Science Slams as Edutainment: A Reception Study

Science slams are a prominent form of science communication especially in Germany that seeks to entertain. While some view science slams as an excellent vehicle for disseminating knowledge, others argue that the imperative to entertain undermines the scientific value of this form of presentation. Drawing on empirical data from three science slam events, this explorative study examines how audiences and presenters perceive the science slam, particularly as it relates to entertainment and the communication of scientific knowledge. Our multi-method analysis includes audience surveys (n = 469), an eye-tracking study, and interviews with science slammers (n = 18). Our results show that the main reason audiences attend a science slam is for entertainment, yet they also have a strong interest in scientific content. Assessing the slammers’ aspirations concerning the audience, we find entertainment to be an important part, but the motivation to impart scientific knowledge is key for most. When asked to evaluate individual presentations (n = 20), spectators tended to rate both the entertainment and scientific value of the presentations as high. However, in terms of visual attention within individual presentations, spectators spent more time considering scientific content than entertainment content. Overall, we do not find evidence for the common claim that the focus on entertainment undermines the scientific value of science slam presentations—rather, entertainment and scientific content are combined to produce “edutainment” in a positive sense

Science Slams as Edutainment: A Reception Study

Science slams are a prominent form of science communication especially in Germany that seeks to entertain. While some view science slams as an excellent vehicle for disseminating knowledge, others argue that the imperative to entertain undermines the scientific value of this form of presentation. Drawing on empirical data from three science slam events, this explorative study examines how audiences and presenters perceive the science slam, particularly as it relates to entertainment and the communication of scientific knowledge. Our multi-method analysis includes audience surveys (n = 469), an eye-tracking study, and interviews with science slammers (n = 18). Our results show that the main reason audiences attend a science slam is for entertainment, yet they also have a strong interest in scientific content. Assessing the slammers’ aspirations concerning the audience, we find entertainment to be an important part, but the motivation to impart scientific knowledge is key for most. When asked to evaluate individual presentations (n = 20), spectators tended to rate both the entertainment and scientific value of the presentations as high. However, in terms of visual attention within individual presentations, spectators spent more time considering scientific content than entertainment content. Overall, we do not find evidence for the common claim that the focus on entertainment undermines the scientific value of science slam presentations—rather, entertainment and scientific content are combined to produce “edutainment” in a positive sense

Pathomechanisms of mutant proteins in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease

We review the putative functions and malfunctions of proteins encoded by genes mutated in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT; inherited motor and sensory neuropathies) in normal and affected peripheral nerves. Some proteins implicated in demyelinating CMT, peripheral myelin protein 22, protein zero (P0), and connexin32 (Cx32/GJB1) are crucial components of myelin. Periaxin is involved in connecting myelin to the surrounding basal lamina. Early growth response 2 (EGR2) and Sox10 are transcriptional regulators of myelin genes. Mutations in the small integral membrane protein of lysosome/late endosome, the myotubularin-related protein 2 (MTMR2), and MTMR13/set-binding factor 2 are involved in vesicle and membrane transport and the regulation of protein degradation. Pathomechanisms related to alterations of these processes are a widespread phenomenon in demyelinating neuropathies because mutations of myelin components may also affect protein biosynthesis, transport, and/or degradation. Related disease mechanisms are also involved inaxonal neuropathies although there is considerably more functional heterogeneity. Some mutations, most notably in P0, GJB1, ganglioside-induced differentiation-associated protein 1 (GDAP1), neurofilament light chain (NF-L), and dynamin 2 (DNM2), can result in demyelinating or axonal neuropathies introducing additional complexity in the pathogenesis. Often, this relates to the intinate connection between Schwann cells and neurons/axons leading to axonal damage even if the mutation-caused defect is Schwann-cell-autonomous. This mechanisms is likely for P0 and Cx32 mutations and provides the basis for the unifying hypothesis that also demyelinating neuropathies develop into functional axonopathies. In GDAP1 and DNM2 mutants, both Schwann cells and axons/neurons might be directly affected. NF-L mutants have a primary neuronal defect but also cause demyelination. The major challenge ahead lies in determining the individual contributions by neurons and Schwann cells to the pathology over time and to delineate the detailed molecular functions of the proteins associated with CMT in health and diseas