Pharyngula::Who's helping to bring science to the people?

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Who's helping to bring science to the people?

PZ Myers • 41 Comments (last page)

I've put a complete copy of a letter published in Nature this week by Pablo Jensen, on the outreach activities of French scientists, below the fold. The key point is that most don't do anything.

Preliminary data on activities carried out by the 10,403 CNRS scientists, from July 2003 to June 2004, show that three-quarters of them did not get involved in any popularization, or public-outreach, activity during the year — taking this to mean writing a book or presenting a popular-science lecture or poster.

That's actually a generous estimate as far as I'm concerned, since the letter says that social sciences do a better job of popularizing their work (41% are out there making the case for their research) than physicists, chemists, and biologists (17%).

I find this distressing. This is one of our problems, I think; just as science training doesn't involve any instruction in how to teach, we also learn nothing about how to talk to the general public. We know very well how to buzz among our peers in the ivory tower insula, but put us on the street and we're mostly a gang of off-putting fumble-tongued nerds.

Here's the letter:

Your Commentary article "Weapon of mass attraction" (Nature 433, 357−358; 2005) highlighted poor participation by US scientists in public-outreach activities.

It may be interesting to look at the situation in France, where the reform of the national research agency, the CNRS, has led to the creation of a working group on the popularization of science, which I lead.

Preliminary data on activities carried out by the 10,403 CNRS scientists, from July 2003 to June 2004, show that three-quarters of them did not get involved in any popularization, or public-outreach, activity during the year — taking this to mean writing a book or presenting a popular-science lecture or poster.

A closer look at the data reveals that efforts are unequally distributed: the most active 10% of scientists account for 70% of all public-outreach activity and the top 5% account for half.

A fit of the histogram of the number of activities per scientist produced a more precise picture. We discovered that a single Poisson distribution cannot fit all the data. This confirms that scientists do not constitute a homogeneous population.

The best fit we found requires three different Poisson distributions, which can be interpreted as three different sub-populations: the 'silent majority' (76% of scientists, who do hardly anything); the 'open minority' (21%, who carry out some activity once or twice a year); and the 'semi-professional popularizers' (3% of scientists who carry out activities on average six times a year). Researchers in this active minority dedicate a significant fraction of their research time to the public, accounting for a third of all activities in bringing science to the people.

Policies aimed at getting scientists more involved in public outreach should perhaps be tailored to the three sub-populations we found. For example, those who do not yet carry out any public-outreach activities have to be convinced of the importance of doing so. The decline in student numbers seems to have persuaded more physicists to get involved in the World Year of Physics. The 'open minority' might be encouraged by access to simple tools for efficient public outreach, while the 'semi-professional popularizers' may have concerns about institutional rewards.

Contrary to expectations, our data suggest that age is not significant. We find that the average number of public-outreach activities is broadly constant with age, increasing moderately as scientists get older, from 0.45 activities a year for those aged 31−35, to 0.7 a year at 56−60.

Our data also reveal variation among fields: the proportion of scientists carrying out public-outreach activities varies from 17% for general physics, chemistry and biology, to 30% for astrophysics and 41% for social sciences.

Interestingly, while the mean number of activities per scientist varies considerably from field to field (from 1.2 for social sciences to 0.3 for general physics, chemistry and biology), the productivity of active scientists is constant across all fields (close to 2.5 actions a year).

Finally, our data reveal that speaking at conferences on popular science is the most common activity (25%), followed by writing newspaper articles (23%) and giving radio or television presentations (17%).

Again, there are variations across different disciplines. For example, much higher numbers of social scientists appear on radio or television (61%). So any researcher willing to pursue television might be able to learn something from their colleagues in the humanities.

Jensen P (2005) Who's helping to bring science to the people? Nature 434:956.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2199/GgtPUYtV/

Comments:

#22584: — 04/21 at 08:44 AM
I can just imagine the reactions of 83% of general physicists, chemists, and biologists: "I already have to scramble for grant money every year, now I have to go talk to the public too?!"

This is really interesting, though. When I was in college I don't think any of the professors or other students ever mentioned this. I don't think it occurred to anyone that public relations might be important to scientists.

#22585: — 04/21 at 08:46 AM
There can be a snobbish attitude among scientists towards those who become popularizers. Carl Sagan was oftimes treated condescendingly by some of his peers, although it should be noted that Steve Gould was not looked down on because of his public fame nearly as much. Not that it troubled Sagan, but I think that sort of thing does dissuade some scientists who might venture into the public spotlight.

#22586: — 04/21 at 08:59 AM

This is one of our problems, I think; just as science training doesn't involve any instruction in how to teach, we also learn nothing about how to talk to the general public."

No shit. Actually, this is one of the key issues in the fight against creationism, and it's one which I think scientists have trouble grasping.

It's that 'science is just just as much based on faith as bollocks' issue; the assumption is that if only you go and do the homework eveything will become clear. For many people, that's true.

But some of us are simple-minded folk. We have little grasp of mathematics (not merely through lack of education but through lack of the mental acuity) ands as such are ill-equipped to deal with science of any level. That means we cannot examine any theory, any test of a theory, even any scientific research for ourselves; we have to rely on others - such as your good self PZ - to explain why Behe et all are full of crap (pseudoscience looks much the same as science to the brain with no math, you know). And frankly, scientists don't tend to be much good at explaining things to mathematically-limited folk (unlike Behe et al, whose helpful mousetraps and so on are, if nothing else, easy to grasp).

That means accepting someone else on trust. So while it's rubbish for creationists to assert that science is based on faith there's a shred of truth in it - since they are often mathematically weak thinkers themselves, for them to 'convert' to science reall would take a leap of faith.

#22588: — 04/21 at 09:08 AM
Outeast: Precisely the point I've been worrying about for a while. I think science IS a matter of faith for some people. That disturbs me.

My ideal career is to BE this kind of person. I wanna be Bill Nye.

But it bothers me to think that a good portion of my "audience" would be watching for the cool blinking lights and exploding chemicals and not experiencing the joy of discovery and understanding, not grasping the things that underly the flashy fun surface of science, let alon how important those things are and how exciting they can be in and of themselves.

#22589: Cameron — 04/21 at 09:13 AM
This article reminds me of the editorial in last weeks Science about biodiversity. An important issue, but how many non-scientists are going to read it? It should have been put in a full page spread in a national newspaper to reach the audience that needs to hear it (expensive, I know). If scientists want to reach out, they need to do so in places other than technical journals. Many thanks to Dr. Myers for bringing science to the people.

#22591: Ron Sullivan — 04/21 at 09:47 AM
This is analogous to the "bedside manner" problem among physicians. Classes in bedside manner (and manners!)/patient relations are a novelty in med school, and still seen as frosting, as far as I know. But the matter is being perceived as more urgent since it's become more common to link "patient relations" to the likelihood of being sued for malpractice. The whole thing gets a bit more focused for physicians as their work is generally one-on-one, they do get sued directly, and the urgency is easier to see.

Money matters and crowded schedules make MDs' PR problems worse, of course, just like other scientists'. And there's a matter of perception, one I'm seeing right in this reply chain: MDs, scientists, sometimes academics in general get seen as somehow inherently different from other people, versed in inapproachable Mysteries that others simply can never comprehend.

MDs and scientists in general sometimes contribute to this by their perfectly understandable impatience with answering reiterated "simple" (i.e. basic) questions when they're already pressed for time. And of course some people just aren't good at conversation, or teaching.

I do a certain amount of flogging "Citizen Science" (and so does my husband, Joe Eaton) in writing about field studies, Christmas bird counts, seed exchanges, landraces of crops, home gardening, amateur plant breeding, stuff like that. I see that as one way in, letting readers know a/ that they're doing science and b/ that it's essentially democratic -- anyone can do it, even if not everyone can know every subject. I think encouraging people to get at least hip-deep in whatever their favorite thing is, in both giving them tools to refine what they do and know and making it plain that they're doing science already -- correlating the everyday with the esoteric, as much as possible -- helps in making science clearer.

Clarifying science does a lot to undercut the tactics that make mumbojumbo equivalent to in-house (and often necessary) jargons; that make it possible for, say, the Templeton Foundation to give a bazillion bucks to someone who manages to correlate theological handwaving with physics esoterica. I mean, if it all sounds the same...

Aside from setting how-to-communicate instructions (including writing courses!) into the main science curriculum early and making a refresher lecture part of every semester -- and part of this would be a demonstration of why it's to a scientist's advantage to be accessible -- this old nurse prescribes patience. I have to remind myself repeatedly that just the stuff I know about tree physiology, wildlife, soils, and such is not common knowledge, even if it ought to be. If you know it, it's your duty to spread it.

You never know where, either. A couple of months ago I found myself having to formulate a clear, concise, and polite explanation of what "theory" means, in a post to Motherinlawstories.com. I got a reply that suggested that it had a good effect. Can't hurt; might help.

#22593: GrrlScientist — 04/21 at 10:22 AM
All of my attempts at "public outreach" (public speaking, leading field trips for birders, writing "popular" science articles, etc.), were STRONGLY discouraged when I was a grad student. I am still looked down upon by many colleagues and mostly ignored as a scientist for this reason, or so I have been told. I probably should just give up since there is no financial reward for sharing the joy I find in science anyway.

GrrlScientist

#22594: dread pirate roberts — 04/21 at 10:24 AM
isn't it interesting that teaching elementary school requires certification and that the standards include a considerable education in "how to teach," including, one hopes, "how students learn," while teaching at a college or university has no such requirement.

#22595: Alon Levy — 04/21 at 10:28 AM
There are some non-technical journals scientists write for, such as Scientific American, but I am fairly certain most SciAm readers either are scientists or are very interested in science and hence sufficiently informed not to be swayed by pseudoscience.

#22596: PZ Myers — 04/21 at 10:31 AM
Outreach AND teaching were strongly discouraged when I was a grad student -- we were all shuffled onto training grants as quickly as possible, for which I was grateful, but perhaps I missed some important lessons. The idea was that we were supposed to get to work in the lab fulltime as quickly as possible.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#22598: — 04/21 at 10:33 AM

isn't it interesting that teaching elementary school requires certification and that the standards include a considerable education in "how to teach,"

There's still a problem here, in that at the K-12 level, you must be certified to teach, but you don't need to have much of a science background.

So at one extreme, we have college instructors who know science but don't know "how to teach", and on the other hand we have K-12 instructors who "know how to teach" but don't know science.

#22604: — 04/21 at 11:59 AM
In graduate school taking time to be involved in anything that was not lab work was most definately not encouraged. My advisor even had contempt for me taking classes. Getting into the lab and producing "science" is really all that you are evaluated on.

In the world of physics there is some very good evidence that popularizing your work is in your best interest, even in the short term and even if the results are questionable. Look at string theory. It's not even a scientific theory proper (no predictions and unfalsifiable). But a massive public relations (PR) campaign (the Elegant Universe etc...) has made it a necessary part to any well rounded faculty despite having no scientific accomplishments (read testable predictions) in 20 years of work.

To me this is alarming but understandable. If it takes 7+ years to become proficient in a scientific field how can we expect the average person to be able to evaluate it. When people lack the expertise they rely on the honesty of others to tell them what is important. So a well placed PR campaign is really valuable. And its more and more important for scientists to get out there and tell them why studying nature is the most rewarding job you can have (even if it seems to obvious to us).

#22605: — 04/21 at 12:12 PM
"Our data also reveal variation among fields: the proportion of scientists carrying out public-outreach activities varies from 17% for general physics, chemistry and biology, to 30% for astrophysics and 41% for social sciences."

To be fair to the scientists, those figures suggest two things, first, that subjects that people find interesting will create a demand that scientists can fill (hence the high scoring for astrophysicists), and secondly, that some subjects naturally lend themselves more to popularising than others, I might suggest that social sciences are more directly relevant to debates in the public domain.

Personally, I was discouraged from public understanding of science work by doing it. I always had this feeling that I had to oversimplify things and sex them up to appeal to a largely disinterested public, and by seeing that others, who were succesful at it, often distorted and mangled the science in the process of appealing to their audience. Frankly, science is dull and complicated, and while there are messages to convey, and illusions to dispel, it is not necessarily the job of scientists to do it, just as the public don't have to listen.

#22607: — 04/21 at 12:27 PM
Theoretical physics has done more to undermine science than any other single factor. For example, Katzenslungener's Box (the one with the cat, the cyanide and whether there's a cat or not--I never got it, but apparently there might be a dead cat, or there might not). Or "string theory". Is the universe made of string? Take your popular rock song: two or three words are audible and the rest could be anything: the song is about those three words.

Plus, very intelligent people believe amazingly bizarre things. Like astrology. The earth is flat. Phlogiston. There are the "hundred greatest books of the 20th century" and they can be listed in order. They believe this for irrational reasons, and rational reasons, mixed in varying proportions. Can't argue someone out of astrology. They just believe energy that travels between planets etc and influences your life. As: for example, if you go into a room, there's an energy you feel.

PZ Myers has it right, though. Look at the current political scene. The Big Lie proves an astonishingly effective educational method. Or propaganda technique. If I were scientists, I'd get out there with my Big Lie (or Big Truth). Can't fight a theory with "that isn't true." You need a counter theory. Self-pity and impotent rage are don't work. Bush et al don't have much respect for the common folk, but they've got that being snooty doesn't win votes. Scientists might learn that also.

Plus, unless it's changed (maybe it has), Scientific American is for scientists not exactly in the branch of science the article's about--not non-scientists. Scientists might refresh their recollection of what most non-scientists (incl. believers in evolution) do and don't know.

#22608: — 04/21 at 12:34 PM
One of the two main reasons I haven't yet finished my dissertation is that I've been teaching as an adjunct (at least two courses per semester) for the last six years. I love it, it keeps me sane (and drives me crazy much of the time), but as it pays next to nothing, I also work in a genetics lab to keep myself off the streets.

The evil boss at said lab is certainly doing his part to bring bad science to the streets. I fear googling our publications because the "who the fuck is this dumbass?" blog entry to citation ratio is frightening.

#22609: — 04/21 at 12:35 PM

Outreach AND teaching were strongly discouraged when I was a grad student

Of course they weren't. "You're not getting paid for that" would be the typical reason given.

Ironically, though, without doing more of "that", you put your future in jeopardy. After all, if that evil-lution stuff isn't true, then why the heck are we paying people to be evolutionary biologists? If those folks who seem to love digging up "dinosaur" bones love digging so much, there are plenty of ditches that need to be dug.

Maybe that last paragraph is an exaggeration.

Maybe.

#22610: RPM — 04/21 at 12:36 PM
I commonly take it for granted that any researcher that tries to connect with the general public will be viewed as a "sell out."

I would like to communicate my research to a general audience, but the things I study are fairly abstract. On the other hand, there is a lab in my department that studies deep sea biology. They have no problem selling their research to any audience because they can show pretty pictures and talk about submarines. I can put up graphs and schematics and talk about statistical tests. Which talk would you rather hear?

Basically, I think it's an issue of both supply and demand. The difference may be due to more social scientists willing to present to a general audience. We cannot exclude, however, the possibility that the general public doesn't want to hear about physics and chemistry. If your research isn't sexy, no one may show up.

#22615: — 04/21 at 01:06 PM
Anybody can go to a library or bookstore and find dozens, even hundreds of books explaining and popularizing science. So what’s the problem? Every layman with a reasonable education can learn all sorts of things about science.

But if you tell people the unvarnished truth – that Cardinal Ratzinger (and by extension everyone else) is an ape, and that a lot of our behavior can be traced to circuits of reward and punishment that we can find in rats, and that our neurotransmitters and signaling cascades are present in worms – I don’t think you’re going to get a very enthusiastic response. It seems apparent to me that most people don’t want to hear this stuff.

Some people find it supremely elegant that descent with modification can take place without any intelligent plan. A relatively small number of people, I think, will be agreeably mesmerized by the profound realization that intense selection pressures led to the robust brain growth that produced homo sapiens. Most others, it seems to me, will recoil from the corollary thesis that the universe is icily indifferent to humans both as individuals and as a species. Or, they will be unable (or unwilling) to grasp that evolution occurs without intelligent design.

Those reward and punishment circuits, the back and forth social feedback, the signaling cascades and the like might very well be responsible for the giving rise to social structures that include religion. I imagine that if rats developed brains like ours, they’d invent rat gods. It makes me doubt there’ll ever be a day when the majority of people embrace the scientific-materialist outlook. It seems to me that that advance of science is precisely what is producing the religious backlash in the United States.

Just the 2 cents of a non-scientist.

#22618: mattH — 04/21 at 01:42 PM
One way to solve this is to ask your local school district if you can come in to a class and discuss the scientific method. I know that most scientists are pressed for time, but it's well worth it, especially if these students don't come to you later.

Here in Utah, a big part of the state archaeologist's job is public education and outreach. One thing they concentrate on is getting to the kids early, so archaeology has become a large part of the state history requirement in fourth grade, and the state archaeologist himself goes to a class every year. This is something that more scientists should do. Considering that science education starts early, we should make sure that they have a frim grounding about what science is. Perhaps in the context of science fairs.

#22621: — 04/21 at 02:07 PM
I think it's frightening and appalling that professors know less about teaching than the el. ed or sec. ed undergrad students.

While it's important to know the subject matter, as a professor, it would also be important to know how to write a fair exam, how to lecture clearly, and how to interact with students at their level.

#22630: Steve Bates — 04/21 at 03:21 PM
I've been to grad school twice, once in electrical engineering (yeah, I know it's not science) and once in music theory.

In the latter curriculum I was required to take a course called Pedagogy of Music Theory. In that same course of study there was a course available, though not required, on the business aspects of music. And in all the performance courses there was constant emphasis on how one interacts with an audience. In other words, from the get-go, the music faculty assumed that every student would not only perform, but also teach, transact business and interact with the public.

How much of that sort of thing do you imagine my engineering curriculum contained? Right. How much respect do you think engineering graduates got if they involved themselves in public outreach instead of plunging into projects in the "real" world? Right again.

Informing the public is part of the responsibility of every practitioner of any discipline. That includes every scientist. Besides, teaching is a real joy. Well, most of the time it is...

#22640: dp — 04/21 at 03:58 PM
Wow, this blog is all about my job... kind of. I left grad school as an enthusiastic scientist believing that with all our latest scientific knowledge we could change the world.

Then i got a job in the real world and found that people were still fighting over research done 20 years ago.

In environmental/conservation work it is crucial that the latest research gets translated for the general poplace ASAP. I spend all my time figuring out how to get the message out into the public, media, legal and political arenas. As a consequence I find it almost impossible to keep up with the latest research myself. Its a vicious cycle!

There is a lot of animosity towards scientists around (or at least down here in the south pacific). Sometimes in my public talks I find that if I mention that 'scientists have found out...', everybody either switches off or gets hostile. So i usually say 'we know now that...'.

Scientist have a bit of a PR job to do. I recall New Scientist mentioning something along this line a few years ago when it commented that creationists are much better at catching the publics interest beacuse they know how to capture a crowd: hyperbole, wild claims, cliches, colourful metaphors. Scientists on the other hand like to be precise and guarded in any claims. Then when people question them, they get up tight and retreat to 'we just know more than you'. While it may be true, it completely smashes any positive impression you could have given them.

One way I have found to overcome it is by relating the personal element in science. My gravatar up in the top left corner there is a critically endangered flightless parrot which just happens to be incredibly cute. So when I do talks to schools I first tell them cute stories of chasing them through the forest. Then I get into the amazing story about how theoretical evolutionary thinking on sex ratios in a lek breeding system enabled researchers to manipulate the sex ratios of kakapo young in the wild to increase the proportion of much-needed females. Suddenly geeky science becomes incredibly cool (especially when it involves helicopters), and a whole new generation gets and understanding that evolution is not only true, but incredibly useful.

But the problem still remains of being kept up-to-date in the latest research (let alone doing the research) at the same time as making it palatable for the guy on the street.

And grrlscientist the money and kudos for doing it do eventually come!

#22647: — 04/21 at 04:18 PM
I read a survey somwhere that 75% of adult Americans cannot put cell, molecule, and atom in ascending size order. Truly, that reveals a staggering level of scientific illiteracy; those are the three fundamental "bits" of biology, chemistry and physics- if folks are wholly unfammiliar with the basics, how can they comprehend anything beyond that? Should we be shocked when astrology and pseudoscience grow?

#22658: — 04/21 at 05:11 PM
"... cell, molecule, and atom... those are the three fundamental "bits" of biology, chemistry and physics..."

Dude, get with the program!!! In physics, atoms are *SO* last century...

{Of course, "atom" does have a nicer ring to it than "gauge boson" ^_^}

Monoclonal: An adjective describing a mad scientist who only intended to make ONE clone of herself. Honest!

#22659: — 04/21 at 05:14 PM
"Theoretical physics has done more to undermine science than any other single factor. For example, Katzenslungener's Box (the one with the cat, the cyanide and whether there's a cat or not--I never got it, but apparently there might be a dead cat, or there might not). Or "string theory". Is the universe made of string? Take your popular rock song: two or three words are audible and the rest could be anything: the song is about those three words."

Please tell me you're being facetious. And if you're not... what has theoretical physics done to undermine science?

Cosmid: "Cosmo" for bacteria.

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

Next entry: Speaking of science outreach…Cafe Scientifique!

Previous entry: A few things I've learned…

<< Back to main