Tag Archives: PhD chat

I have some news…

For a number of reasons, I have decided not to continue with my PhD. I would like to thank absolutely everyone that I have met, worked with and befriended during the last 9 months that I’ve spent in Newcastle – you are all awesome, many of you are crackers, a few of you have changed my life. I have had a wonderful time, learned a lot, and had experiences that I will never forget. As for the project itself, it is unique and relevant and something I am really proud of and remain passionate about: I sincerely hope that someone can pick it up and continue to work on it where I left off. I don’t regret a moment of this year.

The plan now is to move back to Scotland at the end of September. I will continue to blog about all things animal/sex related, if you can all bear to read the work of someone who no longer carries the hope of one day owning the title Dr Loris. Back to Loris Master o’ Science we must revert.

I still plan on making a career for myself in science communication/education, but I now realise that committing up to six years of my life to this PhD may not be the best way to go about it for me personally.

Newcastle: Thanks for everything, I will miss you.

Glasgow: I’m coming back. If anyone wants to employ this face, I’m totally available.

Loris x

Tagged ,

These dolphins are having a whale of a time!*

Play:  “Any pleasurable activity carried on for its own sake without reference to ulterior purpose or future satisfactions”

– Dictionary of Education

I’ve been thinking  a lot about play recently, as part of my thesis will involve trawling through theories of learning through play and the significance that play has in the lives of humans. Play is highly important in the development of the brain; it stimulates the growth and “wiring” of brain cells and aids emotional processing. It allows children to learn about the world and allows adults to be creative, curious and can relieve stress (yep, believe it or not, adults can and do play too!). This got me thinking about play in other species, then I remembered a remarkable video I saw a few years ago:

These are bottlenose dolphins playing with toys they have manufactured themselves. They make the bubble through the blowhole on the top of their head which they then make into a ring shape. The thing that has amazed researchers and particularly those interested in theory of mind is the intentionality of the dolphins: The dolphins appear to make this ring just for fun.

Watching this video again reminded me of something I heard Dr Luke Rendell speak about in Durham at the beginning of this year. He said a researcher had captured footage of a bottlenose dolphin and a  humpback whale playing together. The rational, anti-anthropomorphical side of me was all like “NO WAY STOP ROMANTICISING IT THEY WERE PROBABLY TRYING TO EAT EACH OTHER” but I have since looked into it and it seems like, well… It really looks like they are just playing. Which is remarkable. Watch the video and see what you think for yourself…

As others have noted before me, it really doesn’t seem feasible that this is anything other than a bit of fun. The dolphin keeps going back to the whale repeatedly so he/she is hardly showing signs of fleeing a potential predator. It was also suggested that the whale was trying to help the dolphin out, perhaps because the whale mistook the dolphin for an infant of her own species (and we don’t even know if the whale was a female), which could have triggered a maternal response in the whale to “save” it. But the dolphin was not injured or acting in any way distressed, and it would not explain why the dolphin cooperated with the whale.

What is undeniable is that dolphins and whales and other cetaceans (dolphins, whales and porpoises) are incredibly intelligent and we are only just beginning to discover what they are capable of.

* Barrum-bum-ch!

Tagged , , ,

My better-late-than-never reflections on #BIGevent12

A few weeks ago I was lucky enough to attend my first BIG event (I left the country straight after, hence the belated musings). BIG (the British Interactive Group) is, according to its own website, “the skills sharing network for individuals involved in the communication of science, technology, engineering and maths.” So far so good: There is nothing that does not appeal to me about this description. I had heard many good things about the BIG event (the group’s annual conference) from the Twitsphere and my colleagues at the Centre for Life, and I was excited. I was certainly not disappointed.

The conference this year was hosted by the National Railway Museum in York, which was an outstanding venue. The museogeek in me was delighted to enjoy the first-morning coffee surrounded by GIANT TRAINS.

However at some points it did feel like all 170 of us were sort of squished into a small corner of the venue at “mingle times” such as lunch, where we were encouraged to stand and eat which I realise promotes wandering and chatting but I do not eat and socialise well simultaneously. No one benefits from this combination. But the food was nice.

ANYWAY enough about the food and the trains – what about all the other awesome stuff that went on? And there was plenty of it let me assure you. The first thing that struck me about BIG was that it was unlike any other conference I had attended before. I know, I know, I said this about the British Science Association’s Science Communication Conference in May, but this was different in a… different way. First of all it felt like everyone already knew each other so being a BIG virgin, it was easy to feel left out but luckily I recognised a few faces (either from Real Life or Twitter) so I found it fairly easy to barge my way into conversation. Secondly, the attendees did not look like conference delegates. I felt like I’d walked into some sort of science geek convention rather than an annual conference. At the conferences I am familiar with, people dress formally and keep an eye out for the prestigious people in their field in order to shmooze with them later on over a causal glass of wine or a sausage roll. Here, it was more a case of people who love and get excited about science running up to each other and saying “OMG SCIENCE IS AWESOME!” and the other person replying with “OMG I KNOW, RIGHT??!” I felt very at home.

Now on to some of the sessions I attended…

Wednesday

Exploding Custard: Ian Russell

I was very excited about attended this classic science show. I had heard a lot about Ian Russell, who has been performing this show for 22 years, and was looking forward to meeting him. He did not disappoint; I instantly warmed to him and found the show fun and engaging. The theme of the show is that children are better at science than grown-ups and he encourages the audience not to be afraid of being wrong when hypothesising what will happen during a demo. Unfortunately there were only a few children in the audience and a LOT of BIG delegates so I did not envy the position Ian was in, this was certainly not his typical audience. The only criticism I would have of the show itself, and it’s one that has been echoed by others, is that some of the demonstrations could have done with just a little bit more explanation. On the other hand I completely understand Ian’s reason for simply demonstrating rather than explaining: He says he is not there to explain phenomena, rather to elicit curiosity, to encourage the children in the audience to go home and try similar experiments themselves. Still, a little bit of information on the phenomena demonstrated would perhaps enrich the whole experience of the show, without infringing too much on the pace and energy of the demonstrations.

Science of Toys: David Ward

This session started off very well for me personally. On each table there were Meccano sets and pieces of wood, it all looked very intriguing.  David began by asking about four people to play with the “ball in a cup” toy – and I was one of the lucky ones who got a shot, and was the first to get the ball in the cup! YAY I WON I WON. And I got to keep the toy. Delighted.

Unfortunately the rest of the seminar did not go quite so well. David kept switching between explaining the history and science of toys and talking about how a BTEC Awards in Leadership works and quite frankly I feel like I learned nothing about either subject. The aim of the presentation was very unclear and as others have noted, the powerpoint presentation was disappointing, with clip-arts and comic sans galore (for those who don’t already know, I have personal beef with shoddy presentations. Some things are unforgivable). I did get to make a “climbing monkey” from a few bits of wood, along with Matthew from W5, who admittedly did most of the work as I moaned about not understanding what we were supposed to do. Overall a confusing session which didn’t teach me anything and made me feel a bit stupid but I did go home with toys so…

Creative Physics: Samantha Durbin & Alex Brabbs

I really enjoyed this session. We got to make a galaxy sun-catcher using sticky-back plastic and glitter glue, a planet (which could be either low or high density I’ll have you know) and my personal favourite, a particle collision mobile. It inspired ideas about the sorts of activities that can be easily carried out with children and families which would also promote discussion about physics – it certainly got us talking. Highly enjoyable.

The first night ended with the chance to ride a steam train, barbeque food and a load of stand-up comedy. The highlight of the night for me was when Dr Lewney (yes, pronounced Doctor Loony – there is a man who was destined to end up a mad scientist rock star) got us all singing a physics version of Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody (I’m just a little quark from a quark family…). I hope and pray that someone out there recorded it but so far I haven’t been able to find it. If you have it, please send it to me!

Thursday

Keynote Speech: Paul Jepson

Like I said, BIG is unlike any conference I have attended before, and I couldn’t help but feel it was just trying too hard to be alternative by having its welcome address and keynote speech on the second morning, rather than the first. But hey, that’s how they roll. Andy Lloyd, the chair of BIG welcomed the first-timers by saying “We may have tricked you into thinking you were attending a conference but in fact, you have just become members of the British Interactive Group…” There was a really nice feel about the room… Like a big support group for science addicts.

Paul Jepson then gave an uplifting keynote address emphasising that we need to move away from the doom-and-gloom approach when engaging the public with (particularly environmental) science. The most poignant thing I remember from the speech was when Paul showed a picture of an idyllic nature scene from the 1850s and said “we have to stop romanticising the 1850 images of wildlife and get people engaged with modern ecology”. I could not agree more. Technology is allowing the public to become more actively involved in scientific research – Paul stated that the Galaxy Zoo project allowed 130 years – ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS – of research time to be carried out in 18 months. All because of voluntary public participation. That blew my mind. The other two quotes I jotted down (okay, tweeted) were: “We [science communicators] just need to re-find humour and loosen up. Just keep laughing.” and ‘We are at the beginning of a very exciting decade for science communication’. Pretty much sums it up I think.

Freeze frame: Andy Lloyd, Jen DeWitt, Karen Baltitude & Katherine Pearson

This was an interesting session for me because the topic of discussion (and potentially scrutiny) was the new Curiosity Zone at the Centre for Life, which just so happens to be the gallery in which most of my PhD research will be carried out. Andy showed various video clips of the public using some of the exhibits within the gallery in order to get feedback from the panel (Jen, Karen & Katherine) and the audience about what they thought was going on at each exhibit, what was good, what was bad, etc. A fourth panelist, Mark Langley, was also supposed to be present but could not make it, so Jen fed back his thoughts which they had previously discussed. Because there were (effectively) four panelists, the feedback took quite a while, leaving little time for the audience discussion at the end, which was a shame because it was the part I was most looking forward to.  But nonetheless, it was interesting to hear how the Curiosity Zone was perceived by people from different backgrounds than ourselves and overall the response was very positive. So that made me smile.

Dealing with Feelings: Matt Pritchard, Ian Russell & James Piercy

This was by far one of my favourite sessions. Matt Pritchard (who is a SCIENCE MAGICIAN!!!!) began by proving that we could all remember a load of random objects on a screen – both in order and backwards – using a story-telling mnemonic and assured us that we’d still remember them all (in order and backwards) at the end of the session. We did, too. The star of this session for me was James Piercy. I had seen his stand-up on the Wednesday night and instantly fell in love with his energy and what I can only really describe as batshit-craziness. He was funny. He had made me laugh. And during this session he very nearly made me cry. James wears an eye patch and because of his eccentric nature I had genuinely assumed it was just a pretty cool part of him image. I wanted one. But he told us that he was wearing an eye patch because he had been involved in a near-fatal car crash the previous year – in fact, not long before the BIG event 2011. James then showed us a video clip of the talk he gave at last year’s BIG conference, which was on the science of what happened to his brain during and after the accident. It was difficult to watch because he was struggling with his speech and you could feel the emotions that must have been going around the room at that time. But he still managed to inject so much humour into the talk that I was left feeling nothing but warmth and admiration for this science communicator and I found myself thinking: I want to be like him and do what he does. And I guess that’s what science communication is all about, right? We use ourselves as a tool to showcase and sell science as being a Good Thing. And for me, James sold it by selling himself.

James then asked us about our crabs. By this he meant he wanted to know the one thing that gets you excited about science. His was the coconut crab.

I knew exactly what he was talking about. I have a stock of cool science facts in my head that are there for any emergency moment when conversation may run dry (regular readers will guess that these are mostly to do with animal genitals and sex lives… See here, here, here and here.) James handed us all post-its at the end of the session to write down our “crab”, and has compiled them all into a fact-filled blog post.

Best Demo Competition

I had been really looking forward to this: The famous BIG Event Best Demo Competition. All demonstrators were absolutely brilliant, and the show began with us all getting a shot of whisky – what’s not to love?! Like I say, all demos were brilliant but my personal favourite was Huw James who very nearly drowned himself FOR SCIENCE in order to tell us about Static Apnea (holding your breath). I know it wasn’t a typical demo but that’s what I liked about it – I connected with the demonstration emotionally and it will always remain with me. I’d advise you to read Huw’s own blog about the lead up to the demo and the experience itself, which includes the video.

Friday

Make it or break it: Elin Roberts

Although I already knew a lot about what Elin was going to talk about (the temporary hands-on, make-and-take gallery that was installed into the Centre for Life in at the beginning of the year, not long after I started) I still thoroughly enjoyed the presentation and beamed with pride for both her and the Centre for Life generally as other audience members were frankly gobsmacked at what Elin had achieved in such a massive floorspace with next to no money. My favourite quote from the session: “Teach kids to make and they learn not to destroy”.

How to design good interactives: Ian Russell

It pains me to say this because I warmed so much to Ian as a person, but this session was disappointing. Ian admitted that the powerpoint presentation he was showing was about 6 years old, and it showed – it was full of nothing but clip-art – which is bad enough for most people, but a designer? What Ian said during his talk was quite interesting about who you need on a design team (the “politician”, the “big kid”, the “teacher”, etc etc) and at what stages each of these characters are useful, or not. At the end we got into groups to design a sketch of an exhibit that portrays a concept suggested by someone from the audience – Ian chose the suggestion of “natural selection”. Now I know a lot about natural selection, but nothing about designing interactive exhibits. Luckily (or not?) I had an exhibit builder in my group, so I basically sat and did nothing whilst he and another group member designed the sketch. I didn’t feel I learned an awful lot apart from I should stick to the communication side and keep well away from the workshop.

I saw this and thought of you: Ben Craven, Jonathan Sanderson and EVERYONE!

I loved this session, it made me feel warm and fuzzy inside. The idea behind it was basically: Have you seen/learned something since last year’s conference that made you think of BIG? Then share it with us! There was a really nice mix of people who got up for under two minutes and told the room something cool, fun, interesting or just weird. Jonathan Sanderson shared with us a little nugget of wisdom that I have been telling anyone who will listen since: When you wash your hands after going to the toilet, they never dry, right? The paper towels are too thin and the hand-driers (Dyson Airblades excluded) are not powerful enough. WRONG. There is a solution to this problem. Simply shake your hands about 12 times before you dry them. By that time, the surface water on your hands will be so thin that one paper towel will dry them easily – or one button-press of a crappy hand-drier. THANKS JONATHAN. FROM, THE WORLD.

I only wish that this session had been a stand-alone one, like the keynote address, so that everyone could attend. There was such a great energy in the room, but many other delegates were attending other sessions. This was the last session I attended and although it ended on such a high, afterwards it felt a bit flat because we all just sort of… left. If everyone had been in this one closing session I think it would have made it even better, so we could all have said our emotional goodbyes. *Sobs*

Thanks to everyone I met at #BIGevent12, I had an amazing time and I already can’t wait until next year.

Tagged , ,
%d bloggers like this: