INTRO: The abstract lays out the content of a talk on using illustration to communcate science.
MERITS: The abstract lays out the content of the talk well, outlining the questions that will be answered by the speaker. It fits well with the theme of the symposium and brings a very interesting angle on science communication. The abstract is clear and easy to read. It does a good job of telling the reader why the topic is important.
CRITIQUE: 'illustrative illustrations' could be changed to something like 'enlightening illustrations' just so the sentence flows a little better.
DISCUSSION: This abstract stresses the importance of a method of science communication that is often overlooked by many scientists, and it does so in a way that will have them asking questions about their own science communcation work. I hope attendees will draw inspiration from this, and it will encourage more science-cartoonist collaborations in the future.
- - -
INTRO: The author will present on how they use cartoons to effectively communicate relevant issues in conservation biology. A visual aid, rather than a verbal or written one, is often a more effective and attention-grabbing medium that can invoke strong responses.
MERITS: I believe the visual medium is a strong point of this presentation. Showing cartoons, both political and non-political, will show a range of ways the author is able to communicate these issues in ways that engage the public with little initial effort on the public's part.
CRITIQUE: While I understand the question of whether using humor might be a threat to a researcher's credibility, I don't necessarily agree. So the author may want to elaborate more on this question, or remove it entirely to provide more time on the main topic.
DISCUSSION: Communicating various concepts and ideas can often be a challenge, so presenting them to public across a wide range of mediums allows for the largest possible reach and best possible response to the concepts. Using cartoons is an immediate, attention-grabbing way to communicate; almost everyone will stop to look at a picture or cartoon. I would like to see a range of concepts conveyed through different themes and tones so that the author's versatility can be put on display.
- - -
INTRO: The proposal explores the important topic of science communication from a perspective not included elsewhere in the symposium: from that of someone who is primarily a communicator (specifically, an artist) rather than a scientist. The contribution will think about what illustrations can achieve and boundaries separating this from what they can't or shouldn't seek to do.
MERITS: Illustrations can achieve many things that words can't, and/or can often achieve them more quickly. Further, when thinking about communicating in images, there are often very different considerations than when thinking about communicating using words. Therefore, this proposal adds an important element to the symposium by balancing out the predominantly word-oriented forms of outreach discussed elsewhere; additionally, this presentation will be given by someone who works with scientists but isn't one, which provides a good counterpoint.
CRITIQUE: There are no weaknesses to report.
DISCUSSION: The proposal is interesting and relevant and provides a good addition to the symposium. No improvements are needed.
- - -
INTRO: This sounds like it will be a fun, interactive, and informative presentation that as many conference participants as possible should try and attend. It will offer perpsectives into how humor can be used to communicate science in a way that is often not used by many scientists, but that could prove to be an effective method.
MERITS: This talk will present perspectives from a cartoonist about how to more effectively communicate about science. The talk will highlight important considerations that scientists should take when planning communication about their work, but also highlight novel ways that scientists could think about communication and how that could help them to improve their reach to diverse audiences.
CRITIQUE: There are no weaknesses in this proposal.
DISCUSSION: The proposal sounds interesting and relevant and does not require any improvements.
