sf² VI.
Winter 2018
Stay tuned!

Rekon Sanierungsmaßnahmen Bau amoxil kaufen pflanzliche Ernährung Tee viagra generika Naturheilmittel-Fieber

Panel discussion 2012


Under the direction of the known science affine moderator Josef Broukal, discussed the archaeologist Sabine Ladstätter Arte editor Christine Reisen, derRektor Wien Heinz W. Engl, the ORF universe Chief Andrew Solomon, and the two physicist Markus Arndt and Anton Zeilinger of the University. The deliberately provocative formulated theme of the discussion was: it takes science communication?
The question is not so obvious as it seems at first glance, said Markus Arndt. Much more, she would offer a wide field. As a representative of the young Curia, Arndt initiated the discussion with a short summary of the JK workshop, which previously had held.
The Rector of the University of Vienna, Heinz W. Engl added that science communication is also a possibility to the population as a partner for it to win, to convince policymakers of the need for promoting science. The mathematician engl said, that scientists (indoor) formerly had wrinkled nose if you had to give interviews, which were then reproduced in the media often still wrong. On the other hand it was considered quite opportune, if you stated to have been bad at mathematics in school. Systematic science communication, which stressed the importance of mathematics for our daily lives, had been a double image change. On the one hand is now generally accepted, what does the maths for everyday life and on the other hand scientists (Interior) had reduced their fear of the media.
Andrew Solomon, the ORF-Sendeverantwortliche of universe, explained that universe of alignment here is not a transmission format for science communication. But he admitted that it is regrettable that for more complex content currently on television a few applications are to be found. In contrast, there would be a very successful program track called horizon, which could come up not only with beautiful images and stories about interesting scientists (inside), but which would also bind the viewer in the story through their skilful dramatic structure at the BBC. Despite complex content would in the viewers expectations aroused and abandoned puzzle. The spectators were thus in a role in which he almost would accompany the scientists (indoor) on their journey of discovery.
Christine Reisen Arte editor Andrew Solomon agreed in his view that there is currently not enough slots for Science films. It was also a shame, because the discussion of science would contribute to a civilizational process. So is it not only the right but also the obligation of a company with the findings of science to grow and to take responsibility together with Forscher(Inne)n in it.
The science film is an art form, which allows to pack content and emotion together. If a film is well done, he could convey information and at the same time significantly make an experience the audience, which would leave a deeper impression than about a newspaper article.
The archaeologist Sabine Ladstätter was due to her interest in excavations always with the question of why? faced and therefore dealt with the topic of science communication since the beginning of their academic careers. It has come to the belief that you should be too hard as a scientist if content in the communication would greatly simplified and somewhat distorts reflected. Because it is crucial to make available new insights to a broad public.
It was primarily a central statement the physicist Anton Zeilinger. He is of the view that it is a Urwunsch of the people to be curious about. Just as there would be the need for music, the person would want to know more and more new things. The question of why something is good, this was not of primary importance. This question would Zeilinger only by journalists. The future of our society lies in the minds of young people. And it must contribute to anyone specifically, so this curiosity is not verblasse. The simple media contact would be insufficient for this to operate good science communication, would have something to say the scientists (indoor) also.
Finally Christine Reisen and Andrew Solomon expressed m², it went where on this day also, to explore the possibility of holding a regular European science Film Festival in Vienna to the concerns of the Association sf.
Solomon spoke of his professional and personal interest in good science films. Also the day of the science film and his program had liked him, because he would immediately support a corresponding Festival. You could but quite small start, develop the good idea and grow organically over the years.
Christine Reisen impressed the heterogeneous group of the present audience. Almost all potential target groups of the Festival were gathered here, and we have witnessed throughout the day, that this combination would make sense. For the science film, there were still no event, during which the public at large at the same time, scientists (indoor), TV channel, producer Inn) en and authors were also present. In such an event, synergies could be found to combine the different interests, with the aim of producing good movies. If you want to bring together all of this at a European level, it would be a great project.
Thus, the discussion showed once again the many good reasons that speak for the many different possibilities of science communication, and the great importance which is given you by both Wissenschafter(Inne)n and consumers. The response to the question after a science Film Festival came from the perspective of the organiser a little too short, but probably it could be otherwise expected in this context. Answering the question whether such an event in Austria is sustainable and feasible in an appropriate environment, thus once again moved. Nevertheless, the day of the science film has shown that such an event makes sense and can find its audience. There are enough responses and specific offerings, which open up interesting new possibilities.