Embodied artificial intelligence and new ways to fight smog – sounds intriguing, right? But as you delve deeper, you get: attention map entropy, machine vision, and individual cryptography, or remote sensing of nitrogen oxide emissions… That’s where the uphill climb begins… Or rather, one can see a chasm between the complexity of the concepts used by scientists and the degree of understanding by those trying to grasp their work. At Profeina, we have learned how to build a communicative footbridge over it – that is, how to do PR for science.
If you ask any of the AI image generation models for a photo of a scientist at work, you will most likely see—within a minute—a middle-aged bearded man wearing a white coat and glasses, sitting alone in a small room with test tubes containing colored liquids. Strongly stereotypical, but artificial intelligence didn’t invent this on its own, after all. It simply modeled itself on the most common depictions of scientists that we previously put on the internet.
Our ideas about working in science often come from science-fiction films, where a team of scientists, looking just like that, makes a breakthrough discovery that turns the world upside down. And that is usually where the trouble begins…
Reality is often far from these visions. Real scientists do not have to be men. Nor chemists in lab coats. More often than with new substances, they work with data and stare at computer screens. And most of their discoveries are not Copernicus-level revolutions, but rather another small brick in the massive edifice of science. And to understand their contribution to the development of science – one would need to study their discipline for several years…
Why do researchers need scientific PR?
In one respect, scientific stereotypes can be close to reality. Many researchers indeed feel most comfortable in the privacy of their own offices and among their colleagues. Meanwhile, their work consists of more than just the research itself. The popularization of science is also important. Going beyond the walls of the institute. Participating in symposia, conferences, or competitions. Publications in peer-reviewed journals. And finally, securing grants for further research projects. For this, taking care of scientific PR is useful—that is, talking about the effects of one’s work, even when they are not – truly or seemingly – revolutionary.
The recipe for this is not at all to pull a mountain of data from a publication and throw around technical terms. Do not assume that the facts will speak for themselves and that the popularization of science will happen on its own because of them. Such an approach – as scientists themselves point out, incidentally – can actually have the opposite effect.
So how can Profeina help in such situations?
AI explains the world (of science) to us
Once upon a time, long before the era of artificial intelligence, proper scientific PR was preceded by painstaking research. If a report or research paper contained a lot of expert terminology, almost every definition that was not fully understood had to be checked in Wikipedia and more specialized sources. It was also good practice to look for videos on trusted YouTube channels dedicated to the popularization of science.
Today, we still do all of that. However, AI is now proving to be a certain help in understanding science—not the kind that generates stereotypical graphics, but large language models that process text. For example, the popular ChatGPT.
Every scientific article has an abstract, which is a summary of the actual text. Research reports have a similar executive summary at the beginning. In principle, they should contain the main thesis of the publication as well as as many keywords as possible so that the reader can more easily orient themselves on what is discussed further. Unfortunately, for laypeople, such an accumulation of industry jargon is often off-putting. Sometimes you can drop off by the second sentence.
Such an introductory text can be pasted into ChatGPT with the request “explain this to me like I’m an elementary school student.” And it actually does it. Maybe a fourth-grader wouldn’t always be able to understand what the chat returns in response, but the result is more digestible for a person of average knowledge. If it goes too well and the chat simplifies the text too much, still leaving a conceptual gap, you can try “high school student” – then we get popular science for intermediates.
This will not be a ready-made piece for a blog post or to be sent to journalists. However, it is a very good starting point for doing scientific PR and deciding what we want to talk about when presenting the work of scientists.
An interview with a scientist in 13 simple steps
To do this, however, you must dig not necessarily deeper, but smarter. We do this using questions. We send them directly to those involved or look for answers in the materials we already have.
1. Context
Is this discipline new? Where did it come from? Who invented or popularized it? What attracts researchers to it and sets it apart from others? What would be a breakthrough in it and when can we expect it?
2. Place in the world
Are these studies unique on a Polish / European / global scale? Or perhaps Poland is an international leader in this field? If Poland is not the leader, who is ahead in the technological race and what is our place in it? Is it done differently in Poland than elsewhere?
3. The Kitchen – it’s often more interesting there than in the living room
E.g., “What does “feeding” data to a machine learning model actually look like? Where does it come from and how is it later verified that the model has assimilated it?”
4. Reason
What was actually missing in the world that made you want to invent / learn something new?
5. Application
What does it do? – a question somewhat related to the previous one. Only here, we are no longer inquiring about the problem we are seeking a remedy for, but rather what that remedy might look like.
6. So what?
The essence of popularizing science. What can we actually use the results of this study/research paper for in practice? How can they be implemented? What happens next, and who will benefit from it?
7. The Future
What does, say, 2034 look like—a year in which the technology being researched is already operational, has been implemented, and the average user has access to it? What has become possible or easier because of it compared to today? Or perhaps new companies, professions, or industries have emerged that don’t even exist yet?
Scientists are allowed to fantasize here, and if they aren’t keen on doing it themselves, you can also put forward a bold thesis regarding the future yourself and ask them to verify it.
8. Surprises
What could be the side effects of generalizing this solution or further developing it?
9. Controversies
Are there any aspects of the conducted research that raise objections within the scientific community or beyond? What do you say to the skeptics?
10. Business
In a several-year perspective, do you want to commercialize your achievements yourselves (e.g., by founding a startup), or simply provide them in the public domain, expecting the market to take them up? If the latter, who could make the solution available to users and how?
11. External validation
Has the paper won a competition or been accepted at a prestigious conference? Have the researchers received a grant (if so, how much?) Or maybe a large company has invested in the project or is planning to do so?
12. Current Trend / Hot Topic
If something widely discussed has happened in recent months that touches upon the field your research concerns, this is an opportunity to say more about it. Could this situation have looked different if the individuals involved had access to the solutions you are working on?
13. “Stupid question”
E.g., “Which is more difficult – training a robot to communicate like a human, or teaching it to move freely around an apartment or on the street?”
Think about things that are the first to come to a layperson’s mind, but which scientists do not think about on a daily basis – let it be a refreshing experience.
Not every question will fit all cases. Not every answer will contain usable information.
Ale jeśli choćby połowa z nich wyda się ciekawa na twoje nie-eksperckie oko – wybierz jeden z wątków i umieść go w tytule tekstu opisującego badanie. Niech ustawi całą narrację. Dwa kolejne spróbuj uczynić częścią nagłówka albo zacząć od nich właściwy tekst / film / podcast.
Just do not forget that the message – besides interesting facts – must contain answers to the fundamental questions for any piece of information: Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? If you manage to fit all of this together in the first few sentences of the text or in two minutes of the recording, take a short break, take a deep breath, and listen to how it sounds. When the effect is fine, continue telling the story, now in a bit more detail. Maintain such proportions of specifics and broader context for at least 2/3 of the material – the ending can already contain more difficult facts and be “for the persistent.”
Science communication in practice: our examples
And this is how Profeina does PR for science. This is how several pieces of information prepared by us regarding scientific events from recent months begin:
1) “A new Polish research team wants to teach robots physics”
Robots can walk on their own “legs,” carry objects, or even dance, but they usually only do so well in a laboratory. For them to start moving efficiently in apartments or on the streets, research using artificial intelligence is needed. This research will be conducted by a new research team – Physical Interaction Robotics – established at IDEAS NCBR, a research and development center in the field of artificial intelligence.
The word “robot” has been with us for over a hundred years. It was coined in 1920 by a Czech playwright, inspired by the Slavic word “robota.” The neologism was created for a play in which human-like beings relieved humans of manual labor. Later creators of science fiction had a similar approach—the robots they imagined were usually poor at communication but handled physical work well. As we began to construct real robots with the advancement of science, it turned out that their abilities defied expectations. Today, we can mistake a chatbot or voicebot for a real person, but we very rarely mistake a physical robot for a human.
>>> More
2) “Polish AI-controlled drones will fly to an international tournament in Abu Dhabi”
Competition in the Mohamed Bin Zayed International Robotics Challenge (MBZIRC) robotic contest at first glance resembles sports struggles, but in reality, it has much more in common with scientific work. Building, programming, and “training” a swarm of autonomous drones took the Polish team nearly two years, and the flight technique and solving the tasks set before the robots will be further refined for several months before the final involving the five best teams in the world, which will take place in the capital of the United Arab Emirates in February 2024. The winners of the competition will receive a prize of 2 million dollars, and the total prize pool is 3.25 million dollars.
The Nomagic Warsaw MIMotaurs team of scientists, associated with the University of Warsaw and IDEAS NCBR, a research and development center in the field of artificial intelligence, has qualified for the final of a prestigious robotics competition in the United Arab Emirates. Over the waters of the Persian Gulf, a swarm of autonomous drones built by them will face off against teams of the world’s best engineers.
>>> More
3) “Individual Cryptography. Polish scientists are working on limiting the practice of account sharing”
A team of scientists associated with IDEAS NCBR has been accepted to the international Crypto 2023 conference thanks to a research paper describing their original method of “individual cryptography.” This method is intended to help providers of digital content and tools who, like Netflix, regularly lose revenue due to the difficult-to-detect practice of unauthorized password sharing between users from separate households.
The subscription model was a concept known to magazine readers long before the advent of computers and the internet, but it was only its transition to the digital world as a subscription that initiated the era of high-quality knowledge and entertainment accessible virtually anywhere on Earth. (…)
Unfortunately, digitalization often also brings enormous costs of scaling a business, which are difficult to cover due to the widespread phenomenon of providing access to produced content to third parties who have not purchased access to content in a given category. The popular streaming service Netflix has been struggling with this for years, and according to Citigroup estimates, it could be losing as much as 6 billion dollars annually due to users sharing access with people outside their household.
(…) Individual cryptography, a concept developed by Polish scientists, may be the solution.
>>> More
4) “Thanks to the clean transport zone, Warsaw could have half the exhaust emissions as early as this decade [REPORT]”
A simulation of the impact of the clean transport zone (SCT) on air quality in Warsaw, described in a new TRUE Initiative report, shows that establishing the SCT would bring rapid results. By 2027, half of nitrogen oxides (NOx) would disappear, and by 2025, half of the particulate matter (PM) emitted by vehicles would be eliminated.
Remote sensing measurements of cars moving on the streets of Warsaw, conducted by The Real Urban Emissions (TRUE) Initiative, showed that a small group of vehicles contributes disproportionately to pollutant emissions. Vehicles manufactured before 2011, which will constitute 8% of the fleet in 2026, will cause 27% of vehicle NOx emissions and 55% of PM emissions.
“`
>>> More
—————-
Finally – remember that unraveling the complexities of scientific discoveries goes better if you constantly observe people who do it well and draw inspiration from their work. Therefore, to start with, follow three knowledge popularizers with whom we at Profeina have had the opportunity to collaborate and whom we value ourselves.
Tomasz Rożek (Nauka. To lubię)
Kasia Gandor
Paulina Górska (Lepszy Klimat)
Autor: Grzegorz Dzięgielewski
