This is a quick translation of the talk I gave (in Swedish) at the "Vitenskap & massemedier" conference in Oslo, March 24th.

1. How to blog the research world out of the communication shadow –the science blog as a democratictool and door opener Vitenskapog massemedier, Oslo, Mars 24, 2010 Malin Sandström, KTH, Sweden Email: msandstrom@gmail.com twitter: @msandstr Blog: vetenskapsnytt.blogspot.com (in Swedish)

2. My different ’hats’ Researcher/PhD student (Aug 2004 –Mar 2010) computationalneuroscienceatKTH Communications/PR (pt since June 2009) neuroinformatics; incf.org Science blogger(sinceMarch2005) vetenskapsnytt.blogspot.com Science journalist (pt/freelance since2006) e.g. matmolekyler.taffel.se

3. Synopsis Introduction Problem description The challenge in the tension between high visibility and high probability How many do I reach with blogging, and do I reach the ones I wish to inform? Special challenges and possibilities in science communication on the web How to work daily with science communication My experiences so far

4. The problem in a nutshell More researchers want to communicate, compared to the ones who manage to reach out; especially young researchers* Media has little space and narrow interests Researchers have little time and often lack training in communications Researchers do not want to communicate Researchers are afraid of journalists *source: Communicators at several different universities, several of my blog colleagues & many of my colleagues – I tend to ask peaople about this…

5. The problem in a nutshell More researchers want to communicate, compared to the ones who manage to reach out; especially young researchers* Media has little space and narrow interests Researchers have little time and often lack training in communications Researchers do not want to communicate Researchers are afraid of journalists *source: Communicators at several different universities, several of my blog colleagues & many of my colleagues – I tend to ask peaople about this…

6. Academia has a traditional view of communicating science to the public Few channels Single-track communication: the expert speaks, the public listens The public lacks knowledge about science (in form of scientific facts) Keyword: lack But this model is just not true anymore! we are drowning in ‘facts’ However, science has not become easier to understand, despite this fact deluge

7. The lack is not in ”facts” The public lacks access to knowledgeabout Context Communication modes Debates Thoughtpatterns Withoutthese, the publicized ’facts’ are veryhard to evaluate Science is an ongoingdiscussion Usuallyinaccessible to non-researchers (’paywalls’,expensiveconferences, language&terminology) in academia

8. The research process in parts Most of theminvisible and/or inaccessible to the public Experiment Data Analysis Results&Conclusion Discussion&Criticism Re-evaluation Question New question ...

9. Which research gets published? Generally: Nature, Science, PNAS Medicin: JAMA, NEJM, Lancet Other pressreleases Ready-written news agency texts Rewites from ”big media” (BBC, New Scientist...) Twocommoncategories: medicin &climate (treatedseriously) ’cool stuff’ (space, genderdifferences,…) ”press packs” 96% of the Swedish public thinks that medicine is a highlyscientificsubject [Vetenskap & Allmänhet, 2007]

11. Be included in that week’s ”presspack”

12. Pass the editors

13. Get good contact with the reporter

14. Pass the editor again

15. Not collide with anything ’more newsworthy’

16. Get read/listened toVIA THE NEWS You can end up spending half a day for two ’soundbites’ of ~15 words each. Media is a highly inefficient medium for scientists to have contact with the public

17. Barriers for access to science No or fewspecialized media for interesting area (i.e., no middleground) No methodology for infosearching Expensivesubscriptions Lack of proficiency in specialist English (especially for older generation Swedes/Norwegians) Incomprehensible specialist vocabulary and conventions Little backgroundknowledge / context No personal contacts with scientists FOR THE PUBLIC

18. The blog lowers the barriers For the researcher: Seniority or publications not necessary No doorkeepers, own control Making information freely accessible costs nothing (compared to ‘open access’fees of~ $1000) For the public: Free to read Easier to reach, search for and collect information Personal access to researchers

19. The blog as a sciencecommunication platform Quick (limit: own working time) No space, subject or language limits No misquotation or unexpected ’spin’ Formality Neutrality not enforced Objectivity Unclear reliability Questionable authority (if unknown) Personal trust (if known)

20. Whatdo I mean by saying that blogging is ’democratic’? Researchers who want to communicate are not forced to go via the media Researchers gaindirect access to the public The public gaindirect access to the researchers Bloggingallowsmakingseveral different viewpointsheard/seen/read Bloggingcan make the scientificdiscussionmore visible, and enable the public to take part in it In non-English-speakingcountries, science blogscansignificantlyincrease the access to own-language popular science material

21. Why the web as a channel? Free, simple, time effective, enduring You can choose yourself and make it personal whenever you have time Simpler to build bridges between mass media level and researcher level, by ‘sneaking in’ background material via links Give a deeper background to hot news and debates Broaden the range of materials available for interested parties (Google) Deeper coverage Can choose other subjects Can build language bridges; write simply in Swedish/Norwegian about findings/news reported in English That is where the audience is “young people” (i.e. everyone beolow 35 or so) journalists

22. Who do I reach via the blog? Other researchers Who blog Who ‘just’ read and discuss Other‘stakeholders’, e.g. special interest associations School kids & students Primarily via search hits for school projects The interested public Journalists Often ‘silent’ readers, few coments But: they give a very large ‘secondary’ visibility

23. How many do I reach via the blog? Often: it varies from post to post Time perspective: long-term visibility vs daily statistics Everybody googles. Even journalists. Randomness A debate can grow very quickly You never know who is listening Snowball effects One assignment often leads to more

24. Conflicts Terminology: correctness – readability Angle: correctness – readability and visibility Angle, subject: visibility – neutrality and credibility Subject: for fun – usefulnes to society Subject: time – usefulness Scope: time – ambition … Not worse to navigate these conflicts than to navigate other everyday conflicts

25. EXTRA!EXTRA!EXTRA!EXTRA!EXTRA! RESEARCHER SOLD HER SOUL COLLEAGUE: SHE WAS TRYING TO GET MORE BLOG READERS “I BITTERLY REGRET IT”

26. EXTRA!EXTRA!EXTRA!EXTRA!EXTRA! RESEARCHER SOLD HER SOUL COLLEAGUE: SHE WAS TRYING TO GET MORE BLOG READERS “I BITTERLY REGRET IT” Will researchers lose their ethical/moral compass when confronted by the lure of publicity? think this is an unfounded fear. Intriguing that I’ve mostly seen this fear among journalists…

27. Visibility vs credibility Good & credible visibility Sum it up in the headline & put the important stuff first Use an accessible and personal language Find a well delimited niche Leave clever comments in other places … less good/credible visibility Competitions and lotteries Sensationalist, misleading headlines Personal attacks Commentary’spam’

28. How work with science communication day-to-day? Read! Newspapers, news realeases, research articles, other blogs … Learn what is seen as interesting Find holes in the reporting that you can fill Know when there is an ongoing deabte to contribute to Communicators can help with newswatch and tipoffs Write! Practice makes perfect Better little and often Read comments (feedback) and take it to heart Communicators can help with media- and language training, commetns and feedback!

29. How work with science communication day-to-day? Network! Speak to colleagues, read other blogs Build networks by commenting Get more news- and debate tips Know when there is a debate to contribute to Communicators can help with tips and “marketing” Take a break! When it gets to demanding or stressful Look at it as amarathon run – you cannot always sprint Get guestbloggers or start/join a group blog Get a microblog, e.g. Twitter Communicators can help with editorial services and framework for a group blog

30. My 4 first blog years Interviews Newspapers & magazines Radio Solicitations Jobs, committees, … Writing articles Giving talks Taking part in (live) debates Project/grant application Own investment: ~1000 h/20w Like a one-term course at university! This experience is likely what got me my current/future job

31. Findings so far There is a lot of ’invisible’ discussion on science and research (forums, blogs, email…) People like to cite ’authorities’, includingbloggers/blog posts People don’thesitate to discuss with or question researchers and theirreasoning ”Filling in” the media coverage with details on experiements, giving a context, discussingvalidity is oftenappreciatedcomplexity is not bad, whentreatedcarefully Researchers are ofteninterested in otherfieldsthantheirown (and cangivevaluablecontributions in the commentfield)