What is it like to be a scientist in the modern world, and how does the reality measure up to the average person’s view of the scientist? I’ve been fascinated by this question for years, and now I’ve been asked to speak about it at the next gathering of Skeptics In The Pub in London, with a talk entitled Boffins and geeks, madmen and freaks: why are scientists still such a PR disaster?
What I plan on exploring is the following: scientists as a group call up very specific images in the public imagination, typically not very flattering ones. This distorted view is reflected in depictions of scientists in fiction, but also tends to spill over into how they are portrayed in more factual accounts, such as documentaries and in the news media. In a world growing increasingly reliant on the latest scientific, medical and technological advances, possibly for its very survival, the expert accounts of scientists are nevertheless often simply disbelieved, which could be due in part to the unease and distrust that the prevailing stereotypes engender. The meme of scientists as out-of-touch/cold/arrogant/mad meddlers has ancient roots and has evolved in interesting ways to the present day. But whose fault is all this – are scientists themselves partially to blame? If people knew the truth about what modern scientists are really like and really do, would science as a whole be a more sympathetic, persuasive profession? And if so, how we can turn it around – and is it even possible?
I’d like to come at these questions from a non-predictable angle and to get beyond the standard clichéd material, into territory that might be a bit more honest and productive.
I’d be happy to see many of you in the audience this coming Monday, 19 October, from 7:30 PM at the The Penderel’s Oak, 283 High Holborn, London WC1V 7HP. You need to book in advance, and entrance is £2. According to the website, 143 seats have already been booked, leaving a little more than a hundred remaining. They are very strict about these limits. Come early if you want to actually sit down!
Two quid for a seat?
Apparently that includes sandwiches, if you’re early enough!
Personally I’ll be too nervous to eat.
I’m at the other end of the world. But tell me how was “The Skeptics In The Pub”, Jenny, Thanks!. Looks interesting.
Sounds fantastic – good luck with the talk, and let us know how it goes!
Sandwiches? And a flask of tea?
I second Alejandro – please tell us a bit about your talk afterward. I can’t say I’m at the other end of the world but I’m a bit too far away to drop by, still the topic seems very interesting and I’d love to hear more.
If people knew the truth about what modern scientists are really like and really do, would science as a whole be a more sympathetic, persuasive profession?
That’s a really good question. I shall assume the role of the devil’s advocate here. And I think that science as a whole would not be a more sympathetic, persuasive profession.
Some fields of science would do well in the public opinion, some would not. I actually think that my own field of molecular/developmental biology would suffer a lot.
We heavily rely on the links to public good that are sometimes extremely thin in reality, such as the relevance for a possible ‘cure for cancer’. If we were to be really honest about the amount of effort put into it, what we really do each and every day, the extensive use of lab animals, and the actual production of ‘useful’ information, the
mobpeople might say: enough is enough. This is just not worth it.I’d like to do quite a bit of devil’s advocacy on the night – this is Skeptics, after all – so I welcome these sorts of comments.
If any of you has ever had any marketing training, as I did during my stint in publishing, you’ll know that people are often more influenced by the messenger than by the message. From a simple PR point of view, sometimes people don’t care as much about details (animal experimentation, whether any of the research really will cure Aunt Nellie) as they do about how they feel about the person who is trying to sell them the story. Yes, we animals really are that shallow!
Regarding the ‘thin’ links to the diseases that inspire public goodwill…of course you’re right, but I think it’s possible to make a persuasive case for basic research throwing up all sorts of therapeutically interesting, exploitable drug targets. Naturally the question is, does targeted, translational research do a better job at this? It might very well be more efficient – somebody must have studied this. But I think the average person would be at least persuadable that blue sky thinking can leave to unexpected innovation – because that’s not a phenomenon confined to science.
I hope a few people from ScienceBlogs turn up. They have regular bouts of shouting about this very issue.
/remembers to bring tomatoes
Bob, they have regular bouts of shouting about _ everything_
The more controversy the better. But Bob, which issue are you talking about specifically?
regarding the PR comment
Does that mean we will have to start hiring celebrities to spread the word, set aside a budget for PR agencies?
Don’t see why that’s a bad thing.
It’s only bad if you can afford Brad Pitt.
Celebrities already do make a huge difference in promoting health-related biomedical research – think of Christopher Reeve and Nancy Reagan.
Yeah, or *#$%(ing Jenny McCarthy.
Heh. I had to google her to find out. Yes, this is the down-side of celebrity endorsement. To which we could add…Michael Crichton? There must be others.
On the upside, let’s add Michael J. Fox.
I’m trying to think of any positive celeb promoters of anything besides health.
Does Al Gore count, for climate change?
Didn’t he invent the climate?
How about Bono for African debt reduction? (yes, yes, I know)
Not forgetting Sir Bob Geldof…
Jenny McAirhead, sorry, McCarthy is now half of a Toxic Twosome (reigning Queen and King of Celebrity Antivaccination Nonsense) with the rather more famous Jim Carrey.
The biggest US celebrity leading the Gadarene rush towards Unreality is probably Oprah, while in the UK one need look no further than HRH the Heir to the Throne.
Ricky Gervais. In his podcasts and audiobooks, it’s obvious that he has a pretty solid grasp of evolutionary theory and how science works in practice. Also, hilarious.
Has Oprah waded into the scientific fray, then? I’m not sure I even want to know what about…
WWOS — ‘What would Oprah say?’
Naturally the question is, does targeted, translational research do a better job at this? It might very well be more efficient – somebody must have studied this.
I’d be very interested to know the answer to this too. I suspect that it’s not as efficient as some people (funding bodies) think. I think there are too few discussions about whether this really is a good strategy or not.
On a personal note I really can’t bear going to talks when the speaker can’t tell you what they are actually talking about, what it is, what it does, how it’s supposed to work etc etc…if you’re not going to say anything why speak at all!
G’day everyone,
From my experience as a student in India, I can tell you that most youngsters opt for careers which are either “safe” or glamorous, as in being a movie star ,an actor or something else, one reason could be a culture that glorifies those careers which are construed as being glamorous, while not doing much about science, I feel that concerted efforts to bring the stories of scientific success to the youth, by and large, will go a long way in making science a more attractive career.
At the same time, I wonder if negative stereotypes (as in scientists being geeky nerds,if that makes sense, who don’t have anything “normal” about them) are to do with a general lack of connection between the scientific community and the general public by and large…
So, to me, the solution would be to find a way to popularise science, for one, and promote better interaction between scientists and the general public, and I feel both are somehow interlinked.
My two pennies’ worth,
Cheers.
On a personal note I really can’t bear going to talks when the speaker can’t tell you what they are actually talking about, what it is, what it does, how it’s supposed to work etc etc…if you’re not going to say anything why speak at all!
Are you talking about my Skeptics talk? I did attempt to adequately precis what I will say tomorrow, in the post above, and I plan on going into a lot of details about the hows and whys of stereotypes, so that shouldn’t put you off. Or are you referring to something else?
@Ankur Welcome to my blog. And that’s more or less one of the main solutions I will be plugging tomorrow, so I’m glad to hear that you agree, from another cultural perspective.
I read that as a dig against translational research, not your skeptics in the pub talk, Jenny. And I have to say I’ve sat through a few talks like the one Samantha describes!
Haha! OK, sorry.
I have a lot of time for translational research, which is usually grounded in basic research – probably because of my time in industry. But whenever I gave translational talks I always was careful to cover all the basic underpinnings.
I guess every discipline can give a dud talk.
Good luck!Break a legYou don’t need luck, you’ll do great anyway, I know it! =)
Thanks Eva! Website says 226 seats booked so far – that’s a lot of people to imagine in their underwear simultaneously!
Sorry Jennifer, Cath is right, I wasn’t refering to your skeptics talk which will be excellent if you speak even nearly as well as you write.
I was following a train of thought on translational research and thinking about talks when someone won’t reveal information because they hope to
sell their soulpatent it/sell it to a company.Good, I’m glad!
Most people who are in search of patents won’t give talks at all — anything revealed in public becomes prior art and would scupper an application, even if couched vaguely. I had that restriction on me for a few years and it was really frustrating. But a lot of translational research is done by academics who are collaborating with medics doing clinical trials, so it’s not necessarily all corporate/secret when you use that term.
In a sense it is weird that scientists haven’t exploited the PR angle more. There is quite a lot of funding involved to keep a program up and running in molecular biology. Why let it all depend on anonymous decisions from funding agencies?
Why not try to tip the balance your way by hiring a PR agency to design a sparking campaign to incite interest from the tax payers, funding agencies, or the government?
And add a celebrity to seal the deal. I would love to hear Megan Fox tell us why more needs to be done on P53.
David Colquhoun is having a conniption fit right now.
I like it, Mark!
Maybe old crooners like Tom Jones to help get the word out to all the little old ladies who might be enticed to leave their fortunes to medical research. Apparently charities account for a huge amount of biomedical science funding.
Some people have made a start Mark, you may have seen in a certain journal that the University of Philadelphia have put PhD fellowships on ebay that people can bid for, the winner gets to name the fellowship, meet the scientist given the money and get a tour of the lab.
Also the charities advisory trust has been doing ‘donate a brain cell’ through the good gifts catalogue for a while, this donates £15 pounds to brain research…although £15 doesn’t buy much in a science lab!!
Samantha, thanks for the tip-off – I didn’t know about this, and think it’s a great idea.
Here in London at the CR UK, people who donate (lots of) money often get tours of the labs. When I used to work there it was a bit embarrassing – a lot of them acted as if we were single-handedly saving lives. Maybe we were, of course, in a delayed and indirect fashion!
When they tour, I think you should run out from the dark room shouting ‘Yes! Mrs Frederickson is saved!’
I actually did have a moment like that once…might be something for a blog post.
Sorry, a bit late, but for celeb science endorsers, don’t forget Stephen Fry. And David Mitchell did a good job the other week making the case for science.
The bit about PhD fellowships on eBay (which is brilliant BTW) reminds me of all those poor newly-classified organisms with scientific names “donated” by philanthropists – paying money for naming rights of some hapless beetle or planarian.
Almost no examples of which I can find at the moment… except for this little article in a journal beginning with “S”.
Someone at Skeptics told me about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOLzk8JtzPY
I’m a little bit scared now. Apparently this is just the first of many.
There’s just no excuse for that sort of behaviour!
There is an article about that Science Cheerleader in the current The Scientist.
Eva, I’m drawing a blank. The October issue?
Oddly, I couldn’t find more than two clips on YouTube. Most of the hits turn out to be some Asian cheerleaders jumping around in fluffy pink outfits, seems to be unrelated.
What kills me about the clip I link to above is the look in her eye when she shakes the pom-poms…absolutely terrifying.
Ken, no, September. I’m confused about what month it is, apparently. The article is here