Design can improve science communication by making scientific concepts and data more accessible and understandable. Examples of how design has helped communicate science include using visual metaphors and simulations to illustrate uncertain or probabilistic concepts. Collaboration between scientists and designers is important, with designers bringing communication expertise and scientists providing content knowledge. The potential of design includes using programming and interactive tools to enable broader public participation in science by making mathematical and data concepts more accessible.

1. The role of design in
science communication
Lizzie Crouch Science Communication Partner, DesignScience
Ellen Dowell Creative Producer
Anne Odling-Smee Design Partner, DesignScience
Andrew Friend Interactive Designer

2. 1. What is design?
2. Examples of design
for science
3. The potential of design
for science
4. How to collaborate

3. 1. What is design?
2. Examples of design
for science
3. The potential of design
for science
4. How to collaborate

4. DesignScience
WHAT CAN
DESIGN DO
FOR SCIENCE,
AND
SCIENCE DO
FOR DESIGN?
Anne Odling-Smee and
Phillip Kent explain how the
DesignScience group is working
with scientists and engineers
to improve understanding
of design, and working
with designers to improve
understanding of science.
The goal is better science
communication for the benefit
of all.
WHY DESIGN?
When you think of ‘design’, perhaps you
think of cool chairs, designer fashion, or
being artistic without practical function?
Perhaps you associate design with the
worst excesses of branding and advertising,
Mad Men, and corporate capitalism? In our
work with DesignScience we have different
ideas, but we recognise that overcoming
stereotypical perceptions is vital and not
without its challenges. Those working in the
design field also exhibit misperceptions of
science that need to be addressed. In our
definition, design is concerned with ideas
and problem solving on technical, functional,
aesthetic, economic and socio-political
levels. There is a classic definition (attributed
to Neville Shute) of the engineer as a person
‘who can do for ten shillings what any fool
can for a pound’. Through intelligent use of
tools and resources, a better outcome can
be achieved, and for less money.
What engineers achieve in the technical
realm, so DesignScience aims to achieve in
communication and public engagement for
science. Design is perhaps best understood
as being like a glue between someone else’s
content and an intended recipient. We
recognise that scientists do communicate
with a variety of audiences all of the time.
Those of us who are professionally known as
‘designers’ differ in the degree of expertise
that enables us to do this specific job more
effectively across the complex variety of
communication media now available.
COMMUNICATING SCIENCE
There are many reasons to celebrate the
progress that has been achieved in science
communication and public engagement
with science in recent years – especially here
at the Cheltenham Festival. But news stories,
such as the entirely predictable and harmful
repercussions of the 1990s MMR/autism
scandal that have lead to the recent measles
epidemic in South Wales, indicate that we
have a long way to go.
We see engagement as having two
elements: ownership and participation.
British society today is at heart the product
of science and technology developments
going back hundreds of years. It is essential
that the majority have a sense of ownership
of this heritage as well as for a shared future.
Arguably the popular sense of ownership
has become stronger in recent years – for
example, we see clear public expression of
identification with the science celebrities
of television and radio. Engagement by
participation is a far greater challenge. Both
scientists and the public have reasons to be
wary of it. We have seen a certain amount of
‘citizen science’, including in the mainstream
media, however the participation is typically
through observation and data collection
(many eyes, hands or feet) and not in data
analysis, interpretation or theory-building.
You may wonder how a greater
degree of participation could be possible
given the asymmetry of knowledge and
expertise. To be sure, we are talking about
shifting the asymmetry to significant
degrees, not removing it. Exploring this
challenge is a major element of the work
that the DesignScience group will develop
over the next few years. Computing and
computational thinking are important
because one of the greatest barriers to
popular participation in science is lack
of mathematical knowledge. Without
mathematical understanding, the theories
expressed in mathematical form or the
workings of data analysis are inaccessible.
Computers extend and restructure the
ways in which it is possible to engage with
the mathematical expressions involved
in scientific ideas. Indeed, science and
mathematics educational researchers have
been exploring this for many decades,
but the results are neither well known nor
widely accessible. We currently have an
unprecedented technological infrastructure
of widespread personal access to computers,
and electronic networks for exchange of
information and social interaction. We need
to build on that by devising educational
resources and practices to change public
participation with science and mathematics.
RISK: COMMUNICATING UNCERTAINTY
Participation is crucial as a means of
communicating uncertainty, and this
is one of the key challenges for science
communication today. Extreme weather
events are on the increase and virulent
animal flu viruses threaten the human
population worldwide. The threat of
earthquakes has been with us for millennia,
and the scientific expertise now available
is substantial. Yet communication of vital
information about risk factors breaks
down again and again; witness the recent
prosecution of six scientists in Italy as a
result of the 2009 l’Aquila earthquake.
How can we address the asymmetries
of knowledge and expertise between
scientists and the public? A powerful idea
that we are working with is the potential
of computers to simulate reality, in part using
the mathematical models that are integral to
the scientific understanding of phenomena.
It is all too easy to rationalise unlikely
future events out of existence because
we cannot live through them directly. In a
virtual reality, everyone may participate and
achieve new kinds of dialogue through the
shared experience.
Scientists cannot be held responsible for
all of the problems in science communication.
Communication is a complex, two-way
process. People may hear and understand
a message yet not be able to act on it.
Scientists get fed up when they do
their research, then are told they’ve got
to communicate it. This is understandable
when they lack sufficient expertise or
support. DesignScience is trying to build
meaningful relationships with scientists,
technologists and engineers to make design
and communication an integral part of the
process of doing research – not just a part you
tack on at the end as ‘impact’. To achieve this
we have to first overcome our own challenge
– that of communicating to scientists what
design is and what it can do for science. We
hope this feature goes some way towards
achieving this, and to dispelling some of the
unhelpful myths surrounding our subject.
We are also acutely aware that designers,
journalists and public relations teams are
not always sensitive or understanding of
what science is, or of the needs and interests
of scientists; so we are campaigning for a
change of attitudes and the development
of new learning opportunities and
educational resources in this area. Indeed,
we are convinced that the practice of
design in general would be improved by
incorporating more scientific approaches.
We see the totality of what we are doing
as establishing a feedback loop between
design and science that will build up as
a significant force for change in science
communication.
To find out more visit
www.design-science.org.uk

7. Designindustriestoday
worth nearly£30billionto
UK economy
DepartmentforMedia,CultureandSport,2014

8. Research
question
Review
a) Theoretical
b) Practical
Theory Dissemination
Designprocess

10. 1. What is design?
2. Examples of design
for science
3. The potential of design
for science
4. How to collaborate

11. Direct observation of coherent electron dynamics
Henri J. Suominen and Adam Kirrander∗
School of Chemistry, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JJ, United Kingdom
(Dated: October 29, 2013)
Detection of electron motion by elastic scattering of short x-ray pulses from a coherent superposition of
highly excited electronic states in rare gas atoms is investigated. The laser excitation of the electron wave
packet introduces strong anisotropy which facilitates detection, and large differences in the radial distribution of
the excited Rydberg and core electrons allow the dynamics to be detected using both soft and hard x-rays.
PACS numbers: 32.30.-r, 32.80.Ee, 34.80.Qb, 82.53.Hn
Imaging electron motion with spatial and temporal resolu-
tion could provide crucial understanding of many processes,
such as photochemical reactions [1]. New x-ray free elec-
tron laser facilities, including LCLS [2], XFEL [3], SACLA
[4], and FERMI [5], capable of short duration, tunable wave
length x-ray pulses with high photon flux, will provide pow-
erful tools for the imaging of matter, including ultrafast x-
ray diffraction with spatial and temporal resolution [6, 7].
Time-resolved x-ray diffraction capable of imaging atomic
motion has already been demonstrated at third generation syn-
chrotrons [8–10] for comparatively slow processes. Recently,
diffraction from nanocrystals [11] and non-crystalline biolog-
ical samples [12], as well as isolated and strongly aligned gas
phase molecules [13], have been observed using x-ray pulses
at the LCLS. These advances set the stage for direct observa-
tion of electron motion.
One of the challenges to imaging electron motion is that
the rapid dynamics of core and valence electrons, on the or-
der of femtoseconds or less, may cause inelastic scattering to
dominate the experimental signal [14, 15]. However, Rydberg
electron dynamics is slower and occurs on the order of pi-
coseconds. Rydberg states play an important role in many gas
processes, and tunable Rydberg wave packets
x
y
z
FIG. 1: Schematic of the experiment. The atoms are excited
by a pump laser (red beam) and probed by an x-ray pulse
(blue beam), with the diffracted x-rays measured at a
spatially resolved detector.
x-rays, measuring the complementary dynamics of the core-
This makes it possible to use the

23. 1. What is design?
2. Examples of design
for science
3. The potential of design
for science
4. How to collaborate

25. Visualmetaphors

26. Visualmetaphors

27. ‘Thepriceofmetaphor
is eternalvigilence’
–Lewontin,R.C.(2001)

28. such calculations often involve elements of
chance/uncertainty and interactivity
programming can visualise such data,
make it accessible and understandable,
might enable to reveal patterns
visuals are easier to read than lists of numbers
letter frequency
A .08167
B .01492
C .02782
D .04253
E .12702
F .02288
G .02015
H .06094
I .06966
J .00153
K .00772
L .04025
M .02406
N .06749
O .07507
P .01929
Q .00095
R .05987
S .06327
T .09056
U .02758
V .00978
W .02360
X .00150
Y .01974
Z .00074

31. SharedlanguageWhy programming could be a shared language
between scientist and designer
scientist designer
DesignScience
programming

32. • Intentionally conflicting information: different opinions of
doctors and evidence from personal research.
Life-style modeller ('what if I don't have the operation?')
The user has chosen three aspects of Deborah's life, which, as inferred from
the scenario information, might affect her lifestyle, were she not to have the
operation. The clock depicts time passing whilst the red bar in the top right
corner oscillates up and down as her pain varies as a result of these
Probabilitysimulator
©PhillipKent,DavePrattandRalphLevinson,InstituteofEducation
Life-stylemodeller(‘whatifIdon’t havetheoperation?’)

34. 1. What is design?
2. Examples of design
for science
3. The potential of design
for science
4. How to collaborate

37. Science
communication
A practical
guide for
designers

40. 1. Defining the brief

41. 2. Bringing collaborators
together

42. 3. Acknowledgement
of expertise

43. 4. Trusting the process

44. 5. Playing for both teams

45. 6. Pushing ideas