Last Thursday morning, a news story on Radio 1 temporarily distracted me from my Coco Pops.

It’s not often you hear reporting of London-based tissue transplant breakthroughs, on a radio show which usually operates on the level of fart jokes and song parodies, but there it was. Now whilst I was very pleasantly surprised that this kind of story was getting airtime on a show with over 7.5 million listeners, it made me wonder why it was chosen.

This is not something I have an answer to, and as a science communication student, maybe I should. We had lectures on just what makes a story become ‘news’, whether it is especially novel, has reference to ‘celebrity’ or was just featured due to a lack of other, actual, news. But I just couldn’t work out what boxes this story ticked, and how or why it made it on to Radio 1.

It’s not the first time the possibility of womb transplants have been covered in the BBC news (there were previous stories in 2002 and 2007), and I’m not aware that Thursday 22nd was a particularly dull day for news (there was a bomb in Belfast, and much debate over the impending BNP appearance on Question Time). And although the Hammersmith-based scientist in question (Dr Richard Smith) may be much admired in the scientific community, I’m not convinced he ticks the celebrity box either.

So after a year of studying, I’m afraid I still don’t know the answer. How do some science stories break into the mainstream news whilst other (possibly more significant) breakthroughs are glossed over or ignored all together? Whilst many debates over science in the news focus on whether it has been sensationalised, maybe we need to look at the bigger picture and ask exactly what it is that satisfies the news editors, and how we can use this knowledge to get more science (and not just health) on Radio 1.

Simon Mayo wears spectacularly bad taste in shoes, and is not nearly as cool as I thought he’d be. However, that was really the only major disappointment for me last night at the Ben Goldacre vs. Paul Drayson debate at the Royal Institution, which was excellently chaired by the entertaining (if style-less) Mayo.

The title “Science reporting – is it good for you?” may have been slightly misleading. Any debate on the state of science reporting can only be a good thing, but it did feel almost as if the two panellists were arguing slightly different points but agreeing on the main issues – more fisticuffs would have been nice.

Drayson was first to take to the floor, and although he conceded that there is a lot of bad science reporting out there, he said that the stuff done by dedicated science journalists is “admiral and improving”. On the whole, I thought he talked a lot of sense, and came across as quite sincere (for a politician), at least until he cited the LHC as an example of good science reporting. Yes, the Sun’s headline of “End of the world due in nine days” was truly balanced, Paul.

By focusing on the ‘Bad Science’, Drayson argued that we risk undermining the relationship between scientists and the media. Obviously I’m in the ‘more good science should be reported’ camp, but I don’t agree with Drayson (or Ben for that matter), in that sensationalising science stories is one way to do this. They proposed that sensationalism and accuracy are not mutually exclusive, but didn’t manage to convince me on this point.

Slightly disappointed that Ben didn’t turn up in his cape, or bring Anthony Head with him for that matter. (Thanks to Ben for photo)

Ben started off his turn by agreeing with Drayson (which I’m not entirely sure is how debates are meant to work), but insisted that Drayson is ignoring the problems within science journalism, and that this is not going to make them go away. Now I like Ben, and I like his ideas, but I started to get the feeling that Drayson’s argument had more substance. Ben could spout examples of bad science reporting until the LHC works again, but anyone who’s been to one of his earlier talks may have been experiencing déjà vu at this point. To be fair to the guy though, Drayson had his minions research things between the earlier debate on the Today show and the evening session, whereas Ben was no doubt busy fighting crime, saving lives or cycling round London wearing his cape.

One point Ben made though, which has been underrepresented in the debate so far, is the need for people to be able to criticize bad coverage within their own institution. I was especially pleased when he got his waggy finger out, hoping that this would implore scientists to “raise hell when you’re misrepresented”. Drayson later argued that not enough scientists communicate their own work through blogs etc. and at this point I was sorely tempted to stand up and have a bit of a rant about some of the extremely high-quality science blogs on this very site. But credit where it’s due: if you do feel that you’ve been misrepresented then you now have the go ahead to email Drayson and tell him all about it! As Mayo rightly asked, what can he do about it? Well I’m not sure, but it’s got to be worth busting an email off to MPST.drayson@bis.gsi.gov.uk just to find out.

Things really started to get interesting when the time came for questions from the audience. It emerged that we were not only in the presence of a reporter from the Daily Mail (one of the ‘good guys’, according to Ben), but also the illustrious Jack of Kent (expert lawyer-blogger type), Natasha Loder, chair of the Association of British Science Writers, and possibly the entire staff of the Science Media Centre. To attempt to cover all their points in a few hundred words simply wouldn’t do it justice, so I suggest you listen to the debate on the THE website, even if just for the last half hour.

All together an entertaining evening and as one tweeter excellently put it, “more enlightening than outraging”. It was really good to see two high-profile figures debating a topic such as this, in front of a varied and interested audience. Both panellists seemed to be in agreement that more public engagement of this kind is needed, whether through the mainstream media, the blogosphere or public events. Let’s hope words lead to action.

Last Wednesday, I was very excited to hear about the launch of the 10:10 project. The swanky bash at the Tate Modern was a call to arms; everyone should come along, make a pledge to cut their carbon emissions by 10% in 2010, and if they were really lucky, nab a free glass of champagne and a funky 10:10 ‘tag’ while they were at it.

Unfortunately, my dissertation on anti-smoking campaigns has recently halted anything sociable or vaguely interesting in my life (other than the occasional stroll to the library, lucky me), so I didn’t make it to the launch. But in one of my many moments of procrastination, I thought I would do some reading on said project, hoping to share some gems of information with you. However, it all seems a bit confusing (and I’m sure it’s not entirely down to the current dissertation-fried state of my brain). So here are the ten things that have baffled me the mostest (and if I don’t get to ten, please blame advertising agencies and the NHS, not me).

The famous chimney of the Tate Modern formed the backdrop for the 10:10 launch

1. If everyone is so keen to make their pledge, why did the Guardian refer to the people at the launch as “the large crowd who had gathered to hear the band Reverend and the Makers”? Surely it was the mission at hand rather than the free music and champagne that tempted people along?

2. But what if I’m already a vegan/car-less/holiday-at-home/shop-local/wear-lots-of-jumpers/switch-my-plugs off kind of person – how do I make the 10% cut? Unlike Pete Postlethwaite, I can’t fit a wind turbine in my garden…

3. With less than 100 days to Copenhagen, will it have the desired (or any) impact on negotiations there?

4. Does anyone else find it ironic that Ed Miliband pledged his personal 10% cut…on a videocall from India? Still, I guess if it was for another launch he might have flown back instead.

5. How will these cuts be measured? If you pledge and don’t meet your target do you get sentenced to community service planting trees or sorting compost?

6. Would anyone even really know about it if it wasn’t being supported (and therefore extensively reported on) by the Guardian?

7. There are plenty of ‘carbon experts’ saying that this is a bad idea: short-term measures instead of long-term solutions, and fears that it might just be too much of a tall order. But Lord Stern likes it, so can someone please tell me who to listen to?

8. Why do I keep going back to the 10:10 website, even though its rolling counter of supporting organisations keeps causing my computer to crash?

9. Jon McClure from Reverend and the Makers has offered to buy a pint for anyone who makes it to 20%. Surely it’s worth us all trying just to see the look on his face when he has to fork out for pints for half of London…

10. Ok, I’ve run out. But the point is that with all these questions, I haven’t joined the 11,296 people who have already signed up. Of course I’m going to try and use less electricity, fly less often and keep eating British fruit and veg, but I have no idea whether this will get me to a 10% reduction. I guess I could purchase an ‘Eco Showerdrop’ shower meter (which the Guardian shop handily advertises next to its article), but for now, I think I’ll sit firmly on the fence – as long as said fence has room for my laptop.

Never fear, the Natural Health Service will sort you out. Launched last month (amid surprisingly little publicity), this is Natural England’s latest initiative to tackle the countrys growing rates of obesity.

The Natural England website claims that by 2050, 90% of adults will be overweight or obese. I’m not so sure about this rather spurious statistic myself, but one that is irrefutable is that 18% of children in London are currently classed as obese. Even Jamie Oliver may struggle to sort that one out on his own.

So the latest idea is to get people using London’s ‘greenspaces’ more. We are rather spoilt for choice; even if you live away from the centre of town there’s Richmond Park, Greenwich Park and Bushy Park. The Natural Health Service is encouraging people to make the most of these areas; volunteering for conservation projects, going for a walk or jog, or simply relaxing in them.

Football fun in Hyde Park. Courtesy of Deror avi

This is not the first time that the benefits of green spaces have been proclaimed. Many studies have found that people who live near parks or green areas (and therefore presumably visit them more than people who live far away) have both better physical and mental health. Now researchers from Bristol have found, more specifically, that people who have easy access to areas of green space are more likely to be physically active and much less likely to be obese.

On this basis, Natural England is aiming to increase the number of households within a five minute (300m) walk of an open space at least two football pitches big. I’m not really sure how they plan to do this – roof gardens have been mentioned but it would have to be a very big roof, and I doubt the government will be willing to knock down a few blocks of flats to make way for a park. The scheme may not get the support they’re expecting either; when I mentioned it to a friend, there were immediate mumblings of “yoofs” and “hoodies” and “white lightening”…

So for now it would appear that we will have to make do with the existing parks. Not that I’m complaining, I have two near me, but apparently sitting looking at them won’t make me thin. Best get my running shoes on then.

Any recent visitors to Imperial College’s South Kensington Campus may have noticed the significant amount of building work currently going on adjacent to the Queen’s lawn. The Imperial website informs me that the Main Dining Hall is being refurbished to “improve the underutilised space”. A Main Dining Hall? None of my Imperial friends seem to know it existed! Underutilised indeed.

Anyway, the worksite barriers had posters all over them, which, upon closer inspection, were revealed to be all about Making Your University Greener. This got me rather over-excited, and visions of solar panels, roof gardens and recyclable cutlery started popping into my head. Alas, it was not to be. Instead, it was a propaganda exercise (presumably to prevent the College’s Renewable Energy Certificate going the same way as their Fairtrade status), but they had some interesting ideas.

One of the most promising new technologies is that of aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES), where boreholes are drilled into underground aquifers. In the summer, water is extracted from one borehole and used for cooling the buildings, before the warm water is emptied into a second borehole. This second borehole is then used during winter, when a heat pump is used to extract the thermal energy from the still-warm water, and this used for heating the buildings. Imperial are planning to install this “zero carbon engineering solution” in the new ‘Block L’ being built in Hammersmith. However, there are also bigger plans in place, with Fulcrum Consulting currently preparing a multi-million pound project to install ATES on the entire South Kensington site, including the museums and the Royal Albert Hall. It is hoped that this technology will deliver a 7% reduction in carbon emissions and energy consumption.

Most of the heat generated is transported round the campus in the form of steam. With 3km of pipe network, it would be easy for efficiency levels to decrease. However, Imperial are currently in the process of replacing most of the insulation, and it is hoped that 1500 tonnes of CO2 could be saved over the network.

These figures make my hope for recyclable cutlery seem pretty insignificant, but the Estates Group is asking for ideas on how to make Imperial greener still. I’m no engineer, but this ATES stuff seems like a pretty simple idea really; I might just go and have a brainstorm myself.

Kudos to Wellcome. I don’t think even they had anticipated the massive turnout for this event, despite Time Out listing Quacks and Cures as ‘the event’ to go to last night. The entrance hall was positively buzzing as I arrived at the Euston Road headquarters, and I squeezed through the crowd to make my way upstairs to the main exhibits.

First up was the Club Room, where the programme assured me ‘The Doctor is IN’. A slightly flustered nurse was trying to keep everyone in check as we headed into the Doctor’s office, assuring us all that the Doctor had been waiting to see us. In fact, once inside, we were greeted by three Doctors, all from different time periods. One member of the audience would describe their ailment (in this case, a sore leg), and then the Doctors would debate over the best way to treat said ailment. A brilliant idea, but I would have liked to have had the chance to pop back later once the Doctors had gotten fully warmed up in their roles. Meanwhile, the ‘patients’ in the waiting room were treated to a rolling film of old health-advisory adverts, oddly seeming to focus on wearing the correct size shoes! But it was fascinating to see the messages that used to be spelled out to audiences.

Next I headed downstairs to catch the wonderfully un-PC Dr Socrates Gripenerve talk us through his latest remedies. After suggesting that all the ladies leave the room (medicine apparently has no place for us), he later declared that our problem was that we were “obviously all loose!” Other classic remarks included the fact that there can be no worse punishment than sending someone to Manchester…I’ll say no more on that given that my Brother currently resides there.

Aside from the talks, there seemed to be a real audience interest in the ‘Medicine Now’ and ‘Medicine Man’ exhibits. I don’t think that Wellcome had altered these that much from the usual exhibits (save installing a licensed bar), so the many staff members running around must have been pleased to see the crowds gathering to look at items. However, the biggest crowd was definitely at the leech demonstration. As one man declared, “everyone loves a bloodsucker!” The leeches must have been well-fed because they didn’t try to bite, but one nearly got a face-full of beer when it was dropped and almost landed in someone’s pint.

Finally I joined the queue for the auditorium. I took an educated guess in assuming Ben Goldacre’s talk wouldn’t differ that much from normal, so I avoided the scrum of ladies waiting to get in and instead held out for the final discussion. With the programme listing ‘Orthodox vs. Alternative – Two teams of Doctors battle it out’, I don’t think I can be mocked for expecting an intelligent discussion on the merits and flaws of the different types of treatment. It would have been easy to be disappointed when I discovered the format more accurately resembled an episode of QI, albeit with the title ‘University Challenged’ (original, I know). However, the excellent participants and ‘Game Show Host’ soon won me over and I found myself chuckling out loud a fair few times, despite it starting to drag a little towards the end.

I’m not sure whether the participants were actual Doctors, certainly, I’m don’t think that a genuine homeopath would agree to be trussed up in a tie-dye jacket and aviators, and enter the auditorium clutching a crysta_l ball. Whatever, the case, they all seemed to have extensive medical knowledge, and whilst I can’t say that I learnt much during the quiz, it was certainly very entertaining. I can’t say the same for the host’s knowledge though, with one of my favourite exchanges going something like this:

Host: Where did Che Guevara train as a Doctor?

Host: Is it? I don’t know – we’re doing medicine not ****ing geography!

Other brilliant errors included telling us that both Roger Moore and Tony Blair died of cardiac, seeming surprised that Prescott is still alive and suggesting that, before mesmerism, hypnotism was called BBC3. And whether they were real Doctors or not, the alternatives certainly seemed to be having more fun. Despite having a massive score lead, a blatant fix by the judges led to them being docked 40 points in the final round which of course led to victory for the orthodox team.

I emerged from the building (fairly exhausted) at 11pm, not feeling especially educated but certainly very satisfied (and a free event is always a winner). If Wellcome holds another similar event, I’ll definitely be going back. Though perhaps I’ll prepare myself more for the hoards of other people getting in on this SciComm act.

Many of you may be aware that in the midst of the pelting rainstorm last night, a certain wizard was walking the red carpet in London’s Leicester Square. Yes, Harry Potter is back and I can’t wait to get my ticket! I first caught the trailer whilst watching a film at the BFI IMAX and was blown away by it. London has four of the UK’s nine IMAX cinemas (BFI, Science Museum, Odeon Greenwich and Odeon Wimbledon), and whilst the £13.50 price tag may seem steep for a film that you could see in any other cinema (though some IMAX’s will have “select scenes exclusively in IMAX 3D”), the technology required for such a cinema experience far surpasses that used in a regular cinema.

IMAX screens have been around since 1971, when the first was built in Toronto (and is still in use today). This fact will disappoint my housemate Dave as he is convinced the first one was in Bradford! Indeed, the Bradford screen was the first in Europe, but not quite the world (sorry Dave). Like normal cinema screens, IMAX screens vary in size. The biggest is in Sydney; it weighs in at over a tonne and measures an impressive 29.42m x 35.73, making it 10 times bigger than a normal cinema screen. For some reason, IMAX venues like to quote sizes in storeys and buses, so just for continuity, that’s about eight storeys by four buses.

The LG IMAX theatre at Darling Harbour, Sydney, Australia. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.

The IMAX screens themselves are not actually that technologically different from regular cinema screens. A (very large) piece of vinyl is stretched over a scaffold frame and coated with reflective silver paint. However, most IMAX screens also have thousands of tiny perforations, allowing sound to be projected through speakers behind the screen, in addition to speakers in the cinema itself. The film soundtrack can then be delivered through a 15,000 watt digital surround sound system, enhancing the immersive experience.

The magic seems to lie in the IMAX camera and projector. There are 26 IMAX cameras in the world, and whereas conventional cameras shoot in 35mm mode, these cameras use 15/70mm film, which gives the film frames a higher definition and clarity. However, there are many films out there which have not been shot with the IMAX camera (26 is not that many to go around and 70mm film is very expensive). IMAX cinemas can get away with showing these by digitally re-mastering the 35mm Hollywood films through a process called DMR. It’s not an easy process though, taking a team of 20 technicians about three weeks to complete. Approximately 80% of the frames can be automatically rendered using uprezzing algorithms, but for the remaining 20%, the film grain must be painstakingly removed by hand, tweaking lighting and colour settings by minute degrees.

An IMAX camera in a display case. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.

As for the projectors, these are cumbersome things weighing up to 1.8 tonnes! They are the most powerful projectors in the world. Their lamps could be seen from space and have a surface as hot as the sun, so cold water is continuously pumped through the system to stop various components from melting. But it’s not just this which makes the projectionists job slightly hazardous; the lamps are made from a thin layer of quartz crystal and contain xenon gas at a pressure of around 25atm. No-one wants a high pressure crystal exploding in their face so body armour is essential when handling the equipment, just incase a lamp gets dropped on the floor.

Fortunately for me, I have no plans to handle quartz crystal lamps anytime soon. Instead, I’m off to book my ticket to see Harry at the BFI. My favourite thing about the IMAX is the fact that despite there being 470 other people in the cinema, the angle of the seating provides a completely unobstructed view of the screen. And I have no scientific evidence to back this up, but my film-buff friend Catherine assures me that M20 is by far the best seat in the house.

It seemed almost ironic that in an event aiming to highlight the issues surrounding the current loss of biodiversity, the range of speakers and topics could not have been more diverse.

The day, which was organised by Conservation Today, was loosely divided into three sections. The first, “The Necessities of Conservation” saw Dr Sam Turvey and Dr Emily Nicholson address some of the problems facing conservationists; from poor communication between governments and scientists to blatant refusal to invest in recovery programmes. Writer Caspar Henderson provided a more philosophical view on these issues, and his quote from Kafka seemed particularly poignant at this time where extinction rates are 100-1000 times the usual background levels: “There is hope, but not for you.”

The second session provided something entirely different, exploring the idea of “Biodiversity and the Imagination”. Charles Darwin’s great-great-Granddaughter Ruth Padel started proceedings with several absorbing readings from her book ‘Tigers in Red Weather’. Dr Jamie Lorimer then gave a geographers point of view on the ideas of ‘natures vs. Nature’; how we view these, and the nature of the binary dualism that seems to separate society and people from nature and animals. The audience was then asked “Would you like an apple?” by Melanie Challenger, who went on to present an interesting dichotomy of how we are losing language diversity much in the same way that species are being lost.

“Biodiversity Futures” was the title of the final session, although the speakers did stray from the brief somewhat! Presenter and professor, Armand Leroi, chose to ask the audience for advice, having been giving almost free reign by BBC4 to make a television programme on conservation. He was followed by Professor John Fa who presented an illuminating account of the bushmeat trade in the Congo basin. He talked about the research done by the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, and the many problems they face along the way. Finally, Steve Roest, the Director of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, used a film and passionate speech to remind us that we also need to be aware of the plight of the Oceans, and the numerous illegal activities such as dumping of waste and illegal fishing which go on in them. As he rightly pointed out, “The Ocean is our larder, but it’s also our toilet”, something which is especially important to remember given that current estimates put the extinction of commercial fishing at sometime before 2048.

At the end of each session there was a debate between members of the panel and audience, and this was the true strength of the event. Not only were members of the public able to ask questions and clarify the (sometimes science-heavy) issues, the panellists also questioned each other and discussed issues such as whether we can really compare the decline of language with the mass extinction of living species.

The event took place in an art gallery within the eco-friendly BASH HQ, and also featured a collection of art projects, supported by the Royal Society of Arts. These innovative pieces aimed to illustrate the many things we are currently doing which damage the Earth, and what we could be doing to protect it. One piece featured a shower curtain which physically pushes you out of the shower using inflatable spikes, after you’ve had your designated four minutes showering time. However, my favourite piece was a collection of hundreds of pieces of litter, all collected from Britain’s beaches, and being sold as “100 % unique” souvenir gifts.

Founder of Conservation Today, Will Pearse, said he felt the event was a “huge success”, allowing a variety of people to engage and debate the issues of conservation. This will hopefully be the first of many events organised by the group, but in the meantime, you can go to their website to read a range of blogs and news stories covering global wildlife conservation and environmental topics.

Head to BASH Creations’ HQ on June 20th for this one-day conservation workshop which is aiming to bring together the arts and sciences in the fight against biodiversity loss.

The Open Ground will give scientists, artists and the wider public the opportunity to discuss the all-important issues of priorities for conservation, the humanities’ view of nature, and where conservation should go from here.

Featured speakers include:

John Fa – Director of Conservation Science, Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust

Ruth Padel – Former Professor of Poetry at Oxford and author of ‘Darwin – a Life in Poems’

Armand Leroi – Professor and presenter, Imperial College London and BBC

Samuel Turvey – Scientist and author, Zoological Society of London

Caspar Henderson – Environmental journalist and author of the forthcoming ‘Book of Barely Imagined Beings’

Melanie Challenger – Former Writer in Residence, British Antarctic Survey and author of the forthcoming book ‘Extinction’

Jamie Lorimer – Professor at King’s College London, specialising in the history, geography and politics of conservation

A representative from Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

The Open Ground is organised by Conservation Today, a website featuring articles, opinions and forums on the conservation issues of today. As well as aiming to bring together the sciences and literary arts, it is hoped that this event will also be as carbon neutral as possible, so consider that when making your travel plans!

The event has already been endorsed by Georgina Mace (former Director of Science at ZSL), and Professors from Imperial College London, and I urge you to attend too. Tickets are just £10 (£7 conc.), including lunch, and can be bought via the Conservation Today website

On June 1st, Michael Palin will be named as the new president of the Royal Geographical Society (RGS). The former Monty Python star has been travelling the world for more than three decades and says that his love of geography stems from school field-trips as a boy in Sheffield. He may therefore use his new position to promote geography in schools, previously arguing that the subject should be made “relevant, lively, stimulating, adventurous and…fun.”

Palin in Trento, Italy in 2005. Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

Although there is no word on Palins official website, he was reported as describing the position as a “great honour” in the London Evening Standard. The announcement has also gone down very well with his large fan-base, and may have gone part-way in relieving some of the disappointment of the failed ‘Michael Palin for President’ campaign.

However, Palin is taking over from current president, Professor Sir Gordon Conway, in a period of turmoil for the RGS. In March, 78 of its fellows filed a resolution which led to a Special General Meeting on the 18th May. These members, which included high-profile explorers such as Sir Ranulph Fiennes (but not Palin), were arguing for the inclusion of “high-profile, self-funded projects organized by the Society alongside its existing range of endeavours”. However, all living former presidents of the Society were against the motion, and there are worries that funds to enable multiple projects like the Maraca Rainforest Project simply don’t exist.

The final vote was won by the ‘old-guard’ of the Society, with just over 60% of members voting against the resolution. The RGS said that trustees thought the resolution would “jeopardise the current high profile and strong brand of the Society with many Stakeholders and members.” However, with a major policy review planned for later this year, and under the new presidency, watch this space for change.