9I制作厂免费

Mostafa presenting on Science for the People at a Biology Seminar Day.

Authors:聽Lina Champain and Alia Sanger

Lina Champain and Alia Sanger interviewed Mostafa Shagar as an assignment in FSCI 500: Science Communication & Outreach. The interview has been edited for length.

We sat down to talk to Mostafa Shagar about the dual importance of archiving and documentation in science and in activism. Mostafa is a Ph.D. candidate in material physics based in Montreal. He is also a coordinator for the Canada chapter of , an organization of scientists, educators, workers, and activists dedicated to demystifying scientific knowledge.

How did you first learn about Science for the People?

I learned about Science for the People when I moved to Montreal for my Ph.D. Previously, I felt that my political identity and my research were quite separate. I had all these radical opinions, but I still had to go to the lab and do my measurements. I picked up a book called Radical Science Essays which completely dispelled the myth of scientific neutrality by linking together one鈥檚 labor and one鈥檚 politics. In the introduction of this book, the author mentions Science for the People, so I looked it up and found out that it still exists.

Do you consider Science for the People a science communication magazine?

With all due respect to you and your class, I hate science communication. I say this as a former SciComm enthusiast.

Was there a particular thing that made you disenchanted with the field?

I don鈥檛 think science communication brings much to the table. The format of science is small articles that make incremental progress, and the job of SciComm is to turn this inherently incremental process into a world-changing event every single time. The goal of SciComm is to make science less opaque, but you're adding layers of opacity by selectively choosing what to say.

When you're doing SciComm, you're almost surgically extracting a paper [from its position within the body of literature] and making it seem so much bigger. This makes science less approachable to the non-specialist audience. For me, Science for the People is what I want SciComm to be, because [Science for the People] doesn't approach science as opaque.

Who is the main audience of Science for the People, in terms of readership?

It's for anyone. It's for my mom, who read a Science for the People article because I translated it into Arabic. At the launch of Beyond Binaries issue of the Science for the People magazine on March 9^th, 2024, we had a mixed crowd, some scientists, some non-scientists, and the consensus from people was 鈥淚 didn't know that this conversation was happening鈥�.

Have there been challenges in appealing to non-scientists?

At Science for the People, we try to engage readers and activists who are not scientists. However, that science is in the name of the organization remains a challenge for engagement. Most of what we publish is about the social construction of science. And a magazine for everyone is a magazine for no one.

Are there any content-related shifts that Science for the People is trying to make right now?

I have a personal answer, which is to develop more theory. Science for the People has organized actions and protests, but I don't think action on its own is the final goal. What causes a meaningful change is the conversation: the discussion, the points, and the theory that is driven by our actions.

How does Science for the People develop theory?

Organizing is not just taking action, it is making sure actions are well-documented, so their motivation and impact is understood. I think this is the core of literature and archive keeping---to make sure information is documented and accessible.

This ties nicely into conversations people are having about data and methodology accessibility in science, where information required to replicate an experiment is often omitted from the paper.

The fascination with the conclusion at the expense of the method is a downfall of science, since sharing the methods is a way to democratize science itself. For activists, the result is the victory statement or the event itself. Nobody cares about the method. Everybody cares about a flashy result. Science for the People has fallen victim to this, but as activists and scientists we鈥檙e in a good place to do things differently.