”, John Dick, Nature Biotechnology 2009: 1:44-46
You can find the research papers yourselves, you lazy so-and-sos.
Cath – I’ve spoken at a number of Cafe Scientifiques in the UK. There are inevitably always a fair number of people who are either in science or retired scientists, but they had a fair number of general public. I think they mostly did it gradually, by building up a reputation (as well as coverage in local papers etc). I suspect they take a while to percolate into the general awareness – I don’t know how long the one you attended had been running?
I have given Cafe Scientifique talks in the UK. The general public are there as are a few “madmen/women” who sit at the back and glare at you during the talk and then ask incomprehensible, off-topic questions. But then they could be scientists.
From Café Scientifique’s own website:
So, why even include the term “cancer stem cells” in the Vancouver title? Why not a more general title that is accessible to the general public? I’ve never even heard of cancer stem cells (although I can hazard a guess at what they might be) and I listen to general science podcasts and read general science journals/magazines from time to time.
I get Brian’s point that these things often require a word of mouth method to build up a non-(professional) scientist audience, but public outreach should be aimed at the public, no?
I think I might have gone with a title such as “Stopping cancer where it starts: A discussion of recent advances in our understanding of cancer, for non-scientists.”
I gave a Cafe Sci in London about science in literature. The audience was 50/50 scientists and arts types, and they each sat on their own side of the room.
It was a great discussion, though, despite the literal divide.
The HPV one could work, I reckon. Anything with sex and being naughty would probably go over well. Give it a racy title, as Mike says.
Brian C, it was the first event organised by the National Cancer Institute, but apparently there have been various other events in Vancouver. They haven’t been very well advertised though – I actively went looking for this kind of event a year or so ago and asked to be added to mailing lists etc., but never heard a thing in reply. The organisers who I chatted to on the night were from the NCI in Toronto, but passed my details (and my friend’s) on to the regular Vancouver organisers for future reference. Hopefully the next event I go to will have more of a mixed audience!
Brian D, sounds more than likely! There’s nothing you can do about the few extremists who come in, but hopefully you can make sure they’re in the minority.
Mike, I guess this is the problem with events being organised by experts in the field – when you reach that level of specialisation, it can become difficult to remember that not everyone automatically knows what the topic means or how exciting and trendy it is! I actually know some grad students who I think would do a stellar job at organising this kind of event, maybe that’s the appropriate level of specialisation?
Jenny, that’s funny! Did they all know each other, or was there an obvious difference in attire / general appearance that let them identify which side of the room to sit on?
I think you’re right, the title might need to be sexed up a bit…
I forgot to add that my friend’s friend had a great idea – putting a short glossary of terms on each chair before the event begins. You can’t take it for granted that everyone knows what a gene is, or a protein, and expecting those people to join a debate that is being led by scientists is a little unfair.
The few Toronto ones I went to attracted a bunch of non-scientists with a strong interest in science. (Some of the same people also come to Nature Network pub nights.) The only time I’ve seen relatively many scientists at a Cafe Scientifique was when Tony Pawson was on a panel. He is famous among scientists, but very few other people have heard of him, so he attracted a certain crowd.
Oh, oh, and the funnest caf sci type event that I went to was not organized by scientists. It was part of the yearly literary festival, and was run by poets. The panelists were either poets or scientists or both, and they talked about science in poetry. All the tables were marked with erlenmeyer flasks and labeled with elements. (I was reminded of this when I read your comment about putting things on chairs)
That does sound like fun.
Talking of people who don’t know what genes are… I just remembered a funny story from my undergrad days. And just like that, I know what my next post will be!
Having been at this forum myself, I did find that the meeting would have been much ameliorated by more advertising, with a less specific title. Though even with a specific title it turned into a “wow, there’s another scientist here, let’s get into the minutiae of a related field” or “you know science so you must know clinical disease presentations as well”. I think a more focused moderator might have helped.
The moderator was hilarious! But, yeah, not much focus on the lay audience.
Hi Cath
I was there too and will gladly throw in my 2 cents worth… I used to organise similar public forums back in Sydney, aimed at both raising awareness of the research at the Institute I was working at and also raising some $$ along the way. On the odd occasion I also acted as a speaker (and Moderator/MC) at these things so have seen it from all sides.
From the perspective of attracting a good crowd of non-scientists, the topic has to directly relevant and accessible, and the speakers need to be publicised (as suggested). We were a bit cheeky and always tried to have at least one informed layperson “speaker”, preferably with a public profile (ie journalist, ex-patient, minor celebrity etc). Before you start rolling your eyes at the thought of a celebrity having a serious discussion about science, they (usually) provided an important spark to the debates and were a really good way of attracting a crowd. We regularly had an audience of 250+ at these things. Word of mouth was very important
The other thing I think would really help to improve the next CS event would be to have a slightly more structured discussion/debate. For example, ask each speaker to spend 5-10 minutes (max) giving their thoughts on the topic, followed by engaging the audience in a Q+A session. Neither of the speakers at the recent event actually attempted to answer the question posed in the title! It really helps to have a engaging moderator who can move the discussion along with good leading questions of their own.
Just my thoughts
Oh… and the speakers need to cut the jargon and learn to use good analogies to relate the science to the real world, without dumbing it down too much. A very difficult skill to master.
No eye rolling here – I think using (appropriate!) celebrities is a great idea.
Apparently there’s a whole other Cafe Scientifique set-up in Vancouver that meets much more regularly and is much better established. See my Facebook profile – I just joined their group.
I’m off to grab my bike, see you down the pub in 5 minutes!