My Items

In our daily life, we can describe something as either complex or complicated. However, these two concepts are not necessarily synonyms. For instance, solving a Rubik's cube is complicated but not complex. Another example, a colony of ants is complex, despite the individual ants being very simple organisms. In that sense, complexity can refer to something composed of simple, small units that is capable of expressing very unpredictable and sophisticated behavior. With that in mind, this year’s edition of the Pint of Science in Nijmegen is themed ‘Unraveling complexity’. Sponsored by the Donders Institute and the Radboud Young Academy , we want to talk about topics that are complex, but in an uncomplicated way. After the success of our comeback in 2022 , this year’s event will again take place at the Selbachs (Nijmegen city center) on the 22nd and 23rd of May. In addition, we will have an extra night at the Cafe Ons Thuis on the 24th! We have a mix of different scientists talking about their recent work, to tickle your curiosity for complex topics! We’ll open our first evening with Edvin van Osten and Tabea Riepe, both from RadboudUMC. Edvin will talk about how stem cells can be used to create a 3d model of the eye and give us insight into how some eye diseases work. Followed by Tabea, who will share her research on how deep learning can be used to better understand inherited blindness. To close our first night, the Radboud Young Academy, will bring a discussion panel on diversity, equity and inclusion. For the discussion, Jessica Ramos Sanchez, from the Anti-Racism Awareness network, and Lema Salah, a diversity, equity & inclusivity expert. Together with Dr. Béatrice Bonga from Radboud Young Academy, they will talk about the challenges of making a diverse and inclusive academia and how this relates to the rest of society. On the second evening, three scientists from Radboud will tell us about the challenges of quantum computing, the relation between music and mental health, and complexity in the brain. We’ll also have the BrainHelpDesk, a sci-comm initiative from the Donders Institute, with a quiz and fun facts about the brain! The last evening will be at Cafe Ons Thuis. Nijmegen’s Pint will close the year talking about technologies related to sustainability. Researchers like Sara Gonella and Dr. Natasha Gruginskie will speak about sustainable plastics and high efficiency solar cells. Are you interested in knowing more about those different research topics? Excited to hear more and talk about science, while having a cold beer? Make sure to register for one (or why not three!) of our evenings. Tickets are free, but we have a limited number of spots! Hope to see you there! Warm regards, Pint of Science team Nijmegen

This year, we are looking forward to coming together once again for Pint23, which will showcase a series of remarkable scientific talks at local bars in Amsterdam on May 22-24. We are thrilled to offer a sneak peek of this year's Pint23 festival! Tiny plastics, Big impact: Paving the way to a Sustainable Future We are kicking off this year festival on Monday 22nd of May @Checkpoint Charlie with an event about microplastics . During this event our 3 speakers, Tim Bulters, Maria Hayder and Ritva Krist, will tell us more about (micro-)plastics and ongoing research in this area, as well as give us tips on how we all can contribute to a more sustainable future . Do you believe that small things cannot have a big impact? Well, at least regarding plastics you might want to reconsider. Tiny pieces of plastics, also called microplastics, have been found in places where one would not expect them to be - for example in food. As there is very little known on whether and to what extent it could affect us, we opt for precaution. But what is the greatest source of microplastic? How can we measure it? And what can we, as consumers, do about it? If you want to contribute to a more sustainable future, this talk is for you! -Tim Bulters Tim Bulters has a background in Biology and after his studies he worked as a teacher at the University of Amsterdam and as a sustainability consultant and Circular Economy expert at a regional NGO. Since December he is working for TNO at the department of circular plastics. Within this department he specifically works on microplastics and how to measure, model, mitigate and avoid them. Maria Hayder has a background in biotechnology and analytical chemistry and she is conducting her PhD at the Van 't Hoff Institute for Molecular Sciences (University of Amsterdam) where she focuses on the characterization and analysis of nanoplastics distributions in the environment. With a background in environmental psychology, Ritva Krist is since 2020 part of the Northern Netherlands Plastic Foundation (NNPF) team. The project actively promotes a world where individuals handle plastics and packaging in a responsible manner. In 2021, she conducted an internship at the Clean Ocean Project. Ritva is currently a marketing manager for traceless materials, working on plastic-free biomaterials, as well as an environmental marketing consultant. Revolutionizing Society: The Power of Artificial Intelligence On the 23rd of May you can find us again @Checkpoint Charlie , this time to discuss about the power of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its impact on society. Epidemics are disastrous for society. We have seen the consequences of COVID19. Can decentralized algorithms help to understand and possibly contact trace the virus? I have studied multiple algorithms for contact tracing that can mitigate a pandemic and analyzed which algorithms could be most practical regarding the required amount of communication. - Rob Romijnders Rob Romijnders is a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam investigating decentralized computing, whether computers can collectively 'learn' about new topics without one computer accruing all the information. Chatbots are technologies that communicate with their users via natural human language. They become increasingly sophisticated (if we think for example of large language models and ChatGPT) but conversational technologies have been around for much longer. I study how humans perceive these kinds of technologies and decisions made by algorithms more broadly. More specifically, I focus on how chatbots and the information they are providing are not neutral – most often they are designed in a way that they try to influence us in a certain way. But what does that mean for our communication with them? -Carolin Ischen Carolin Ischen is an Assistant Professor in Persuasive Communication at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam. In her research, she focuses on the characteristics of non-human communication partners and how these influence human interactions with them, as well as the persuasive consequences of these interactions. Breaking the Bias: Addressing Gender Inequality in Healthcare For our last event on the 24th of May we move to the @De Nieuwe Anita for an event that is all about breaking the bias, addressing gender inequality in healthcare . Join us for a thought-provoking discussion on gender disparities in healthcare and the persistent misinterpretation of women. Read more about our amazing speakers below. This session will be looking at the challenges of women and men during their carriers. Is there a difference in academia and industry? If we know what the challenges are, what can we do about it? We will put our own experiences into the focus, learn from it and exchange opportunities to make things better. - Julia Lischke Julia Lischke is a Program Manager at Lygature, where she focuses on data management for large multistakeholder partnerships in pharma and health. Her scientific background is in technical biology and system dynamics. As a researcher in her home country Germany she performed research in the field of personalised medicine at the University of Stuttgart and later worked at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on microbial communities. Throughout pursuing her still young career she became a mother of 2 small kids and mentored many younger women in their early professional life. There is a persistent health gap between men and women. Several international indexes show that women worldwide have poorer health than men and less access to healthcare services and medicines. Even in the Netherlands. Eventhough women live longer then men, figures from the Dutch Emancipation Monitor show that women's life expectancy without physical limitations is shorter than men's, at 70.8 years compared to 73.5 years. Compared to men, they also feel less healthy and experience physical and have more often psychological problems. 'FemTech' -- apps, products and services for women's (reproductive) health -- promises to contribute positively to women's health, filling the gaps in medical care. The Rathenau Institute studied whether, and if so, how health technologies specific for women can reduce the differences in health (care) between men and women. -Jaswina Elahi Jaswina Elahi, is a social researcher and an expert on compromise digital culture, social inequality, cultural development and citizenship. She held positions at various universities in the Netherlands and the UK. From 2007 to 2011, she was a Professor of Citizenship and Cultural Dynamics at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences of Amsterdam, after which she committed full-time to the research agency Urban Paradoxes, founded by her in 2004. On average, men are taller than women and weigh more, and the dimensions of their hearts and blood vessels are also slightly bigger. When men or women require surgery on their heart, the criteria for undergoing surgery are however the same for men and women. Is this OK? Let’s take the example of patients whose main artery emerging from the heart (aorta) is abnormally large (thoracic aorta aneurysm). The larger your aorta is, the bigger the risk it tears or ruptures, which implies almost sudden death. Patients describe a thoracic aortic aneurysm often as walking around with a ticking time bomb in your chest. During this talk we will explore male-female differences in thoracic aortic aneurysm: are their differences between men and women in disease diagnosis, progression, and outcome? Do they get the same surgical treatment? And how do they cope with this horrible disease? -Hanneke Takkenberg Hanneke Takkenberg is a Professor of Management Education focusing on Women in Business at the Rotterdam School of Management. She is co-executive director of the Erasmus Centre for Women and Organisations (ECWO) at RSM where she leads the centre’s research initiatives. Since 2012, she has been Professor of Clinical Decision Making in Cardio-Thoracic Interventions at the Erasmus University Medical Center (MC). At the Erasmus MC, her current research focuses on prognosis and clinical and shared decision making in cardiovascular interventions, with special attention to male-female differences. Prof. Takkenberg’s own research at RSM broadly focuses on network analysis, with a particular focus on women’s organisations and personal networks. Registration Excited to hear more and discuss about these interesting topics while drinking a cold beer? Don’t miss the opportunity to register for the events of your interest below, because we have a limited number of spots! Hope to see you there! Cheers, Pint of Science team Amsterdam

It’s very likely that at least once in your life you have been prescribed a type of antibiotics. Be it for a difficult healing wound, STI, a wisdom tooth infection, post-operative complications, ear infections, you name it. Chances are also high, considering you are reading this, that this antibiotic has been able to help you and has effectively eradicated the harmful bug causing your infection. These types of drugs have saved millions of lives over the last century, and because they are often so effective we sometimes take eliminating infectious diseases for granted. Maybe even consider it a solved problem, without reminding ourselves that before the second world war diarrhoea and lung infections were leading causes of death. The pre-antibiotics era looked much different than now, but due to large misuse of antibiotics we are now facing the threats of a potential post-antibiotics era where once again, treating infectious diseases won’t be so simple. The number of microbes not responding existing treatments are increasing and we need a complete change in mindset and use of antibiotics in order to reverse this situation. Otherwise, we will face an estimate of 10 million deaths in 2050 caused by this ‘silent pandemic’. Besides a change in mindset from clinicians and patients, a lot of current research goes into understanding for example how bacteria are able to evade being killed by antibiotics; what new compounds can be used on the frontline of this silent battle; and how we can more effectively diagnose infections and predict whether they can be eliminated successfully with a certain treatment. Some questions we will discuss during our event the 14th of December are: What would a post-antibiotics world look like? And how did we end up there in the first place? How can a drug that effectively wipes out one type of bacterium, be completely useless for treating that same type a week later? How is it possible that in a group of bacteria that have the exact same DNA, when given the same antibiotic, most might be killed but a fraction stays alive? And importantly, what strategies can we ourselves implement to reverse this process of increasing resistance? This blog was written by Alicia Berkvens. Want to know more? Come to De Nieuwe Anita in Amsterdam on December 14th. Tickets are available here .

Interview met een wetenschapper: Jacoba Huizenga Wat is jouw naam? Jacoba Huizenga Waar doe jij momenteel jouw onderzoek? Bij Hogeschool Utrecht, in samenwerking met Tilburg University. Wat is het onderwerp van uw onderzoek? Als mensen dementie krijgen, verandert hun dagelijks leven. Dat wat eerst ‘gewoon’ was, is dat niet meer. Ik onderzoek hoe mensen dit zelf ervaren, dus hoe hun dagelijks leven eruit ziet, wat moeilijk is en wat helpt. Door hier meer inzicht in te krijgen, kunnen we ook onderbouwen wat nodig is in de ondersteuning. Hoe ben je geïnteresseerd geraakt in dit onderzoeksveld? Dit is begonnen nadat mijn vader overleed. Hij leefde de laatste jaren van zijn leven met dementie. Wat mij trof was dat de mensen om mij heen vooral dachten aan hoe erg dit was. Het is zeker een ingrijpend proces en dan denk ik ook aan mijn moeder in de jaren thuis. Maar ik heb ervaren dat er ook veel aannames in de samenleving over dementie zijn. Een aanname is bijvoorbeeld dat mensen met dementie als persoon ‘verdwijnen’. Daar verzet ik mij tegen: ik herken dit niet. Het is daarnaast wetenschappelijk gezien onjuist of in ieder geval ongenuanceerd. Ik ben docent bij de opleiding Social Work en ik ontdekte hoe weinig sociaal werk een plek heeft in de ondersteuning van mensen met dementie en hun omgeving. Daar waar sociaal werkers het eerste aanspreekpunt zijn bij andere groepen clienten of burgers, is er rond dementie discussie in Nederland geweest of dit een verpleegkundige of sociaal werker zou moeten zijn. Terwijl deze beroepsgroepen elkaar juist goed kunnen aanvullen en versterken. Tegelijk met dit denkproces werkte ik mee aan de ontwikkeling van de nieuwe opleiding Social Work bij Hogeschool Utrecht. Sociaal werkers ‘nieuwe stijl’ werken aan sociale kwaliteit van individuen in hun thuissituatie en directe naasten, maar ook van groepen en van de buurt. Ik raakte nieuwsgierig naar hoe de rol van sociaal werkers eruit zou kunnen zien voor mensen die leven met dementie. Vanuit deze nieuwsgierigheid besloot ik met ondersteuning van twee lectoraten binnen Hogeschool Utrecht en de Academische Werkplaats Sociaal Werk (Tilburg University) een interne beurs aan te vragen voor het promotieonderzoek. Onze hogeschool biedt deze mogelijkheid namelijk aan voor docenten. Mijn diepste motivatie om dit onderzoek te doen is dat ik graag wil meewerken aan het realiseren van mensenrechten. Dit is een kernconcept in de internationale definitie van Social Work. Dit doe ik ook door mensen met dementie te betrekken bij dit onderzoek zodat zij meer een ‘stem’ krijgen in de samenleving. Je zoekt een integrale benadering voor mensen met dementie en hun naasten, wat bedoel je met een integrale benadering van dementie? Kan je voorbeelden noemen? Dementie is een cognitieve aandoening die op volwassen leeftijd ontstaat. Dementie is een verzamelnaam en duidt de mate van beperking van functioneren aan. Als er wel een cognitieve beperking is maar nog niet in die mate dat het dementie heet, is het een milde cognitieve beperking. De meeste voorkomende oorzaak van dementie is de ziekte van Alzheimer. De werktitel van mijn onderzoek heet een Integrale benadering die aansluit bij mensen met dementie en hun naasten. Integraal betekent dat het aansluit op de leefwereld van mensen, en niet opgeknipt in domeinen zoals zorg of welzijn. Het is een verandering van focus om niet te vertrekken vanuit het aanbod van voorzieningen maar te vertrekken vanuit het gewone dagelijkse leven van mensen en wat zij belangrijk vinden. Het gaat dan om de vraag hoe de samenleving en zorg, welzijn en ook bijvoorbeeld technologie en bouw daar op kan aansluiten. In jouw onderzoek betrek je onder andere actief mensen met dementie. Wat is het belang hiervan? Een veel genoemd principe is de zin ‘niets over ons zonder ons’. Dat betekent dat beleidsvorming en onderzoek niet over mensen gaat maar samen met mensen. Lange tijd is gedacht dat dat een te moeilijke uitdaging was. Door de cognitieve beperking kunnen mensen, zeker in de verdere fases van dementie, niet altijd in woorden uitdrukken wat zij willen communiceren. Maar dat betekent nog niet dat zij geen ‘stem’ meer hebben en dat we juist de ethische uitdagingen die dit met zich meebrengt moeten onderzoeken. Hoe betrek je mensen met dementie bij jouw onderzoek? Allereerst door mijn onderzoek te beginnen met hun verhalen. Ik heb hiervoor een review (een literatuur onderzoek) gedaan naar eerdere onderzoeken met mensen met dementie ( zie hier ) en vervolgens ben ik in gesprek gegaan met mensen met dementie. Tijdens dit proces werk ik samen met een ervaringsdeskundige met dementie. Hij adviseert mij, denkt mee, is echt een critical friend voor mij. Ik zoek steeds naar nieuwe kansen om samen te werken met mensen die zelf leven met dementie. Hier leer ik veel in. Zo had ik een mooie oproep gemaakt voor mensen met dementie om mee te denken met mijn onderzoek. De ervaringsdeskundige had met mij mee gekeken: hoe formuleer je tekst, hoe zorg je voor een goede lay-out die prettig leesbaar is etc. Toch was de reactie op de oproep minimaal. Ik heb dit vervolgens voorgelegd aan een groep ervaringsdeskundigen uit Engeland. Een van de sleutels is de relatie (een bekend begrip in sociaal werk;-0). Dat wil zeggen dat het van belang is relaties op te bouwen met mensen. Er zijn veel aspecten van dementie en de benadering hiervan die nog onderzocht moeten worden. Is er iets wat je hebt geleerd wat jou heeft verrast? Hoe leuk het is om met mensen die leven met dementie in gesprek te zijn. Mijn eigen ervaringskennis helpt daarin denk ik mee. Wat mij heeft verrast is dat de empowerment van mensen met dementie in bepaalde opzichten in Engeland sterker overkomt dan in Nederland. Er is bijvoorbeeld in Engeland een groep mensen met dementie die met ondersteuning zelf onderzoek doen. Een vorm van citizen science, zoals dat ook wel heet. Hoe zie jij de toekomst van onderzoek naar dementie en de aanpak hiervan? Mijn eigen focus is nu natuurlijk op mijn eigen promotieonderzoek en om dit samen met het onderwijs, het werkveld en burgers zo goed mogelijk vorm te geven. Zo kunnen bij ons op de hogeschool studenten een (afstudeer)project doen rond dementie en zijn we betrokken bij pilots en projecten in de regio. Ik zie voor mij dat we hierin steeds meer gezamenlijk gaan optrekken om zo samen te werken aan innovatie. Dit betekent dat we niet ons niet alleen moeten richten op kwalitatief goede zorg maar ook op een sterk sociaal domein. Inzetten op minder zorg kan alleen als er ook een goede sociale basis in de samenleving is. Dit betekent bijvoorbeeld dat het werken met vrijwilligers, onmisbaar, een goede begeleiding vraagt van professionals. Is er een manier waarop burgers betrokken kunnen worden in onderzoek naar dementie? Als eerste denk ik: onderzoeken gaat over nieuwsgierig zijn. Mensen met dementie willen net zo graag als ieder mens dat anderen niet invullen. In onderzoek en in beleid kunnen we nog veel meer de stem van burgers een plek geven. Ik wil zelf graag dat het onderzoek dat ik doe ook ‘landt’ bij burgers. Ik experimenteer met verschillende mogelijkheden, zoals het geven van Webinars of colleges en het vertalen van een artikel naar een vorm die makkelijker leesbaar is. Ook maak ik gebruik van LinkedIn voor het geven van updates ( zie hier ). Wat is jouw favoriete biertje/drankje? Met stip op nummer 1: latte macchiato.

Organising #pint22, I came to the realisation that it would be my fifth Pint of Science Netherlands. Well, I guess the past two years have been an interesting time to organise science communication events (although, a very important time to continue outreach to the general public). Regardless, I have had the tremendous opportunity to steer the Pint of Science Netherlands organisation and work with fantastic volunteers from across the Netherlands for the past five #pintNL events. Wrapping up of this year’s events brought me much joy as, while there were some cobwebs to be dusted, we were able to engage with the general public across seven cities over 23 events in three days in the Netherlands. Talking to attendees, I can share in their excitement how one is able to understand new topics previously thought outside their comfort zone and delightfully engage in further discussions. After organising events from my house for the past two editions of #pintNL, I was thrilled to be back. So, how did this journey begin? Kickstarting Pint of Science Netherlands It all started with a phone call to Pint of Science UK on organising an event in London for work. Seeing as there was no Pint of Science set up in the Netherlands, I was rather easily swayed to pick up the task of organising the events (seeing as I had some experience during my time in London). Well, I was too easily swayed ;) Pint of Science Netherlands was set-up in February 2018, which gave me roughly three months to organise a team to find venues and speakers, promote events and ensure that there was enough traction to keep the ball rolling for the coming years. Looking back, this chaotic period was exciting and watching the events unfold for the first time in the Netherlands is something that I will always cherish. We started with four events across three cities (Amsterdam, Utrecht and Wageningen) with a team of five volunteers. To our delight, the audience was fully engaged with our events - there was even one night where people ended up discussing the talks until 2 am in the morning (and the bar had to kick them out!). Building on our initial success Building from the success of #pint18, the organisation for the following year’s event began in earnest. From the three initial cities, we grew to eight cities (Groningen, Maastricht, Nijmegen, Eindhoven and Den Haag joining in on the festivities) and were organising events with 100+ volunteers. I took the time then to visit each city to meet with all the city coordinators and volunteers. One, to walk through the process of organising an event but to also state my thanks for dedicating their time and effort to helping out in science communication. To my delight, #pint19 was a resounding success with 38 events across the eight cities. The cherry on top of the sundae was that there were 12 events organised in Dutch. From my name and how I am writing this in English, you can see that I am not a native Dutch speaker. My Dutch was rather poor then and it is a bit better currently. Well, good enough to talk on the radio and host an event in Dutch (but still not good enough to make a Dutch version of this summary!). Since our initiation, I have stressed the importance of organising events in Dutch. As our aim is to conduct science communication ( wetenschapscommunicatie ), events in Dutch would help bridge the gap better between the presenting researchers and the general public. I mean, we are organising the events in the Netherlands - there should at least be some events in Dutch! Welp, COVID19 Pint of Science Netherlands didn’t hit a sophomore slump and were quickly gaining traction for #pint20. We were looking to expand to two new cities (Leiden and Rotterdam) and were making headway to reach half the events organised in Dutch. Then COVID19 hit. It was rather surreal watching it slowly unfold and encapsulate everything. From research to work to Pint of Science, everything was turned upside down. It was hard to keep things tied together then. I was wondering how to communicate effectively to teams to take care of themselves first, as the strain on peoples’ mental health was heightened in the period of uncertainty. Of course, in times of adversity, the opportunity arises to attempt something new. In conjunction with other Pint of Science countries, the Pint of Science Netherlands team transitioned to organising online content. While it was a steep learning curve for us, the success we had in organising online events (dubbed #pintNLthuis) has been a highlight for me this past couple of years. We are back live (?) Entering 2022, the Netherlands was in a rather strange situation compared to its European neighbours, as we were the only country in Europe in lockdown. This also put a strain on whether we would be able to organise live events in May, as the uncertainty of how long the lockdown would last weighed heavily on our mind. Luckily, the lockdown did not last long into the year. Our kick off meeting in February was exhilarating. Although there was some crunch time faced by the teams, I was happily surprised how invigorated everyone was to get back to organising events live. I mentioned that due to time constraints and expected laggardness to transition back to live events to not push themselves to organise too many events. I guess that had a reverse effect on everyone as I was delightfully surprised by the eagerness to organise live events. In the end, we had 23 events across three days, which was far more than I had ever imagined for this year. It was, truely, a remarkable effort by the volunteers to get everything organised for #pint22. Musings on the past five #pintNL events For those unaware, coordinating Pint of Science Netherlands is a voluntary position. For the majority of the period I have been managing Pint of Science Netherlands, I have also been working in biotech companies and pursuing my PhD. A bit nuts? Yes, but that’s another story. Watching how the organisation has been able to scale-up from a handful of volunteers to a nationwide network of driven young researchers has been a crowning achievement for me. There have been trials and tribulations (COVID19 and non-COVID19 related) but being able to work together with driven individuals has kept me going for the past four and a half years. While it has not been always gone smoothly (especially in delivering blog posts that I keep on promising to Eline or my never-ending battle with the Wix platform to get the website presentable), I have been extremely lucky to have a group of volunteers patient with me and supporting me to continue the work with Pint of Science Netherlands. I definitely would not have been able to continue this work without you. Extending my never ending gratitude to everyone who made it possible While I have the pleasure of writing this piece of looking back on #pintNL events, its ongoing success would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of each and every volunteer that has given countless hours to organising their events. As we have an open door policy for helping out at our events, I have met dozens of dedicated young researchers, eager to bring the latest research to the general public in an accessible manner. To previous and current volunteers, thank you for everything. Naturally, my gratitude also extends to the speakers of our events. While giving talks to an academic audience is commonplace for researchers, having to adjust your talk to fit an audience who may be completely unaware of what you do is a daunting task. I guess having a pint before the talks help with the nerves, so it is a good thing we are organising these events in bars! Nevertheless, thank you for accepting our invitations to give these talks in a gezellig environment. I hope it has been as fun for you as it has been for us to host you. As we are a non-for-profit organisation, we would not have been able to continue organising these events without our dedicated sponsors, some of who have been supporting us for multiple years. We look to keep our events accessible to everyone by hosting the events for free (or providing a drink if we incur a ticket cost). Therefore, without your sponsorship, we would not have been able to grow as much as we have. It is an honour to be supported by organisations and institutions that believe science should be accessible to everyone, regardless of education background. Last but not least, I would like to thank, from the bottom of my heart, the audience for attending our events for the past five years. While some of you may have been dragged by volunteers to attend events, I have had the pleasure to meet audience members who were just curious about the topic and decided to attend. As we look to continue organising events (hopefully to more cities and more events in Dutch), your participation ensures the work we undertake builds towards tearing down ivory towers and make science accessible to everyone who is interested. Thank you. I hope to continue to be part of Pint of Science’s journey to bring science to the general public for years to come (even perhaps to have the opportunity to write a ‘look back from 10 years of #pintNL’). And I hope to have the opportunity to be able to chat with you, our audience, at an upcoming event to share in your excitement of learning about something new from our speakers. Warmest regards, Taichi Ochi Director On behalf of Pint of Science Netherlands

In 2019, the Pint of Science team in Groningen hosted nine events with 18 speakers and more than 260 audience members across four bars.
In 2021, the Groningen team organised an online event in conjunction with the Green Office Groningen for #pint21online
However, in 2022, unfortunately, there were no events for #pint22 :(
As with any volunteer organisations, there are ebbs and flows of participants helping out with organising events.
So does this mean that there were no science communication events in Groningen over the past couple of years? Not at all!
The city has a vibrant community of researchers, thanks in part to the University of Groningen and Hanzehogeschool. Just because there were no Pint of Science events, it does not mean that there are other organisations working to disseminate science to the broader public. Studium Generale Groningen organises a variety of events throughout the year in the fields of science, culture and society. If you are keen to attend their upcoming Groninger Wetenschapsquiz 2022 event (in Dutch), you should check out their website and buy your ticket before it gets sold out! You might even be able to meet Prof. dr. Ben Feringa ;) For Pint of Science, a majority of our volunteers tend to be PhD researchers. So how have they been keeping busy the last few years for science communication? A group of PhDs have been working diligently to promote science communication and public outreach via the platform MindMint . If you are a PhD researcher in Groningen, make sure to check them out to learn tips and tricks on how to better communicate your research to the broader public!
Of course, there are other organisations and research groups that also engage with science communication (e.g. Science LinX , Speech Lab Groningen , etc.). We hope we have given you a taste of the science outreach activities ongoing in Groningen.
We hope for #pint23 to organise events in Groningen so make sure to keep your eyes peeled for future events in the north!
Er gaat niets boven Groningen :)

Brightness can be defined as the amount of light we perceive when we see an object. The more light is reflected back to our eyes, the brighter an object becomes. A similar definition can be used to define someone, but now using light as a metaphor for intelligence. In that sense, the concept of brightness is an intersection between physics, visual perception and cognition, three elements that are present in the program of Nijmegen’s 2022 edition of Pint of Science, which is sponsored by the Donders Institute and the Radboud Young Academy . Previous editions have seen Pint of Science Nijmegen increase in events and numbers of volunteers. Unfortunately, the lockdown forced us to interrupt our enthusiasm for science (and beers), but not for too long! After almost two years of lockdown and online talks, this year’s event will go back to being live, taking place at the Selbachs (Nijmegen city center) on the 10th and 11th of May. Themed “Different shades of Brightness”, we will have a mix of neuroscientists and physicists talking about their recent work, to tickle your curiosity for bright new ideas! On the first evening, Prof. Harold Bekkering from Donders Institute will talk about how brightness, as a personal trait, can be a product of the environment we live in. He will be followed by Dr. Alexander Lemmens, from the FELIX-HMFL lab who will talk about his research on using infra-red lasers to study stellar evolution. On the second evening, we will also have researchers from Donders and FELIX-HMFL lab: the PhD candidates Michelle Appel and Sanne Kristensen, and Prof. Rogier Kievit. Among the talks, Michele’s talk will cover her research on how visual implants and AI can help recover vision and will include a small interactive demonstration. The night ends with Sanne’s talk, who will tell us about high-magnetic fields, and how they can help us to uncover the properties of materials under extreme conditions, discovering new phases and quantum effects that can be used in the next material age. Even though for some of the talks we can see a direct impact on our lives (like recovering vision with AI), it’s interesting to notice that others are quite distant from daily life applications (like the research on stellar evolution). This type of research is mostly driven by the curiosity about how things work, known as basic science, and are important for the future advances of knowledge (you will never know what they could be used for in the future). Are you interested in knowing more about those different shades of brightness? Excited to hear more and talk about science, while having a cold beer? Make sure to register for one (or why not both!) of our evenings. Tickets are free, but we have a limited number of spots! Hope to see you there! Warm regards, Pint of Science team Nijmegen

After two years of online events, Pint of Science is back in your local pub! Pint22 will be hosting Science talks from May 9-11 and you will be able to enjoy mind-blowing scientific talks with a cold beer in your hand at your local bar in Amsterdam. We are really excited to present you the preview of this year’s Pint22 festival. Sustainable Foods The festival will kick off with the first event on Monday May 9th that is all about Sustainable Foods . The first speaker, Daan Luining, from Meatable will introduce us to the topic of Lab grown meat and Avis Nugroho will try to convince us “Why plant-based fermentation is the latest trend.” The event will take place at Café Checkpoint Charlie . Read below interesting facts from the speakers about their talks. At Meatable, we love meat. We see it as an essential part of a balanced diet. However, what we don't love is industrial farming. Because it is bad for the planet. And, of course, cruel for the animals too. Thus, we are pioneering a way of producing real meat without harm. To note: lab meat is definitely real meat. Identical on every level, without any of the drawbacks. It is efficient and harm-free as the production just takes a couple of weeks and no animals need to be slaughtered. It is sustainable, since we don’t need 1.799 gallons of water to produce just 1lb of beef and according to Oxford, lab grown meat could cut down greenhouse gas emissions by 96%. But most importantly, it is delicious. How we do it? First we take a sample from an unharmed cow or pig. Then we replicate the natural process of fat and muscle growth, and mix the two elements together to produce meat. Real, succulent, delicious meat. A new natural process. - Daan Luining Today, we got various World’s Best Restaurants that experiment and use fermentation heavily in their menu. We see fermentation clubs and traditional fermented foods such as sourdough and kombucha make a ‘comeback’. People exchange their starter cultures, and the knowledge around fermentation propagates like a virus. Fermentation is what the vegan evangelists can agree on and bond with the hardcore scientists. It is something that is so accessible that almost anyone can practice. Indeed, fermentation is one of the oldest methods of food preservation, and it makes up a significant part of the diet in many countries. However, fermentation is also a highly dynamic process, and it remains a challenge to steer its outcome. During my Ph.D., I studied how we can modulate flavor development in cheese ripening. This goes in different directions: increasing yield, slowing down formation, or degrading them. Little did I expect that such knowledge would eventually prove to be highly relevant in protein transition. Flavor is a significant issue of protein transition, and many people find grassy, greeny, or beany characteristics in plant-derived proteins to be undesirable. In contrast, traditionally vegan and fermented foods such as tempeh and miso do not contain perceivable off-flavors and have been long celebrated for their taste. - Avis Daan Luining is co-founder and CTO of Meatable. In 2013 he contributed to the world’s first cultivated hamburger. Later he became the research director at New Harvest in New York, an NGO that funds academic research on cultured meat. This is where he started to think about the huge gap in Europe when it comes to cellular farming and cultured meat. This thought has led him to idea of co-founding Meatable together with Krijn de Nood (CEO) and Mark Kotter (Advisor). Meatable is an innovative food company that strives to produce sustainable cultivated meat at a large scale. Avis is fascinated by the science and technology behind our food. More than 15 years ago he started to spent a great deal of time experimenting at home with fermentation and the harvest of his parents’ garden. Following the accidental invention of a wine made from the flowers of Averrhoa bilimbi, understanding how microbes transform a raw material and create complex flavors has become his personal and professional goal. Intrusive thoughts The second event on Tuesday May 10th will take place at the bar De Nieuwe Anita . During this event, Renée Visser and Sophie Rameckers will talk about Intrusive thoughts which occur in everyday life and across disorders, including how these intrusions can be treated in clinical practice: Intrusions are thoughts or mental images that come to mind unbidden, and that interrupt what we were doing at the time. Sitting at your desk, you may wonder whether you turned off the gas, and the taste of beer might bring a vivid memory of a recent King’s Day where you had a few too many. Such intrusions are very normal, as everyone experiences them from time to time, and they usually don’t cause a lot of problems or distress. However, intrusions become problematic when they are very disruptive and/or distressing and can be a symptom of a mental disorder. For example, someone with an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) can have unwanted intrusions about things that might happen if they don’t act in a certain way (“If I don’t touch the doorhandle until it feels right, my mother will get hurt”). Intrusions are also common after traumatic experiences, where people might suddenly re-experience the smell of burnt rubber, the sound of explosive blasts or someone screaming. Such intrusions usually abate with time, but in the case of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), distressing intrusions persist, and people tend to do things to stop them (e.g., avoid certain situations that trigger intrusions), which is often counterproductive. Fortunately, we have treatments that are effective at reducing intrusions. - Renée Visser (left) & Sophie Rameckers (right) Renée Visser is an assistant professor at the Department of Clinical Psychology at the University of Amsterdam, with a background in cognitive neuroscience. In her research, Renée aims to gain a better understanding of the flexible nature of emotional memories, such as how and when they are formed, retrieved, and modified, and how they influence our behavior. She has been part of a working group focusing on defining intrusive thinking and its underlying neurocognitive mechanisms. Sophie Rameckers, is a PhD-candidate at the Department of Clinical Psychology at the University of Amsterdam. In her research, she mainly focuses on novel treatments of PTSD. Her main interest is currently on PTSD due to traumatic childhood experiences, as such early-life experiences can have a broad impact on our lives. For the ones who are interested: here is a link to a freely available book about intrusive thinking. During this event, real-life examples of intrusive thoughts will be used. As every person is different it would be amazing to use (anonymous) examples from members from the audience. Help us by clicking on the button below and filling out the form (also if you have no intrusive thoughts)! Synthetic life The last event of the festival on Wednesday May 11th takes place at the bar House of Watt . During this event, Ramon Creyghton, Mareike Berger and Michelle Habets will discuss the topic of Synthetic life: Cycling through the city of Amsterdam in spring is a real joy: Fresh, green leaves are growing on the trees, flowers are blooming at every street corner and the city is bursting with life! But what is driving this continuous cycle of life? And how can we understand the mystery of life? Every living organism is made of cells, and the smallest unit of life is a single cell. It is part of biology to study cells in a lab. Synthetic biology takes that a step further, and aims to recombine or reshape elements of life, or even make new life in a lab. The question becomes: what ingredients do you need to mix together in order to create something that is 'living’? One essential ingredient of every living cell is the DNA: It contains all the relevant information for building the cell. DNA is a very long molecule. Every cell in our bodies even has two meters of DNA! But those cells are about ten times smaller than a human hair. How do you make that fit? And all of it needs to be passed on to the next generation, when cells copy themselves and split in two. How can that be organized? - Ramon Creyghton & Mareike Berger The creation of synthetic life is expected to revolutionize biotechnology and lead to new medicines and self-healing materials. It also raises urgent questions about the ethical limits of research, how synthetic life will change our society, and who owns this new life. We need to address these issues timely so scientists can take ethical and socioeconomic concerns onboard when shaping this new technology. - Michelle Habets Ramon Creyghton and Mareike Berger are theoretical physicists. In their talk “Shaken, not stirred: a recipe to make life” they explain their method of looking at things the simplest way possible to find a recipe on how and when to combine ingredients like DNA into a working cell. Michelle Habets studies socially relevant aspects of various developments in the field of synthetic biology, agricultural biotechnology, and medical biotechnology. She is giving the public a voice in shaping the technology to design our future together. During her talk “Designing the rebirth of life” she will address questions like: How far do you think science should go when recreating life? What are your thoughts and concerns about synthetic life? Registration Excited to hear more and discuss about these interesting topics while drinking a cold beer? Don’t hesitate to register for the events of your interest, because we have a limited amount of spots! There is FREE ticketing for the events on May 9th and 10th , for the event on May 11th you can buy a ticket for €5,- (one drink included). Hope to see you there! Warm regards, Pint of Science team Amsterdam

Vorige week hield het door Europa gefinancierde RETHINK-project hun laatste beleidsevenement getiteld "Connections, Conversations and Science Communication – The future of public trust in times of uncertainty". Er is geen beter moment om stil te staan ​​bij de inzichten van RETHINK voor de praktijk van wetenschapscommunicatie, nu dit project na 3 jaar actieonderzoek ten einde loopt. Met hun actie-gerichte onderzoek wilde dit project de praktijk van wetenschapscommunicatie bestuderen en tegelijkertijd de praktijk transformeren. We gingen in gesprek met Tessa Roedema, promovendus bij het RETHINK-project, over haar onderzoek naar wetenschapscommunicatie en de manier waarop we publieke discussies over wetenschap voeren. Waar ging het RETHINK-project over? Het RETHINK-project is gestart vanuit twee observaties op het gebied van wetenschapscommunicatie. Ten eerste dat we leven in een steeds meer gedigitaliseerde samenleving. Online is een overvloed aan wetenschappelijke informatie te vinden, delen en te zelf te creëren. Denk aan vloggers of influencers die delen hoe zij klimaatneutraal proberen te leven, of blogs over gezond eten. Ten tweede dat de laatste jaren duidelijk is geworden dat de wetenschap niet altijd één eenduidig ​​antwoord geeft op complexe maatschappelijke problemen, zoals gezondheid, klimaatverandering, of hoe te leven tijdens een pandemie. Digitalisering, de opkomst van sociale media, en het feit dat wetenschap niet altijd een eenduidig antwoord kan geven, heeft consequenties voor de manier waarop we praten over wetenschap. Wetenschappelijke feiten zijn gepolitiseerd en mensen zijn gepolariseerd rond wetenschappelijke onderwerpen. Werken gezichtsmaskers wel, of niet? In welke situaties? Zijn de maatregelen van de overheid passend of onevenredig zwaar? Onze publieke discussies over wetenschap zijn verhard. Wetenschappers konden deze vragen niet altijd eenduidig ​​beantwoorden – en soms waren wetenschappers het zelfs niet eens over de wetenschappelijke feiten zelf. Tijdens de pandemie werden feiten, waarden, ethiek, politiek en emoties gemengd. Het zorgde ervoor dat veel mensen zich onzeker voelden over wat en wie ze moesten vertrouwen, of hoe ze de nieuwste wetenschappelijke ontdekkingen en anti-pandemische maatregelen in hun dagelijks leven moesten implementeren. In het RETHINK-project stonden deze dynamieken centraal. We onderzochten hoe mensen wetenschap begrijpen in deze onzekere tijden. Vervolgens hebben we onderzocht hoe wetenschapscommunicatoren het best open en constructieve publieke discussies over wetenschap kunnen faciliteren, wanneer de wetenschap publiekelijk bekritiseerd wordt. Met ons onderzoek probeerden we wetenschapscommunicatoren te helpen met uitdagingen in hun vakgebied, zoals hoe om te gaan met wetenschappelijk scepticisme, afnemend vertrouwen, verhoogde sensationele waarde van wetenschappelijk nieuws en de opkomst van desinformatie online. Ons doel met dit project was om een ​​transformatie teweeg te brengen in de praktijk van wetenschapscommunicatie. Hoe heb je dit onderzocht? In de loop van 3 jaar heeft het RETHINK-project de zogenaamde "Rethinkerspaces" tot stand gebracht in 7 landen in Europa: Italië, Polen, Portugal, Nederland, Servië, Zweden en het Verenigd Koninkrijk. De Rethinkerspaces bestonden uit stakeholders die relevant zijn op het gebied van wetenschapscommunicatietheorie en praktijk, zoals beleidsmakers, wetenschappers, wetenschapscentra en wetenschapsmusea, en wetenschapscommunicatiebeoefenaars, waaronder freelance journalisten en communicatieadviseurs bij onderzoeksinstituten. In de Rethinkerspaces bespraken we verschillende uitdagingen op het gebied van wetenschapscommunicatie en zochten we naar mogelijke oplossingen om deze uitdagingen te verminderen. Daarnaast vroegen we of de wetenschapscommunicatoren uit de Rethinkerspaces in hun dagelijkse praktijk wilden experimenteren. Door wetenschappers en mensen uit de praktijk samen te brengen, waren we in staat om uitdagingen en oplossingen op een brug te slaan tussen het theoretische niveau de praktijk. We wilden niet alleen de uitdagingen in het huidige landschap van wetenschapscommunicatie onderzoeken als neutrale waarnemers, maar we probeerden onze ideeën en onderzoek in de praktijk te brengen, met de hulp van wetenschapscommunicatoren verspreid over Europa. Omgekeerd zijn de inzichten van praktijkmensen die in hun dagelijkse werk met ideeën hebben geëxperimenteerd, zeer belangrijke input geweest voor vervolgbijeenkomsten in de Rethinkerspaces, evenals voor het onderzoek dat in het RETHINK-project is gedaan. En wat waren die inzichten? We zien dat veel mensen die zich bezighouden met de publieke discussie over wetenschap, en vooral wetenschappers en politici, mensen zekerheid proberen te bieden in deze onzekere tijden. Ze komen online wetenschapssceptici tegen, of ze zien dat mensen wetenschappelijke informatie negeren. Hun bijna automatische reactie is om 'het nog een keer uit te leggen'. Denk hierbij aan uitleggen hoe mensen moeten reageren op de waarde van wetenschappelijke informatie, hoe mensen moeten handelen of welke metingen in bepaalde situaties gerechtvaardigd zijn, door met nog meer wetenschappelijke informatie en feiten te strooien. Dit is problematisch, want het veronderstelt dat misverstanden of meningsverschillen over wetenschappelijke feiten komen doordat ‘de ander’ onwetend is of niet over de juiste kennis beschikt. Een groot deel van mijn promotieonderzoek is gericht op de manier waarop mensen betekenis geven aan wetenschap. We noemen dit, bij een gebrek aan een goede Nederlandse vertaling, sense-making. Hierin zagen we dat meer informatie de complexiteit van de pandemie niet wegneemt. Maar, mensen moeten nog steeds proberen om sense te maken van de situatie: ze proberen erachter te komen hoe ze de (wetenschappelijke) informatie moeten interpreteren, wat de betekenis van de informatie is in hun dagelijks leven. Mensen doen dit met behulp van hun persoonlijke situatie, hun reeds bestaande waarden en overtuigingen, en hun sociale context. Ze kijken wat andere mensen doen en vergelijken dit met hun eigen perspectief of situatie. Tijdens interviews met burgers door heel Europa, zagen we dat burgers slechts zelden refereren aan de output van wetenschapscommunicatie. Dit is een ontnuchterend inzicht voor wetenschapscommunicatoren. Bovendien gaven wetenschapscommunicatoren aan dat ze weinig inzicht hebben in wie hun publiek is, en vonden ze het daarom moeilijk om hun output af te stemmen op deze persoonlijke en contextuele factoren. Zo zijn mensen, zeker in een online setting, niet meer dan een profielfoto; ze blijven anoniem en hun waarden en wereldbeelden blijven vaak onbekend. Om toch aan te sluiten bij je publiek, en om mensen te helpen door de jungle van (ambigue en vaak conflicterende) wetenschappelijke informatie te navigeren, denken we dat het belangrijk is voor wetenschapscommunicatoren om een reflectieve praktijk te ontwikkelen. Wat is dat precies, een reflectieve praktijk voor wetenschapscommunicatoren? En waarom is dat nodig? Een reflectieve wetenschapscommunicator onderzoekt kritisch welke veronderstellingen ze hebben of assumpties ze maken over hun publiek. Daarnaast zijn reflectieve beoefenaars zich bewust van hoe hun eigen perspectief op wetenschap, hun waarden en wereldbeelden, van invloed zijn op hoe zij over wetenschap communiceren met het publiek. Dit is een belangrijke stap in het afstemmen van de wetenschapscommunicatiepraktijk op wat burgers nodig hebben om sense te maken van de huidige, onzekere en complexe dynamieken in het publieke gesprek over wetenschap. Het kan wetenschapscommunicatoren helpen om hun praktijk te verschuiven van 'de feiten nog een keer uitleggen', naar de vaak legitieme zorgen die burgers hebben, of de misschien kritische vragen die ze hebben over hoe de wetenschappelijke kennis van waarde is in het dagelijkse leven. Tot slot helpt het reflecteren op je eigen perspectief linkt aan hoe je communiceert over wetenschap de wetenschapscommunicatoren ook te ontrafelen waarom hun output soms niet het beoogde effect heeft in hun publiek. We vroegen leden van Rethinkerspace om hun eigen reflectieve praktijk te ontwikkelen, door hun ervaringen bij te houden in een reflectiedagboek. Een voorbeeld van een reflectieve praktijk, was bijvoorbeeld hoe veel wetenschapscommunicatoren
benoemden hoe ze Covid-19-vaccinsceptici wilden overtuigen om zich te laten vaccineren. Ze ontdekten dat ze zich vaak onderdeel van de wetenschappelijke gemeenschap voelen, en daardoor geneigd zijn om de wetenschap te verdedigen wanneer deze publiekelijk in twijfel getrokken wordt. Door te reflecteren op hun perspectief en daaraan gerelateerde activiteiten, kwamen veel communicatoren erachter dat ze geloven dat meer wetenschappelijke zekerheid over vaccins mensen het vertrouwen geeft dat vaccins veilig zijn. Onze Rethinkerspace leden gingen vervolgens aan de slag met het kritisch onderzoeken of deze assumptie over hun publiek ook klopt. Zo vroegen ze bijvoorbeeld om feedback op hoe ze wetenschappelijke informatie over vaccins in hun podcast hadden weergegeven aan hun luisteraars. Zo ontdekten ze dat vaccinsceptici zeer goed geïnformeerd zijn, maar beslissingen nemen op basis van emoties en zorgen. Sceptici voelden zich vaak in het nauw gedreven, en werden bij elke interactie bevestigd in hun overtuiging dat hun zorgen onwettig waren. De communicatoren experimenteerden op basis van deze inzichten met een nieuwe praktijk: in plaats van meer informatie geven - die hun luisteraars eigenlijk alleen meer angstig maakte – kwamen ze erachter dat het beter was om eerst deze legitieme zorgen te adresseren. Heb je tips (voor het grote publiek en voor wetenschappers) bij het lezen of oefenen van wetenschapscommunicatie? Probeer mensen die een andere kijk op wetenschappelijke feiten hebben niet direct te negeren. Probeer je oordeel uit te stellen en wees nieuwsgierig naar wat er onder de meningen van ‘de ander’ schuilgaat. En reflecteer op hoe je eigen kijk op wetenschap de manier beïnvloedt waarop je anderen over dat onderwerp aanspreekt. Het helpt om expliciet te maken dat verschillende mensen verschillende zorgen, waarden, of persoonlijke situaties relateren aan wetenschappelijke informatie. Het helpt bij het verschuiven van discussies over wetenschap, die vaak gaan over het betwisten van elkaars feiten, naar wat die wetenschappelijke informatie betekent in het dagelijks leven van mensen. Ik kan dit iedereen aanbevelen die het over wetenschap heeft. Of je nu een wetenschapper bent die wil schrijven over de laatste wetenschappelijke ontdekkingen, een wetenschapscommunicator die wetenschapssceptici wil overtuigen dat klimaatverandering echt plaatsvindt, of een burger die zich overweldigd voelt door alle wetenschappelijke informatie waarmee ze dagelijks worden geconfronteerd. Door wetenschap te bespreken die uitgaat van verschillende persoonlijke situaties, sociale contexten, waarden, wereldbeelden en perspectieven, voelen alle stemmen zich betrokken en legitiem. Waar kunnen we meer over uw onderzoek vinden? Je kunt me volgen op Twitter (@TessaRoedema) en ik vind het leuk om met je in contact te komen op LinkedIn ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/tessaroedema/ ). Mijn onderzoeksoutput is hier te vinden: https://research.vu.nl/en/persons/tessa-roedema . Onderzoeksgerelateerde vragen kunnen worden gestuurd naar t.f.l.roedema@vu.nl . Je kunt ook het RETHINK-project volgen. Op onze website vindt u bronnen voor communicerende wetenschappers en professionele wetenschapscommunicatoren ( https://www.rethinkscicomm.eu ). Wat is je favoriete bier/drankje? Ik hou van een pint scientonics vermengd met citroen en een subtiele hint van openbare discussies in de zomer.

Last week, the European-funded RETHINK project held their final policy event titled “Connections, Conversations and Science Communication – The future of public trust in times of uncertainty”. There is no better moment to reflect on the insights of RETHINK for the practice of science communication, now that this project comes to an end after 3 years of action research. With their action research approach, this project aimed to observe or study the practice of science communication and transform practice at the same time. We engaged in a conversation with Tessa Roedema, PhD-student on the RETHINK project, about her research into science communication and the way in which we hold public discussions on science. What was the RETHINK project about? The RETHINK project started from on basis of two observations in the field of science communication. First, that we live in an increasingly digitalised society, where an abundance of scientific information can be generated and accessed online. Second, that it has become clearer over the last few years that science does not always provide one univocal answer to complex problems in society. This has implications for the way in which people make sense of science and how science communicators should respond. For example: Scientific facts are politicised, and people have polarised around scientific topics. Do facemasks work or not? In what situations? Are the government’s measurements appropriate or disproportionally severe? Our public discussions on science have hardened. Scientists could not always give univocal answers to these questions – and sometimes scientists even disagreed on the scientific facts itself. During the pandemic, facts, values, ethics, politics, and emotions were mixed and mingled. It left many people feel uncertain about what and who to trust, or how to implement the latest scientific discoveries and anti-pandemic measurements in their daily lives. In the RETHINK project, we studied how people make sense of science in these uncertain times. Next, we studied how science communicators could best facilitate open and constructive public discussions on contested science. With this, we tried to help science communicators to navigate the current challenges in their field, such as how to deal with science scepticism, decreasing trust, increased sensational value of scientific news, and the rise of misinformation online. Our aim with this project was to bring a transformation in the practice of science communication. How did you research this? Over the course of 3 years, the RETHINK project has established the so-called “Rethinkerspaces” in 7 countries across Europe: Italy, Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands, Serbia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In the Rethinkerspaces, we discussed several challenges relevant to the field of science communication and sought possible directions for solutions to mitigate these challenges. The Rethinkerspaces consisted of stakeholders relevant to the field of science communication theory and practice, such as policy makers, scientists, science centres and science museums, and science communication practitioners, including freelance journalists and communication advisors at research institutes. Due to this combination of scholars and practitioners, we were able to discuss challenges and solutions on a more theoretic level and ask practitioners to experiment with new ideas in their daily work. We tried to build a bridge between the science communication theory and practice. We aimed to not only research the challenges in the current science communication landscape as neutral observers, but we tried to put our ideas and research into practice, with help of many science communicators. Vice versa, the insights from practitioners who experimented with ideas in their daily work have been very important input for follow-up meetings in the Rethinkerspaces, as well as for the research done in the RETHINK project. And what were those insights? We see that many people who engage in the public discussion about science, and especially scientists and politicians, try to provide people with certainty in these uncertain times. They encounter science sceptics online, or they see that people disregard scientific information. Their almost automatic response is to ‘explain the science once more’. This includes ambiguities about how people should respond to the value of scientific information, how people should act or what measurements are justified in certain situations, with providing even more scientific information and facts. This is problematic, for it assumes that misunderstandings or disagreements about scientific facts are because ‘the other’ is ignorant or does not have the correct knowledge. A large part of my PhD research is focused on the way in which people make sense of science. People do not make sense of science by finding more scientific information about the topic. They try to find how to interpret the information, what the meaning of the information is in their daily lives. People do this with help of their personal situations, their pre-existing values and beliefs, and their social context. They watch what other people are doing and compare this to their own perspective. We saw that citizens only rarely refer to science communication output. This is a sobering insight for science communicators. In addition, science communicators mentioned they felt a disconnect with audiences and they struggled to attune to these personal and contextual factors. For example, especially in an online setting, people are nothing more than a profile picture; they remain anonymous, and their values and worldviews often remain unknown. We found that it is important for science communicators to develop reflective practices for that. What exactly are reflective practitioners and why is it needed? A reflective practitioner critically explores what assumptions they have about audiences. Next, reflective practitioners are aware of how their own perspective on science, and their values and worldviews, influence how they communicate about science to audiences. This is an important step in attuning one’s science communication practice to what citizens need to make sense of science. It can help practitioners to transform their practice and make a shift away from ‘explaining the facts once more’. It not only helps citizens to feel heard or know their concerns are legitimate, but also helps practitioners untangle why some of their outputs do not have the intended effects in audiences. For example, we asked Rethinkerspace members to develop their own reflective practice. We asked practitioners to keep track of their experiences in a reflection diary. Many mentioned challenging situations wherein they noticed they wanted to convince Covid-19 vaccine sceptics to get vaccinated. Previously, the practitioners mentioned they would overload audiences with all the facts proving that vaccines are safe. But, by engaging in reflective practice, practitioners found that they felt to belong to the scientific community, and they wanted to defend science. This had clear implications to the way in which practitioners addressed vaccine sceptics. Sceptics felt cornered and in every interaction were confirmed in their belief that their concerns were illegitimate. Our Rethinkerspace practitioners challenged their assumption that vaccine sceptics needed more scientific facts on the safety of vaccines. They found that vaccine sceptics are very well informed – however, they make decisions on basis of emotions and worries. Once they had this realisation, they were able to approach audiences in new ways. For example, by displaying the concerns and worries that people might have openly. Or by making transparent what different perspectives on the value of the scientific information in the different personal situations of people. By taking this as starting point of the science communication practice, many practitioners found to have very similar concerns, emotions, or values with regards to science. Do you have tips (for the general audience and for scientists) when reading or practicing science communication? Try not to dismiss science communication output or interactions (conversations) you have with people that have a different perspective on scientific facts directly. Try to postpone your judgement and be curious to what lies underneath people’s opinions. And reflect on how your own perspective on science influences the way in which you address others on that topic. Making explicit that different people make sense of science in different ways helps in shifting discussions on science away from debates on what scientific facts are most true, towards what that scientific information means in the daily lives of people. I can recommend this to everyone who finds themselves discussing science. Whether you are a scientist who wants to publish about their latest scientific discoveries, a science communicator who wants to convince science sceptics that climate change truly happens, or a citizen who feels overwhelmed with all the scientific information they are confronted with daily. Discussing science that departs from differing personal situations, social contexts, values, worldviews, and perspectives helps all voices feel included and legitimate. Where can we find more about your research? You can follow me on Twitter (@TessaRoedema) and I love to connect with you on LinkedIn ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/tessaroedema/ ). My research output can be found here: https://research.vu.nl/en/persons/tessa-roedema . Research related questions can be sent to t.f.l.roedema@vu.nl . You can also follow the RETHINK project. On our website you find resources for communicating scientists and professional science communicators ( https://www.rethinkscicomm.eu ). What is your favourite beer/drink? I love a pint of scientonics mixed with lemon and a subtle hint of public discussions in the summer.

Book your agenda because Pint of Science 2022 is coming soon! This years festival is scheduled from May 9th to May 11th and we are working very hard to make it a live event. This means that this year, you get to enjoy interesting scientific talks with a beer in your hand at your local bar. We are very excited about hosting a live event and volunteers across the world are working hard to bring a fun and interesting range of talks to you. And you can be a part of this years festival by voting in your favourite topic for one of the Amsterdam event nights! This year, the Amsterdam team of Pint of Science wants you to pick a subject for one of the events! Our volunteers came up with three topics and would love to hear your verdict. 1. In January of 2022 a revolutionary scientific breakthrough was reported: the first person to receive a transplanted heart from a genetically modified pig survived the surgery and was recovering surprisingly well. This successful operation will hopefully kick-start clinical xenotransplantation and be a possible solution for the shortage on transplant material for all patients in need. But how exactly is this possible? And what does this mean for the medical field and patients who need a transplant now or in the future? For more information see article from Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00111-9 2. Is the future of meat production finally here? Some scientists believe so, with cell-based meat. This artificial meat is grown from animal cells in a laboratory. Not only does this process save a lot of animal harm, considering that only a small sample of the animal is needed, it also seems to be way better for the climate and the agricultural industry. But how does this process work? Can it taste the same? And is it really the best option? For more information see article from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/food/2021/jun/17/lab-grown-meat-no-kill-food 3. Dementia is one of the most common disorders among older people. It is associated with the aging of the brain. Besides the strong impact on the social life of the patients, there is still a lot unknown and ongoing research is essential. One question that remains in the field is: why do some centenarians (people 100+ years old) not get dementia symptoms at all and still are very cognitively functional at an old age? This question is being researched by several groups that have been looking at the genetic material from mentally healthy people over a 100 years old. Will there be a genetic explanation for this phenomenon? Are there familial factors? And can we avoid it? For more information see website from Alzheimer Centrum: https://www.alzheimercentrum.nl/ Fill in the poll using the button below! And feel free to leave any comments or suggestions. The poll will be open until March 13th. So let your voice be heard and we hope to see you soon at the Pint of Science festival! Britt Windhouwer Pint of Science Amsterdam team

Find the Dutch text at the bottom of this blog! It is almost 2022 and it is time to look back on 2021. All in all, it was a great year with many events hosted during the Pint of Science festival and #pintNLthuis events. Multiple cities were represented by amazing speakers whom shared their diverse research. In addition, the blog was filled by interesting authors introducing us to their research. To make this year such a success, we would love to thank everyone that has participated in our events and blog! Without our audience, volunteers, and especially the participating scientists it wouldn’t have been possible. All that rests us now is to move into 2022, where we hope to have a live Pint of Science festival so we can all meet in person again. Follow our social media and blog to stay updated! For now, we would love to wish you an amazing 2022 and to organising #pint22! Gelukkig nieuwjaar, frohes neues Jahr, bonne année, sretna Nova godina, eftychisméno to néo étos, boldog új évet, athbhliain faoi mhaise duit, buon anno, godt nytt år, feliz Ano Novo, с новым годом, Feliz año nuevo, gott nytt år, happy new year, ສະບາຍດີປີໃຫມ່, สวัสดีปีใหม่, heri ya mwaka mpya, gelukkige Nuwe Jaar! Het is bijna 2022, dus het is tijd om terug te blikken op 2021. Al met al was het een geweldig jaar met veel evenementen tijdens het Pint of Science festival en #pintNLthuis. Meerdere steden werden vertegenwoordigd door geweldige sprekers die hun diverse onderzoek presenteerden. Daarnaast werd de blog gevuld met interessante auteurs die ons kennis lieten maken met hun onderzoek. Om dit jaar tot zo'n succes te maken, willen we graag iedereen bedanken die heeft deelgenomen aan onze evenementen en blog! Zonder ons publiek, vrijwilligers en vooral de deelnemende wetenschappers zou het niet mogelijk zijn geweest. Het enige dat ons nu rest, is om naar 2022 te verhuizen, waar we hopen een live Pint of Science Wetenschapsfestival te hebben zodat we elkaar allemaal weer persoonlijk kunnen ontmoeten. Volg onze sociale media en blog om op de hoogte te blijven! Voor nu wensen we je een geweldig 2022 en op het organiseren van #pint22!