Working with liquid nitrogen can be a daunting experience. It can suffocate in an ill-ventilated room, leave horrendous burns from seconds of skin exposure, and turn a banana into a deadly weapon…And yet it somehow pales in comparison to working with teenagers.
That is why I first reached out to David Williams to help out on ‘Physics in the freezer’. The MSc Science communication at UWE Bristol, more than anything, has taught me that while science is a subject that can be learnt, communication is a skill that must be lived and practised. And communication with young people is a skill unto itself.
Davids’ last bit of theatrics, disposing of Liquid Nitrogen after a show.
David set up ‘Physics in the freezer’ to combine his two passions: teaching and conducting dangerous science experiments. He has created a set of shows featuring different demonstrations using magnets, liquid nitrogen, and superconductors. He takes these shows to primary schools around the South West to inspire kids into STEM. To his credit, David quickly realised that the most aspirational way of delivering this content is with young presenters. As such, we spent two days in Breacon Beacon High School, not just showing these demonstrations to sixth-form physics students, but teaching them how to deliver one.
It was an early start on Tuesday, as we arrived at the school and got everything set up in their science labs. I’d had a practice session with David and run the show for year 5 (9-10ys old) twice at this point, so while not new to the material, I was filled with equal parts excitement and apprehension. The aim of the first day was to run through a whole show ourselves and then have our sixth formers pick and practise which parts they wanted to do. We ended up with a class of 7 and got straight into a lengthy safety briefing. Above I outlined just a few of the dangers of working with liquid nitrogen, but in truth, like many things in life, a sensible approach and a healthy dose of fear significantly reduce the risks. It was then on to the demonstrations.
Alice pouring liquid nitrogen into a kettle to create the ‘whistling kettle’
We always start with an introduction that covers the basics of the physics and the wonder that comes from seeing liquid nitrogen poured for the first time into a large glass dewar (a specialized container designed for storing and transporting cryogenic liquids). Smoke (or rather water vapour) billows down the sides, whilst the surface fizzes, pops and dances like quiet fireworks. The children at the shows love it, and even these teenagers seem somewhat impressed. Next, we proceed to pour liquid nitrogen into a steam kettle and listen to it whistle. I was in charge of this one, and while I’m used to getting ‘ohhs’ and ‘ahhs’ from a Year 5 audience, the sixth formers were less than impressed. Fine, and very understandable, but unsettling, nonetheless. Good thing we had bigger and better things up our sleeves. The following few demonstrations involve freezing, shrinking and bursting balloons, smashing frozen bananas and producing smoke-filled bubbles.
Sixth formers then separated themselves into groups and got to work learning the script and practising the demos. I had a group of three demoing a whistling kettle and smashing bananas. Teenagers, once you get talking to them, are not nearly as scary as they seem, even if they did constantly quote memes at me that I’m apparently too old to understand (I’m 25, that seems unfair). They were about as enthused by the material as you can hope for from people who have willingly chosen physics but less so willingly come to school.
After 4 hours of hard work and participation, we rewarded them with a more advanced show on superconductors and magnets, which was a perfect end to a long day, especially for me, who hadn’t yet had the chance to see some of these demonstrations. It’s a real bonding experience to realise that students, teachers and demonstrators alike are all kicking their feet and giggling overshooting frozen magnets 5 feet in the air.
Flowers being frozen in Liquid Nitrogen
On Day 2, we were putting our prodigies to the test; they were to give three shows back-to-back to local Year 5 students visiting the school. When David had first told me about this timeframe, it seemed to me to be a trial by fire, but having now done it, I understand just how valuable ‘just getting to do it’ is for learning. And they were terrific. They read from scripts, of course, no one wants to spend a hot June evening practising lines, but every one of them came out of their shell and, show on show, improved vastly. By the end it felt damn near professional. I took over a few of the demos for students who had to leave early and had a blast getting to improve my presenting skills further and go off script with a newfound confidence.
The idea of throwing yourself into an unknown field with a dangerous substance and plenty of public speaking might make you squirm. I would argue it should. But I never once felt unsupported or overwhelmed. David made sure of that. My biggest takeaway from this experience is to put trust in yourself when you are the learner, and trust in others when you are the teacher. Participating in physics in the freezer gave me the opportunity to be both of those things, and I cannot recommend it enough to others who want to grow their communication skills. Also, child, teenager, adult: who wouldn’t want to smash a frozen banana?
By Alice Thomson, MSc Science Communication student, UWE Bristol
Last month on a hot afternoon I presented at my first external conference – Nature Connections 2025 hosted by the University of Derby Nature Connectedness research group. My presentation was held in the beautiful Electric Daisy gardens. This was my first presentation as a PhD researcher and was the perfect platform to share my research, which is all about the social and cultural influences we have growing up and how that might impact individuals nature connectedness and access to citizen science.
The Electric Daisy Gardens, a buzzing Oasis in the heart of Derby city centre, created to bring people together for connection, culture and nature. Photo by Natural England, licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 (https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/).
The University of Derby Nature Connectedness research group was established to understand the human relationship with the natural world and the benefits that come with feeling connected. These benefits include improved mental well-being and enabling pro-nature behaviours, meaning a better relationship with nature helps both people, and the climate and environmental emergency we currently face. Headed up by one of the UK’s leading experts on nature connectedness – Professor Miles Richardson the group have been fundamental in establishing a measurable pathway to nature connectedness, outlined in their Connecting Families with Nature handbook. This pathway provides five routes to a sustainable connection with nature as sometimes, simply being in or looking at nature, is not enough to form a meaningful relationship.
Professor Miles Richardson undertaking his welcoming speech on day one of the Nature Connectedness 2025 conference. Photo, authors own.
To say I was nervous about presenting at the conference was an understatement. Having pretty much submitted my PhD thesis during the conference, I had got better at dampening my inner saboteur. I’ve worked on my PhD whilst being a single parent and the journey to completion has not been easy. I had been wanting to present at a national conference for some time, and many aligned with my research, but often they fell within the school holidays, when finding childcare can be difficult.
My PhD was in collaboration with the National History Consortium. This fantastic organisation knew that citizen science brings benefits to mental health and wellbeing and wanted to understand how they could better reach minoritised groups. The research started by determining barriers to participation, but conducting surveys and interviews it soon became apparent to me that the ‘Nature Capital’ a person has access to (defined here as the social and cultural resources that support engagement to the natural world) also impacts not only their relationship with the natural world but whether they access citizen science. My research shows evidence that individuals with greater access to supportive nature experiences, informal and social settings about nature feel more connected to it. This reaffirmed what I had always suspected, there are disparities in whom can access nature and the benefits this brings.
Back to attending the conference and my feeling of anguish. Being an ex-teacher, I was not short on experience in presenting to large groups. This conference was different. Here, all the experts in nature connectedness were sharing their findings, experiences and all felt as passionate as me about nature connectedness. This aspect of attending was amazing. To be surrounded by like-minded individuals who care deeply about the natural world was truly inspiring. It was the in-between conference stuff I was more nervous about. Taking me back to feelings at school of trying to find a seat in a busy canteen through the bustle of individuals already engaged in conversation, these same feelings played a part in my imposter syndrome. Surely I was not good enough to be there.
As it was I was presenting at the end of the conference, not a choice I would have made as I’m a get it over and done with type of gal. With the audience of academics, practitioners and experts in the field of nature connection all waiting eagerly in the blaring sunshine I had already worked up a sweat. It felt like each talk was a reminder of where I had gone wrong in my meticulous planning and practising. Was it too late to change? Obviously, it was, I would be on in thirty minutes and my presentation had been submitted in advance. If anything, I had over practised. A habit I had developed early on in my teaching career, as I knew if I practised my lessons thoroughly, I could handle all that a room full of teenagers threw at me.
The talk before me was about experiences of low-income residents and allotment gardening and was a great back drop for my talk. As it ended, I could hear the shrill high-pitched noise in my ears and felt the clammy sweat building on my already sticky hands from sitting in the sun. The time had come. It was my turn to present my research on nature connection and Nature Capital to UK experts.
I am happy to report the presentation was a success. I was handed a microphone so felt like a pop star. I even manged to crack an awkward joke. It’s an amazing rush when you get to present your findings from three years of hard work. The time flew and before I knew it those dreaded words of ‘are there any questions’ were being asked by the host. I had mixed feelings when no one piped up, did that mean they were not interested, or did they just need rest after a hot afternoon in the sun? I was soon reassured it was the latter. Several people approached me after my talk to compliment me and I was even mentioned on Linkedin! Natural England even posted a wonderful blog all about the conference content. I had arrived!
My thoughts about presenting at a conference for those that are considering it? It is scary but worth it. The brilliant people I met and spoke to, all the wonderful talks and workshops, the experience of being surrounded by so much passion about nature, left me feeling rejuvenated but tired! What now? Well, I have submitted my PhD, and the conference reaffirmed the career path I wish to take; I want to be part of the world of nature connectedness. I want to help and supporting people from disadvantaged backgrounds (like me) to have a better nature connection so that everyone can reap its benefits.
A huge thank you to the University of Derby Research group for allowing me to attend and present at the conference and to the Natural History Consortium and UWE Bristol for supporting my PhD research. #NCx25
By Jen Weston, PhD student, Science Communication Unit, UWE Bristol.
In April 2025 I travelled to Germany for my MRes project, research I am undertaking as part of the UWE Science Communication Unit. There I explored both interdisciplinary practice as a whole and more specifically, scientist’s personal experiences of Science-Art collaborations, which will in turn, inform my research project.
I’ve had an interest in Science Communication since I studied my Biomedical Science degree, and after 10 years of working in molecular biology laboratories I decided it was time to start a new career path to get my mind thinking in new and interesting ways. In June last year, having just returned from a trip to Berlin, one of my favourite European cites, I saw my MRes project advertised on the UWE SCU LinkedIn page; it involved art (which I love), science (which I also love!), talking to people (I’m a sociable gal) and potentially, a trip to Berlin… it felt like this opportunity was tailored for me. So, I took the leap, I applied for the MRes project, got the spot and gleefully re-entered higher education last September.
I was over-the-moon to be researching Science-Art, with the project itself exploring the experiences and impacts upon scientists who take part in Science-Art (or Sci-Art as its often described) collaborations. After our first couple of meetings my supervisors and I decided it would be best to carry out qualitative data collection via semi-structured interviews, asking questions about how these scientists felt during such collaborations, if it has affected their thinking at work and what their relationship with artists were like. I planned on using these interviews to step into the scientists’ shoes and understand their perspective of these unique phenomena, using this to potentially inform future Science-Art collaborations.
Schloss Solitude Stuttgart
Some of the interviews were carried out online but some happened in-person in Berlin, with my co-supervisors at the Schering Stiftung, a Science-Art foundation in Berlin, kindly funding this part of the endeavour. They also organised for me to go to a weekend of workshops in Stuttgart, at the beautiful Schloss Solitude site, an organisation that hosts academics from many disciplines, (including arts and sciences) to collaborate on interdisciplinary projects.
The workshops were discussing the concept of ‘Metabolic Futures’; how society, economy and ecology is driven by the transformation of materials, with talks, walks, discussions and artworks covering industrial farming, waste generation and circulation and changes in our foods systems. It was very much an interdisciplinary venture, and I found it immensely interesting and inspiring; meeting people from many fields and even managing to grab a cocktail out with a group of them after a wonderful, pickled food dinner on the final evening.
Metabolic futuresLake LabSchering Stiftung
After the workshops in Stuttgart, I took the train to Berlin to conduct my interviews and attend the opening of Emilia Tikka’s Science-Art exhibition, ‘Johtingeaidnu – The Path Within’, at the Schering Stiftung foundation. I was based at the Schering Stiftung gallery, but interviews took place in locations across the city including the Botanical Gardens, a laboratory by a huge lake and a cute café in the Winsviertel district. It was a delight to hear how much joy these scientists gained from working with artists and I’m excited to dig deep into the analysis of the data collected.
Botanical Garden and Museum Berlin
The opening night of ‘Johtingeaidnu – The Path Within’ was a buzz of activity, with speeches, fizz, pretzels and of course, the main attraction, the artwork itself. There were several pieces including two short films, an illustration and a projection in a Lavvu, a type of tent used by the Sámi people, all beautifully made and thought provoking. The pieces speculate about shared memories of ancestral migratory paths between Reindeer and humans via epigenetics. As a former geneticist I loved exploring this area more conceptually than I was used to in the laboratory, I shared a similar sense of wonder and joy those scientists felt when they were working with artists, their work appreciated from a new angle.
Exhibition Johtingeaidnu – The Path Within at Schering Stiftung
I finish my MRes in October, and although my workload is high, with my science communication research covering art history, sociology and philosophy, the support of my supervisors Dr David Judge (UWE), Professor Emma Weitkamp (UWE) and Dr. Katja Naie (Schering Stiftung) means I’ve very much relished the experience and hope to continue in this direction on my new career path.
By Stephanie Wakeman, MRes Science Communication student
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
On June 14th, Joshua Warren from the Science Communication Unit (SCU) Inspire Sustainability team at UWE Engineering, inspired a class of Year 3 students from Cabot Primary with a STEM workshop based upon the children’s book, ‘Izzy Gizmo’ by Pip Jones.
The workshop was a collaboration between the Inspire Sustainability team and the Bristol Old Vic Theatre, as part of the development of a stage-show based upon the book.
‘Izzy Gizmo’ is a young global majority girl with a passion for inventing all sorts of wacky machines. In the book, she discovers that engineering is all about finding success by trying again and again, as her inventions don’t always work first time. One day, she finds an injured crow on her way home, and sets about trying to invent something to allow her new friend to fly again.
The children in the workshop, were delighted to be joined by the author, Pip Jones. Pip introduced the children to the character of Izzy, and also talked to them about how inventions have changed their own worlds over time. The children then were challenged to think like Izzy and design and build a flying machine for the crow, named ‘Fixer’.
All students were awarded the ‘Izzy and Fixer’s Award of Invention!’ by Pip for attending the workshop and had a really inspiring day building and inventing!
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.
