Scientists are these mythical creatures that live somewhere between the clouds and the stratosphere. Their working habits include using lab gowns, pocket protectors and calculators. Many of them (some would say most) are unkempt and dress poorly, except the ones that don’t. The scientists speak their own language, which is filled with long words and an adherence to strict meanings for words. When trying to communicate to the rest of the people, they describe their work in overly complicated technical terms. This inspires fear, which is exacerbated by the natural fear of the unknown. The typical stereotype of scientists is that of a mad scientist. This is apparent in movies and television dramas. Mostly, it shows scientists as being unconcerned with the day to day stuff that makes most of humanity tick. Most importantly, the attitude that is portrayed is one of arrogance. Scientists are described as condescending `know it all’ SOB’s who can’t bother to explain their work to people that don’t understand it.
At least in recent years it seems that some kinds of science are getting more respect (forensic science for example), and one can find random clippings on the web on how that has affected the real life work of the individuals who practice it. The reality is closer to an non-scientific community.
So now we enter the theme of the day. How can we overcome the above hurdle for communicating science to the public?
Well, If I may say so, we ‘exaggerate a little bit’ and try to draw a comparison with every day stuff that is not quite technically correct, but that at least provides some warm fuzzy feelings in the public towards scientists. We do this propaganda to counter the ‘scientists want to destroy the world’ anti-propaganda that makes many technical advancements seem both scary and bad. So we have a PR issue here.
So now, for the humor part of the post, I have a few suggestions on how to sell this thing called science to the masses, so that they see us as a more friendly beast than a dragon. For today, I will just focus on what is scientific work like? People might not be interested in the details of the research, but they are definitely interested in some vague notion that is accessible of ‘how we conduct our daily lives, in particular with regards to research’. These are some slogans that you might find useful, with an ‘explanation’ of the analogy in case you need to elaborate.
Scientific research is like being a gardener.
Lemme explain this. You meet with people, you plant ideas in their head, you cross-pollinate to generate new ideas. You wait until they grow, and eventually they might even bear fruit. Sometimes you need machines to make this happen, and a green house (controlled environment). Of course, you have to watch out for weeds that take over a garden. Vigilance is the key. Once you get a good batch, you might just want to make sure that you can get it again if you need to. So you repeat until the crops are stable and then you go to the market with your produce.
Scientific research is like fishing.
You have to imagine that each scientist has their own set of fishing equipment, hooks and worms, and their favorite spot to fish. When scientists get together they exchange pictures of their recent catch, as well as the location of the spot where it was found. If the catch seems good, a lot of other scientists flock to the same site and start fishing the `good spot’ with their different fishing gear. They might exchange some of that with each other until they find the best hooks and worms for the spot. And of course, fishing sometimes requires a lot of patience, and a relaxing chair to enjoy the day with some reading material. Not surprisingly, most of the fish that are found are small fish, but people still have a good time. And if you have enough small fish, you might have a larger catch than just one big fish.
Scientific discovery is like grazing in a pasture.
Scientists are like cows (spherical cows indeed). They graze in packs. As soon as a good pasture is found, you have a stampede of scientists flocking to the site. All the easy tall grass gets eaten up quickly and the herd moves on. There are some stragglers that eat the leftovers behind. And the hard grass to chew is many times left behind for a new generation that has a better set of teeth to chew it with. Of course, these are scientific cows, so the new teeth might be these ultra strong dentures made of titanium and coated with diamond dust…. but I digress. I’m sure that by now you get the analogy.
Scientific research is like playing video games.
Well, every time a new ‘level’ gets finished, ten new levels sprout up. In the meantime, you get your buddies and tell them how to finish the level so that they can help you conquer the next ones. Also, just like in video games, a lot of ideas on how to complete a level end up with a ‘dead character’ and RESTART: new life. Until somebody figures it out, or they find that the level was programed to be impossible (a little hacking might be required).
Finally,
Scientific research is like surfing.
You never know when the next big wave is going to hit and you might miss it because you’re looking in the wrong direction.
I can’t explain the things we do to even my family and close relatives. So i’ve given up trying to explain it to laymen, unless its to impress some wide eye member of the opposite sex (in which case embellishment is the name of the game).
I just don’t have the gift that people like Brian Greene have in explaining things simply to people ignorant not just of Y2k science, but more or less of science as done even in the 1800s. Seriously, what hope is there to explain hundreds of lectures into a 5 minute discourse detailing not just what I do, but the state of the field, why such and such a problem is important, what its like to work in the field and what my average day consists off.
Even worse, when you get someone who actually ‘disagrees’ or says ‘that doesn’t make any sense’ when explaining relativity or quantum mechanics. The bumbling explanation of why they’re wrong, of course tends to make the problem even more confusing to them. In short, an exercise in futility.
I personally believe that the situation won’t ever change, despite hundreds of attempts over decades to try to figure out a way to educate the masses.
I wish I knew how to solve THAT problem. Instead, I write a blog, hoping someone will give me a tip on how to do it 🙂
Yeah, communicating things to the public is difficult. I think one problem is many people aren’t interested in science, no matter how well it is explained.
I have seen some studies (sorry I don’t have links) that seem to suggest there are things just that require the same mentality needed to understand science yet most people learn these thing quickly, largely because they are interested in the subjects.
Or we will take me. I understand things in physics that make people amazed but I don’t think I am that smart, only interested enough to work hard.
Now, there is more to it then this, but I think we have to fight the battle of people not being interested in science.
There are some stragglers that eat the leftovers behind. And the hard grass to chew is many times left behind for a new generation that has a better set of teeth to chew it with.
No, you should stick with the cow analogy, which fits. That stuff is first digested into some sort of degraded bolus in the first pass. Then it is regurgitated and chewed as cud for some time before finally being re-digested.
We do like to ruminate on ideas. 👿
If you permit me, I think it would be better not to use terms like “masses”. There are no “masses”. This a manufactured, derogatory term designed to impersonalise and dehumanise the society of people in order to manipulate it easily. The society of people by definition is a voluntary union of free individuals.
Hi Giotis:
Please don’t take these posts so seriously. The language is many times tongue in cheek. I’m obviously making more fun of us ‘the scientists’ than them ‘the non-scientists’. Bending over backwards to be politically correct to prevent a relatively unlikely feeling of being somewhat slighted by some people just dilutes the quality of conversations and interactions. I’m not trying to sound insensitive, but the whole post is a caricature and it should be taken as such. I’m playing the part of the scientist ‘unconcerned for the day to day lives of those other individuals called homo sapiens’
Understood. I didn’t realize that you were writing in such mood. In that case I realize that I was exaggerative.
Since this is now becoming a discussion about the “alleged” aloofness of scientists (and by extension engineers) I thought this would be appropriate
I’m becoming less defined as days go by
Fading away
And well you might say
I’m losing focus
Kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself
Sometimes I think I can see right through myself [x2]
Sometimes I can see right through myself
Less concerned about fitting into the world
Your world that is
Cause it doesn’t really matter anymore
(no it doesn’t really matter anymore)
No it doesn’t really matter anymore
None of this really matters anymore
Yes I am alone but then again I always was
As far back as I can tell
I think maybe it’s because
Because you were never really real to begin with
I just made you up to hurt myself
[x2]
I just made you up to hurt myself, yeah
And I just made you up to hurt myself
And it worked.
Yes it did!
[Chorus:]
There is no you
There is only me
There is no you
There is only me
There is no f*cking you
There is only me
There is no f*cking you
There is only me
Only [x4]
Well the tiniest little dot caught my eye and it turned out to be a scab
And I had this funny feeling like I just knew it’s something bad
I just couldn’t leave it alone, I kept picking at the scab
It was a doorway trying to seal itself shut
But I climbed through
Now I am somewhere I am not supposed to be, and I can see things I know I really shouldn’t see
And now I know why, now, now, now I know why
Things aren’t as pretty
On the inside
I haven’t really read the post (or comments) in detail, but figured it worthwhile to mention Richard Feynman’s speech “What is Science?”
http://www.fotuva.org/online/frameload.htm?/online/science.htm
during which, in an attempt to define science, he tells this short story:
Between that, and the history of interesting discoveries (like our understanding of light, the solar system, evolution, the atom, etc.), and also bizarre facts, (trees are made primarily of air! we live on all sides of a big ball! every human, animal, and plant has a common ancestor! and so on), I find it relatively easy to get people interested and thinking differently about science. Though I’m not entirely sure how to initiate such conversations, often they spring up naturally when people want to know more, not sure how to force it upon people though…