Plenary conferences will be in French or in English, with simultaneous translation. The sessions will take place in French or English, depending on the choice of speakers, and will not be translated simultaneously.
8.30AM | SESSIONS |
Pascale Frey-Klett : SURVIVORS, a participative research project involving junior high school students
François Millet : Living Lab: a New Approach in Support of Cultural Communication
Ricardo Mutuberria : Genspace, a biomaker space open to the community
Harold Vasselin : Participatory research and the Issue of Depiction. Example: producing "Blé/chanson de geste"
Azzedine Bouderbane : Algerian Public Libraries: a Territory Searching for Science Culture
Afaf Mikou : The Path Taken by a Researcher in Science and Technology Culture
Samuel Cordier : STIC Territories
Dominique Mer, Bertrand Tinoco : The Cigéo Project (deep disposal centre for radioactive waste), Communication Centred around its Host Territory
Rosalba Namihira : Public communication of science among members of the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (SNI) in Mexico.
John Besley : Scientists' views about public engagement goals
Ilse Zeeland : Science, live in a museum
Amandine Duluard : Researchers' involvement in the ATOUTS (A Taste of University for Teens) program
Philippe Leclère : The “Maison pour la Science” in Lorraine: Teacher Training Sessions Linked to Research
Constance Hammond : How can you Forge Closer Links between Secondary Education and University? Looking back on the “We’re All Researchers” experiment
Frédéric Tournier : Dramatizing Science Controversies: Concepts and Issues
Isabelle Dubois : Presentation of MATh.en.JEANS workshops in Lorraine
Camille Volovitch : Playing Debates – a science communication teaching aid for teenagers
Sebastien Genvo : Understanding the potential for expression of video games
Eric Triquet : What Room is there for Science and Technology in collective Stories? The Case of the “Mène l’Enquête” (Runs the Investigation) games
Matteo Merzagora : Use of creativity in the relationship to knowledge: motivation, ownership, empowerement
Adria Le Bœuf : The Devising Process as a Catalyst: A true collaboration bringing Science to the Stage
Sara Amaral : Science in theatre – an art project with researchers
Xavier Maître : Art and science, or the scientific culture way of serendipity
Round table by Sylvie Grange, Céline Dupont, Hélène Hatzfeld, Ewa Maczek, Jeanne Pont and Céline Salvetat.
10AM | BREAK |
10.30AM | SESSIONS |
CISCo : Promoting careers in science and digital technologies thanks to the "Connected Girls" programme
Aurélie Seznec : Considering the Inequalities in Study Options, what Avenues are there for Promoting STEM among Girls?
Marie-Agnès Bernardis : Science culture: culture for men?
Annie Black : The L'Oréal Foundation: the For Women in Science programme
Citlali Bichet : Promoting the engineering professions among young people
Luiz Antonio Garcia Diniz : Nanoart and Science : communication possibilities
Xavier Maître : Art and science, or the scientific culture way of serendipity
Laurence Bordenave : Sarabandes, a collaborative research project on educational impact of scientific comics conception
Fredrik Brounéus : Schools and scientists – doing research together
Vandana Thathamangalam Viswanathan : Nature of science debates and Technology choices; an Indian perspective
Adeline Néron, Lucile Ottolini : In search of social representations: the characteristics of a collaboration between researchers and social movements.
Carina Cortassa : A matter of trust
Sara Tocchetti : Do-It-Yourself Biologists and the Test-tube: between the Deficit Model, Science Communication and New Participatory Practices?
Maria Eduarda Giering : Interrelations between Fields in Science Communication in the Media
Ronan German : Museomix and Sharing Science and Technology: a Communicational Approach
Séverine Derolez : CIFRE Funding, a Special Relationship between Research Unit and Museum
Jean-Marc Galan : Why are TEDs Popping Up All Over the Place?
Alexia Benichou : Research Labs: Opening the Doors to the General Public
Julie Louis : On the Need for a Popularisation Tool in the University
Matteo Merzagora : The Great Participatory Experience: Citizen Science meets Researchers’ Nights
Isabelle Le Brun : Sharing Science
Mélodie Faury : Constructing a Relationship to Knowledge through Rubbing Shoulders with Other Science Professionals
Vanessa Mignan : For Education in Responsible Research and Innovation in the Classroom
Charles-Henri Eyraud : Climate and Weather, a Launch Pad for Science Education
Cristina Meneguello : Is history just a game for you? The National Scientific Olympiads of History in Brazil (2009-2014)
Gaëlle Crenn : Sociability and Conviviality in Science Communication at the Museum. Innovative Examples and their Paradoxes (France, England, Australia)
Ines Montalvao : Pushing (or crossing?) the limits
Nicolas Didier : Luxembourg Science Center
Anne Maumont : Programming the Museum as an Agent of the Future?
Silvia Benvenuti : Big Bang Maths
Anne Piponnier : Portraits of Researchers on Institutional Weblogs. What Accounts, for What Audiences?
Laurent Chicoineau : The Digital World and Science Culture Communication: Issues, Realities and Prospects
Lionel Sanchez : Cultural Outreach and Science Communication. Pluralistic Approaches to Apprehend and Understand an Archaeological Site
Khosro Maleki : The Transmission of Scientific Knowledge and the Internet
Jean-Pierre Alix : A wiki for science public discussion
Cristina Rigutto : Twitter for science outreach
Evelyne Lhoste : FabLabs: Between Innovation and Cultural Communication
Séverine Ciancia : Network in science communication: why (and how) it works
Julie Poirier : Makerscience: Creating a Social Network to be Used for Science and Technology Communication
Thomas Durand : An Introduction to Zezetics
2PM | SCIENCE-SOCIETY RELATIONS SEEN THROUGH THE PRISM OF TECHNOSCIENTIFIC PROMISES By Pierre-Benoît Joly |
While some policymakers were still wondering recently “How can we restore confidence in science?”, it is today agreed that relations between science and societies are good, that the appetite for knowledge remains strong, that as a whole, the French have more faith in research than in other institutions. It is recognised that the problem is the relation not so much to science as to its applications, which would explain the oppositions and resistances to techno-science. For some, this can be attributed to a lack of knowledge and perception biases which need correcting. With numerous analyses demonstrating that such a belief is unfounded, we need to look for other explanations. This paper explores the role played by the rhetoric of techno-scientific promises which has become predominant. | |
2.45PM | 30 YEARS AT THE OPECST, 30 YEARS EVALUATING BEFORE LEGISLATION/b> By Jean-Yves Le Déaut |
The role of the Office parlementaire d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques (Parliamentary Committee for the evaluation of scientific and technological choices), set up by an Act of Parliament passed on the 8th July 1983, and made up of députés and sénateurs – members of the lower and upper houses of the French Parliament – is to inform Parliament on the consequences of its choices in scientific and technological fields. Referrals, which may be passed on by different parliamentary bodies, are entrusted to a committee member. The latter, after conducting hearings and field missions and consulting experts, draws up a report which is submitted to all the members of the Office, who decide on its publication. An exclusively parliamentary body, the Office is totally independent of the Government and state administrations. OPECST reports result in recommendations which feed into the legislative work which is then carried out by the standing committees of the Assemblée nationale and the Sénat. The committees themselves conduct inquiries, calling on the main interlocutors in the subject of the legislative debates. But they concentrate above all on the problems of political importance. The specific contribution of the Office lies in shedding light on more technical aspects through consultation of the scientific community and the various analyses they produce on the one hand, and on the other, through missions abroad in order to explore possible avenues of research which would enable them to bridge any divisions arising in the French national debate. | |
3.30PM | BREAK |
4PM | SCIENCE AND SOCIETY IN MOROCCO: WHAT ROLE FOR PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE? By Aziz Bensalah |
In Morocco, as elsewhere, the economic and social progress and the "human development" are conditioned by the relationships between science and society. "Science in society" is lived, with full force, via an often "disorienting" consumption of technology; on another side, the dialogue between science and society is almost missing, marked by a "crisis of indifference" between the "holders of science" and "public opinion" in a context of distrust towards the public education system. To what extent and in what forms, “Public understanding of science” can remedy this situation? This is the project of an "active minority" that we propose to describe. | |
4.45PM | BABEL UNBOUND: WHAT ARE WE COMMUNICATING, WHEN WE COMMUNICATE SCIENCE? By Brian Wynne |
Science communication in its varying forms is a central element of the growing density of communications which make up modern life. A science-informed society would be one which is not only provided with adequate scientific understanding of things and ideas and claims which matter. As some communications theorists have noted, to be informed by science is also to be shaped by (in-formed by) science. Thus as STS specialists have emphasised, public understanding of science in the form of scientifically-validated understanding of scientific propositional knowledge, is seamlessly mixed up - and confused - with normative messages which communicators of science are also transmitting to their audiences, whether or not they also intend to do this. There are many contemporary examples where scientists, who are supposed to know science, communicate their "science" in deeply normative manner. When this is treated deferentially but mistakenly as if it were communicating only science-as-understanding, then democracy is being cheated and undermined. In this keynote lecture I will first draw some distinctions between the different meanings of "science" which are being used, and often confused, in what is typically called Science Communication, including scientific advice to policy. This will also include the many fields of public controversy involving science, in which scientific expertise has been used as attempted public authority for commercial technological innovations, or promised innovations, in society. I will then use some case-studies to show how science communication typically involves not simply providing established scientific understanding to enlighten legitimately normative policy choices or commitments, but also imposing what are allowed to count as the authoritative public meanings of such issues. I finish by arguing that science communications processes and practitioners need to be able to distinguish between these two quite different public roles for science, if we are to avoid a gradual descent into Babel, with science reduced to meaningless public babble. | |
5.30PM | CLOSING CONFERENCE: SCIENCE COMMUNICATION AND DEMOCRACY By Bernard Schiele |