Our Public Engagement Award acknowledges and rewards immunologists who show a strong commitment to engaging with the public about immunology and have carried out exceptional outreach work to inform, enthuse and engage the public. This year, it has been awarded to Dr Jessica Teeling – Professor of Experimental Neuroimmunology at the University of Southampton.
With the phrase ‘prevention is better than cure’ in mind, Jessica and her team applied for a BSI Communication and Engagement Grant from the British Society for Immunology to generate a giant ‘snakes and ladders’ game, where players learn about lifestyle choices that prevent (ladder) or increase (snake) the risk of dementia, with a particular focus on the role of the immune system in this process.
We spoke to Jessica about the substantial impact she has made on the perception of dementia and its risk factors, the challenges and opportunities in public engagement and what this award means to her.
Congratulations again on winning the BSI Public Engagement Award! What did it mean to you to win this award?
That’s a lovely question, because it meant a lot. Public engagement often feels like a solo effort, but this project was very much a team endeavour. Winning an award for something so personal and potentially impactful (dementia and brain health) was such an honour. We’ve had genuinely meaningful conversations with people outside of academia, which has been incredibly rewarding. It also brought together a really diverse group, including clinicians, nurses, students and researchers. So, to have all that collaborative effort recognised, and to receive overwhelmingly positive feedback from both the public and colleagues, felt like a real validation of all the hard work we’ve put in.
What inspired this project and how did the idea first come about?
We’d been involved in public engagement for a while through the BSI Wessex Immunology Group, taking part in science festivals and local outreach. Then I came across a landmark paper showing that 45% of dementia risk is linked to modifiable lifestyle factors. Given our research into dementia and inflammation, that really stood out to me. I thought, this is all connected to the immune system. It felt like a great opportunity to raise awareness about that link, and gamification seemed like a fun and effective way to start those conversations.
How did the game help you engage people in conversations about brain health?
We wanted to share important information without sounding condescending or overwhelming. With the game, people land on a snake or ladder and reflect on what that means for them, in their own time. It opens up the conversation naturally. We don’t just talk about risk factors either; about half of the messages are positive, highlighting protective behaviours. That really seems to resonate, and people are often proud to say, “Oh, I do that!”
Originally, it was called Snakes and Ladders for Dementia, but based on feedback, we renamed it Snakes and Letters for a Healthy Brain. It’s more positive and inclusive, and the tips apply to overall health too. We even avoided using the word ‘dementia’ on the game board itself to keep it flexible for wider use.
It’s easy to think of dementia as only affecting older people, but your game seems to engage a wide range of age groups. Was that something you planned for?
I’m really glad you asked, because thinking about your audience is key to having an impact. We initially aimed the game at people in mid-life, when brain health starts to feel more relevant. But at early events, we saw that it appealed to all ages. Young kids just enjoy playing, and while they do, we’re able to chat with their parents. We’ve had 10-year-olds who were genuinely curious about brain health, and the game helped start great conversations.
Older participants were sometimes hesitant at first, thinking it was too late to make a difference. But after playing, many were surprised to learn there are things they can still do to protect brain health, which made the experience meaningful for them too.
What were some of the biggest challenges you faced, and how did you overcome them?
Time has definitely been one of the biggest challenges – public engagement is incredibly rewarding, but it does take a lot of time. In the first year, we said yes to every opportunity, which helped build momentum. But to keep it going, we built up a pool of volunteers (mostly PhD students) to share the load.
Measuring impact has also been tricky. We created a digital version of the game to track participation, and one simple but effective tool was a colour-coded lever asking people to rate their perceived dementia risk before and after playing. About 80% of participants changed their perception, often realising they were doing better than they thought.
Reaching people with dementia and their carers was another challenge. Some felt it was too late for them. But by working closely with community support groups and adapting the game for smaller, more personal settings, we’ve found more inclusive ways to engage.
Is there a particular interaction or moment that felt especially rewarding during this engagement work?
One moment that really stood out was at a crowdfunding event, where I spoke with a woman from an Asian background about her father’s stroke and later dementia. She’d never realised there were modifiable risk factors. Her son later told me she had never asked a question about anything like this before, but now she felt confident and curious. That was incredibly rewarding!
We also had some great media coverage, including a BBC radio piece and a local TV segment. One interview took place while playing the game, which turned out to be a brilliant way to get the message across naturally and meaningfully.
What advice would you give to other immunologists who want to get started with public engagement?
Just give it a go. Start small – maybe try out an idea at a local event, a departmental open day, or a university science festival. You don’t need to begin with something huge. You can also try and work with someone with similar interests to help share the workload.
Then apply for funding, especially through the BSI. Even a small budget can help you create props or 3D materials that really bring your message to life. The BSI application process itself is also useful, as it gets you thinking about your audience, your aims, and how to evaluate your activity. It’s a great way to start planning your project.
At our university, we even include outreach in a master’s module, helping students build confidence by linking engagement with their research. If you’ve got an idea, develop it and try it out – it’s worth it!
How has the BSI supported your work in public engagement?
The initial BSI grant to develop our 3×3 metre game board was what got everything started. But the support went far beyond funding. Every time we shared something on social media, the BSI helped amplify it, and you even featured the project in Immunology News, which was a great way to reach other immunologists.
We also had the chance to showcase our work at the BSI Congress, and even the small things, like prizes and giveaways, really helped. Overall, the encouragement and positivity from the BSI made a huge difference. We couldn’t have done it without you!