Making Science Interesting
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Keeps the Lab Running
Illustration Copyright (c) New Scientist - Dec 2008
Illustration Copyright (c) New Scientist - Dec 2008
If you have a few moments during your 12 days of Christmas, you might like a new article by Michael Brooks, author of the book "13 Things that Don't Make Sense" in the December 2008 issue of the New Scientist (article is free to read). He essentially makes the case that has been echoed continually in this blog: scientists and technologists must find new ways to make science interesting to the general public who ultimately pays the bills to fund science in its various forms. As Brooks states :
Most lay people find it hard to accept that their taxes are used for research in which no one but the scientists involved can judge or even appreciate progress and merit. Of course, many or perhaps most scientists would find it unthinkable to let the public choose the research agenda. But that suggests people are not qualified to judge how their money should be spent."
I tend to differ with Brooks' on his last comment. Letting the public increasingly decide the larger course of science funding, when 90% of the voting public doesn't even realize what science is anymore when they don't bother to stay educated on various subjects. Without such education, I"m afraid people will tend to vote for "science by virtual reality" instead of "science by reality." "Eye candy" as the saying goes, is hard to beat when compared to the discipline and patience of many years in a well funded lab that real science often takes to see science issues through to completion. Though it has its merits in many technology areas and serves as a means to educate, "science by virtual reality" can be deceptively easy trap to fall into if not careful to make sure that nature also agrees.
I've often wondered why it is that major media outlets can't mix more science content into their broadcasts and media publications to counter this trend. Even a few seconds worth. Afterall, is it too much to use a science buzzword when describing an antic of a hollywood movie star or to slip in a famous pertinent science quotation into a made for cable movie or TV show for adults or children to think about? I do see positive trends, but is it too politically incorrect to drop a short criticism of a special effect when the physics behind it seems totally implausible? I think if many writers, producers and critics made that effort, many movies and TV shows the public are drawn to for special effects might also paradoxically educate voters on science and funding issues along with it. Who knows? Maybe unanticipated debates might even be started where none existed before.
I'll also toss out this criticism to payed science journals, who all too often keep great articles on breakthroughs "off-line" and non accessible to a broader reading audience. Is it too much to ask to re-evaluate how you go about providing the right mix of 'on-line' and 'payed" content if a science story has significance that the general public should care much more about? I'de much prefer to see 20% of a story abstracted on-line rather than only 5% in some instances. That 20% might help better educate media professionals and writers who can't afford a full subscription price, while helping to educate public opinion on important issues.
Overall, I'm glad to see Brooks raising awareness on this subject of better science visibility.
The JukeBox
All Eyes Are on IEEE: - IEEE (The Institute)
Toshiba to Build New Battery Factory - SF Gate
Beatles Violinist Cries For Help - Bloomberg
Most lay people find it hard to accept that their taxes are used for research in which no one but the scientists involved can judge or even appreciate progress and merit. Of course, many or perhaps most scientists would find it unthinkable to let the public choose the research agenda. But that suggests people are not qualified to judge how their money should be spent."
I tend to differ with Brooks' on his last comment. Letting the public increasingly decide the larger course of science funding, when 90% of the voting public doesn't even realize what science is anymore when they don't bother to stay educated on various subjects. Without such education, I"m afraid people will tend to vote for "science by virtual reality" instead of "science by reality." "Eye candy" as the saying goes, is hard to beat when compared to the discipline and patience of many years in a well funded lab that real science often takes to see science issues through to completion. Though it has its merits in many technology areas and serves as a means to educate, "science by virtual reality" can be deceptively easy trap to fall into if not careful to make sure that nature also agrees.
I've often wondered why it is that major media outlets can't mix more science content into their broadcasts and media publications to counter this trend. Even a few seconds worth. Afterall, is it too much to use a science buzzword when describing an antic of a hollywood movie star or to slip in a famous pertinent science quotation into a made for cable movie or TV show for adults or children to think about? I do see positive trends, but is it too politically incorrect to drop a short criticism of a special effect when the physics behind it seems totally implausible? I think if many writers, producers and critics made that effort, many movies and TV shows the public are drawn to for special effects might also paradoxically educate voters on science and funding issues along with it. Who knows? Maybe unanticipated debates might even be started where none existed before.
I'll also toss out this criticism to payed science journals, who all too often keep great articles on breakthroughs "off-line" and non accessible to a broader reading audience. Is it too much to ask to re-evaluate how you go about providing the right mix of 'on-line' and 'payed" content if a science story has significance that the general public should care much more about? I'de much prefer to see 20% of a story abstracted on-line rather than only 5% in some instances. That 20% might help better educate media professionals and writers who can't afford a full subscription price, while helping to educate public opinion on important issues.
Overall, I'm glad to see Brooks raising awareness on this subject of better science visibility.
The JukeBox
All Eyes Are on IEEE: - IEEE (The Institute)
Toshiba to Build New Battery Factory - SF Gate
Beatles Violinist Cries For Help - Bloomberg
Labels: Adult Education, Education, Media, Movies, Music, Public Service, Soliciting Ideas, Trends
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, December 23, 2008 at 2:17 PM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Optimism is the best medicine ..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7785564.stm
Gaby,
I see that you also like indexing links as much as I do. The only caution I would add is to watch any links to 'spam sites' or I'll delete them (i.e, your name when I clicked on it took me to such a site ! it appears) Tis tis ..
Some intersting scientists to say the least on your Knol. I'm a bit more conservative in my science reading, but I try to keep an open mind about things.
Your Knol is much like a Wiki concept, but the word Knol has an interesting ring to it. Keep it going..
- JC
This message is for Gaby,
I deleted your post comment after I clicked on a few links and read some seemingly odd stuff.
Let me just say that on your site you had quite a few links to ideas that I just don't agree with (i.e, some advocated the overthrow of the US government !, etc etc). I don't endorse that view. Even though I'm trying to encourage more community participation with a wide variety of viewpoints. That's a bit too much for me ethically..
My apologies. If you would like to repost, with something a bit more tame that would be perfectly fine. Thanks for your other comments, much appreciated. And I did like reading about some of the scientists listed that you had collected through alot of hard work on yout Knol.
-JC
» Post a Comment