Category: School of Applied Sciences

The Science Communication Unit, UWE Bristol contributes to PCST 2025

Author Science Communication Unit | Posted on

In May 2025 ten members of the Science Communication Unit (SCU) headed to Aberdeen, Scotland for the bi-annual Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference (PCST). PCST is an organisation that promotes discussion on the theory and practice of communicating science, and of public discourses about science and technology and their role in society. Every two years it hosts a conference gathering well over 600 science communication researchers, practitioners, and students from around the globe. Members of the team provided input to over 15 different conference sessions, poster presentations and pre-conference workshops. In this blog post I’ve aimed to capture a small flavour of the work that we presented, as well as share some of our reflections on the conference.

Dr Sarah Behenna stands with her first conference poster

Let’s start with Dr Sarah Behenna. Sarah shared work from the Science Hunters project, conducted with Dr Laura Hobbs, which was supported by a Royal Academy of Engineering Ingenious Award to encourage children from under-represented backgrounds to discover the many facets of engineering involved in sustainable development, and provide them with opportunities to apply their newfound knowledge by creating their own model sustainable solutions and communities in Minecraft. For Sarah, PCST was an opportunity not only to present her first conference poster, but to learn more about the history of science communication as a field and to understand how challenges can be shared across countries, and how we can learn both from the past and each other. You can read more about Sarah and Laura’s work in this recent blog.

The Inspire Sustainability team showcased research from their public engagement work at PCST 2025. Two posters were presented from the team, featuring work from Dr Louisa Cockbill, Sophie Laggan and Dr Laura Fogg Rogers about their Inspire Green Futures project, and also on the MAKERS project by Dr Laura Fogg Rogers, Kat Corbett, and Dr Joe Butchers. PCST showcased similar themes to these projects, including around citizen engagement for sustainability, with keynotes discussing how science communicators can empower action in partnerships with universities. This was timely with the publication of a new article from Laura’s team, which explores science communication’s role as a knowledge broker between scientists, policymakers, and citizens to co-develop public decisions for sustainability. Evaluation is a strong component of this work and Karen Collins, who has recently started a PhD in the SCU was also in attendance at the conference. With a focus on exploring science communication evaluation in her work, Karen was able to join a number of relevant sessions and further develop her networks.

A conference keynote photo from Guidiana Landivar Paz

Dr David Judge’s presentation asked how a science centre became the heart of one of the largest urban regeneration projects in Europe. David has traced the development of one Millennium Project, Bristol 2000, which regenerated an area of long-derelict docklands in the heart of Bristol, UK, and included the science centre later known as At-Bristol (now We The Curious). David shared how this aimed to create a new city centre which brought together science, nature and the arts. As well as considering historical developments, my inputs to PCST aimed to provoke some ethical reflection in a workshop exploring tensions and transitions in ethics surrounding science communication and public engagement.. This drew on work undertaken and recently published as part of the INSIGHT project, kindly funded by the Leverhulme Trust. I also contributed to a session exploring citizen science, sharing thoughts from a recent project focused on citizen science in the context of death and dying, which was featured in an open access collection published by the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science.

Dr Andy Ridgway featured throughout the conference programme. Andy contributed to a pre-conference workshop organised by the PCST Teaching Forum. The Teaching Forum is an international network of science communication lecturers who teach students at undergraduate, graduate and PhD level and the workshop considered use of AI in teaching contexts. During the conference Andy also facilitated a session drawing together work occurring on the European Competence Centre for Science Communication/COALESCE project for which the SCU is the UK Hub. This session posed the question ‘will we ever overcome the misinformation crisis in science communication?’ and explored national differences in problems generated by misinformation, as well as differences in approaches to tackling it. Andy said “for me the big take-away from PCST is the sense of connection it gives with the community and the positivity there is in any interactions. We’re lucky that in the SCU there are many of us who teach and research science communication. But many of those working in the field are working on their own in a similar role in their own institution. But even with the connections we have within the SCU, PCST really does help us feel part of a bigger community – and it’s always refreshing to not have to try to explain what you do when you start a conversation!”. The European Competence Centre for Science Communication featured in many events across the programme, and Dr Achintya Rao also joined the event, supporting communications and other activities associated to this project over the conference period.

Both Andy and Professor Emma Weitkamp also shared findings from research conducted in India and the UK, funded by the British Council, investigating science journalists’ working practices. These presentations examined data gathered from approximately 120 science journalists, including professionals from Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) and Non BRIC countries exploring how science journalism is changing and evolving with emerging technologies like AI, and considering training and ethical recommendations for the future. For Emma, PCST offered an opportunity to catch up with old friends, as well as meeting new colleagues and she shared that “the opportunity to discuss research with people from around the globe, helps shape ideas, new research and funding applications that will emerge from the connections made and strengthened”.

On the theme of science journalism, Ria Griffith had a poster included in the conference on her PhD research, which is investigating the perceived disconnect between academic research and practice in science journalism, contributing to discourses of professionalisation of the field. Henry Bennie also participated in his first PCST conference, allowing him to connect with researchers and projects that relate to his ESRC funded PhD research examining media representations of Quantum Computing. Henry said, “the session that keeps rumbling around my head is the parallel session, ‘Tensions in communicating discovery science – changes over time’. So much of science communication is focused on relevance to audiences and society so naturally applied science is heavily communicated, and it is the focus of much (if not all) of science communication research. This discussion has helped broaden my thinking about how we can talk about emerging technologies that often have unclear applications and delivery timeframes, and how research can help identify new modes to communicate discovery science”.

Dr Amanda Webber presented research undertaken at UWE Bristol with our MSc students. Amanda’s talk, ‘”Lecturers chose such weird papers”: supporting scicomm students’ learning transitions’, shared findings from a recent article we co-authored that demonstrated students develop critical awareness of science communication models and the need to recognise and engage with multiple publics through our teaching. Amanda also shared how our MSc empowers students by supporting the development of their own identity as a science communicator. For Amanda the highlight of PCST was also “the people” and having a chance to meet and engage with others working in and/or researching science communication. Amanda said, “PCST also reminded me what a privilege it is to be part of the UWE Science Communication Unit – the unit is very well known internationally and part of so many networks and projects, it is great to be part of that.”

Ana Vasconcelos, Dr Amanda Webber, Guidiana Landivar Paz, Beatriz Vieite, Dr David Judge and Henry Bennie at PCST 2025

On that note, we were delighted to be joined at PCST this year by three PhD students who have stayed at the SCU for sabbaticals in 2024/25. Beatriz Vieite (Universidade de Aveiro) presented her study on mapping Portuguese biological collections, where she is aiming to characterise collections in terms of science communication, the strategies that are currently being used by their staff (curators and coordinators) and the difficulties they face in these contexts. Ana Vasconcelos (Universidade D Coimbra) shared her PhD project, which is seeking to explore how to design information to promote effective communication, health literacy, and patient understanding of Autoimmune Encephalitis (AE), a relatively rare but treatable group of immune brain disorders.

Ana shared that what stood out to her during this PCST was how the field of science communication is becoming increasingly aware, not only of the importance of co-creation and participation, but also of the value of being more open to other knowledge systems. “There was a strong emphasis on creating opportunities for mutual learning between academic knowledge and lived, embodied knowledge, highlighting that this is what true participation should be. I think this message came through particularly strongly in the keynote sessions, and I found it particularly valuable for my PhD research”, said Ana. Guidiana Landívar Paz (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) used PCST as an opportunity to reconnect with colleagues she’d previously met in Rotterdam at PCST 2023, and sessions on policy and science communication, science journalism in the Global South, generative AI, as well as the closing keynote, proved particularly valuable to Guidiana’s research on science communication before and after the COVID-19 Crisis in Spain and Bolivia.

The University of Aberdeen captured by Dr Achintya Rao

I was delighted to not only see so many members of the team representing their work at PCST (also acknowledging our colleagues contributions that were not able to make it to the event), but to reunite with many of the graduates we have taught and former members of the SCU, who are now advancing their careers in a wide variety of different locations and organisations. Amongst the hard work, the team also fitted in some wildlife spotting, local history, ceilidh dancing and an infamous karaoke night! Thank you to the PCST conference organising team for hosting us in Aberdeen, next stop Shanghai in 2027.

Professor Clare Wilkinson, Director of the Science Communication Unit, UWE Bristol

AI in storytelling: Telling authentic stories?

Author Science Communication Unit | Posted on

Wildscreen’s Science in Storytelling event this March opened with the “Artificial Intelligence: An Altruist’s Guide” panel. Given the heated conversations taking place in production houses across Bristol, and beyond, there was nowhere else to start.

Science in Storytelling

Bristol is famously celebrated as “Green Hollywood”, being home to a number of production companies, the Wildscreen Festival and, of course, our MSc in Science Communication here at UWE Bristol. The industry has been pondering the impact of AI in the world of wildlife film after something of a bombshell panel (AI Won’t Take Your Job, But the Person That Can Use It Better Than You Will…) at last year’s Festival.

The full Wildscreen Festival took place in Bristol in October 2024, a weeklong event for the wildlife film industry with delegates from across the globe. Midway through the week, Eline Van der Velden, founder and CEO of UK-based production company Particle6, and Christopher Paetkau, senior MD of Canada’s Build Films, formed part of a panel on AI and it became clear from their comments that you could be forgiven for thinking that AI had very much arrived in the industry, with all the subtlety of a bear in a production office, and was about to make lots of jobs obsolete.

2024 Festival Programme

Van der Velden announced, “Pre-production, ideas, budgets, scripting, it can do everything for you,” she said, “then cameras, you don’t need operators anymore because it will do it all for you.” Cue an audible gasp from the room. “You may laugh, but I’m telling you. Everything is done for you. You wouldn’t send a camera in a helicopter anymore would you? You’d use a drone. This is the same.”

Paetkau quipped, “that’s a good thing.” and was, if anything, even more dismissive of the prospects for voice over artists.

In a room full of filmmakers, the reaction was as you might imagine. As a lecturer leading two modules in this area, Wildlife Filmmaking and Science On Air and On Screen, I felt more than a little uneasy sitting there alongside many of our students. More than anything else, I feared for the real, authentic films we’ve made and loved. From the stage, someone called for “a new kind of authenticity” in the new world brought to us by AI. Behind me, a voice shouted “Fake News”. It was clear I was not alone in my discomfort.

MSc Science Communication students filming on location and using the editing suite at Films@59

A member of the audience raised a hand, “I think authenticity matters. Here’s a thought. If your wife had just punched in the (AI) chat five minutes before your wedding. ‘Write me some wedding vows’. And she read them out and they sounded beautiful…does that matter to you? Or do you want her to write her wedding vows and say something meaningful?”

As has already been reported, Paetkau replied that he had used AI to compose his wife’s Christmas card and he felt that that was “completely authentic”. People laughed, perhaps a little nervously.

After the panel, conversations all either began or ended with an expectant “Did you see the AI panel?” In the weeks since the Festival, colleagues and friends in the industry often returned to the conversation. In our sessions on campus with the MSc students, we had to work hard not to allow discussions of AI in filmmaking to derail the rest of our learning.

On another panel at the festival in October 2024, Keith Scholey, co-director of Silverback (Our Planet, Our Oceans) was asked about the impact of AI, sharing “The big challenge for natural history will be what is real and how you put a value on reality. You could very quickly see cheap AI content just flooding the market, and we have to consider how you persuade the world to pay for the world of reality.” 

Whilst Walter Kohler, founder and chief executive of Terra Mater Studios agreed, stating that “AI is the biggest problem we have in the room. You are used to seeing an image and believing it is real. This will be a big disturbance to our mind if we’re sitting there asking if it’s real or not.”  

Personally, I cannot imagine a time when I reach for the remote and think that I really want to watch something generated by AI. Sir David Attenborough has been the face and voice of Natural History film in the UK for some time. It’s not his face and his voice which make him quite so iconic. It’s his insight. The world is full of faces, voices and opinions. Insight is valuable.

Returning to last year’s Festival, Paetkau showed a sequence of a polar bear, several aspects of which were enhanced or generated using AI, explaining “we spent under 24 hours there filming this and got footage that we wanted to put into a sequence. We went to the BBC’s Planet Earth, we took a script from a lion hunt, copy and pasted into ChatGPT and altered it to the behaviour we described. Then we got ElevenLabs to produce a voiceover. From the day of filming to putting that together was two days.”

The sequence looked good. It was well edited. The script was fine but the voice over delivery felt, at least to me, like it belonged somewhere on the edge of the uncanny valley. To others in the room, it felt real enough to become a shockwave.

My expectations were then high for the most recent event. The panel in Wildscreen’s Science In Storytelling panel in March 2025 was intriguingly titled, calling for a human focused outlook: “An Altruist’s Guide”. With the AI panel in October 2024 derailing conversations midway through the Festival, the organiser programmed this panel to open the day. Perhaps with one eye on keeping things light(er), it opened with PhD student Prem Gill who is studying seals from satellite data and using AI in his work, conducting a quiz with the audience deciding whether a sound was a “seal” or “space”. Unfortunately, a series of mishaps with the sound meant that it fell a little flat. Prem, however, is an entertaining presenter and as the technology failed, his warm and dry humour made the best of the situation.

There’s no doubt that AI is a tool and can be a useful one. That it can be used in conservation efforts like PhD research is, perhaps, slightly tangential to whether it should be used in wildlife filmmaking.  Heading into the panel in March, I was instead wondering how we should use this tool in our stories and what stories might they enable us to tell. Perhaps, more importantly, how honest are we prepared to be about how we use AI tools (if we do at all) in our creative work?

We are used to filmmakers using Computer Generated Imagery (CGI). Some of it considerably better than others. For CGI, Animators and VFX artists manually design and animate scenes or characters. For AI, a person (not described as an artist) types prompts and the AI does the rest. Proponents for AI often suggest that it will reduce the more mundane parts of our jobs and free us up to be more creative. 62% of users in a recent report into AI’s use in media said their biggest use was “Content Creation”. I am interested to know what the more creative parts are of media than content creation but, joking apart, it’s a lovely thought that we might altruistically use AI to make the world a better, more diverse place filled with creativity. I suspect people might, all too often, take shortcuts where they are available.

If we do use AI to create our films, write our articles and tell our stories then what are we freeing ourselves up for? It seems unlikely that many people will look back at their lives and wish they had fewer moments making beautiful things, really getting to the heart of a story and finding ways to enthral audiences. Whether they will wish they spent more time typing prompts into generative AI remains to be seen.

In an adjacent discussion in the world of filmmaking, we are constantly being told that our attention spans are shrinking, although the evidence for that is scant, to say the least. There is evidence that filmmakers believe it and tell audiences that it is true but it does not necessarily follow that people’s propensity to concentrate is diminishing. Oppenheimer, The Brutalist and, to a certain extent, Adolescence tell a different story about audiences and their attention spans. If you want to make long form pieces, you can find the audiences and research to back it up. If you want to make short, snappy social media style films, there’s research to back that up too. Let’s not pretend the audience are all one homogenous group.

I suspect that some filmmakers will use the tools of AI extensively. Some audiences will lap it up. Other filmmakers will strive for a more standard meaning of the word “authentic” and, doubtless, open their films with a badge that declares that AI was not used in the making thereof. Other audiences will seek that content out the way a select band of teenagers are heading to record fairs, hunting for vinyl. Personally, I hope our stories will continue to be rich, deep and authentically told. Perhaps the AI could help with the risk assessments?

Profile picture of Andrew Glester, Lecturer in Science Communication at UWE Bristol

By Andrew Glester, Lecturer in Science Communication, MSc Science Communication, UWE Bristol.

Exploring engineering and sustainability through Minecraft: Science Hunters resources

Author Science Communication Unit | Posted on

Laura Hobbs and Sarah Behenna

In 2020, the long-running Science Hunters programme launched Building to Break Barriers, an engagement project to support children from under-represented groups to explore engineering through Minecraft.

Science Hunters has a well-established history of communicating environmental sciences through the popular computer game, and this was its first large project focusing specifically on engineering aspects, supported by a Royal Academy of Engineering Ingenious Award. Despite facing significant challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected environmental engagement projects across the UK, the project rapidly adapted, moved the majority of delivery to online activities and met or exceeded all targets by January 2022.

In September 2020, Science Hunters partnered with the DETI Inspire Programme to design a new session – the West in Minecraft – through the Building to Break Barriers project. Minecraft Clubs for children with Special Educational Needs in collaboration with Lancaster University, and another for Looked After Children were supported to continue during the pandemic. Schools were engaged virtually and children were able to participate in a Summer Challenge. Additional funding via a Biochemical Society Diversity in Science grant saw the project further extended into 2022, to deliver an event for children Special Educational Needs in collaboration with Loughborough University.

Legacy resources resulting from the project include two practitioner guides, on engaging children with STEM using Minecraft and available editions of Minecraft, and 15 topic-based resources, one of which was developed in collaboration with the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Engineers participating in the project contributed to selection of topics and design of content, as well as delivery of sessions and analysis at the end of the project indicated that topics naturally aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Results were presented at the International Conference for Sustainable Ecological Engineering Design for Society, winning a Chair’s Award.

Example of a solar crop dryer designed in Minecraft. The Building to Break Barriers Solar Crop Dryer session was developed with UWE engineer Ceri Morris (image: Daisy Bristow, UWE graduate engineer).

Expanding on these outcomes, Science Hunters: Engineering for Sustainable Societies launched in 2023 with further support from the Royal Academy of Engineering’s Ingenious Award scheme. In this project, the focus was explicitly on exploring the Sustainable Development Goals, again supporting children from under-represented groups and using Minecraft. Sessions were delivered in schools and communities, including setting up several new Minecraft Clubs in disadvantaged areas of Bristol, and at science festivals. Views of teachers on incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals into engineering and environmental engagement activities using Minecraft were gathered and analysed to support the project’s delivery (results can be found in Education Sciences) and we are currently exploring the perspectives of community group leaders.

The project produced a further 12 topic resources, and a supporting resource pack and resource guide produced as outcomes of the project. The topic resources can be used as standalone activities, or together as outlined in the resource pack and guide, to support children to design and develop their own sustainable future communities.

So far, these Science Hunters engineering projects have produced more than 30 resources, freely available on their SCU webpages. Feedback from both projects has been overwhelmingly positive. Engineers have gained training and experience, while children reported that they enjoyed the sessions, learnt about engineering and engineers and wanted to learn more about engineering. Minecraft Clubs reached multiple groups of children, with feedback reflecting how valuable this was to them and their parents/carers. Teachers responded enthusiastically to the projects, citing the efficacy of Minecraft in engaging children, the benefits of seeing women in STEM roles and accessibility for children with Special Educational Needs. In Engineering for Sustainable Societies in particular, they highlighted the need to engage them with the Sustainable Development Goals and positive impacts, both now and in their futures, on their understanding of engineers and engineering and the role they play in society.

Building to Break Barriers resources can be accessed at: https://go.uwe.ac.uk/BuildingToBreakBarriers

Engineering for Sustainable Societies resources can be accessed at: https://go.uwe.ac.uk/EngineeringforSustainableSocieties

For more information please contact sciencehunters@uwe.ac.uk

Further information on the current and past projects undertaken by the Science Communication Unit can be found here.

From crime scenes to comic strips: exploring forensic science communication

Author Science Communication Unit | Posted on

Forensic science has always fascinated me—from DNA analysis, fingerprinting to blood spatter patterns. So when the chance to collaborate with the Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science and the University of Dundee for my Master’s thesis came along, I jumped at the opportunity.

Forensic science is undeniably complex. It’s one thing to watch a TV show like Silent Witness and feel like you understand certain techniques, but when such intricate details are presented by experts in a courtroom, they can easily overwhelm a jury with little to no science background. And that’s where the challenge lies: how can we make this highly technical information clear and accessible?

Enter The Evidence Chamber: an innovative research project exploring whether science comics can help juries better understand forensic evidence during complicated trials. Yes, comics—something you might not expect in a courtroom setting.

By combining visuals and text, comics tap into something known as dual coding theory, which suggests that people process and retain information better when it’s presented in both visual and textual forms. The Evidence Chamber takes this idea and applies it to forensic science, using comics to explain complex evidence, like DNA profiles or gait analysis, within the context of a fictional murder trial.

The project was spearheaded by the Leverhulme Centre for Forensic Science (LCFS) and FastFamiliar, a talented team of digital performance artists. Their approach is immersive: engaging participants through a fictional murder scenario designed to prompt discussions about the science behind the case. During the mock trial, audiences are presented with different types of forensic evidence—like DNA and gait analysis—in two ways: through expert witness testimonies (as in a typical courtroom setting) and through science comics. My role during my MSc Science Communication, studied within the Science Communication Unit, was to analyse these sessions and determine whether the comics genuinely made a difference in helping audiences understand expert scientific evidence.

So what did we find?

After engaging with the comics, participants in our sessions showed a stronger grasp of the forensic concepts shown. They asked more informed questions, demonstrated greater confidence, and even picked up on details they might otherwise have missed. However, not everyone was sold. Some participants found the comics less accessible, and there were concerns about whether comics might downplay the seriousness of courtroom proceedings.

While the feedback was mixed, one thing is clear: the potential of science comics in this context is significant. This approach offers a unique way to bridge the gap between experts and the public—even in high-stakes environments like criminal trials. By presenting complex scientific information in a more digestible, engaging format, we can make the science more accessible, without compromising its integrity.

The use of science comics in this way is an entirely new area of research, and I’m incredibly proud to have contributed to this pioneering work. Thanks to the expert guidance of my supervisors, Andy Ridgway in the Science Communication Unit and Heather Doran at the University of Dundee, these findings have been published in JCOM .

I can’t wait to see where this research goes and to see how it sparks new conversations about the role of storytelling—and comics—in science communication.

By Izzy Baxter, MSc Science Communication student at UWE Bristol.

Bees and brownfields: My journey from Science Communication to PhD research

Author Science Communication Unit | Posted on

As a child, I was fascinated by the world around me and knew from a young age that I was interested in science. Studying Biology for my BSc at the University of Sheffield introduced me to the complexity and beautiful diversity of the world’s ecosystems. I loved absorbing this fascinating information but had no desire to pursue my own research at the time. Rather, I wanted to share this knowledge with others, and decided to undertake an MSc in Science Communication. Home to the internationally recognised Science Communication Unit, UWE Bristol seemed the obvious place to do this.

Studying Science Communication at UWE opened my eyes to the world of science engagement, all the way from its history and theoretical background to its multifaceted practical applications worldwide. I particularly enjoyed my ‘Getting Science on Air and on Screen’ module where I recorded a radio show at BBC Bristol and filmed and produced a short science documentary at Films at 59, the post-production studios for the BBC’s Natural History Unit.

When it came to choosing my dissertation project, I was initially at a loss, however I remembered a book I had recently read, Bee Quest by Dave Goulson, and a chapter which particularly stood out to me, on bees in brownfields. I had become fascinated by the unique habitats of brownfields and their high levels of biodiversity, which are often overlooked in conservation. With the guidance of my supervisor, Dr Margarida Sardo, I wrote my dissertation on public engagement with brownfields sites. I loved working on this project, from interviewing the different stakeholders to writing up the findings. Margarida was a very supportive supervisor and encouraged me to publish this paper in an academic journal. After a couple of years of edits and one unsuccessful submission, this paper was eventually published in the Journal of Science Communication, JCOM, and was recently quoted in the Sunday Times. Publishing this paper planted the first seed of wanting to take my brownfield research further.

After my MSc, I spent a few years in London working in Communication Officer positions for medical and environmental charities. At this point I was hoping this would be a good entry point into the conservation sector and, whilst I enjoyed working with my colleagues, I felt a growing urge to be out in the field doing the conservation work the charities were funding, rather than being stuck at a desk.

Surveying swarming bats with Northumberland Bat Group

In 2021 I happened to see a posting for a PhD at UWE on citizen science, urban ecology and engaging underrepresented audiences with science. This seemed like the perfect combination of topics for me and, after discussing with my family and Margarida, I decided to apply. Although I wasn’t successful, this led me on the path to pursuing other PhDs. I was broadly searching for PhDs on the topic ‘biodiversity’, but was particularly interested in those that had a human-angle, whether this was through citizen science or urban environments. It took me a couple of years, two panel interviews, a number of selection interviews, and numerous applications before I got offered the PhD I am currently doing.

Presenting my poster at the Royal Entomological Society Annual Meeting 2024

Since September 2023 I have been undertaking a PhD on post-industrial land regeneration and Biodiversity Net Gain at Newcastle University. I was drawn to this project through its focus on human-impacted sites, particularly former mining sites, the implications for policy, and the potential to engage with different stakeholders. At the time of writing, I am now about 14 months into my 3.5 year studentship and loving every minute. I have a great team of supervisors, including a collaborative partner with Northumberland Wildlife Trust, who help guide my research with their range of expertise. I have been encouraged to shape my PhD in the direction I want and, as I am particularly interested in ecology, I spent last summer carrying out fieldwork on nature reserves around Northumberland and Gateshead. It was wonderful to finally be out in the field, conducting my pollinator surveys, pitfall traps, soil sampling and vegetation quadrats, even if it was an awful summer for bees!

I have been able to make use of fascinating residential training courses, including on entomological research and remote sensing methods. I have also been to various conferences, presenting posters of my research and making useful contacts from across the world. Each day is unique, some days I will be creating digital habitat maps on GIS, some days I will be pinning and identifying my insect samples, and others I will be in ecology research group meetings or discussing ideas for papers with collaborators. I am still figuring out my specific research questions, but I am given a lot of room for learning and flexibility to adapt my research as I go along.

Even though I am now working in ecological research, I would not be here without my MSc Science Communication. Not only did having a published paper hugely benefit me in the application stages, my supervisors have also told me that they selected me in part for my skills and experience in communication, a vital part of any scientific research. My MSc supervisor, Margarida, has also played a crucial role in my journey to PhD. Her enthusiasm of my dissertation and encouragement to pursue publication, as well as her support with applications and interest in my academic career has enabled me to be doing what I so love now.

I would certainly encourage anyone who is even slightly considering it to look into PhDs and I offer some nuggets of advice below:

  • Having supportive supervisors and academic contacts is hugely important, for both checking work and applications as well as the moral support and suggesting opportunities.
  • Having a variety of skills is an asset, not a detriment. Don’t worry if you’re not specialised in one field or on a particular topic. Doing a PhD is about learning, not going into with the knowledge already!
  • Be prepared for rejections. It may take a few rounds of applying but the project you end up with will be the perfect one.
  • There are many routes into a PhD. It’s ok if you’ve taken a linear academic journey and it’s ok if you’ve had a few years of working, volunteering or even doing something completely different! What matters is your passion for the project.

By Rosie McCallum, former MSc Science Communication student at UWE Bristol.

Learning Lab: BBC Science Focus Magazine

Author Science Communication Unit | Posted on

By Matilde Marques

From a young age, I always found myself torn between two passions: science and writing. For years, I thought I had to choose between them, not realizing that they could actually go hand in hand. When I discovered Science Communication, I was thrilled to learn that I could combine both loves. And as much as I enjoyed every bit of my MSc Science Communication studies, the Learning Lab at BBC Science Focus Magazine felt like the cherry on top.

Throughout my week-long placement, I had the opportunity to shadow several members of the editorial team and dive headfirst into the fast-paced world of science journalism. I got to write news articles and received invaluable feedback from the editors that pushed my writing to new levels. It was reassuring to see that the skills I’d been honing throughout my studies were well-suited to the demands of professional science writing. But more importantly, I was reminded that we never stop learning, and there’s always room to grow.

Beyond writing, the placement allowed me to develop several key skills that will be essential in my future career, including conducting thorough background research to ensure accuracy and depth, understanding the target audience, and learning how to tailor content to match their interests. 

One of the most rewarding parts of the experience was having an article I wrote published—an honor I’ll never forget! By the end of the week, I was tasked with writing an “Everything You Need to Know” guide on NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission—a topic I knew almost nothing about. I won’t sugarcoat it: hearing that I had five hours to research and write my first piece was nerve-wracking. But I thrived on the adrenaline of it all. That challenge sparked something in me: I knew this was exactly what I wanted to do with my life—write about science to help inform others while constantly learning myself.

A highlight of the week came toward the end of the placement when I had the chance to sit down with the Editor. We had an encouraging and insightful conversation as he provided advice on how to carve out a career in science writing. It helped me see that my aspirations weren’t just a far-off dream—they were entirely within reach. His guidance gave me a clear sense of the next steps I needed to take to achieve my goal.

Another great takeaway from the week was the network of professional contacts I built. The connections I made have already been invaluable, providing advice and even career opportunities. Plus, having published work to show at interviews is a massive boost for my CV.

I loved every moment of my time at Science Focus, from gaining a deeper understanding of the magazine’s inner workings to working with an incredibly talented and supportive team. I wholeheartedly recommend the Learning Lab placement to any MSc Science Communication student at UWE Bristol. For those who are unsure of their career path, it’s an excellent way to explore different roles within science communication. As for me, it cemented my desire to become a science writer. The placement gave me the confidence to believe that the career I once thought was out of reach was not only possible but something I was fully equipped for, thanks to my academic background, and offered a crucial bridge between academic study and real-world application

My only regret? It was just one week long—I could have stayed for months. 

Matilde Marques, MSc Science Communication student, UWE Bristol

Supacell: an important mirror for research and medicine

Author Science Communication Unit | Posted on

The Science Communication Unit team have the pleasure of visiting conferences, meetings and events throughout the year, often discovering contemporary and interesting work in the process. In the first of a series of new blog posts from people and organisations we meet on our travels, Dr Marie Nugent introduces work she’s been undertaking and how that resonated with a Netflix TV show.

Dr Marie Nugent

I love my job. I get to spend my time thinking about the complexities of trust, involvement in and benefit from research and I’ve been doing this work for over a decade. The big focus for me for the past two years is sickle cell. Sickle cell is an inherited genetic condition affecting the haemoglobin in the red blood cells, which affects approximately 15000 people in the UK, although this is largely regard as a huge underestimation and the number is growing (Sickle Cell Society). It doesn’t take too long for those who work on sickle cell but with no lived experience of it, such as myself, to appreciate that this is a condition that is unique in the context of health inequities, trust and wider society.

Sickle Cell Disease (Flickr NIH Image Gallery)

When I first saw Netflix announce the new series “Supacell” I was so excited to see how it framed sickle cell and the long-term substantial neglect people living with this condition have faced from Western medicine and biomedical research. In the UK, the All Party Parliamentary Group for Sickle Cell and Thalassemia published the ‘No one’s listening report’ in 2021 highlights this. The report leaves no doubt that racism is the main explanation for neglect of the condition and the continued difficulties people with sickle cell still face today. I was curious to see how this would be presented in the series as, in my experience, talking about racism in the context of sickle cell health research and services is not easy.

If you haven’t watched it, you must. Especially if you work in health or biomedical research in any capacity. It’s got everything. Complex, nuanced characters, high drama, beautiful cinematography, a killer storyline. It’s a true origin story told through a clever and authentic Black British production that takes the tired old superhero trope and transforms it into one of the most gripping, exciting and refreshing series I’ve seen for ages. It also does something truly remarkable. It’s a top-rated series on a major global network that talks about sickle cell and makes it the root of super power capabilities, absolutely smashing taboos around the condition.

The main protagonists are a group of five from South London, where the biggest population of people affected by sickle cell reside, who over the course of the series are revealed to have different super powers; Michael, Tazer, Sabrina, Andre and Rodney. I commend that it doesn’t try to teach you about sickle cell. It peppers bits of information and invites you to investigate further. For those who know very well what sickle cell is, especially those living with it, it shows you are seen, you are heard and your stories are out there. It’s not until episode 5 that an explanation is provided at to how supacells are linked to sickle cell. Here we find out that it is a variant of sickle cell that lays dormant becomes active under the right circumstances, triggered by a threat or stress. This is a nod to the origin of sickle cell which is deemed a natural response to develop immunity to malaria for populations most at risk to this disease.

I’ve never had the experience of watching such an incredible story unfold so closely related to my job. I couldn’t help but take note of anything I noticed that reflected my own knowledge and findings of building trust, coproduction and participation in research.

Here’s what I noted and how it reflects what I understand to be poor practice:

Early scenes depict people in dungeon-like prison cells underground, yet with glass walls along a corridor displaying that occupants have some basic ‘home comforts’. It cuts to a black woman trying to escape the facility who is shot dead. Her body is dragged along the floor past other cells so people can see the blood trailing on the floor. Next, we see a pretty brutal post-mortem process with complete disregard for her body.

This to me was a clear metaphor for the violence of scientific and medical racism. With little regard for the humanity of the people being studied, it’s cold, distant and violent. It also offers a nod to the complete ignorance of different cultures and how they practise sanctity of the body. Other examples dotted throughout the series include people being referred to using  dehumanising terms like ‘asset’ or ‘target’. There are many known examples of the experimentation on black bodies for the curiosity of doctors and scientists, such as the exploitation of Henrietta Lacks and the Tuskegee trials in the US that ran for decades up until the early 1970s. Today, statistics show the increased risk in health outcomes people from black communities face, for example we know black women are four times more likely to die in childbirth than their white counterparts, and were five times more likely only a few years ago. This cannot be explained without acknowledging racism is at play. In this scene Supacell directly addresses this within the first few minutes.

Henrietta Lacks (Flickr)

I am a white woman and noticed that all the people working for what we learn to be an underground operation, linked to a new specialist sickle cell centre, are white, faces often covered and in some uniform – military or medical – except the big bosses who are suited and booted and highly corporate. The frontlines of colonialism. The only notable exception is when a new member of staff, with a darker skin tone, joins a white woman. It transpires the white woman is at the top for the sickle cell facility with the two of them planning to recruit a new patient from a hospital bed. This patient is the mother of Michael. The white woman states she is there to answer any of the patients questions, gives the sales pitch, hands over a leaflet and then leaves before any further dialogue is possible. Her new colleague is left behind, despite her stating she’s really new and doesn’t know much yet.

White privilege and institutionalisation can mean people working for institutions are predominantly white, middle or of a higher social class, and appear anonymous or invisible to communities. Medicalised racism is still a huge issue in the context of health research inequities, whilst ‘representation politics’ in Western societies can raise concerns about people from minoritised ethnicities being used to ‘diversity wash’ a predominantly white work force. This can be a particular concern when it comes to who works with community members so organisations are seen to be more representative and more palatable, as appears to be the case in the scene above. Clearly, using representation in this way could be seen as coercive behaviour and really damages the ability for people to trust in research that claims to be for the benefit of all, with the potential to further exacerbate existing health inequalities.

References to a new specialist sickle cell centre start to pop up in conversations across the main characters. In the community, someone talks about being given £100 for a blood donation at the new centre. ‘I’d give my whole blood for that!’ Later on, we see Michael’s mother in the new sickle cell centre having a crisis. She calls her son on the phone for help from her hospital bed. When Michael arrives and a nurse arrives, it is clear from the nurses comments that there is a huge lack of understanding of sickle cell, despite being in a specialised sickle cell centre. As Michael enters the reception area, someone in the background assumed to be talking to a patient says ‘doctors know so much now, I need you to be confident’.

Next Andre gets recruited by the underground research facility to help recruit more supacells for research. He’s recruited by a suited white man who says he wants to pay Andre well to bring in others like him and learn how to help supacells manage their abilities so they aren’t a risk to themselves or others, before they let them go. We already know this not to be true. Later we see that Michael is given an injection that inhibits his superpower, a sign of what the research centre could really be developing.

Coercive practices in research recruitment are another known problem and can include substantial payment for participation and/or a lack of transparency as to the real intentions of research participation or the harms it could cause. Many different authorities in the UK ensure no coercive practices are now conducted in research but ensuring better practice can go beyond legal methods. In my role I support Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement or PPIE and community engagement. This activity is recognised as being crucial in building trust and understanding between institutions, services and communities. There can be complexities, including how to create a true space for open dialogue, and coproduction and, for those institutions like mine, how to create opportunities to reflect on where the power to change sits and dissolve barriers to trust and involvement.  Meaningful coproduction is an effective early way to address barriers to trust by the use of good quality engagement practices embedded within research programmes. The temptation to mis-use PPIE and community engagement as comms and stealth recruitment activity for research is still a challenge. Many people from black communities have good reasons not to partake in research and, in the wrong hands, PPIE can ignore the need for change on the side of the institutions for truly informed consent and participation.

Supacell has totally broken the taboo surrounding sickle cell and has creatively presented the condition in such a way that both challenges stereotypes of those affected whilst reflecting back at us all the harsh realities of what research and medicine has done to those most vulnerable in our society. And for whose benefit?

There is still a huge gap in what we know about sickle cell and effective treatment options. What is exciting right now is that things are changing and sickle cell is an exciting area to be in as someone working in health and research. Programmes of work in health services, research and new treatments are being developed providing sickle cell and those living with it, with the attention desperately needed. People campaigning tirelessly to support and advocate for people affected are breaking through and creating change. I’m proud to work in close partnership with national charities and work directly with patients and advocates to develop engagement in genomics and I’m inspired every day by what is possible.

Dr Marie Nugent:

Marie has a PhD in Genetics and has spent the past ten years as a research engagement specialist in health and science. She has worked over the past two years developing engagement for a sickle cell genomics programme. She is now a trainee genomic counsellor within the NHS with a keen interest in continuing to research equitable practices.

Diving into Digital Publishing with a Placement at SelectScience

Author Science Communication Unit | Posted on

By, Magaret Sivapragasam and Aleksandra Peliushkevich 

We kicked off our placement with a scenic but unexpectedly strenuous climb up Corston, a village near Bath, to reach Church Farm Business Park where the SelectScience office is located. Let’s just say we definitely got our cardio in for the day! However, as with any ascension, we were rewarded for our efforts. At SelectScience we were met by a friendly team, delicious coffee, and beautiful natural scenery from the office window. It was the perfect setting to catch our breath and settle into the day. 

We were undertaking a placement at SelectScience as part of the Learning Lab scheme run by the Science Communication Unit, which offers short-term placements to students on their Masters’ course with businesses and other organisations in the industry. The people at SelectScience were inspiring. We were introduced to the editorial team, client service specialists, and a product and review editor. It was a perfect opportunity to explore their roles in real life, ask questions and get useful advice for job hunting and future careers in science communication. Informal chat allowed us to better understand how the work of a digital publisher is organised and to see job responsibilities from the inside, through the eyes of an employee. That’s how we learnt that editors can be authors of articles, client service specialists often are event managers, and review editors communicate with clients as well. 

We have once again seen that work in science communication is intense and diverse and a variety of opportunities are waiting for us. To avoid getting lost in this diversity, it is important to pay more attention to the specific job responsibilities instead of the job title and to communicate with people who already work in the field. Despite the diversity of tasks all employees shared the company’s vision –

“accelerating science by connecting scientific communities with trusted solutions”

– their professionalism and passion for work were inspiring. 

Once we were clear about the vision of SelectScience, we were tasked with writing tags for their website. What initially seemed like a straightforward task turned out to be something more complex than we anticipated – it required an eye for detail. Generally, tags are used by online users to navigate searches. The key is to make them as concise as possible while being a helpful tool for users to locate information they need. Our goal was to develop a short paragraph that describes this tag’s content effectively.  

We then carefully analyzed the editorial articles, product reviews and news pieces to summarise them into an impactful paragraph. Along the way, we also learned how SEO’s (search engine optimization) and web trends play a crucial role in impacting web traffic and engagement. A few well-chosen words do go a long way! 

As we crafted each tag description, we found ourselves reflecting on what we had studied during the MSc Science Communication course. It was important to strike a balance between technical precision and accessibility, ensuring the tags are suitable for both experts and general users. It was indeed very satisfying to see our academic knowledge being applied so practically in a professional setting. 

By the end of the placement, we had developed a profound appreciation for the intricacies of digital content management and the vital role that science communication plays in bridging a gap between science and its audience. We left the placement with a big smile, knowing that (even though it was a small task), the work we completed will have a big impact on making scientific content available to those who need it. 

And of course, our trip would not have been complete without some sightseeing in Bath. After wrapping up our 3-day placement, we treated ourselves to a lovely stroll around the city and some yummy Thai food, because let’s face it- nothing fuels the brain quite like a good hearty meal. 

Wildlife Filmmaking: From Start To Finish at UWE Bristol

Author Science Communication Unit | Posted on

By George Edwards, Priya Bala, and Corragh-May White

It’s not every day you get to create your own short film. Yet the MSc in Science Communication at UWE Bristol not only provides this opportunity but does so on such a scale you can’t help but feel incredibly lucky, supported, and excited!

In an assessment for the Science on Air and Screen module, groups of students were tasked with creating a short 7-minute science documentary about a topic of their choice. Our group, consisting of George Edwards, Priya Bala, Corragh-May White and Casey Spry, chose to focus on beavers.

So, how did we come to create “Slowing the Flow”? Keep reading to see how we navigated each key step, and dive into stories to show just how much we enjoyed every stage of the process.

Beaverin’ Away at Research – by George Edwards

Let’s face it. When you hear you’re going to be creating a scientific documentary, your first thought isn’t “Oh, let’s get on with research,” it’s more “Oh wow! We’ve got to do the coolest thing ever!” And I personally think we did.

Forming an Idea

We’d like to say we knew beavers would be a good animal to film to engage our audience, and to an extent we did. But, if we’re honest, we also just really wanted to have an excuse to see some beavers! (Read on to find out if we did!)

Having settled on beavers, we needed a scientific story to focus our film on, and at the time, there had been a lot of news about water pollution in UK rivers, most notably in the River Wye in Wales. It is also commonly understood by global scientists that beavers play key roles in maintaining the water quality of streams and rivers, thanks to the filtering systems of their dams.

So, our idea was formed – we were going to explore how beavers can impact river quality in the UK. But putting together a film wasn’t as easy as we’d expected – especially when beavers don’t want to play ball….

Background Research

One key thing that we had been taught was to avoid exploring a topic that had already been covered by other films, so our first port of call was to sift through other wildlife documentaries on beavers – and to our surprise, we found that no film had specifically focused on this idea.

With the idea formed, and the knowledge it was new, we set off researching the ecology of beavers, river pollution and the intersection between the two. While doing so, I came across a scientific paper, led by Gareth Bradbury, a PhD researcher at the University of Exeter, about how beaver dams can reduce pollution levels in streams and rivers. This gave us a basis on which to build a story, and further research into the topic helped flesh out the science, providing evidence for the topics we’d talk about.

Having emailed Gareth and set up an interview, the next thing we needed was beavers, and someone with knowledge of their conservation. As it happened, Casey had recently been given the contact details of Chris Jones, a farmer and conservationist at Woodland Valley Farm, who had also led the Beaver Trust for many years. Soon, we had two interviews set up, and an offer to stay at Woodland Valley Farm overnight to give us a chance of capturing beavers on camera!

Storyboarding, Interview Planning and Preparation

Possibly the hardest, yet also enjoyable, part of the process was the storyboarding and planning of the film. Deciding where to put what parts of the film, without having any footage, proved difficult, but working as a team helped us find a way to weave together a story and plan based on the information we’d gained via research, and the knowledge of what we wanted to film.

Creating a storyboard, where each scene is carefully planned out, proved incredibly useful when filming. For each scene, we already knew where we wanted the camera, landscape, and people to be positioned, and knew exactly what order shots/scenes would go in. This laborious, yet entertaining, task provided us with much-needed support during the filming and editing portions of the project and brought us closer as a team.

But how did we film “Slowing the Flow”? What was the experience like? Read on to find out, from Priya’s perspective!

Eager Beavers Begin Filming – by Priya Bala

Embarking on the project was an adventure for our team. Our journey took us from the historic city of Exeter to the lush, secluded Woodland Valley Farm. Along the way, we explored the dynamic relationship between nature and humans, focusing on the reintroduction of beavers into the UK. We interviewed passionate individuals, camped under the stars, and experienced the thrill of wildlife observation – complete with all its challenges. But beyond the work, the trip was filled with laughter, camaraderie and unforgettable moments that brought us closer.

Day 1 – University of Exeter

In our journey to document the intersection of nature and sustainability, our first stop was the University of Exeter where we interviewed Gareth Bradbury. His work focuses on a subject increasingly relevant in today’s landscape – how reintroducing beavers can impact the water quality of streams and rivers in England, and he has been exploring this since 2020.

Our chat began by discussing the current state of UK rivers, in which Gareth noted nearly all UK waterways are polluted, a fact found by the 2022 House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Report. This report underscores a dire reality: most UK rivers struggle with poor water quality, due to pollution from agriculture and wastewater treatment plants.

Given the state of our rivers, the next question was whether beavers could improve water quality. Gareth’s research suggests they can, as beaver dams slow the flow of water, allowing sediments and nutrients to settle, reducing the level of harmful nutrients continuing downstream. One aspect of Gareth’s research is the comparison between rivers with and without beaver activity. According to his findings, there is a noticeable difference in water quality. To see what he told us, go give the film a watch!

As we wrapped up our conversation, it became clear Gareth’s work wasn’t just about studying beavers but was also about finding sustainable ways to restore the health of our rivers.

Day 2 – Woodland Valley Farm

Next, we made our way to Woodland Valley Farm – a beacon of sustainable farming nestled in the Cornish countryside. The farm isn’t just a place of work, but a living example of how agriculture can coexist with wildlife conservation. Here, we met Chris Jones, an enthusiastic advocate for rewilding, whose story is one of dedication to the land, its ecosystems, and the reintroduction of beavers.

Our interview with Chris was nothing short of inspiring. He spoke of his journey from conventional farming to embracing sustainable practices and the challenges and triumphs that came with it. He also shared his excitement about the reintroduction of beavers, a species that plays a crucial role in ecosystem restoration.

After a day of exploring and talking to Chris, it was time for the real adventure: camping out in the hopes of capturing the elusive beavers on camera. Setting up our tents near the river, we were buzzing with excitement and spent the evening huddled around camp, sharing stories, having the famous British Fish and Chips, and laughing about our day. The farm’s serene atmosphere made it easy to forget about the pressures of the project, even for a night.

As the night grew dark, we set up the cameras and kept our eyes peeled on the beaver lodges and dams for any sign of a curious beaver. Despite our high spirits, this was a test of patience. We heard rustling and splashes, but the beavers remained just out of sight. Though we didn’t get the footage we wanted, the experience of working in the quiet night was something we cherished.

Day 3 – Woodland Valley Farm

Determined not to give up, we woke before dawn for another attempt. The early morning mist added a magical quality to the landscapes, and our hopes were renewed. As we waited in silence, we finally saw a beaver gliding through the water, even if our cameras were not quick enough to capture it. Instead of being disappointed, we laughed about the irony of it, appreciating the beauty of the moment instead of worrying about the missed shot.

Success and Reflections

While the beavers evaded our cameras, we didn’t walk away empty-handed. The landscape was rich with evidence of their presence, and we captured footage of gnawed trees, carefully constructed dams, and the channels they carved through the wetland.

As we wrapped up our time filming, there was a sense of accomplishment and a deeper bond among us, and we reflected on the experiences of the past few days, from the academic discussions at Exeter to the hands-on conservation work at the farm, and we had come together as a team, sharing not just the work, but they joy and frustrations that came with it.

While we didn’t capture the perfect shot of a beaver, we documented something perhaps even more meaningful: the intricate relationships between humans and nature, the passion that drives conservation efforts and the undeniable signs of wildlife reclaiming its rightful place in the ecosystem.

This journey reminded us that sometimes, the most powerful stories are not just about what we see, but about the connections we make along the way. Whether in the halls of academia or the wilds of Cornwall, the message was clear—conservation is not just about protecting wildlife, but about understanding and nurturing the intricate web of life that sustains us all.

Editing – Some Dam Fine Work! – by Corragh-May White

After calling cut, we packed up our gear and returned to Bristol incredibly pleased with ourselves. But we scarcely had time to kick the mud from our boots before the next stage. Our project wasn’t over yet – oh no – it had only just begun. Now it was time to begin the editing process.

Editors for 2 Days

Some of our group had video-editing experience, however, beyond what I had learned in previous classes, all I had under my belt was a short-lived career making bad My Chemical Romance covers on GarageBand as a teen. So I was excited for the opportunity to add to my skill set, especially because I wasn’t learning how to edit in a classroom, but in an actual editing studio, Films@59, no less; the same editing studio that brought us Blue Planet and the Great British Bake Off – and we would be under the tutelage of their editing staff.

On the first day, we entered the Films@59 office, pinching ourselves as we passed security with our shiny new passes. The class was separated into individual editing suites and given a workshop on how to use the editing software, Avid, by a Films@59 editor. Then, we were unleased onto the editing suites and the clock was set – each group had just over 2 days to edit all our hours of footage into a seamless narrative story. It was an interesting and productive way to learn a new skill, to say the least, learning while creating a solid portfolio piece that demonstrates my ability, all while getting the opportunity to network with professionals in the industry.

After picking out the footage we wanted to use, it amounted to over 15 minutes – and our final film had to be just 7. This included B-roll, beginning and end credits, so naturally, what followed was 2.5 days of trying to “Kill Our Darlings”, as our lecturer puts it, while coming to grips with every aspect of Avid, from syncing visuals and audio, to focusing footage in post-production, to the fine detailing of trimming a single 0.3 second clip for that perfect shot. Luckily, our mentor Ben Williams-Butt was on hand to guide us through it all.

The Final Countdown

After days of arduous work (and only a small smattering of sweat), when the clock hit zero, we had a completed final film we were very happy with. We then headed to Films@59’s other location, where the company showcases its finished films to clients in their own miniature cinema, but that day, it displayed our own films. It was the most rewarding experience to see how far we had come, comparing my most recent work to earlier projects and seeing how much we had learnt and grown over the course of the module. To be able to cheer on my classmates and hear them cheer me on in return was a fantastic experience and a wonderful way to end the module. Seeing the finished film that we had nurtured from tentative doodles and ideas to a finished product on the big screen made it all worth it.

It was a long, and hefty process of getting to a final film, but our group genuinely enjoyed the whole experience, and are incredibly grateful to the Science Communication Unit and UWE Bristol for giving us the chance to make our first nature documentary! We would truly encourage anyone interested in science documentaries, journalism, education and more to consider taking this course and module to further your own careers in Science Communication.

If you’d like to go give “Slowing The Flow” a watch, it’s available on YouTube here:

2303 words

Back to top

Follow this blog

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.