Thursday 23 February
Freelance science communicator
Scope, Network 10
Co-founder and Creative Director
Lecturer in Science Communication, Master's Programme Coordinator
Australian National University
Announcing once bribery is no longer possible.
Affirmative Team (that celebrities SHOULD promote scientific outcomes)
Negative Team (that celebrities should NOT promote scientific outcomes)
In 2012, Pepsi paid Beyoncé more than $50 million to endorse their product. Betty White from the Golden Girls was paid millions to eat a snickers bar during the Super Bowl in 2010, but Tiger Woods wins the day with Nike paying him a whopping $100 million to promote their products. In fact, it is estimated that about $50 billion has been invested globally on celebrity endorsements.
Why you ask? Because a celebrity endorsement can be priceless, well according to public relations, but what about according to public health, the environment, and for the good of the society?
What if celebrities got paid to promote ‘scientific outcomes’ instead of ‘consumable products’? What if Justin Bieber was paid to endorse the latest flu vaccine instead of his latest fragrance? What a different place the world would be – good or bad?
Welcome to the great ASC debate, and enjoy a session of fun, laughter, comedy and of course science with a very well-known team of debaters from all corners of the ‘celebrity’ and science spectrum.
** The first Great ASC Debate was held at the 20th anniversary conference ASC2014. **