What's in a name?

We've been giving some thought to the names that are used by some of the societies promoting science to the public in the UK. Why do so few of them use the words 'science' or 'technology' in their titles. Are they ashamed of the science connection? Do they think that using the word science will be off-putting to the public?.....and is there any evidence for this?

The Royal Society- yes, we know it's steeped in history and has had this name since the begining of time, but to the average punter it probably sounds like an organisation that promotes the activities of the Royal family, the Queen, Duke of Edinburgh etc. Couldn't they change the name to reflect what it actually does...it's not as though it's that well an established a name outside of the scientific community.

The BA (The British Association) - to those not in the know (and there are lots of them out there), it probably sounds either like an organisation that promotes British tourism abroad or a far right organisation full of racist skinheads. The BA was originally known as the British Association for the Advancement of Science but they dropped the science epithet some time back......why? Again, the BA /BAAS brand isn't that well known (even amongst scientists)........can't they think of something a bit more descriptive - especially as they are supposed to be an interface between science and the public.

Most brand managers will tell you that the ideal names are either those that have no meanings whatsoever.......and as such are free of any sort of connotations (...such as Accenture) or those that accurately describe the product/service such as the University of Wherever, British Petroleum etc.

Well done to the Institute of Physics, Institute of Biology etc......at least they do exactly 'what they say on the tin'!

Poll Results - Politics and Science

Our poll on Politics and Science has now closed. The results of the poll have been added to the comments section of the original Politics and Science posting.

Thanks to all who voted and/or contributed with comments.

We'd be keen to hear your suggestions for topics for future polls.

.....The voxScience Team

Springwatch

The BBC has recently launched Springwatch, an initiative where listners and viewers will record the first signs of spring on a website. The rubric says that "this will help scientists to understand how sping is changing". This is one in a long line of do-it-youself type initatives (mainly surveys) that have been done recently, including counting how many bugs are squashed on your car numberplate, reporting visitors to birdtables and the like.

Has anyone taken part in this sort of thing? What are your motives for doing so and do you feel that you are actually taking part in genuine scientific research? We'd be interested to know how/if the results of these sorts of studies are actually used by scientists. Does anyone know if any of these results have been published in 'seroius' peer-reviewed journals?


The voxScience Team

Why women are poor at science

Hi All

Last nights Channel4 TV programme ' The Riddle of Einstein's Brain' addressed familar questions about how intelligence arises. It concluded that Einstein's genius arose from particular pecularities realting to specific structures in his brain . In other words, there seems to have been a biological basis for his brilliance. On first consideration this seems to be be fair comment and a reasonable conclusion from the evidence that was presented. However, if this is so, is it also reasonable to suggest that men outperform women in maths and sciences also because of biological differences. Quoting from an article called 'Why women are poor at science' in todays Guardian.."The president of Harvard University has provoked a furore by arguing that men outperform women in maths and sciences because of biological difference, and descimination is no longer a career barrier for female academics....He went on to argue that boys outperfom girls on high school science and maths scores because of genetic difference".

So does some peoples biology/genetic make-up make them more suitable for a career in science?

Titan mission

This weekend saw what the European Space Agency called 'a resounding success' when the Huygens probe finally arrived on the surface of Titan, one of Saturn's moons, and sent back some of the most amazing pictures that we've seen from space. Looking at the pictures on the TV and in the newspapers you couldn't be anything other than extremely impressed. And yet while I've been marvelling at these achievements, I've also had this nagging voice in the back of mind which keeps saying that this is all a bit of a waste of time and money. Does anyone have similar doubts? I don't want to diminsh the great achievements of those involved in this work and yet I keep thinking that it may have been better to put more effort into 'things down here' - we still don't seem to understand much of what goes on Earth and I wonder if the money and effort would not be better spent on trying to understand our environment closer to home, developing new medicines etc etc???

Big Brother....Big Scientist???

Germaine Greer, feminist, writer and former Professor of English at Warwick University couldn’t hack life in the Big Brother house and left after only six days. But would a scientist fair any better? And with so many scientists on TV, which scientist would you put in the Big Brother house?

Politics and science

The next general election is widely predicted to be on the way but are politicians the best people to make the big decisions about science and technology? There seems to be more money than ever going into science but at the same time university science departments are closing and many people remain opposed to new scientific developments such a stem cell research and GM.

So, should politicians – our elected representatives – decide what science gets done or should others, such as the public or scientists, get a much bigger say in what research takes place? What science do you think should be funded by the taxpayer – more space exploration, less biotechnology, more cash for medicine and cancer research?

Does the public, get enough of a say about what science gets done? Does the current government cosy-up too much to the biotech and pharmaceutical business and ignore other voices, such as those opposed to animal testing? Let us know what you think by clicking on comment or by voting in our latest poll….

WELCOME to voxScience

Hello and welcome to voxScience, a new UK-based blog which gives everyone the opportunity to have a say about the latest developments in science, technology and medicine, how they affect our lives and, as we get most of our info from the media, what we think about their coverage of science and technology?........Shocking, informative or just plain wrong?

Whether it's animal testing, nanotechnology, GM, nuclear power, the human genome, MMR, mobile phones, stem cell research, space exploration, genetic testing, string theory or drugs for developing countries we want to hear your opinion.........Do you agree with the science? Is the pace of change to fast? Are these things safe? Are they ethical? Is public opinion being ignored? Let us know.

Having your say is easy......To kick-off a new topic you'll need to sign-up with the voxScience team. Signing-up is simple, free, open to everyone and you can post anonymously or under a pseudonym. To get registered simply send your email address to the voxScience team at voxScience@scientist.com .........we'll then send you an electronic invitation and details of how to get started. We're also on the look out for regular contributors, so if you are particularly opinionated and want to be a voxScience 'columnist' please let us know (at the same address) - we can't offer you any payment but you may find fame and fortune in the bloggosphere.

You don't have to sign-up to comment on an existing topic.....simply click on the comment link at the bottom of each post and follow the instructions.

In the spirit of true blogging, we aim to be completely democratic so we won't be restricting who can post and we won't be editing or deleting any of the posts or comments.....except if they infringe (or are likley to infringe) the law. We'll also be running regular polls on the site asking you to tell us what you think about specific issues....so let us know if you think we should be polling about a particular topic. To get everyone's voices heard, we plan to occasionally forward anonymous comment, opinion and polling results from the blog to the movers and shakers in science, technology and medicine.......scientists, politicians, regulators, funding agencies, campaign groups, the media, universities and others.



Enjoy the blogging.....

......the voxScience team