Home | News | Conferences | My books | Magazine | Editorials | Science communication | Personal | Contact
Home | News | Conferences | My books | Magazine | Editorials | Science communication | Personal | Contact
|
Not to be missed In the 7th Framework Programme for research 2007-2013, public communication is an obligation and is defined by the grant agreement. However, communication is not a criterium for evaluation. Nevertheless an increasing number of proposals include explicitely external communication as a workpackage. It is worth noting that these activities can be funded by the project budget. The conception of a set of communication tools (logo, leaflet, etc.) contributes to the cohesion of the network. European projects have a real smashing power with regards to communication and media impact: they are able to bring together substantial resources and to coordinate campaigns at a European scale, thanks to their partners located in different countries. Our Communication Unit at the European Commission proposes assistance and services to projects (press releases, web sites, magazine, etc). See also the presentation related to this issue. Some web sites you may find interesting in this context: - The general conditions of the 7th Framework Programme's grant agreement (see article 12) - Examples of European projects which developed communication as part of their activities - Guides on communication - Conference Communicating European Research 2005 - Conference in Paris "La communication, un enjeu pour les projets européens": programme and presentations - Athenaweb, a source of audiovisual material - The research*eu magazine, formerly entitled "RTD info" This first forum took place in Barcelona on 3-4 December 2007. Several reports have been presented to some 200 science journalists. A public opinion survey shows that Europeans are generally satisfied with the presentation of science in the media, with more than the half (56%) expressing their contentment. Meeting with Bernard Schiele, Professor at the University of Quebec in Montreal. A tireless communicator in “publicising” science gives his point of view. A French study shows that the memory of a crisis is more influenced by its mediatic coverage than its very nature. With Bernard Schiele and Massimiano Bucchi, I have organised a workshop in Venice on 12 and 13 January where some 30 leading experts on science communication met. The discussions were extremely interesting and the dialogue bewteen theoricians and practitioners was constructive. Two books being prepared. Brian Trench from Dublin reviewed the various science communication models: from the famous "deficit model" to dialogue and participation models. These models can be seen as adaptations of a global model which embodies a continuum of phases (ranging from 0% to 100% communication). Hans Peter Peters from Jülich reviewed the models of science journalism, as the gradient model, which assumes that "communicators" are the interface between scientists (who must develop their communication skills) and the public (who must improve his scientific literacy). I propose here a stellar model which takes into account the fact that scientists consider journalists essentially as mere "amplifiers" or "loudspeakers" of their ideas in order to reach the "wide" public. Hans Peter Peters also raised a crucial question: which are the criteria used by journalists to consider a scientist as an "expert"? Our scientific instruments are also powerful communication instruments. Images pubished by ESO show for example the star "S2" rotating around the centre of our Galaxy, which is supposed to coincide with a massive black hole named "SgrA" (Sagitarius A). S2 makes a complete rotation within 15 years, at a speed of 5,000 km/sec. Fascinating ! Contribution (in French) to the opening session of the Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la Science et la Technologie Article published in Le Monde
|