An interesting report has wafted my way on the topic of science and interacting with the general public, although the report was actually more about scientists talking to journalists who then write stuff that the general public read.

It was contradicting a widely held view that scientists are loathe to speak to “the public”, either directly or via the medium of journalism and it has resurrected some thoughts of mine about the issue.

To a degree we are moving increasingly into a world dominated by specialists, and the old order of the gentleman scientist is passing away as topics become so incredibly arcane that it takes the specialist to firstly understand what is already known, then to be able to expand on that. Which I feel is a bit of a shame, as the old generalists were often able to leap between different fields and hence bring wider insights into science. Obviously, that is offset by the huge leaps forward made in the past 50 years by the specialists.

Anyhow, getting back on topic… I was reminded of a blog posting over on the Nature website by the Londonist’s M@, which certainly resonated with me at the time I read it. The comment dealt with the disconnect between how scientists try to explain what they do, and how artists often seem to live in a rarified atmosphere where words that look like English are uttered, but comprehension is denied to the layperson.

A scientist will expect a modicum of intelligence when explaining an issue, but will try to avoid too much jargon, and I can cope with their lectures. Indeed it is one of the key reasons I expanded my own diary into the events guide on this website – to share the wide range of interesting lectures that are available (often free) around London most weeks.

When I am compiling the listings, there seems to be three types of source I use.

1. Detailed and useful
2. Detailed and incomprehensible to the layman
3. A headline and nothing else

Unsurprisingly, the first option is the one that gets written up on my events guide as I can be reasonably sure what it is about and that the language used probably won’t scare people. The second option sounds too technical and I won’t list them as I doubt that they would work for the average Joe with a casual interest in the topic. These are for students of the subject who have a detailed understanding of the issues, and as a layperson, I can’t always be that sure what they are about!

Option three is actually the most depressing one, as it usually applies to the smaller local community groups and makes it very difficult for me to promote their activities. Even when I contact some of them for more information, I rarely get anything usable. Which is a shame as there are some lectures that sound like they might be interesting, but I am just not sure.

However, if I try to read up art listings, I am totally baffled by the language used. They just don’t seem to want to appeal to the layperson with a casual interest in a subject who could be lured into learning more. Not to mention the very arty way that many art groups present their listings (single image in an email?), which makes converting them into something more usable a torturous process.

In conclusion, while I do despair at times of the dumbing down of science shows on television (glares at BBC2′s Horizon), the range of lectures around London are a wondrous resource that more than make up for the loss of decent TV programming. After a quiet summer, I am looking forward to a busy few months ahead listening to scientists who genuinely want to explain what they do, and explain it in a language that we curious lay people can understand.

Not to mention that lectures at a few places (Linnaean Society & Grant Museum) tend to finish off with glasses of wine in their museums and libraries.

Science and wine, what a perfect combination!

Thanks to an invite from the chaps (and chapesses) over at the Londonist, I found myself lurking around the entrance to The Barbican Centre this morning – waiting for a chance to have a look at the first significant redevelopment in the Barbican estate since it was built.

Frobisher Crescent is a odd bit of Barbican history, being originally planned as a semi-circle development, with shops on the ground floor, then several floors above with flats. For reasons which seem lost in the mists of time, the decision to fit out the block with residential flats never happened – and the upper levels were leased out to the City of London Business School, with the lower levels being used for conference rooms, a cinema and the like. The shops never arrived.

A central courtyard, called the Sculpture Court also never lived up to its name and remained barren.

The Crescent is named after Sir Martin Frobisher, who was one of Queen Elizabeth’s private pirates and tended to rob the Spanish fleets of their New World gold. Frobisher’s Barbican connection is that a fair amount of him is buried in St Giles’ Churchyard. But St Andrew’s Church at Plymouth nabbed his heart and entrails.

The school recently moved out though, leaving the opportunity to finally finish off the original plans for the development, and the property is being converted back into flats by United House. They say a key factor in winning the contract is that they have their own builders and don’t outsource the work to 3rd parties. Gives them a tighter level of control, which is important as this is a Grade 2 listed building.

We were taken up to the “ground level” (which is actually the 3rd floor!) for a look and some photos, then up to the 6th floor where the builders are working. They are only converting floors 7,8 and 9 into flats, but using floor 6 for admin – the current occupants being moved into portacabins for a while (presumably not at gunpoint).

Suitably attired in hard hats and high-vis jackets, we went up a floor, and wandered right round the curve of the building to see the end flats, which are being fitted out first as show-flats for the sales people. A total of 69 flats will be available, mixed from studio to 3-beds.

As the building is directly over the famous Barbican art centre, they have to work around music concerts, so that their drilling works on the solid concrete structures don’t disturb the more delicate tones being created below.

The most spectacular part of the development though is the top floor, where each flat had an arched roof which is nearly double story in height. The larger flats will retain the full height in places, while a mezzanine floor will be installed in places. Most residents will have a bedroom with a huge curved ceiling over them.

Another impressive aspect are the very wide doors which slide open to let people on to the balcony. They are part of the listed aspect of the building and will be restored as originals – although that means they can’t be double-glazed either. The balconies also fail current building codes – and the barrier is deemed too low now, so a thin wire barrier will be added to bring them in line with the regulations. A bit petty, but that is red-tape for you.

It was a very interesting view of the estate, and I can’t help but be a bit envious of the people who will be able to afford the properties there.

Oh, and the Sculpture Court will finally start living up to its name – and will become an area for changing displays of art work.

Thanks to Londonist for the invite, and United Houses and tta group for taking us around.

A few more photos at my usual Flickr account.

Tragically, only in a virtual reality website. I wonder if we can persuade them to let people for it for real – for charity of course.

However, while bungee jumping is not possible, people do occasionally abseil down the clock face to clean it – and occasionally climb up the outside to protest about something or other.

http://londonist.com/2009/01/bungee_jumping_off_big_ben.php

Although – if you want to visit Big Ben for real, you can go on tours of the Clock Tower and stand next to the infamous bell as it strikes the hours.

http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2008/11/11/visiting-big-ben/

For your enjoyment, some nice photos taken by Time Magazine of the London underground night time workers – and the work they do.

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1870615,00.html

The Londonist and Annie Mole went down one evening and wrote about the night-time activities, which adds a level of detail to what the photos above are showing.

Is it me, or does Photo 3 in the Time article look a bit photoshopped?