How removing weirs could help fish to migrate along the River Severn.
At Café Scientifique, you can explore the latest ideas in science and technology in a relaxed online setting. Enjoy listening to a short talk before engaging in debate and discussion with our guest speaker and audience.
The barriers that once enabled major industry along the UK’s longest river may pose problems for fish that need to migrate up and downstream. Researchers from Bournemouth University have investigated how these weirs, locks and other infrastructure affect fish migration along the River Severn – and what could happen if they were removed. Join us to find out how our rivers might be restored to let fish to swim freely once more.
To follow on from my blog post earlier this week – here are some further examples of knowledge exchange in action; of particular projects that have been funded by HEIF.
These projects and initiatives demonstrate the breadth of knowledge exchange activities that take place across BU.
Dr Anita Diaz led a project to develop a digital media solution to advertise volunteering opportunities within conservation across the country. The online network created, features volunteering opportunities from over 100 UK conservation organisations. The organisations can learn from volunteer feedback about which projects were most engaging and thus how to best position volunteering opportunities in future
Matthew Bennett and Prof. Marcin Budka formed a team to develop the PalaeoGo! App. This project explored various paths relating to dinosaurs and potential uses within museums, national parks and schools, demonstrating the agility of the team exploring different markets for their product.
The Student Project Bank is a HEIF funded project that has recently moved to the Careers and Employability team. The SPB is creating a series of advisory groups amongst the Faculties to help develop its structure. The main aim of the SPB is to ensure that students have external engagement and access to real life projects as part of their taught studies. For further information, please contact spb@bournemouth.ac.uk.
Public Engagement with Research has still be active despite lockdown. The Public Engagement team have moved their regular Public Engagement events to an online format, such as Café Scientifique – of which, the next Café Sci event is on Tuesday 2 March. The topic is Restoring our Rivers – Removing Barriers to Fish Migration.
And finally, our HEIF funding also is supporting our IP and commercialisation generation and exploitation, do get in touch if you have an idea to discuss relating to this.
HEIF has recently invested in these new projects:
Dr Alain Simons – Medical Ward Simulation Game for medical trainees
Dr Jane Henriksen-Bulmer – Trivial Privacy
Dr Karen Thompson – Responsible Project Management Knowledge Exchange and Development of New Competencies using Virtual Reality
Marcin Budka – ThyroidBuddy: Thyroid titration tool
Dr Vedad Hulusic – Feeling the Unfelt (FUN): Assistive Technology accessible digital environments with a haptic interface
Dr Xiaosong Yang – Neuravatar: Integrated augmented reality platform for medical education, postgraduate training and decision support
If this knowledge exchange work sounds appealing, read on….
Small fund
If these projects have enthused you for knowledge exchange work, perhaps they’ve sparked some ideas, reminded you of a potential project you could be involved with or have just highlighted some best practice that you want in on – here’s how HEIF can help.
The HEIF Panel have this week released a small fund for BU staff to apply for. You can apply for a maximum of £5,000 for knowledge exchange activities that will take place prior to 31 July 2021. This could be to get a knowledge exchange project off the ground, perhaps with some market research for an example, or to help complete a knowledge exchange project. Further information can be found in this blog post.
Open to all environmental scientists working in NERC’s remit – you don’t have to be NERC-funded to apply.
If you would like to increase the impact of your environmental science research, and want to improve your skills in using public engagement to achieve this, then the NERC Impact Development Programme could be for you.
In partnership with the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement, the programme will cover the breadth of issues you might encounter, from choosing the best type of public engagement for your specific research; to working through practical issues; to considering how to evaluate your public engagement to find out if it was worth it.
The Impact Development Programme is a dynamic nine-month professional development opportunity for environmental science researchers to work with the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) to develop their skills in delivering high quality engagement with impact. The programme is free for researchers to take part in. The programme components include 2 online events, networking opportunities and peer learning.
Key dates
Date
Activity
16:00 on Monday 1 March 2021
Application deadline
Wednesday 3 March 2021
NERC will be in touch by to confirm whether applicants have been successful in being awarded a place on the programme. Unsuccessful applicants will receive feedback on their application.
Monday 8 March
NCCPE will be in touch to provide further information and to kick-off the programme (if successful)
Wednesday 31 March
Event 1
Thursday 24 June
Event 2
TBC
3x peer learning group sessions
September 2021
Evaluation, recommendations and findings for NERC published
IMSET is delighted to invite you to the second of our 2021 seminar series on long-term human ecodynamics, to be given by Dr. Ryan Rabett (Queen’s University Belfast) on:
“Human adaptation & coastal evolution in northern Vietnam: an overview of outcomes & spin-outs”
Thursday February 18th 16:00 – 17:00
Dr Rabett is a senior lecturer in human palaeoecology and his research interests include early human adaptation and dispersal, as well as biodiversity and conservation. He currently leads research projects in several parts of the world, including Southeast Asia.
Keywords: digital narrative, interactive storytelling, health communication, science communication, science education, science journalism
We are seeking papers for a joint issue with Frontiers in Communication (Science and Environmental Communication; Health Communication) and Frontiers in Environmental Science (Science and Environmental Communication) on digital and interactive narratives and science and health education and journalism. This Special Topic aims to investigate how digital media affordances—such as human-machine and human-human interactivity, multimedia capacities, dynamic visual appeal, playfulness, personalization, real-time immersion, multilinear narrative, and so on—have been and can be used to effectively communicate health and science issues. We would like to go beyond the current discourse on fake news, mis/disinformation and online radicalization, which recognizes the malignant effects of digital media on health and science affairs, to refocus on the positive affordances of digital media—both in direct education (e.g., museums, public demonstrations, school settings) and through the media (e.g., news, film, games)—as communication tools and techniques for health and science topics.
The aim of this Research Topic is, therefore, to explore the current state of play, as well as potential future trajectories, of digital narrative and storytelling in the communication of health and science topics. We invite scholarly investigations, including theoretically driven and practice-related research, on any topic relevant to that overall goal. Some potential topics include, but are not limited to:
How can science and health be effectively communicated through both playful and informative digital narrative and storytelling forms?
How can information, education and entertainment be integrated into digital narratives about health and science issues?
How do the socio-technical affordances of digital health and science narrative and storytelling, especially interactivity, affect audience experience, message cohesion, knowledge acquisition, emotional engagement and, ultimately, health/science literacy?
Can digital narrative and storytelling serve as an antidote to digital health and science mis/disinformation and online science denial more broadly, and in what way?
How are interactive narratives currently used for health & science communication and what are the social, economic and technological constraints on their production?
Types of Manuscripts:
● Empirical Research Papers
● Practice-led research Projects
● Reviews
● Conceptual Analysis
● Brief Research Reports
● Perspectives/Commentaries
At a time when so little international business is face to face because of the pandemic, the UK is flying ministers to India to lay the groundwork for a deal on free trade.
In a sign of the importance that the UK attaches to reaching what is being described as an “enhanced trade partnership” with India on the back of Brexit, the international trade secretary, Liz Truss, has been meeting Piyush Goyal, the Indian commerce and industry minister.
It is part of a British wide charm offensive with the subcontinent that already saw Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab paying a visit in December. So what is at stake and what are the chances of success?
India is already the UK’s sixth largest non-EU trading partner after the US, China, Japan, Switzerland and Norway, and the relationship now supports more than 500,000 UK jobs.
In 2019, bilateral trade in goods and services between the two countries were respectively worth US$15.7 billion and US$18.9 billion (£11.5 billion and £13.8 billion), and becoming increasingly important. The UK’s services exports to India have grown at 7% a year between 2013 and 2018, and yet India continues to enjoy a trade surplus with the UK. The UK is also the second largest investor in India.
Meanwhile, India is the second largest investor in the UK after the US. India invested in 120 projects and created 5,429 new jobs in the UK in 2018-19. Indian companies in the UK turn over an excess of £40 billion. Steel to car-making giant Tata is easily the largest, but there are many other major Indian employers, such as Firstsource (contact centres), Tenon (facilities management), HCL (IT services) and TVS (logistics).
The UK’s need for a deal
When Dominic Raab visited India before turn of the year, it saw a declaration of a ten-year road map towards upgrading the nations’ 2004 strategic partnership into a new “comprehensive strategic partnership” involving closer military ties, cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region, and measures to counter terrorism and fight climate change.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson was due to visit the subcontinent in January, but postponed until the spring to deal with the latest wave of the COVID crisis. His counterpart Narendra Modi is also invited to attend the G7 summit in Cornwall, south-west England in June, and there is no question that the economic realities of the pandemic and changed geopolitical priorities following Brexit provide an incentive for both sides to negotiate a fast-track trade deal.
For the UK, this reiterates the government’s “Global Britain” strategy of developing stronger ties in Asia Pacific – in line with the country’s application to join the CPTPP free-trade bloc. A trade deal with India is an opportunity to foster post-Brexit and post-COVID recovery, giving British businesses greater access to a market of 1.3 billion people when the prospects for global growth after the pandemic still remain uncertain.
UK companies already have a growing market share in India in several sectors, including food and drinks despite high tariffs and other trade restrictions. Notably, India is the third largest market for Scotch whisky, for instance.
The business potential has also just been enhanced by the fact that on February 1, the Indian national budget raised the maximum stake that foreign investors can take in insurance companies from 49% to 74%, while also offering new opportunities in healthcare and agribusiness.
India and free trade
From India’s perspective, a deal would reduce its reliance on trade with China at a time of very chilly relations between the two countries, while helping to maintain its global geopolitical weight. In particular, it would reiterate India’s commitment to free trade after the decision in 2019 to exit from a deal to join the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), Asia’s other major trade bloc. India decided it had more to lose than gain by joining the China-led bloc, whose members also include Japan and South Korea.
And of course, a deal would also ease the pain of economic contraction from the pandemic.
Meanwhile, the fact that the UK and India are both primarily services exporters potentially makes them a good fit, not to mention their common language.
India is likely to demand liberal access for skilled professionals and students as part of the negotiations, while the UK will want enhanced access to India’s financial and professional business services market, including insurance and technology. Other sectors likely to be the subject of negotiations might include renewable energy, IT, life sciences and healthcare.
Given India’s recent scepticism to the benefits of free trade, a decision may ultimately come down to whether the post-COVID economic realities convince the Modi government that a deal is a necessity. The UK might be more likely to succeed if it pushes for negotiations that focus on individual sectors rather than a full-bilateral deal. This might offer some low-hanging fruit that eases the two sides into closer integration for an enhanced trade partnership in the fullness of time.
Exploring the chaîne opératoire of applied long-term human ecodynamics: examples from the human paleocology of Subarctic and Arctic seas.
Book your place in the seminar with Professor Ben Fitzhugh, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington.
Professor Fitzhugh’s research focuses on human-environmental dynamics and archaeological histories of maritime/coastal hunter-gatherers especially in the North Pacific. His research addresses questions of human vulnerability and resilience in remote subarctic environments.
Researchers studying long-term human ecological histories increasingly promote the relevance of this work to contemporary environmental managers, policy makers, and heritage communities. After all, our case studies and comparative insights capture greater ranges of socio-environmental variation and longer temporal sequences than are available to planners tethered to the short observation scales. These longer time-lines and more varied “completed experiments of the past” make it possible to track dynamic relationships and downstream legacies driving more and less sustainable strategies and relationships. This information should help us to avoid the mistakes of the past and to build policy on robust understandings about the capacities of systems for stability and change. Nevertheless, meaningful engagement remains limited. If we are serious about this effort, we owe it to ourselves to examine the practical challenges and paths to solutions to implementation of applied long-term human ecodynamics. For this talk, Professor Fitzhugh will expand on the need for a “chaîne opératoire of applied long-term human ecodynamics.” Chaîne opératoires are the inferred technical steps perceived to govern the production, use and discard of technological objects like stone tools, and his argument here is that we could stand to investigate the impediments and limitations of practice that keep academic work at arms length from management policy. Using climate, marine ecological and archaeological case studies from the subarctic North Pacific, he will explore key steps involved in forming and bringing compelling human ecodynamic scenarios of the past into dialogue with contemporary management science and policy. These steps involve managing data uncertainties, unequal resolutions and relevance, disparate interpretive constructs, and epistemic and ontological asymmetries.
Professor Fitzhugh is currently Director of the Quaternary Research Center at the University of Washington, and in this role, seeks to promote interdisciplinary scholarship in the evolution of the earth surface (and the role of humans in it) over the past two and a half millions years.
The average daily time spent online by adults increased by nearly an hour during the UK’s spring lockdown when compared to the previous year, according to communications regulator Ofcom. With numerous countries back under severe pandemic restrictions, many of us once again find ourselves questioning whether our heavy reliance on technology is impacting our wellbeing.
In our recent research, we explored how to empower people to have healthier and more productive relationships with digital technology. Our findings can be applied to those suffering from digital addiction as well as those who may feel their digital diet has ballooned unhealthily in the solitude and eventlessness of lockdown.
Screen time is an obvious measure of digital addiction, although researchers have noted that there is no simple way to determine how much screen time one can experience before it becomes problematic. As such, there is a continued lack of consensus on how we should think about and measure digital addiction.
During a global pandemic, when there often feels like no alternative to firing up Netflix, or video conferencing with friends and family, screen time as an indicator of digital addiction is clearly ineffective. Nonetheless, research conducted on digital addiction intervention and prevention does provide insights on how we can all engage with our digital technologies in a healthier way during a lockdown.
1. Setting limits
During the course of our research, we found that effective limit setting can motivate users to better control their digital usage. When setting limits, whatever goal you’re deciding to work towards should be aligned with the five “SMART” criteria. That means the goal needs to be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound.
For example, instead of framing your goal as “I will cut down my digital media use”, framing it as “I will spend no more than one hour watching Netflix on weekdays” will enable you to plan effectively and measure your success objectively.
2. Online Support Groups
It might seem a little paradoxical, but you can actually use technology to help promote greater control over your screen time and digital overuse. One study has found that online peer support groups — where people can discuss their experiences with harmful technology use and share information on how to overcome these problems — can help people adjust their digital diet in favour of their personal wellbeing. Even an open chat with your friends can help you understand when your tech use is harmful.
Self-awareness can also be attained by reflecting on emotional and cognitive processing. This involves recognising feelings and psychological needs behind excessive digital usage. “If I don’t instantly reply to a group conversation, I will lose my popularity” is a problematic thought that leads to increased screen time. Reflecting on the veracity of such thoughts can help release people from addictive patterns of digital usage.
4. Know your triggers
Acquiring self-awareness on addictive usage patterns can actually help us to identify unsatisfied needs that trigger digital overuse. When we do this, we can pave the way to define alternative behaviours and interests to satisfy those needs in different ways.
Mindfulness meditation, for instance, could be an alternative way of relieving stress, fears, or anxiety that currently leads users to digital overuse. If you feel your digital overuse might simply be due to boredom, then physical activity, cooking, or adopting offline hobbies can all provide alternative forms of entertainment. Again, technology can actually help enable this, for example by letting you create online groups for simultaneous exercising, producing a hybrid solution to unhealthy digital habits.
5. Prioritise the social
We must also remember that our relationship with digital media reflects our inner drives. Humans are innately social creatures, and socialising with others is important to our mental wellbeing. Social media can enhance our opportunities for social contact, and support several positive aspects of mental wellbeing, such as peer support and the enhancement of self-esteem. The engagement with media to purposefully socialise during a lockdown can support our mental health, rather than being detrimental to our wellbeing.
Ultimately, technology companies also have a responsibility to both understand and be transparent about how the design of their platforms may cause harm. These companies should empower users with explanations and tools to help them make informed decisions about their digital media use.
While we may consider this as a legitimate user requirement, technology companies seem to be at the very early stages of delivering it. In the meantime, reflecting on when and why we turn to our screens is a good basis upon which to form positive digital habits during new lockdowns imposed this year.
Please find below a statement from the Department of Health & Social Care. Please bear this in mind when in correspondence with NHS Trusts and if planning a clinical research study.
If you have any queries, please contact Suzy Wignall, Clinical Governance Advisor, in the first instance.
Statement from DHSC
We recognise that at the current time those working in many NHS sites are under huge pressure as the number of COVID-19 cases and admissions to hospitals continue to rise and frontline clinical staff are unable to work due to sickness.
While we have a small number of proven treatments and vaccines for COVID-19, more are needed to reduce transmission, reduce the number of patients that require hospitalisation and to improve outcomes for those that do. It is therefore critical that at this challenging time we continue to recruit participants to our urgent public health (UPH) studies. As such I am writing to confirm that the current levels of prioritisation for research studies, set out within the Restart Framework still apply, as follows:
Level 1a (Top Priority) – COVID-19 UPH vaccine and prophylactic studies (as prioritised by the Vaccines Task Force and agreed by Jonathan Van-Tam, deputy CMO) and platform therapeutics trials (currently RECOVERY/RECOVERY +; PRINCIPLE; REMAP CAP).
Level 1b – Other COVID-19 UPH studies
Level 2 – Studies where the research protocol includes an urgent treatment or intervention without which patients could come to harm. These might be studies that provide access to potentially life preserving or life-extending treatment not otherwise available to the patient.
Level 3 – All other studies (including COVID-19 studies not in Level 1a or 1b).
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind you of the NIHR guidance for a second wave of covid 19 activity (https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/nihr-guidance-for-a-second-wave-of-covid-19-activity/25837).This guidance still applies and, as outlined, states that the deployment of staff funded through an NIHR Infrastructure award or funded by the NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) to front line duties should only occur in exceptional circumstances.
The deployment of clinical academic staff should be undertaken within the guidelines issued by a working group convened by the UK Clinical Academic Training Forum and the Conference of Postgraduate Medical Deans of the UK. Where NHS Trusts consider they need to redeploy staff to support the frontline this should only be done to support clinical activity during the emergency phase of the pandemic and we would expect them to return to their R&D roles as soon as possible, once the pressures on the system reduce.
As indicated by the Restart Framework, at the current time, we need to continue prioritise our support for the most urgent COVID-19 research as part of the response to tackle the pandemic. At the same time we need to ensure we continue to try and maintain support to deliver non-COVID studies currently open on the portfolio, particularly those within Level 2. A system-wide Recovery, Resilience and Growth programme has been established which brings together the key partners across the clinical research ecosystem to ensure the UK is well-positioned to take a coordinated national approach to achieving the recovery of the UK’s clinical research delivery and restore a full, diverse and active research portfolio as soon as practicable.
Peer reviewing is the backbone of academic publishing. It is this peer review process to ensure that papers/publications have been vetted scientifically prior to publication by experts in the field, i.e. one’s peers. However, the process is not without its problems. One such problems is the delay in academic publishing. For example, a few days ago we published a substantive editorial on COVID-19 in Qater [1]. When we submitted this in July 2020 the information in our editorial was very up to date, and it still was when the Qatar Medical Journal accepted it on 26th July 2020. Unfortunately, with all the incredibly rapid developments in vaccine development, approval and roll out some of the paper now reads like ‘historial data’.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH)
Reference:
van Teijlingen, E.R., Sathian, B., Simkhada, P., Banerjee, I. (2021) COVID-19 in Qatar: Ways forward in public health & treatment, Qatar Medical Journal 2020(38): 1-8 https://doi.org/10.5339/qmj.2020.38
The combined forces of COVID-19 and Brexit have created massive uncertainty over where British people can and cannot travel.
A number of countries rapidly imposed travel bans on the UK in an attempt to control the spread of a new variant that was identified as spreading across the country. Most European countries halted land and air transportation links with the UK or reinforced quarantine periods, as did Canada, India, Russia, Colombia, Kuwait and Turkey. Government advice and rules have been changing regularly.
But more confusion awaits after December 31 at 11pm. The UK left the EU on January 31 2020 and the transition period after Brexit comes to an end on this date. From January 1, British citizens will lose their automatic right to free movement in the European Union as a result of the nation’s decision to vote to leave the bloc.
Rules announced on December 9 stressed that under COVID-19 restrictions, Britons could be barred from EU entry on January 1 2021, when Britain becomes a “third country” to the European Union unless their travel is deemed essential.
From January 1 2021, the relationship between the UK and the EU may be determined by the trade agreement that is currently being negotiated. It may be that travel arrangements are agreed in that deal but, so far, talks are stalling on other issues.
As Britain becomes a “third country” (any country not in the EU) from January 1 2021, British residents cannot assume the right to visit EU countries while COVID restrictions are in place. When the UK was an EU member state, travel within the EU was regulated by the fundamental principle of freedom of movement. Now that the UK is no longer a member state, it can therefore no longer expect automatic travel rights.
On October 22, the EU Council instructed member states to gradually lift travel restrictions for residents of only eight “third countries” with low coronavirus infection rates. These included Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. All others, including British residents from January 1 (as the UK becomes a third country), will not be allowed to travel to the EU until the COVID-19 situation allows this travel restriction to be lifted. All the countries granted an exception had significantly less severe COVID situations than many other parts of the world so we can see there is some way to go before the UK meets such a hurdle, even beyond the current bans that have been brought in because of the new virus strain.
Holiday planning
These rules mean that British tourists hoping to travel to Europe in the new year, including those who may have flights booked already, will need to cancel or postpone their trip until the restrictions are lifted or Britain is added to the list of safe “third” countries.
Understandably, the pandemic, new strains of the virus, restrictions around the world and the expected third wave following the Christmas holiday prevent short term optimism.
Until COVID-19 is contained and more people are vaccinated, both domestically and internationally, it is unlikely that much non-essential travel will be allowed. Realistically, this should be in late spring or early summer time.
If British tourists are prevented from travelling due to government restrictions, they should be refunded by suppliers, or, if they wish, they can accept value vouchers for future use.
After Easter, we should see restrictions lifted and more international travel activity. Global tourism has been haemorrhaging as a result of COVID-19-induced restrictions and the consequent economic recession.
Most governments will be observing the COVID situation very carefully and evaluate when it will be safe to reduce restrictions and remove travel bans. It is in the best interest of all stakeholders that this happens as soon as it is safe to do so.
It is worth noting, too, that many European countries are very keen to welcome back British travellers when it is safe to do so. Several kept their borders open, even when the epidemiological situation in the UK was much worse than in many tourism destinations.
The Brexit impact on travel
After COVID restrictions are lifted, most British travellers will find that Brexit brings some minor inconveniences. They will have to use “all passports” or “visa not required” lanes at borders and will travel similarly to non-EU citizens.
When the European Travel Authorisation and Information System (ETIAS) is introduced in the second half of 2022, visa-exempt, non-EU citizens will need to apply for travel authorisation online before their trip and pay a fee of 7 euros.
Other than that, they will be restricted to staying less than 90 days in a 180 period in the Schengen region.
One thing we’ve learned during the COVID era is how much we miss travelling. In the short term, if the virus is contained and restrictions relaxed, short and mid haul trips, often arranged at the last minute, will be the best option. And if you’re looking to take a trip to Turkey, Made in Turkey Tours can help get you there at your preferred style and budget.
Training for STEM ECRs from BIG; the skills sharing network for individuals involved in the communication of science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) subjects.
Cost £80 for non-members. Bursary deadline 5 Jan.
The Little Event is BIG’s training session for people who are new to STEM communication, whether you work in a science centre or museum, volunteer for a festival, are involved in university outreach, or do anything else to engage people with science, technology, engineering and maths. The Little Event is crammed with introductory sessions focusing on developing the different skills that are useful inSTEM communication; they are delivered by experienced science communicators following BIG’s usual hands-on approach.
The 2021 Little Event will be online and hosted over two days. The days are designed to work together and are booked as a package (i.e. not sold separately). But of course, it isn’t just about the sessions, it’s the people you will meet, too. The Little Event also presents a great opportunity to meet people from across the UK working in similar roles and sharing similar experiences. The 2021 programme includes sessions on Evaluation, Managing Projects, Presenting, Audience Analysis and Careers and will include plenty of networking time as well as short comfort breaks.
BIG members: cost £50 login as a member first to be able to register for the Member rate. To login as a Member, use the email address you used to join BIG. If you can’t remember what this is, please email admin@big.uk.com.
Non-members: cost is £80 and includes BIG Membership for 1 year. Not sure if the Little Event is for you? See more information here: More about the Little Event
*Each Zoom session will have an automated live transcription as well as on screen Closed Captions.
2021 SCHEDULE
Day 1 – Thursday, 21 January
2:45pm-3pm: arrival and registration for a prompt 3pm start
3pm-6:30pm: 2 sessions, 3 networking opportunities and breaks
Day 2 – Saturday, 23 January
8:45am-9am: arrival and registration for a prompt 9am start
9am- 1pm: 3 sessions, 2 networking opportunities and breaks
2021 PROGRAMME
Setting the Scene– Helen Featherstone, BIG and Head of Public Engagement at Bath University
Introducing everybody to everybody, plan for the day and a whistle-stop tour of STEM engagement.
Managing Projects – Hana Ayoob, Freelance Science Communicator and Events Producer
From small events and projects like short videos and table top interactives to podcast series and festivals, managing a project is just as important as creating its content.
Presenting Science– Jemma Naumann, Science Communicator and Presenter
You know the science but how can you make it accessible to others? A chance to develop your presenting skills.
Evaluation – Jamie Gallagher, Engagement Consultant
This session will explore the science behind the survey giving you the skills you need to plan the perfect evaluation without a social science degree in qualitative analysis.
Who is the Audience? – Clio Heslop, US-UK Civic Science Fellow at UT Austin and British Science Association
What is an audience? How much can audiences differ? Why does your audience even matter?
Careers – Helen Featherstone, Hana Ayoob, Jamie Gallagher, Clio Heslop, Jemma Naumann and others.
Some career options, where to look for jobs, and what skills are desirable. Hear from the panel and ask your questions, too.
Applications open 15th December 2020 and close at 6pm, 5th January, 2021. Applicants will be notified the week commencing 11th January, 2021 on their application status.
There are 10 bursaries* up for grabs to attend The Little Event 2021.
Each bursary is worth approximately £90 and covers annual BIG membership, registration fees and reasonable expenses if required. Applying for one of the 10 free places is simple.
Click here to apply and tell BIG in no more than 200 words, why you would like the opportunity to attend the Little Event and how you think it will benefit your personal and professional development.
*Eligibility requirements
Applicants must
be within the first 5 years of their professional career/studies in the STEM or STEM engagement sectors and be based in the UK; and
not have attended the Little Event or any other of BIG’s events before.
Today we received an end-of-year good-news message from ResearchGate telling us that 700 people had ‘read’ our book Midwifery, Childbirth and the Media[1]. Lee Wright, Senior Lecturer in the School of Nursing and Midwifery at Birmingham City University wrote in his review of our edited volume: “…our media image and digital foot print are rapidly becoming the most important window into our profession. In a rapidly changing environment this book provides an up to date and informative insight into how our profession is affected by the media and how our profession can inform and influence the image of midwifery. This area is going to become even more important in the future universities and trusts increasingly use broadcast and social media to manage information and inform our clients of the services we provide. This book will be the important first text in a new growth area. It brings together an internationally recognised group of authors who are experts in this field. I wholeheartedly recommend it to you.”
This edited collection was published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2017 and it is part of a larger body of Bournemouth University research on the topic [2-6].
Professor Edwin van Teijlingen, Professor Vanora Hundley and Associate Professor Ann Luce
References:
Luce, A., Hundley, V., van Teijlingen, E. (Eds.) (2017) Midwifery, Childbirth and the Media, London: Palgrave Macmillan [ISBN: 978-3-319-63512-5].
Angell, C. (2017) An Everyday Trauma: How the Media Portrays Infant Feeding, In: Luce, A. et al. (Eds.) Midwifery, Childbirth and the Media, London: Palgrave Macmillan pp: 45-59.
Hundley, V., Luce, A., van Teijlingen, E., Edlund, S. (2019) Changing the narrative around childbirth: whose responsibility is it? Evidence-based Midwifery 17(2): 47-52.
Hundley, V., Duff, E., Dewberry, J., Luce, A., van Teijlingen, E. (2014) Fear in childbirth: are the media responsible? MIDIRS Midwifery Digest24(4): 444-447.
Hundley, V., Luce, A., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) Do midwives need to be more media savvy? MIDIRS Midwifery Digest25(1):5-10.
Sarah Elliott below shares her experience of presenting at a BU Café Scientifique event on 1 December 2020. Note – the recording below includes only Sarah’s talk and not the Q&A session that followed. We chose not to record the Q&A in the hope that it would encourage questions, but we may review this policy in future.
I recently participated in Café Scientifique which, because of the current pandemic, has moved on-line. I think this is a great opportunity to be involved in and for viewers across the country to engage in scientific research.
I presented some of my PhD results that form the basis of my current postdoctoral research fellowship, which I hold in the Archaeology & Anthropology department at Bournemouth University. My research sits within the discipline of Environmental Archaeology – I study microscopic signatures of human and animal activity from the soils and sediments in farming villages dating from 12,000-7,000 years ago in the Middle East. These villages and the people who resided in them were the first farmers in the world, domesticating plants and animals in an area called the Fertile Crescent.
My research takes a novel approach to identifying animal domestication and human activities/signatures. There is so much on archaeological sites that we cannot see, but which we are able to pick apart microscopically, I examine microscopic faecal spherulites which are produced in the animals’ gut during digestion and are a key indicator of animal dung. Evidence from the animal dung can help with identifying management and domestication of animals, in addition to identifying the use of ‘secondary products’, for example dung being used for fuel and within building materials. Furthermore, I examine geochemical signatures from the sediments as well as identifying microscopic plant remains, in the form of silica phytoliths. Studying animal dung as a specialism is an unusual topic, but presenting in this Café Sci environment makes people (I think) look at things in a different way.
I participated in Café Sci because I enjoy sharing my research, and more importantly I think it is key for people to know why this topic, and this major transitional period, is significant. During this period, people shifted from mobile hunter-gatherers to sedentary farmers – this was a major change in human history; with the advent of food production and farming came the development of villages, towns, civilisations that led us to where we are today.
Academics spend a lot of time presenting their research to each other and publishing their data, but through Café Sci as a platform you are able to reach a wider audience and facilitate discussions about your research in an informal and friendly environment.
The event had a good turn out and very positive feedback, the questions asked in the discussion were all thought provoking and important points were highlighted upon which I could expand my explanations. Academics always have so much to say, and not enough time to say it, so the ample time given for discussion at a Café Sci event provides a real opportunity to focus on the aspects of the talk which the public were most interested in.
A masterclass was held at Shandong University on 17 and 18 November 2020, overseen by the British Council, with the aim of creating measurable benefits for Chinese patients and the economy by generating new health economics expertise.
The UK-China Health and Economy Partnership (UK-CHEP), led by Bournemouth University, promotes long-term collaboration between UK and Chinese universities by focusing on the economics of healthcare for the mutual benefit of the two countries. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) assisted in the development of the partnership and has provided funding to ensure its success.
Professor Darrin Baines, from Bournemouth University, gave an introduction to the partnership. Academic leads from the University of Sheffield, Leeds University, University of York and three Chinese universities – Zhejiang University, Fudan University and Shandong University – joined the masterclass.
The event involved knowledge transfer of research-led technical advice that supports the reform of Chinese Health Technology Assessment (HTA) processes and builds in-country capacity in health economics.
The masterclass will:
Support UK-CHEP participating universities so they can work together to create significant impact for both the British and Chinese people and economy by engaging in long-term projects and knowledge collaborations that generate new expertise in health economics and health policy, and
Help build mutual understanding and deepen and broaden collaboration between participating universities by sharing research and educational opportunities that help deliver the goals of China’s “Double First Class” programme.
Promote international collaboration between world-class academics in China and the UK uninterrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic
Professor Darrin Baines, Professor in Health Economics at Bournemouth University, said: “This masterclass will help secure significant impact upon health and economic outcomes by improving patient quality of life through better and faster access to cost-effective medicines and promoting world-class research and education in keeping with China’s ‘Double First Class’ programme.”
Professor Simon Dixon, Professor of Health Economics at the University of Sheffield, said: “I am grateful that colleagues in the UK and China have come together to deliver an excellent masterclass programme at Shandong University and online. I am confident this will mark the start of lasting research and teaching collaborations. I also thank GSK for their contributions to the partnership.”
Professor Sun Qiang, Professor of Health Economics at Shandong University, said: “UK-China Partners overcome COVID-19 pandemic and work together to deliver this masterclass programme again to strengthen the development of health economics and evaluation in China. I believe this work will also contribute to the overall collaboration between UK and China universities.”
This partnership was originally launched in Jinan, Shandong province in November 2017 by GSK.
Rugby World Cup winners have joined a chorus of voices calling to reduce tackling in the sport in a bid to stop the growing number of brain injuries afflicting many of its former players.
When the likes of 42-year-old Rugby World Cup winner, Steve Thompson, announced that he could not remember the tournament because his brain was left too damaged from his career, he highlighted that rugby, in its current state, is not fit for contemporary society.
Invented in the 1800s, when safety was far less of a concern, rugby has been resistant to change. But this week, Thompson and 80 other high profile former rugby players announced that they are living with dementia, with many experiencing as early as their 40s.
Another former England player, Michael Lipman, said:
If I knew then what I know now, in terms of how I’m feeling, and what my wife and family go through on a daily basis, I definitely would have been a hell of a lot more careful.
Players are suing several governing bodies, including World Rugby and the Rugby Football Union. The law suit, which is in its infancy, will no doubt grow in claimants.
World Rugby responded to the lawsuit with a statement, saying it “takes takes player safety very seriously and implements injury-prevention strategies based on the latest available knowledge, research and evidence”.
Professional rugby will have its reckoning in the courts. But if the impact of tackling on the brain is strong enough that devoted rugby heroes are suing their former employer, policies need to be drastically revised and soon, particularly for children. The first thing the sport must do is protect young players by banning tackling for under 18s and transitioning to touch rugby.
In denial
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy is not new. It was first described in the 1920s in boxers (it was called “punch drunk syndrome” at the time). But now research is proving what scientists, players and their families have long claimed – that repeated collisions are causing permanent damage to the brain.
When England’s 1966 World Cup-winning football heroes began to be diagnosed with dementia, the football world took notice. Now it is England’s World Cup rugby heroes that are suffering – and suffering younger. The FA banned heading the ball in training for children up to the age of 12, and severely restricted it after. It’s time for the rugby unions to react in the same way.
But whereas football can remove heading from the game, rugby is predicated on collision. As noted by one journalist, the only way to make rugby safe in its current format is to stop playing it. And earlier this year, researchers linked with England’s Rugby Football Union found that their sport offers more head trauma than other sports.
The case of rugby is more reminiscent of what happened to the National Football League in the US after the discovery that players were at increased risk of long-term neurological conditions, particularly CTE. Scores of players sued the NFL and received a US$1bn pay out.
The NFL has, for now, survived. World Rugby has insurance, so it might too. Yet surviving this lawsuit is only one threat to the sport. The fear over children playing the game will no doubt be rugby’s biggest threat.
No more half measures
Sporting bodies can no longer take half measures and policy must evolve to protect the huge numbers of children playing rugby. Children receive legal protection from other known harms, the list for which is very long (smoking and alcohol use, for example).
Both football and rugby are regularly played by children, and particularly in school PE. But whereas children under 12 are not permitted to head the ball in practice, they can tackle another player in rugby training. And where children over 12 are permitted to only head the ball five times a month in football, they can be tackled by a player twice their size as often as the PE teacher decides.
Experts are now calling for tackling to be removed from the sport for children – and curtailed in practice for adults. This means that children should play touch rugby until they are 18. They can then make an informed decision to transition to tackle rugby or continue with touch when they are old enough.
History shows that industries respond to health crises when they are forced to do so – either through legal cases or government legislation. A key example is how the tobacco companies were forced to stop denying the harmful effects of smoking in the 1990s. Rugby is no different. Public pressure and court cases may drive change at some level but legislation is needed to protect players, particularly children.
In the US, the Concussion Legacy Foundation has launched the “tackling can wait” campaign for American Football. It’s time for the UK to follow and protect its children from brain injury by banning tackling in youth rugby. It will be for the courts and the players’ unions to determine how much tackling adults can do – but if they have any sense, they will heed the warnings of those World Cup heroes.
Poster Exhibition | The 12th Annual Postgraduate Research Conference
Kevin Davidson, MRes student in the Faculty of Science & Technology with this poster entitled:
Mindful Resilience: supporting young people at risk of gaming and gambling-related harms.
Click the poster below to enlarge.
There is increasing evidence of gambling-type behaviour in young gamers and associated harms to their health and wellbeing. This issue is being addressed by a project to develop the educational resources for healthcare practitioners in this field, with Bournemouth University partnering with the Young Gamers and Gamblers Education Trust (YGAM), Betknowmore, the Responsible Gambling Council, and Playtech. Within this project an MRes has been funded to draw upon literature on Mindfulness and Resilience in outlining a working concept of Mindful Resilience. This concept of Mindful Resilience will be applied to digital contexts, such as those where young gamers engage in gambling-type behaviour, to foster digital resilience. This poster will describe and outline a working concept of Mindful Resilience and demonstrate how it applies in the digital context.