I want to write about a concept that I first heard described by Chris Mooney during an NSF workshop on how we, as scientists, should "become messengers" of knowledge for the general public. Specifically, we was calling for us to become "Deadly Ninjas of Scientific Communication." He has also written about the topic here. His concept, and the concept of the entire workshop, is that scientists 1) are not great about communicating their to the general public and that 2) this lack of communication leads to misunderstandings, misgivings, and confusions about data interpretation and the value of science research.
It's not that we need to become self-promoting, self-centered blowhards. Nor do we need to follow Mooney's lead and become science journalists. We simply need to convey our passion about what we do. Not in an over-the-top kind of way, but more matter-of-factly. In the elevator. At the grocery store. On the soccer field, talking to other parents. Science and research should not be mysterious - it needs to be attainable and concrete for people to understand the importance these activities have to their everyday life.
Through these "sneak attacks" of information we disseminate a message that I feel has been lost. Science is awesome and can help us understand the world around us. I hate the fact that our society puts someone's ability to sing or play a sport above their ability to think critically and be rational. For that, to me, is the essence of being a scientist. And the reason that anyone can be scientific.
We need to stop hiding in the ivory tower and realize that we need to get people motivated about research of all kinds. Pound the pavement and drum up support for science. R&D has and will continue to drive most advances in our lives. Technology, medicine, and our economy have been shaped by the work of scientists.
And I think we should be rockstars for our efforts.
But in the meantime, I will satisfy myself with sharing my story. Of what I do and why I do it. Sharing what got me interested in science in the first place. Getting people interested in science, making science accessible. Hoping that I can inspire the next generation to list "scientist" along with football player, fireman, and police officer when they describe what they want to do when they grow up.
Can I get an Amen?
hye any chance you want to join the blog fest on how to do and have it "all" for IWD? Thought it would be fabulous to have some men participate!
ReplyDeleteI'd be honored to participate! Thank you for asking!
DeleteWhile I'm not convinced that I truly have figured out how to have it all, I think that's actually the entire point of IWD. To realize that no one is perfect, that everyone is striving for the right balance, and to join together as a community.
Very, very cool. Thank you for posting this!
ReplyDeleteBtw, have you seen the tees that say "Science Teacher by Day, Ninja By Night"? I got one for Husband for Christmas... :D
I haven't seen those, but i may have to buy a couple...
Delete"I hate the fact that our society puts someone's ability to sing or play a sport above their ability to think critically and be rational. For that, to me, is the essence of being a scientist. And the reason that anyone can be scientific."
ReplyDeleteI think this is because it's much easier for the public to "understand" music and sports than science. I'd say we scientists are partially responsible for this - yes society could be less lazy and try and understand science more, but it's also up to us scientists to make our work accessible to the lay person. There are lots of brilliant people out there who cannot explain why their research is relevant, clearly in layperson terms, to save their life.
One of the things that was brought up is having an "elevator speech" ready. Although I didn't totally by into the idea of having a 30 second speech ready, I now think it really makes you focus on what is important about your work. I've also noticed that people who introduce themselves well tend to move faster in their careers....
DeleteThat's not to say that our goal should be to schmooze - it's just that it's a great indicator of how well you communicate. You'd be amazed at how many conversations you can get into about science once you have the technique down.
I think there are limits to how much an elevator speech can do to convince a layperson that a given scientist does worthwhile work. For instance, there are many aspects of basic research that, even if you explain them well to a layperson, he/she wouldn't necessarily understand why it's something their tax dollars should fund. A lot of basic science does not have an immediate application to an average person's life, but that doesn't meant that it shouldn't be funded, because there is worth in enhancing human knowledge per se, and secondly you never know when and which things are going to find real-world applications. So expecting a layperson to find a specific topic of, say, a grant proposal relevant, is ill-advised.
DeleteHaving said that, I do agree that we should make an effort to bring the broader contexts of our research to larger audiences. But I think it generally needs to be done at the very high (overview) level, typically much higher than even the research opus of a research group, more like the topic of whole subfields.
@GMP - I think the elevator speech really only works as an icebreaker to introduce topics. I only go into more detail if people are interested (oddly, not everyone wants to hear about my fancy way of data collection...).
DeleteBy design you are limited the big picture (improving crop yields, curing disease, creating new ways to think/look at art, etc...). If we can convey those big picture ideas (and have them set in our own minds), then we are doing great.
Think of Neil deGrasse Tyson - I'm not particularly interested in astrophysics, but he makes it interesting and compelling by sticking to the big picture.