It is week 10 of the semester here and that means that everyone is pretty fraught. Deadlines, marking, the uncovery of under- or un-prepared lectures right before Christmas and for some, the residual effects of REF2014. Despite all that, there are a few reasons to be cheerful, if a little perplexed.
1. Inviting a class to indicate the splitting of peaks on NMR by holding an appropriate number of fingers in the air will (in hindsight, quite predictably) lead to half the class taking the opportunity to stick one or two fingers up at you. What is surprising is that it is fairly challenging to remember to put your own hands round the right (non-profane) way when doing it too.
2. Chemical reactions do not stop because you have turned the stirrer plate off.
3. Most chemical reactions take lengths of time approximately equal to (a) how long the experimenter wanted to go home for overnight, (b) a weekend or long weekend, (c) the length of time between starting the reaction and returning from lunch. The arbitrary nature of these timings mean that it is almost critical to replicate the reason for these timings when performing similar reactions. At least, that’s how the current crop of reactions are going.
4. Sometimes chemical reactions work the way they are supposed to.
5. Sometimes chemical reactions do not do as described in literature preps, and sometimes the ‘common advice’ given in those circumstances is utterly and totally wrong. Yes, that might be a 1 in a 1000 reaction distinction but it is important.
6. When doing outreach with primary school age children, do not be surprised when they understand the intricacies of having to cook a Christmas cake in advance and let it ‘sit’ for a few days. They pay attention.
7. Making PVA slime is the energy minimum for the room. It exerts an almost gravitational like pull on those in the room to come and do it. Always take extra helpers.
8. This: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qniwI2hNhDs [yes it is a YouTube video, yes it is safe for work, yes you do need sound]
9. And this: http://www.waterstones.com/blog/2013/12/introducing-o-w-l-s/
This was first posted on February 10th 2009. It’s an issue that’s just cropped up again in 3rd year projects!
That is the chemist’s question, this chemist anyway. In much the same way that one pays for food in a restaurant because the chef has added value by cooking and combining raw ingredients, a chemist’s essential job is to add value to basic chemicals through syntheses or novel applications. If only it were that simple.
Polyhedral Oligomeric Silsesquioxanes (POSS) are a perfect example of the chemist’s dilemma. These are cages of silicon and oxygen, a silicon on each corner and bridging oxygen. As silicon can have four substituents, the empty site is an organic group. I’m particularly interested in the cubic versions of these.
The synthesis of POSS cubes is a perfect example of adding value to simple chemicals. You can buy the starting materials quite cheaply, but many of the reactions are low yielding (20 %) and take a long time (1 – 3 months). There isn’t a great deal of effort involved because you put the reaction on and leave it until beautiful crystals form and can be filtered out. There are other ways but not always to the particular molecules I need.
I make them, but I could buy them. The price is not unreasonable, and I would be more or less guaranteed a certain quantity of product without stirring several litres of acetone solutions for several weeks. There would also be some quality standard in their manufacture, which would be reassuring given that sometimes the synthesis can go a wee bit wrong. I could also order some tomorrow and have it delivered by the end of the week: a far cry from 6 weeks of patient crystal watching.
Make or buy, make or buy. I’m not the first chemist to come up against this dilemma, and I wont be the last. There are many reasons to make your own. The time and precursor cost may be significantly less than the purchase price. The chemical may be particularly sensitive to degradation or fickle to store – fresh may well be best. There may be an educational benefit for a student to make something. There are many reasons to buy it in, particularly if cost is not an issue, or if time is an issue. It’s just something that needs to be weighed up.
Of course, I’m interested in these molecules because I want to do more with them, I literally want to make molecules that money can’t buy. I want to make sure that I start with the best possible materials.
Is there a comparable dilemma in bio-research? Do you worry about growing or buying cells, or purchasing kit reagents rather than making your own? What about other disciplines?
This was first posted on April 20th 2009 on v2.0 of this blog. It’s still relevant.
Is there something about being a scientist that means we are obliged to deal with public misconceptions of science? Should we be rising up and defeating all examples of bad science or pseudoscience in the media, on tv or in the newspapers?
The main purpose of wider engagement for scientists is to recruit more scientists. It is to portray a career in science as an achievable goal for anyone who wishes to try, and to break down the barriers that decades (centuries?) of negative stereotyping have created. Yes, I did say that anyone who wished one could have a career in science. You don’t have to be a professor to be a scientist, what about the lab techs and similar? As scientists we generally feel that the world would be a better place if there were more scientists, more discoveries, more people able to comprehend our elaborate experimental elucidations. I’m reasonably sure that most vicars feel that the world would be a better place if there were more respectably religious people and bigger congregations on Sunday mornings.
…continued below the fold…
Continue reading REPOST: Do scientists have a duty to engage the public?
A draft post from December 2011, never published but worth considering this year before the Christmas conference season is once again upon us.
From the look of my Twitter timeline, and the absence of a handful of colleagues, it is the time of year for Christmas meetings of this or that groups of Chemists. I’m not a great fan of Christmas meetings for a variety of reasons but that’s not what has me thinking this lunchtime. @S_J_Lancaster just asked (MASC11 is Macrocyclic and Supramolecular Chemistry):
Are any of the #MASC11 lectures captured?
And there it is.
How many talks at conferences are actually interesting/useful/insightful? For me there have always been a handful that are relevant or inspiring and then there is the rest. There are the big names presenting that you feel obliged to go to and be seen at, there are the early career researchers presenting who deserve a good sized audience but who’s topic is not really of interest and there are the rest of the talks by fledged academics that are not in your area and not interesting to you. If you break down the cost of a conference per hour of meaningful content, it’s a pretty expensive hourly rate!
Why aren’t conference talks screencast? I’m not necessarily talking about the high tech solution of video recording of the room, edited to produce a glistening and wonderful piece of entertainment. If you want that, go and watch the latest Brian Cox lecture on iPlayer. I’m talking about slides and voice, what more do you need? One PC running Camtasia or similar, and one dictaphone would be all that is required. And how many more researchers could benefit from those talks?
At this point you’re probably shaking your head and thinking that I don’t understand that conferences are about the face-to-face interactions, the conversations, the network maintenance and connection building. No, seriously, I get it. But I also understand what it is like to have a very very limited budget for conference attendance, to miss out on the cutting edge ideas and general sense of where a field is headed, and a general sense of not knowing who the new key players are in a field. Capturing the lectures at conferences would go some way to alieviating this. Look at the popularity of TED talks, would a chemistry version of that not be similarly useful?
There are also more practical reasons why this would generally be a good thing: every academic makes a value judgement when contemplating a conference trip. We decide if the complex constellation of finance, teaching timetable, family committments, merit of speakers and opportunities to present are alligned well enough to pay up and head off to a meeting. There are often ‘nearly but not quite’ conferences where we fancy going for a couple of sessions, but not the whole thing (and unless it is hyperlocal, day delegate rates are not worthwhile). We could just as easily catchup later via YouTube or similar.
The delegate rates are probably one of the main reasons this can’t happen. Conferences are expensive to organise and run, and the fear would be that attendance would suffer if people could watch later from the comfort of their own desks. But subtract catering, room hire, printed material and a few other things from that cost; compensate with technical support (recording, editing, uploading), webhosting etc and you could probably come up with a reasonably fair pay-per-view rate.
All of our final year students do an independent research project irrespective of degree. There’s little point in discussing how to select a project in the first place because most institutions ask students to pick a selection of projects and hopefully allocate one of them. Anyway, its an undergraduate project and while extremely important in the context of the degree, a second or third choice probably isn’t going to be a deal breaker. But what do you do once you start your project? It’s pretty big and overwhelming to tackle (in theory, hopefully in practice) something no one has done before.
The first thing is probably to know how you are going to be assessed. The project is probably some fraction of the final year mark, and there are likely guidelines. Read them. Figure out what you have to do right now, and on a regular basis to maximise the ‘easy marks’. For example, if there are guidelines on how often you should meet your academic supervisor and that you should take minutes of those meetings in your lab book, plan to do it. If there are guidelines on how to keep your lab book (e.g. contents pages, address, record of hours, references to literature, evidence of reading papers), come up with a plan to do it. Pay particular attention to whether you require signatures or other contemporary information in your lab book and put a note in your diary to get them.
Secondly, think about how you will manage the project, the information obtained and data generated. That’s what your lab book is for but you will also need some kind of file system for samples and electronic data. All file names and sample names should be recorded in the lab book and referred to at appropriate moments. For what it is worth, I have no preference whether lab books are kept in strict chronological order (but remember to cross reference so that it makes sense) or whether literature reading, or extensive spectral data interpretation is put at the back so as not to disrupt the flow of experimental musings (but remember to include it in your contents). For the duration of your project, your lab book is the sacred place where you will record everything you do, think, read and interpret. And stuff you do in October must must must make sense in March when you write it up so be detailed. Never ever keep a ‘rough’ lab diary in the lab and go home and write it up neatly. That is not the point. Your lab diary should be legible, you can always add additional information at your leisure but never transcribe into a different book. Similarly, cross out with a single line, don’t use correction fluid, use some kind of ink pen that does not run if you spill water on it.
Thirdly, you are conducting research which may be published. It is imperative that you conduct that research with the utmost honesty and integrity. If you forget to write down a mass or volume of reagent added, record that in your book. While your supervisor may frown at the unreproducible procedure because you didn’t make a note, it’s nothing compared to what they will feel if you make up the value and the procedure doesn’t work for the next student. You must be able to produce, at any time during your project, your data in original format. There are requirements in each subfield of chemistry for what kind of analysis is required. It will depend on whether you are making a new-to-the-universe compound, or whether you are reproducing a previous prep. In any case, you’re trying to demonstrate your skills as a researcher, so doing a variety of valid and accessible characterisation techniques (unless told otherwise) is probably a good idea. If in doubt, ask. Record your data accurately, print out and stick in complicated data sets if necessary, and hard copies of spectral data. Record your interpretations in your lab book – you’ll have to type them into your report anyway and that’s easiest if you have a hand written copy to start with.
Fourthly, your mark will reflect what you put in. Read only the papers your supervisor gives you? Walk into their office each day and ask ‘what am I doing in the lab today’? Your mark isn’t going to be fantastic because you’re not demonstrating your thinking, planning and general research skills. Find other papers (a good starting point is finding the papers cited by and citing the papers your supervisor gives you). Walk into their office and ask ‘I think I should do X next, how does that sound?’, or ‘I think Y is the next step but I’m a little unsure about Z’. Chances are you’ll ask your project supervisor to write you a reference so you want to develop a decent relationship.
Finally, safety and courtesy matters. You are obliged to follow your institutions health and safety requirements. That means no work without supervisor approval and a completed risk assessment form (at my institution, others may vary). That also means demonstrating exceptional chemical hygiene, researching your chemicals to understand their specific risks and how they should be handled, asking more experienced people as standard. It also means double checking your reflux condensers to avoid floods, not leaving the lab while your reaction is unstable (e.g. heating up, chemical adding unless at an extremely slow rate), and ensuring that every single item of glassware containing your very precious reactions are labeled clearly. Be courteous, there is always a limited quantity of glassware in a lab. Do not store products in reaction vessels – transfer to sample vials as soon as reasonably possible. Do not hoard glassware or equipment unless explicitly allowed to do so. Pick up your NMR tubes/other sample containers from the instrument after they have run, clean them and put them away for next time. Don’t nick other people’s stuff!
And just in case you were wondering, it should be interesting, challenging and enjoyable. It should at least let you figure out if research is something you might like to do in the future, and add some awesome skills to your CV for the job hunt.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Sometimes it is fun being stuck half way up a gully trying to get back to the cliff top. Other times it’s less fun and tricky to negotiate. Now, does that sound like anything else I know? Why yes! It reminds me a lot of marking.
In addition to the electronic feedback exploits, I have been doing some work requiring peer assessment. I suspect none of the general issues that have arisen are particularly new, but probably pretty representative of your average peer marking exploits (unwillingness to give lower marks, want to be nice to friends, reluctant to write comments etc) but one conversation last week stood out and I’ve been brewing over it for a few days*. Our institution, like many I suspect, has tended to suggest specific words to use while marking. So 2ii marks are ‘good’, 2i are ‘very good’, 1sts go from excellent through outstanding and hit ‘could not be bettered at undergraduate level in time available’. 3rds and bare passes are average or fair. Looking at my average range of marks on course work, I’d say marks between 58 and 62 would be better given the designation ‘average’ but in the context of modules (complete with the unseen exams), something in the low-mid 50s would be average.
For one assignment a couple of weeks ago I’d devised a marking scheme involving 5 x 10 mark aspects ranging from 0 (didn’t show up) through to 10 (could not be better). I put in the words associated with each point so for 5/10 I put good, 7/10 was excellent etc. One of my students pointed out to me that if I said their work was good, they’d feel really pleased and expect a cracking mark. If I said they then had 5/10 or 50%ish for the work, they’d feel disappointed. I probably should have asked the question of well what mark would be good, and what would be excellent then, but I suspect it would vary greatly depending on the expectation of the student and their self-concepts related to performance in the subject and necessary skills.
I did point out that to some students, a mark in the 50s was good and possibly more than they thought they could achieve. That gave us all some food for thought and reminded me of a conversation over the summer with another student who thought everyone was capable of a first. At the time I gently reminded them that performance in degrees was a function of the personal circumstances in which they found themselves and that not everyone had the opportunity to pour themselves heart and soul into their studies. Life and things like family, part time work, illness tend to intervene. We agreed that a degree was a reflection of what you could do in the time available with respect to your circumstances, and I think the same is true of any assignment.
I don’t think some people in the class were satisfied by that and without defining what constitutes good/very good/excellent in terms of the assignment, it’s a difficult debate to have. I don’t want to constrain students by the notion that the best they are capable of is good, but I don’t want them to feel that achieving marks in the 50s is inadequate. I believe I had an English teacher at high school who used to say our goal on entering the examination room was to be able to honestly say ‘I could not have reasonably done more’. I think if a student submits work, that sentiment would also apply. I’d suggest that the class and I might have a conversation in the future about what reasonably means in the context of university work, but it will do OK.
As for the peer assessment scheme, we’re using the same mark scheme for an activity this week (the earlier one was formative, this is summative) and I face the (probably common) dilemma of how to deal with slightly higher than ideal peer-assessment marks. I may resort to the olympics scoring system for gymnastics – discount the highest and lowest marks and average the rest. I may also open the session with some descriptions of good through excellent in context and remind them all of the expectation that they have improved based on the formative exercise.
It has had a knock on effect to the marking I’m currently doing. I’m taking greater care over the language I’m using and am generally avoiding good entirely. I am using very good and excellent however where the situation warrants it. The biggest effect is that I’m happier writing feedback on the current set of work than settling on a grade. At one point I was tempted to write feedback on all the work and send it back to the students. I thought I could tell them to figure out what grade they thought they deserved based on the feedback (perhaps increasing the chances of the majority reading the feedback?). I decided against that but it’s going to be the next thing niggling away in the early hours of the morning.
*OK I’ll admit that I’ve been brewing over a few things, mainly at 5am in the morning but thinking about this one has distracted me from the more frustrating things that better resemble being stuck somewhere completely intractable. But I do love it when conversations with students provoke this level of internal debate.
We’re now required to provide feedback in electronic format on all assessed work. Feedback differs from the marks made on work to justify grades (think tick, cross etc) and electronic should ensure legible feedback that is easier for our students to act on. I tend to go for whole cohort feedback as soon as I can to give some help for the students completing the next assignment and will email it out a soon as I have marked or scanned through a handful of examples of work to get a general feel for what the key issues are. Generic feedback like that is useful to a point so I also like to provide individual feedback as often as possible. I’ll talk here about assignments that have been submitted electronically, usually through Turnitin. Providing individual electronic feedback on hardcopy work is a different challenge for a different post. There are an increasing range of electronic methods available to do that and I have some thoughts on the utility of some.
Largely you select between typed feedback or some kind of audio recording. You also select between downloading all the electronically submitted work, making a file of the marked work and then uploading the marked work with feedback OR using the inbuilt tools in your online courseware. I will admit right now that I am sick of downloading 60 word documents, using comments on word to add feedback and/or grade, or recording an MP3, then having to upload the whole load back to the KLE. The admin time there is frustrating (and it may, in part, be a feature of our online courseware). So I’m trying GradeMark and associated Turnitin Rubrics for the first time and so far I’m pretty happy. For a short laboratory proforma, these are working well. You have to invest the time in creating a set of comments but then it is much easier to reuse comments compared to adding them in word. I note that you can also add audio comments which would be useful for larger pieces of work. It is still not perfect.
What would the perfect electronic marking system look like?
- A simple way to upload multiple files where each file may be selectively released to a specific student. I believe this may exist but can’t seem to do it on our system. It is very frustrating to upload each file manually and selectively release it.
- The ability to create detailed and informative rubrics that are easy to apply and reuse for future assignments.
- A science relevant set of inbuilt comments (spaces between values and units; show your working etc).
- The ability to do super- and sub-scripts in comments because we look a bit daft saying that the students haven’t done it when our tools don’t let us do it!
- The ability to add images such as structures or objects such as equations or symbols into comments. Seriously, WordPress and PeerWise can do it.
- The ability to include larger comments that may include tables to contain marks (if not using an inbuilt rubric).
What else should be on the wish list?
The deadline (and 7 day late deadline) has passed but I’ve not yet marked the work so this seems like a good time to talk about the first years’ information retrieval exercise. We use 15% of the module marks in one of our first year modules to have the students get accustomed to retrieving and evaluating chemical information. Last year I had a quiz that required the students to familiarise themselves with a core textbook. It took quite a while to set up the questions, despite using Dr Stephen Ashworth’s wonderful excel method for writing questions quickly. I made a choice last year only to write questions based on one of our 4 core books and picked the most general one. Unfortunately that one was cut this year and replaced with a more specific physical chemistry one. Sigh. You can’t make the students do a quiz based on a book that they haven’t been asked to obtain. Effort wasted (these types of quiz are only ‘worth’ the time spent if they can be used for several years, one year is insufficient really versus the time spent setting and marking an assignment).
I have two pet hates when it comes to student work and they are linked in the same way that twins, separated at birth may well be. The first is the portrayal of chemistry on the internet and the number of supposedly legitimate sites that get the chemistry vastly wrong. The second is the unquestioning way in which some (by no means all) students will google first, think second. Therein lies the makings of an information retrieval exercise. I will admit that it was with a degree of tongue in cheek that I sent the assessment criteria and example of what should be done to my colleagues. I didn’t really expect a positive response but I did get one so decided to go ahead with the exercise.
The brief to the students was simple: find an example of inaccurate chemistry information on the internet and, using the core textbooks and other sources as appropriate, explain why it is incorrect and suggest changes that should be made to the site. I directed the students to the Way Back Machine in case they found a good example which was subsequently changed. My example piece of work was one of these examples – a BBC article on the science of Breaking Bad. Initially hydrofluoric acid was referred to as a strong acid and then it was edited to say powerful.
I think there has been a mixed response to this assignment. Some students really struggled to find a piece of wrong chemistry information and I suggested using image searches or internet forums. Some resorted to social media and found conversations on Twitter. Others have found some wonderful examples of chemical imprecision, if not inaccuracy. Some students have found generalisations on A-level chemistry sites that they clearly understand to be only part of the whole story which is heartening in itself. Some students have found things swiftly and with the sort of ease that we often assume our computer-savvy students all have. It is safe to say that despite having unprecedented access to ‘online’, many of our students are reluctant to move beyond their well trodden paths and familiar sites. Perhaps google first, think second is less common than I first believed.
I’m sure I will have more comments as the marking commences. I’m blogging about it today because Turnitin seems momentarily down for maintenance but secretly I’m glad that I can curl up and write rather than mark this afternoon!
 Stephen H. Ashworth: (2013) Generating Large Question Banks of Graded Questions with Tailored Feedback and its Effect on Student Performance. New Directions 9(1), 55-59. DOI: 10.11120/ndir.2013.00006
Available at http://journals.heacademy.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.11120/ndir.2013.00006 (accessed 2/11/13)
 http://archive.org/web/ (accessed 2/11/13)
Many new academics will be setting foot in the lecture theatre for the first time this autumn. For many, it will be the first time teaching a large group of students. Previous teaching experience in the UK typically tends to be laboratory demonstrating and small group tutorials as well as one-to-one supervision in the research laboratories. Many of these new academics will be enrolled on their universities teaching in higher education programmes, but there are somethings that these programmes never seem to cover, perhaps because they are too programme specific, perhaps because they are things that should occur to the new academics but frequently don’t. This, therefore, is a list of things I wish I had known 5 years ago when I first started lecturing.
1. The teaching in HE course will not teach you how to teach effectively. It will present you with a variety of sources of information, introduce you to ideas that you’ve never conceived of (constructive alignment anyone?) and generally make you feel very self-conscious in the classroom (your inner monologue will likely be whirling through the lists of do’s and don’ts brought about by the diversity session; you’ll be double checking every 2 minutes that you’re not exhibiting any of the signs of nervousness from the lecturing session). What they don’t tell you is that teaching is a personal thing and you need to try a few things until you figure out what your style is. What works for one person may not work for you and there is no shame in that. You just have to keep making small changes until you find what works. And it should be fairly obvious when you’ve found it. You’ll be bombarded with all of these possibilities such as flipping lectures, making screencasts, interactive voting systems, pre-laboratory exercises, pre-lecture materials, audio feedback, electronic marking, electronic submission and many many more. You have to wade through it all and find out what works for you and your course (and your colleagues).
2. Deadlines are sacred. There is a reason that student work is generally capped should it come in late: we need to teach our students to respect deadlines. The same goes for any deadline you are ever given by your administrator, programme director, head of school…anyone involved in the day-to-day running of teaching in your department. Consider that your grant application would be rejected were it 5 minutes too late, well also consider that teaching deadlines exist because someone needs the stuff done by that time for a reason. You may not be privy to the reason but just get it done.
3. Respect teaching. Yes, we know, you were hired for your research skills and teaching is the inconvenient thing that takes you away from that important research. With a handful of exceptions, teaching undergraduates is the core business of universities, without which they would close and you would be unemployed. Teaching must sit alongside research and both must be respected. Teaching preparation has a rather annoying habit of expanding to fill all available time, but sufficient time should be allocated to ensure that it is done properly. Use the deadlines to help structure things, make a timetable, keep it in its allocated time slot if you must but show it due care and attention.
4. Get it right or refer on. You’ll probably be giving advice to students in some kind of pastoral role. If you do not know the answer, find someone who does and send the student to them. If you give bad advice, you will put someone’s degree in jeopardy. There is no harm in looking things up on the university website while talking to a student (and admittedly students are not always particularly proactive at finding out for themselves). The student may also have found the information but need it translating into what it actually means for them and their situation. You are not expected to be the source of all knowledge, but you are expected to take student concerns seriously and point them in the right direction. And you are expected to do that in a timely manner (which doesn’t mean obsessively checking email throughout the weekends and vacations just incase someone’s having a crisis: out of office settings exist for a reason). There is also no shame in having to send an email to a student saying you gave out some inaccurate information and correcting it. There is shame in someone else having to send out that email on your behalf. Honesty goes along way.
5. Use your leave. While there are normally some constraints on when you can take annual leave (don’t expect people to rearrange a timetable for your annual trip to Brighton, particularly on very short notice), do plan to take it all. You should check if it is OK to take it during semester time. Annual leave might best be translated as those weeks of the year when you are free from the tyranny of your inbox and callers at your office door. Those weeks should be treasured. I genuinely don’t care what you use them for but do use them. But be considerate with it, if you’re going to be off for the two weeks right before the start of term, make very sure you are organised and that people have everything they need from you before you go. If you are going to be away during semester, be ready to incur the wrath of, well, most of your colleagues, if you miss deadlines or don’t arrange things properly.
Setup at the RAF Museum, Cosford. October 2013
Last week, in the midst of the annual battle with Freshers lurgy (it was a cold, not flu this year), we headed of to the RAF Museum at Cosford for a science day for Home schooled children. It isn’t always easy to get out for a day during semester but we managed to keep the timetables clear for the event.
As with our last trip to Cosford (back in June for a Chemistry at Work Day), we took our catalysis experiment. The simplest description of this is the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide using various substances to catalyse the reaction. At the most basic level it’s all about foam wooshing up tubes, producing heat and steam. At the most advanced level, it gives us a good starting point to talk about research at Keele on catalysts. The event last week was a very wide age range from fairly young children through teenagers, parents and accompanying adults and other visitors to the museum/helpers for the event. It is quite difficult to find an outreach activity that scales satisfyingly through that range, but now that we’ve had a fair bit of practice, I’m happy that this one does. It is a little more in depth than the standard Elephant’s toothpaste experiment and we compare yeast, solid and solution potassium iodide as the catalysts. The kit was partly funded by the I’m A Scientist prize money I won a couple of years ago.
There are few more spectacular locations to do science outreach in than the Cold War hanger at the museum.