This week we are excited to announce the launch of a data visualisation competition (and workshop), sponsored by the AHRC and BBSRC

We talk quite a lot about data on the Science Blog and have previously highlighted the role we are playing in helping researchers to discover, access or cite scientific data. But working at the British Library means we have the fantastic opportunity to bring our collections and contemporary research to the wider public through our exhibitions. Earlier in the year we gave you a taster of Beautiful Science  - an exhibition launching in February 2014, that will explore scientific data visualisation from past to present. Some famous historical names, such as Florence Nightingale, knew the power of displaying data – her iconic diagram (pictured) not only enabled any viewer to quickly grasp the meaning but led to changes in the way those injured in war were treated.

 

As part of our celebration of all things data and our exhibition, we have been working with the Arts & Humanities Research Council and the Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council on a competition that challenges entrants to bring UK Research Council data to life. An added bonus - we hope - is that the competition aims to encourage people from different disciplines to work together, since presenting complex data not only requires mathematical, computing or scientific skills but strong expertise in art and design. A key criteria for the judges will be whether the entries convey the meaning to a wide audience and so they will be looking for that combination of valid data that tells a compelling story.

Around £3 billion of Government funding is apportioned annually between the seven UK Research Councils, which are responsible for different discipline areas. The Research Councils then distribute that funding to their various communities on the basis of applications made by researchers, which are subject to independent, expert peer review. Applications are judged by considering a combination of factors, including their scientific excellence, timeliness and promise, strategic relevance, economic and social impacts, industrial and stakeholder relevance, value for money and staff training potential. Until recently it wasn’t easy to combine funding data from different Research Councils or to explore how it was distributed across the country. And the finer grained detail, while it may have been available from an individual Council, was difficult to tease out or integrate. Behind the scenes, Research Councils worked together to make details of the research they fund available from one place. The culmination of that commitment is Gateway to Research - a database that anyone can use. The data is available programmatically and under an open government licence which means that anyone is free to interrogate it – you can extract it all, download it to your own systems, apply your own analysis tools and generally think of things to do with it that no one else has done before.

The challenge of the competition is to use the Gateway to Research data to tell a compelling story that anyone will be able to understand. While designers, graphic artists, software developers and programmers may have a particular interest, anyone and everyone is invited to produce a visualisation (on a website) that will show how this public funding contributes to research in the UK. Details of the competition are here. Entries forms will be available from 27 January 2014 and the closing date is 21 March 2014. Our judges include Jackie Hunter, Chief Executive, BBSRC, Katy Borner, Victor H. Yngve Professor of Information Science, Indiana University and Guardian Digital Agency.

On 24 January 2014, we are holding a workshop at the British Library for anyone who wants to find out more. Please register if you want some inspiration, information about the Gateway to Research database and to meet potential collaborators. Representatives from the AHRC and BBSRC will be there on the day, as well as data visualisation evangelists (Guardian Digital Agency) and developers (Cottage Labs) who have worked with the data. We will also have Andrew Steele from Scienceogram who is using public data to make the case for science in the UK.

Lee-Ann Coleman

Katie Howe and Allan Sudlow report on their experiences from the EMBL Genomics, Medicine and Society conference.

The first draft of a complete human genome was published in 2001. It took 13 years to complete and cost a massive $2.7bn. Since then the cost of genome sequencing has plummeted. 12 years on it is now possible to sequence a human genome for less than $1000.

In light of these rapid advances, the EMBL Genomics, Medicine and Society conference brought together a diverse audience to explore how new genomic technologies may benefit public health and to discuss some of the challenges for the future. The conference was part of EMBL’s Science and Society conference series, which aims to consider how advances in biology impact on society. Our TalkScience events have explored social and ethical consequences of genetic technologies in the past, whether it be genetic testing kits sold to the public, or pre-implantation genetic testing in fertility clinics.

During the conference we heard about the wide range of projects that aim to enhance our understanding of genome function and help us pinpoint the genetic mutations that lead to particular diseases. Examples include the 1000 Genomes Project and the International Cancer Genome Consortium. Recently, David Cameron committed £100m for sequencing the genomes of 100,000 people in the UK. These projects generate huge quantities of valuable genomic information but this presents serious problems for data storage and management. Professor Eric Green, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, noted that, “We are no longer data limited. We are analysis limited”.

The Human Genome (Shutterstock)

In the British Library’s Science team we are interested in the generation, storage and re-use of scientific information and data, so were particularly keen to hear Dr Paul Flicek’s presentation on “genomics as an information science”. Paul observed that if the price of a Ferrari had fallen at the same rate as genome sequencing it would now cost less than a dollar! He noted that nowadays, a major cost associated with genome sequencing is the storage and management of genomic information and this is set to become the dominant cost as the price of the sequencing itself drops further. Paul reminded us that in order to fulfil the promise of genomic research treating disease, ambitious plans to sequence the genomes of huge numbers of individuals must be accompanied by major investment in the infrastructure to support data management and advanced data analysis.

The shrinking cost of genome sequencing has also led to a thriving industry in direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. For $100, personal genome companies such as 23andme and Navigenics offer members of the public the opportunity to have their DNA tested and uncover their predisposition to certain genetic conditions, which may then inform their healthcare options. Just this week, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning to 23andme to cease the marketing of their personal DNA spit kit due to concerns over the “public health consequences of inaccurate results” from their service. But others have argued that consumers have the right to their own genetic information, and the emphasis should be on educating doctors and patients about how to interpret the results rather than banning these tests. This story illustrates the controversy surrounding genomic medicine.

While personalised genomic medicine holds enormous potential for public health, conference speaker Professor Tim Caulfield warned that the benefits of DTC genetic testing are often amplified in promotional material. Tim’s opinion was that getting enough exercise, eating healthily and not smoking will have greater health benefits than many of the unproven personalised genomic approaches that are being marketed.

Whilst in Heidelberg, we also found some time to explore some of the local sights. We visited the ancient Heidelberg castle and the “student prison”. But the highlight for us was the German Apothecary Museum - a veritable treasure trove of historical scientific equipment. We spotted a 19^th century Bunsen Burner - very topical since the iconic burner was invented by Robert Bunsen and his colleague Peter Desaga at Heidelberg University in 1851.

German Apothecary Museum (Photo: Allan Sudlow)

We left Heidelberg thinking that although genomic technologies are undoubtedly a source of great promise, they also present many ethical, social and legal issues. There remains a huge challenge in translating recent advances in genomics into tangible healthcare solutions.

Katie Howe and Allan Sudlow

Johanna Kieniewicz writes on her impressions from the Living With Environmental Change partnership’s annual assembly.

At the Living With Environmental Change partnership’s annual assembly, Defra’s Chief Science Adviser, Dr. Ian Boyd, presented a stark statistic: in a recent Defra focus group, two thirds of the participants reported that they distrusted scientists. Although we didn’t discover the context for this revelation, many of us walked away from the meeting thinking about how we could do better. How can we ensure more policy-relevant science? How can we communicate it better? And how can we reassure the general public that uncertainty in science is perfectly normal and is not a reason for distrust?

At this same meeting, I was delighted to present on the Science Team’s Envia project. Envia is a tool to improve the discovery and access of environmental information, and it fits the aims of this meeting nicely: that is, to provide researchers, policymakers and practitioners with the evidence and tools they need to make sound decisions in an uncertain world. With a general theme of ‘decision making in the twilight of uncertainty’, the LWEC Assembly brought together a wide range of academics, representatives from research councils and government bodies such as Defra and the Environment Agency, to discuss challenges pertaining to uncertainty and how they might be overcome. Perhaps most importantly, how can we best equip our decision makers with the evidence they need to make sound decisions pertaining to climate change, bovine tuberculosis, or our energy future—when the repercussions of actions taken in any of these areas are far from certain?

 

Dave Rafaelli (U. York) presenting at LWEC 2013

So, while we at the British Library would like to think that we are doing our part around developing an evidence base that is suitable for use by researchers and practitioners alike, we recognise this is one small part of a much bigger picture. Ultimately, this information must be drawn together, synthesised in a way that enables policymakers to make sound decisions based on all the available evidence. And areas of uncertainty should be laid out clearly. Boyd emphasised the importance of scientists presenting balanced arguments, where all evidence is laid bare.  Although we, as scientists (who are also citizens), might personally advocate a particular solution, when communicating in a professional context we must remain unbiased. To be clear, there needs to be the appropriate weighting given to evidence – if 95% of the evidence points one way, we wouldn’t expect the small proportion of contrary evidence to be given the same level of attention. In order for the public to trust scientists, they need to know that we aren’t reading the evidence to see only what we would like to see in it.

With presentations looking at how individual research projects are dealing with uncertainty, including perspectives from the social sciences, here are a few nuggets of wisdom that I thought it would be useful to pass on:

• Scientists should always be honest about what they don’t know. The sources of uncertainty in their models should be explicit — and they need to communicate those limitations with humility. While it might be tempting to give policymakers ‘simple’ answers, scientists must keep the complexity intact. Politicians are accustomed to weighing up complex situations and multiple sources of data. When it comes to making potentially irreversible decisions pertaining to the environment, giving policymakers the whole story is essential both to sound decision-making and establishing trust.

• Uncertainty isn’t a completely foreign concept to most people. We all live in an uncertain world, and have to make decisions based on our best guesses. From choosing whether or not to bring an umbrella with us when we leave the house, to playing card games, to getting a mortgage on a property, uncertainty is not something that those who claim to be distrustful of scientists are actually unfamiliar with!

• There are things to be learned from other fields, particularly the humanities and social sciences who are thinking about uncertainty in both psychological and philosophical terms. Moreover, economics is a field that that policymakers are often more comfortable with than science, yet it is also rife with uncertainty. Although it can be argued that the studious ignoring of economic uncertainties led to the financial crisis, there are lessons to be learned from that as well.

• There is a huge need for research that straddles disciplinary boundaries. Several speakers pointed out the necessity for social science perspectives on global change issues, alongside the scientific. There is also a need for research that is ‘fit for purpose’ when it comes to policy implementation. However, the speakers pointed out, this research isn’t necessarily considered ‘groundbreaking’; it does not lead to Nature papers —and thus is not the sort of research most ambitious academics are interested in pursuing.

 The audience at the LWEC Assembly took these messages to heart. We in the Science Team at the Library will be thinking about how some of these ideas can be reflected in what we do. And hopefully we aren’t doing too badly. Our Envia pilot project is already improving the way in which flooding researchers and practitioners can find information that is relevant to their work. DataCite, for which we are the UK lead, enables and encourages the citation and sharing of research data. On the biomedical front, we recognise that even when a paper is openly available, that does not mean it is accessible (from the perspective of intelligibility). Our recently launched Access to Understanding science writing competition encourages early career researchers to summarise academic articles in an engaging and accessible manner. And our upcoming Beautiful Science exhibition will be looking at the visualisation of scientific data, encouraging audiences to consider how science is communicated visually. So while we can’t crack the uncertainty in climate models, we would like to think that we are helping researchers and practitioners get the evidence they need for their work and communicate more effectively to policymakers in an uncertain world.

 

If you are interested in looking into this in a bit more detail, here are a few useful resources for you!

A video of the LWEC Assembly will be posted on the ESKTN TV Youtube Channel

Sense about Science Guide – Making Sense of Uncertainty: Why Uncertainty is a part of science.

David Spiegelhalter’s Understanding Uncertainty website. He also wrote this excellent piece in Nature about interpreting scientific claims

Royal Society meeting proceedings on Handling Uncertainty in Science

Making Science Count in Government – a much debated (also see comments section) piece by Ian Boyd, published in E-Life