This year’s SpotOn London conference (formerly Science Online London) is only a month a way! Taking place on Sunday 11th and Monday 12th November at the Wellcome Collection Conference Centre, the theme of this year’s event will be “Connections.” There are several adjustments to the format of this year’s SpotOn London, including structuring the activities around three topic strands: i) science communication and outreach ii) online tools and digital publishing iii) science policy The three topic strands will have 6 discussion sessions and 3 workshops. Attendees are not restricted to just one strand, so if you’d like to hop between different tracks, or stick to the same one, you are welcome to. To whet your appetite, here is a sample of the sessions and workshops we plan to feature in the science policy strand. Sessions in this track will focus on issues that impact the way science is carried out and communicated online. From campaigns about science politics and open access to crowdfunding of scientific projects, these discussions will focus on the challenges and responsibilities of being a member of the scientific community. We’re still working on a session and a workshop so if there’s something that you’d like to see discussed, please get in touch! Unfortunately, tickets for this year’s conference have now sold out. You can be added to the waiting list by signing up here and we are hopeful a few tickets will become available. In the meantime if you have any questions, you are welcome to email us: spoton@nature.com
Discussion sessions (1 hour)
Session A: Fixing the fraud: how do we safeguard science from misconduct?
Coordinators: Pete Etchells, Suzi Gage
Chair: Adam Rutherford
Panel Members: Chris Chambers, Ed Yong, Charles Hulme, Ginny Barbour
Hashtag: #solo12fraud
Academic fraud is clearly a serious issue. It undermines the basic principles of science, and serves no purpose other than to further an individual’s career or reputation, at the cost of diluting our collective knowledge and understanding. However, despite how difficult it is (or should be) to produce fake data, we are seeing a number of high-profile instances where it has been happening for some time before being detected. Cases such as those involving Diederik Stapel and Yoshitaka Fuji highlight a wide range of problems about how research is checked and presented across a wide range of scientific disciplines. In this session, we will discuss how science has found itself in this position, and look at how to implement web-based technology to improve the way research is reviewed and presented, in order to safeguard research from further misconduct in the future.
Session B: How can we enhance reciprocal engagement between scientists and policy makers?
Coordinators: Michelle Brook, Jon Tennant
Panel Members: Julian Huppert, Nic Bilham, Anna Zecharia
There is a need to increase the interaction between science and evidence, and policy making process. Whilst there are many methods of engaging, ranging from writing letters to local MP’s to the Royal Society pairing schemes between scientists and parliamentarians, there is still a lack of engagement on both sides – leading to the development of many policies which are not informed by scientific, or social scientific, evidence.
There are reciprocal benefits to both scientists and policy makers (including civil servants) in engaging with each other – including scientists and recognising methods and protocols through which they can disseminate their scientific knowledge to Government, and policymakers having an increased understanding of how evidence can help inform the policy development process.
How do we increase the dialogue between scientists (including social scientists), proponents of evidence informed policy, and policy makers? How do we encourage all parties to engage more effectively and frequently, leading to more evidence-informed discussions and policies?
Session C: TBC
Session D: Crowdfunded science – new opportunities or dangerous echo chamber?
Coordinators: Akshat Rathi, Avi Roy
Panel Members: Terence Kealey, Mark Henderson, Ethan Perlstein, Colin Blakemore
Hashtag: #solo12funding
Session E: Incentivising Open Access and Open Science: Carrot and Stick
Coordinator: Grace Baynes
Panel members: Graeme Moffat
Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989 at CERN, envisioning “a common information space in which we communicate by sharing information”. How can policy and common standards help us achieve a true ‘open science’ world? This session will focus on overcoming the barriers to open science and open access to research, with a particular focus on incentivisation and credit. Expect discussion on funder policies mandating open access; interesting community sites that reward participation in science communication; and how common standards such as handles and ORCID identifiers might help. We’d also like to explore the role of altmetrics and discoverability/citability for data and other research outputs. Enough for a week of talking, let alone an hour!
Session F: Juggling jobs: Balancing a research career with SciComm – is it a policy issue?
Coordinators: Jonathan Lawson, Heather Doran
Panel Members: Anne Osterrieder, Athene Donald, Brian Wecht, Jennifer Rohn
Hashtag: #solo12jobs
Science communication is rapidly becoming an essential part of any research career. Many funding bodies are now insisting that a portion of the costs allocated to research are spent on communicating findings from the project to the public. But how do researchers find the time to take part in public engagement projects between lab research, grant proposals, teaching, examining and publishing papers? This session will take a look at science communication at all stages of the research career, how it can make you more valuable as a researcher and why it is key to the future of scientific advancement. We will examine the changes in public expectations from science that have arisen in line with online media and explore what this means for scientists in academia and industry. We will take a look at a number of different projects and show pioneering examples of where policy has changed to enable, and reward, researchers that take part in public engagement activities, but will also identify areas where there is further room for improvement in science policy and support for outreach activities. Includes some discussion of projects including student science magazines, STEM ambassadors and Sense about Science.
Workshops (1 hour)
Workshop A: Learning the lingo, or how to speak ‘policy-ese’
Coordinators: Michelle Brook, Jon Tennant
Panel Members: James Lush, Julian Huppert, Nic Bilham
We want to create a 1-2 page document for scientists, helping to inform them as to how they can better engage with policy makers, enabling them to better inform discussions and debates around policy.
If scientists are to engage more with policy makers, leading to the formation of better evidence informed policy, not only is it important for policy makers to better understand science, it is also crucial that scientists better understand the policy process.
This requires deeper insight into the formal and informal mechanisms by which researchers can feed in to the policy process, and better understanding of the types of information, evidence and arguments that policy makers look for.
Workshop B: What do you need to start a revolution?
Coordinators: Mark Henderson
Members: Sile Lane, Michael Marshall, Prateek Buch
Hashtag: #solo12revo
Workshop C: ORCID – why do we need a unique researcher ID?
Coordinators: Laure Haak, Martin Fenner, Daniel Pollock
Hashtag: #solo12ORCID
Open Researcher & Contributor ID (ORCID) provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other researcher. Through integration with key research workflows and other identifiers, ORCID supports automated linkages between you and your professional activities, ensuring that your work is recognized. The ORCID service launched in October 2012 and in this hands-on workshop we will demonstrate the different tools that already use the ORCID identifier, from manuscript submission to altmetrics for your publications. The focus will be on working with these tools so that at the end of the workshop you will have registered for your personal ORCID (if you didn’t have one already), started creating your ORCID record, and explored cool ways to use your ORCID to connect your research back to you. Wide usage and adoption of a researcher naming standard is a key component of effective research communication. Such a standard is fundamental to improving data quality and system interoperability, and ultimately will reduce the amount of time individuals spend maintaining their professional record—freeing time for research itself.
Make sure you join in the conversation online using the #solo12 hashtag and by following the official Twitter account @SpotOnLondon.
Recent comments on this blog
Noticed some changes? Introducing the new Nature Research brand
Promoting research data sharing at Springer Nature
Update on Scientific Reports Fast Track Experiment