While we were watching television or pondering what to ask for a Christmas gift, a major breakthrough was reported in November.
Brain organoids or ‘mini brains’ were grown in a laboratory and have produced brain waves similar to that of a premature baby. They are deserving of the name ‘mini brains’ for they are only 4mm across. Prof Alysson Muotri and his team at the University of California used stem cells (which are fascinating because of their ability to turn into other cell types) and added a few special ingredients (like transcription factors) in order to grow these mini brains. But it took ten months for the mini brains to mature enough to produce these brainwave signals. That is a long time. Nevertheless, this advancement could help scientists understand early brain development, which has been near impossible due to the difficulty in getting foetal samples or examining foetuses in utero.
By replicating the early brain, scientists will be able to compare the differences in development, structure and function between normal brains and misfunctioning ones. Thereby leading to the study and hopeful cure of diseases such as epilepsy, autism and other diseases which are thought to occur due to abnormal electrical signalling within the brain.
However, there are some pitfalls. Firstly, just because the electrical activity is similar to that of a premature baby, it does not mean it is the same. Therefore, any results or hypothesis we generate may be instantly invalid. Secondly, to prove that the lab-grown mini brains are the same as a premature baby’s brain will also be a task because very little is known about utero baby brains and how they are wired. There could also be missing key components. So, we do not know for certain whether these brains match premature baby brains in terms of their genetic profile
Many scientists believe that consciousness begins between 24 – 28 weeks post fertilisation due to the fact that this is when the thalamo-cortical complex is developed enough to be able to supposedly generate consciousness. Furthermore, this is also when reflex reactions to harmful stimuli start occurring. This raises an ethical quandary – are the organoids conscious? We can’t really say for sure because we can’t just measure for consciousness. Muotri’s lab is planning on seeing if the organoids mature further and function as a normal cortex by connecting them to organoids of other body parts to see if it functions correctly. He would consider halting the project if there was evidence that the organoids had become self-aware, but right now they are very primitive. “It’s a very grey zone in this stage, and I don’t think anyone has a clear view of the potential of this”.
What are your opinions on this? Do you think we should be conducting this research? The future rewards may be great, but is there a hidden cost?
If this article interested you, then be sure to read my other articles.
I am currently a 2nd year Biomedical Sciences student at the University of Sheffield. I organise and I’m involved in events to spread knowledge and to get people thinking, such as Ted Talks, Change Lab and I’m on the University’s Welfare Committee. I also have a passion for both scientific and fictional writing, so if you know of any opportunities or you want to read more of my pieces, don’t hesitate to contact me via email -firstname.lastname@example.org or my LinkedIn account – https://www.linkedin.com/in/abdullah-iqbal/
Back in November the Huxley Summit was held in London by the British Science Association. It brought together various people in and outside of science, and the theme was the challenges and opportunities of the Fourth Revolution. The topics of single use plastics, artificial intelligence (AI) and genetic editing were used as a way to explore public opinion and perception, which is central to whether these novel technologies can be adopted. Katherine Mathieson (chief executive of the British Science Association) explores this issue in her review of the Huxley Summit 2018. But scientific engagement strongly affects public opinion. It is therefore worth going back and reviewing key talks of the British Science Festival that represent essential components of good science engagement. I had the pleasure of attending the festival in Hull for the first time back in September, and I did so with our branch’s tardigrade mascot Blu, who had his/her own adventures at the festival!
DIVERSIFY YOUR AUDIENCE (Inspiring women into science, Anne-Marie Imafidon, 11 Sept. 2018)
Diversifying the audience that you are trying to inspire is essential if you want to unleash new talent, skills and perspective. Unless you have been living under a rock you will probably already know about the problems that girls and women face in science. While it isn’t just women that we need to encourage and support in science, Anne-Marie’s talk represents the need to diversify your audience. Recognising this need, Anne-Marie co-founded STEMettes, a social enterprise to inspire and support girls into STEM. Her festival talk was a combination of her backstory, identifying the problem, and then talking about STEMettes. She largely focused on inspiring girls into engineering, so we saw a few videos of what some girls had already achieved. For example, by using an algorithm you can programme your own lights to go from study mode to disco mode! Ultimately STEMettes is about changing perception and increasing awareness of girls in science, and boosting their confidence to do it. Diversity is essential both within science and its communication, especially since the latter can influence the former, and with it we get new talent delivering the communication that will shape public opinion.
INSPIRE PEOPLE TOWARDS SCIENCE (What shapes your relationship to science? Professor Louise Archer, 12 Sept. 2018)
Good science communication through any medium will inspire people to continue to seek it out. For example, if it is taught in schools in a way that creates inspiration, it can increase children’s aspirations in science.
In this talk, Prof. Louise Archer described the ASPIRES project she directed that looked into why children either want to go into science or don’t. The idea that some people might not see themselves as a science person means they often don’t go on to become a scientist. It was this principle in their decade-long study of children aged between 10-19 years old that they wanted to address. They identified the factors that affected children’s aspirations and coalesced them together into the concept of science capital. Science capital is basically what shapes your relationship to science. It is about what you know, who you know, how you think and what you do; all of which is affected by your social, cultural and habitus spheres. The best part of this talk was when we got to calculate our own science capital through a series of questions (such as whether we and our parents had science degrees, and hold a science job etc.). We added or subtracted points for questions, and after getting ten points you then had to stand up. After another point milestone you then had to wave your arms around. If I remember correctly, we also had to do a little dance after another milestone! This was a fun and interesting demonstration showing that most of the audience clearly had a high science capital, which would be obvious for a science festival audience! For everyone present it was clear that they had been inspired to aim high, and as a result they have returned to science. This is something that science communicators can capitalise on: Presenting topics in a particular way that grabs people’s attention so that they will want to return.
WIN HEARTS, NOT JUST MINDS (Finding truth: is science enough? Panel chaired by Andy Extance, 14 Sept. 2018)
Science communication is not just about facts to win people over (just think about the debate on GMO’s that has raged for decades). When it comes to controversial topics, it is quite likely that people will have an emotional investment in particular results. Thus, the question is how can we expect to win people over with facts when they have already made up their minds based on this emotional investment? We can’t, and this talk on finding truth reflects this.
The panel for this debate consisted of Dr Jane Gregory, Dr Jack Stilgoe, Dr Erinna Ochu and was chaired by Andy Extance. As it turns out, the answer to the question of whether science is enough is a lot more complicated than people think. Most of the points made here converged on this due to various factors. For instance, Jane Gregory highlighted that there are different types of knowledge; that some cultures have different priorities on knowledge (e.g. religious). This point was taking a bit further by Erinna Ochu when she said we need to consider emotional truths (aka the emotional investment) even if it doesn’t match up with the facts. (It was at this point when a lady who didn’t believe in climate change walked out of the talk!) As Jack Stilgoe explained, we need to be aware that the media is trying to sell us a particular message, but we need to identify if it is valuable for us and also their motivations behind it. The one point that came through loud and clear is that as scientists we need to respect what people know, how they know it and therefore show more understanding. It is obvious that facts are not enough. We need to work around these other issues. Through this we can win people’s hearts, and then after that use the facts to win their minds.
UNDERSTAND THE PAST TO ADAPT (Changing the face of science engagement Professor John Durant, 14 Sept. 2018)
Science communication has come along way. There are new mediums, obstacles and challenges, and we need to understand these to make decisions about how we communicate today. John Durant provided a whirlwind tour of the history of science communication starting with the 1980’s. Back then, science communication was one-sided; talking to the audience but not really listening to them, which can come across as patronising. This is not to say that science communication back then was bad. As he described, there were some good things, such as more science books and fellowships. These days science communication has evolved into a two-way dialogue model taking science communication into science engagement. He noted that there are two opposing trends. One is mainstreaming science engagement; the live science, science cafes and events. The other is the inclusivity problem where particular minority groups are excluded. But some cultures had successfully integrated science into them as he explained: At a Native American convention in Montana for instance, there was a science learning tent where they had asked scientists to get involved.
By exploring this past, John gave some science communication recommendations: We need to diversify our engagement into other groups, we need to make our science communication more targeted and private by creating a cultural connection. What is interesting here is that he makes points not too dissimilar to mine: diversifying and creating a cultural connection (which one could argue is part of an emotional connection).
BRINGING IT ALTOGETHER (The Huxley Debate: what do we do about ocean plastics? Panel hosted by Lord David Willetts, 13 Sept. 2018 and Presidential Address: The AI Revolution- hopes, fears and opportunities Professor Jim Al-Khalili, 13 Sept. 2018)
These two talks represent two different ends of the science communication spectrum when considering the above topics. On one side, we have science communication of single use plastics ticking off the majority of my aforementioned points. On the other side we have AI, which as Katherine Mathieson reports has two polarised viewpoints.
The topic of ocean plastics has had some very good science engagement behind it boosting the field, and the talk itself reflects this.
Firstly, the panel itself had a good gender and professional diversity to it capitalising on various skills and talent. The chair was the politician Lord David Willetts. Andy Clarke represented the business sector as the former CEO of Asda. The non-profit sector was represented by Annemarie Nederhoed of the Plastic Soup Foundation. Katy Duke CEO of The Deep came from the interface between science and engagement, and finally Professor Daniel Parsons was the academic. However, science communication has also capitalised on diversity too. It was not just David Attenborough who has spoken about single use plastics. Liz Bonnin has also talked about it on her BBC programme Drowning in Plastic, and the field itself has seen a boom in being communicated to the public.
Secondly, it is these TV shows and the likes of it that have inspired people to ensure that people return to pursue this interest. Katy Duke expressed this herself: “there hasn’t been another environmental crisis that hasn’t gotten this much people engaged”. It has appealed to everyone and moreover, it has won hearts and minds as an important global issue. What is also worth considering (and also what I think draws people back to this topic) is that people can get proactive immediately. They can make informed decisions. Such as whether they should choose tin over plastic foil considering that tin has a carbon footprint seven times higher than that of plastic as Daniel Parsons explained. Annemarie Nederhoed mentioned microfibres and its effects on marine pollution but also how we can mitigate it.
Thirdly, by adapting how we communicate this science we can change it into a dialogue, and this actually happened at the Q&A afterwards. One man spoke passionately about there having been enough feasibility studies and that we should just get on with solutions. But Andy Clarke responded that actually we need to consider the whole model; the consequences of taking action without knowing enough. The perfect example to this is the tin versus plastic choice. A few other panel members highlighted that we do need more research to fill in knowledge gaps, such as the pathway of plastics. Overall the topic of single use plastics has done very well in science communication contributing to public (and global) opinion.
Jim Al Khalili’s talk was the presidential address which was to a packed room. His AI talk was well structured as he outlined its importance, how it is defined, recent breakthroughs (such as Deep Mind) and even fears. As he explained AI is already here and doing a lot of good (e.g. healthcare), and therefore it is vital that the public understand what is happening. According to him, the field is moving so fast that no wonder the public is concerned, but he then went on to address these concerns.
This is clearly a polarised discipline and Katherine Mathieson in her Huxley review recognised this: “In the current political climate, we must acknowledge the two polarised viewpoints that surround AI and gene-editing.” When it comes to inspiring people towards this science, many already see the benefits, but it would appear that people are also drawn to it out of fear (as opposed to a need to protect our planet that single use plastics evokes within us). Understanding the past to adapt, and winning hearts and not just minds seems to be exactly the purpose of the Huxley Debate. All those different factors (emotions, allaying fears, working around ethics and politics, and learning from the past) appear to be well-embedded in her comments: “The things driving the narrative are complicated and full of nuance”; “So, what can we do in our current positions? Having these conversations now is vital…”; “By using the tools of successful campaigns from the past and present, we can help propel the world towards a positive future.” Despite the science communication that AI has had recently, it is clear that the field has yet to have the same boost in science communication and engagement that single use plastics has had over the years.
By reviewing some of the British Science Festival talks we are reminded of the essential elements that can change the public’s perception of particular science issues: Diversity capitalises on talent which increases the number of scientists who then go on to do good communication by learning from the past. Through this they inspire the public to return to them, but also establish a rapport of respect with them. In short, by bringing all these issues together effectively we can take science communication and use it for beneficial public understanding. This in turn will affect public opinion on technology, and ultimately acceptance of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
About the Author
Danae Dodge finished her PhD at the University of Sheffield many years ago. Currently, she is re-directing herself into science communication. She volunteers for many science charities (which apart from the British Science Association Sheffield branch) includes Sense about Science, the Yorkshire regional branch of the Royal Society of Biology and The Scientista Foundation, USA. You can follow her on LinkedIn and on Twitter: @DanaeDodge
Pollination is the fertilisation of plants through transfer of pollen. Without pollination, plants would not be able to reproduce, and would quickly die out. It is a crucial process that most living things rely on, wholly or partially. Humans, for example, would be left with very little to farm and eat if all pollination were to cease.
Pollen transfer can be abiotic or biotic. The former refers to non-living mechanisms of transport, such as wind or rain. Biotic pollination is much more common, and occurs when insects, birds, bats (and other mammals like monkeys and squirrels) transfer pollen between plants.
With almost 20,000 known species, bees are perhaps one of the most recognisable and well-known pollinator insects. Studies estimate that one third of commercial crops are either entirely or partially pollinated by (and thus dependent on) bees. These include some of our most loved and economically important produce like broccoli, bell peppers, onions, beans, apples, cherries, peaches, strawberries, coffee, cotton and almonds. This was perfectly illustrated in the activity stand ‘What Happens When Bees Go Extinct?’ as part of the Food for the Future event hosted by the Sheffield British Science Association for the Sheffield Food Festival back in May.
Of the approximate 785 species that pollinate crop plants, the Western honey bee (Apis mellifera) is the single most important one. Its wide dispersion and high populace mean that it pollinates the most crops of all species. Domesticated and kept by humans for around 5,000 years, records of beekeeping exist on the walls of ancient Egyptian monuments. This species is the most common of all seven honey bee species in the genus Apis, and is found on all continents bar Antarctica. This extreme distribution of A. mellifera around the globe is largely due to human activity. For example, migrants from Europe introduced the bee to North America in the 1600s.
The Western honey bee, Apis mellifera
Despite its widespread range, the population of the Western honey bee has dramatically declined in the last decade or so. Research from Pennsylvania State University found that North American populations have been hit hard, as have the populations in several European countries such as Spain, France and Greece. From 2007-2013, it has been estimated that roughly ten million hives were lost. Given the bees’ significance to agriculture and local ecosystems, this is a worrying development for farmers and environmentalists alike. Colony collapse disorder (CCD) is the leading cause of this decline.
CCD has existed throughout history in all regions where honey bees are domesticated, but has recently intensified. The disorder occurs when most or all of the worker bees in a hive disappear leaving only the queen bee, several nurses, and immature bees or larvae behind. Food supplies are usually plentiful. However, with an insufficient workforce, this supply simply cannot be maintained. Causes of CCD are unknown, though there are many factors thought to have some influence. Disease, pesticide use, a lack of genetic diversity, and migratory beekeeping are all potential contributors to CCD and bee death.
The parasitic mite Varroa destructoris perhaps the biggest pest to honeybees. The mite feeds on the blood of adult bees and pupae, and transmits diseases such as deformed wing virus. This virus leads to the exile or death of many bees within a hive. The mites are hard to get rid of and have very high reproductive rates so protecting bees can be quite difficult once mites attach. Fortunately, there are several ongoing studies looking into how to deal with the mites, so there may be hope for affected hives in the future.
Varroa mite on a honey bee
Neonicotinoids (the family of pesticides now the subject of bans heavy regulation and debates) have been shown to negatively affect honey bee hives and contribute to CCD. Queen bees exposed to neonicotinoids had a 60% survival rate compared to 80% of control queens as a recent 2015 study found. Another study concluded that honey bee immune systems are compromised by neonicotinoids making them more susceptible to diseases. In tandem with parasitic mites, this may affect hives even more. It is important to note, however, that there are still knowledge gaps regarding this subject. Research as to how, why and to what extent the pesticides affect A. mellifera is still ongoing.
Luckily, the plight of the honey bee (and other bee species whose populations are falling) has been covered extensively by the media in recent years and many people are trying to help the situation. A veritable fountain of information on how we can help save the bees has sprung up. From the Royal Horticultural Society to the RSPB, there are plenty of articles detailing which plants are best for bees, how to provide shelter and how to revive tired bees. What is also positive is the number of companies invested in helping bees too; from the National Trust to well-known supermarkets. Wildflower seeds (which you can get from Grow Wild UK) are very accessible and can easily be planted for a bee-friendly spot in the garden or window box.
There is hope for the bees yet, but it will take the concern, kindness and help of all of us all if we want the population of these buzzy pollinators to climb again.
About the Author Helen Alford is an MSc Science Communication and BSc Biological Sciences graduate having studied at the Universities of Sheffield and Birmingham. She has got a particular interest in microbiology, immunology, mycology, and how they often overlap! She is passionate about science communication and is involved with a local radio show focused on science and technology (https://web.sheffieldlive.org/shows/the-live-science-radio-show/)
Apart from the volunteer comments, this article was written by Danae Dodge
When our treasurer approached our blog editor about the idea of having a science of cocktails event at the Pint of Science this year, it helped that the treasurer Lynette Hodges was already a co-ordinator of the annual event and that the blog editor already had a cocktail kit! The idea developed into an interactive demonstration which initially was to be held at one location, but later evolved to two locations.
We were the Mixology Laboratory and here two of our volunteers (one from each location) give their review of how their demonstrations went down.
Alexander Wolfe at Hallamshire House
“At the Mixology Laboratory, we explored the science behind four classic cocktails: the Woo Woo, the Vodka Martini, the White Russian, and the Vodka Gimlet. For the Woo Woo and Vodka Martini, we showed the effect of chilling the cocktail in various ways, specifically the effect that shaking with ice (a wet shake) versus stirring over ice has on the final balance of the cocktail. Traditionally, the Woo Woo is wet shaken, and the Vodka Martini is stirred. Shaking a cocktail dilutes it more than a simple stir does, and so the shaken martinis were more dilute than their stirred counterparts, and the stirred Woo Woos were very strong compared to their shaken variants. The White Russian was used as an example of the various techniques that are employed to layer a cocktail. These include temperature differences, solvation, and special pouring techniques. Most of the techniques worked by widening the density gap between each layer, and the pouring techniques helped reduce the effect that mixing had on the layers. The Vodka Gimlet served as an example of how a foam cocktail can be created. Egg whites were used to create the characteristic foam, as the proteins within the egg whites help stabilise it by trapping bubbles of air. This is achieved by dry shaking (without ice) the egg whites with a small amount of the cocktail for flavour and texture.
It was absolutely amazing showing the public how science can help you make great cocktails! As both a chemist and mixologist, the science of cocktails is quite near and dear to my heart, and it was great to share this with others. One of my lecturers, Prof. Jim Thomas was presenting at the Hallamshire House where I was stationed, and several of my peers came to the evening. It was really good to show how our subject is incredibly pervasive throughout all parts of the world, and it was especially fun talking to other chemists in more detail about the science behind what we were showing! The talks themselves synergised well with the activities- two of them were on food chemistry, so that gave us additional things to talk about. I personally had a few very interesting chats with all three presenters, and we had some very fruitful discussions with the public as well! I think that overall the event was a massive success. We had several people ask us to go into more detail than what we were given as a basic explanation, and hopefully that means there would be interest in a similar event in the future. I for one would certainly be more than happy to help run one!”
Nadejda Tsokova at Tamper Sellars Wheel Coffee House
“I volunteered to participate in the Science of Cocktails event as part of the Pint of Science. As I was a novice with no previous experience in making cocktails, I went to the training session and was impressed with others’ knowledge, and I thought “Oh dear what have I put myself into!” Other people are so experienced, how will I manage on the day? Oh dear how wrong I was! Never should I doubt it! My fellow cocktail scientists were so helpful and supportive. We made four cocktails in total. Two of which were made under the title of ‘Shaken not Stirred’ (how wrong or cool are you James Bond!)
We were warmly welcomed by the organisers and the Tamper staff were so helpful allowing us to use the ice making machine. It seems like people were very interested in one of the cocktails (although not my creation) and when I tried it I realised why; it was a perfect blend of alcoholic coffee and cream. However, my cocktail the Vodka Gimlet (under the title of ‘Foaming in the Mouth’) with the egg white foam on top was really well received, and provoked loads of scientific questions, including food safety using raw eggs. I started talking with a PhD student that had just passed his viva that very same day, and while I was explaining the science behind the cocktail he introduced me to the archaeology crew at the stand next to ours. All evening we were very busy with ‘serving’ cocktails and chatting that we almost missed the talks. But one of the talks grabbed my attention – how excavated animal bones from all over the world can reveal the most common religion. Fascinating stuff! And roll on next year’s Pint of Science or any other cocktail events although this time I will do my homework properly beforehand! Cheers!”
A big thanks goes out to the Pint of Science organisers: Lynette Hodges, and the other members of the Public Engagement Team at Sheffield University, and Devon Smith. I would also like to thank the Pint of Science volunteers who participated in the demos: Ella Bradfield (Tamper), Georgina Starling (Hallamshire House), Swakshadip Sarkar (Hallamshire House); the other Pint of Science volunteers who supported at both locations especially Gemma Stephens, and of course to Tamper and Hallamshire House for allowing us to use their facilities!
About the Pint of Science Festival:
Pint of Science is an international series of festivals bringing world class research to a pub near you. With strands in Europe, Australia, Asia and North America it has grown yearly. Sheffield’s first Pint of Science took place in 2016 in 4 pub venues in the city and in 2018, the third festival comprised three consecutive nights in six venues in the city centre. The festival activities in Sheffield were organised by the Public Engagement team and Sheffield Co-ordinator Devon Smith, along with the help of 16 University of Sheffield postgraduate students. This team of staff and students worked with 50 University researchers to create a programme of 47 talks and more than 50 activities for the festival. In 2018 the Sheffield festival attracted 785 attendees.
What do a live kangaroo, mammoth teeth and otter poo have in common? They could all be found at ‘Nature Detectives’: our last outreach event held at Weston Park Museum on Saturday 24th February 2018!
A couple of months ago, we were approached by Weston Park Museum who wanted to increase the science content of their programme of family-friendly activities. Knowing how popular and well-loved the museum is, we leapt at the chance to get involved. During a ‘behind the scenes tour’, we discovered a treasure trove hidden away in the cupboards: bones, teeth, skulls and incredibly lifelike taxidermy. This gave us the idea for our event – using the museum’s collections we would show how scientists can use the ‘clues’ animals leave behind to learn more about their lives and habits.
The museum staff were very accommodating, giving us the use of both their upstairs and downstairs activity rooms. This allowed us to plan a ‘detective trail’ of different activities. After completing each activity, the children would be given a ‘clue’ about a mystery animal. Once they had all the clues, they could then use our identification key to work out the animal and claim a free goody bag. The idea proved a popular one. Barely a few minutes after opening, the museum was filled with parents and children eagerly filling in their clue sheets.
Downstairs the big question was ‘Who dung it?’ where we had invited Dr Deborah Dawson and her team from the Sheffield Otter Project as special guests they had brought a plethora of poo samples from all sorts of animals, and demonstrated how these ‘remains’ contain hidden information about animal diets, and how they can even be sources of DNA. Next to them, the children had great fun getting very messy on our footprints stand, where they were busy making animal tracks using pipe cleaner feet and paint.
Upstairs the fun continued with lots of opportunities to handle and closely inspect the museum’s artefacts, including our ‘What can we learn about teeth?’ activity led by Rebecca Hollely, one of our BSA volunteers. “The children really enjoyed being able to hold different kinds of skulls and teeth to guess the species and its diet. We had a range of animals, from the skull of the well-known goat, to a swordfish bill, and even a weighty mammoth molar which impressed children and parents alike!” she said.
Meanwhile, our ‘Spot the Moth’ activity used the case of the peppered moth to show how animals evolve to become better adapted to their environment. Some of the moths were so well camouflaged that we stopped using them because they were simply too difficult to find! In our final activity, birds were the star of the show: using the museum’s complete taxidermy collection of British birds, we showed how key features can help us to tell different species apart. “We had a stall teaching kids how to use identification keys to find out the names of taxidermy animals. Both the kids and parents really enjoyed being able to see and examine the taxidermy animals, and many said they had learnt a lot” said Weilin Wu, another one of our volunteers.
Throughout the day, we had a constant stream of visitors which left us all exhausted at the end, even those who didn’t dress as a kangaroo to add further amusement! But it was so rewarding to see our visitors really engage with the activities and ask so many questions. The mystery animal quiz was so popular that we had to run and print more copies, and we only just about had enough goody bags to last to the very end. Judging by the smiling faces and feedback, the kids felt a real sense of achievement from the activities. As Rebecca summed it up, “The day was filled with laughter, gasps of exclamation and it would be harder to say who had the most fun… the children or the volunteers!”
We had great fun and we are very grateful to Weston Park museum for making us feel so welcome. We are already looking forward to holding our next event there, “The Science of Multilingualism”, where we will explore what happens in the brain as we learn and speak different languages. This will take place on Saturday 14th April 2018 – keep an eye on our events page, Twitter account and Facebook page for more details!
And of course, a big thank you to our amazing BSA Sheffield volunteers who made this event happen: Weilin Wu, Caitlin Higgott, Olivia Rhoden, Lynette Hodges, Rebecca Hollely, Shauni McGregor, Ruby Kell, Daniella Sasaki, Antonio del la Vega de Leon, Chloe McCole, Jingyi Huang, Ellie Marshall, Tilly Dixon, Matthew Keedy, Francesca Dawson and Helen Alford.
About the Author
Caroline Wood is a PhD student studying the interactions between parasitic weeds and their hosts at the University of Sheffield. She first became involved with BSA Sheffield when she went along to the launch meeting ‘out of curiosity’. Since then, she has been involved in a number of events for BSA Sheffield, including an activity stand at the Sheffield Food Festival on crop diseases; a Fun Palace on the theme of the five senses and ‘The Science of Wellness’, a collaboration with Sheffield Flourish, a local mental health charity. She blogs at http://scienceasadestiny.blogspot.co.uk/ and you can also follow her on Twitter