As scientists, communicating what we do and why we do it is important. We communicate with other scientists\u2014what we’ve done, in papers; what we’re doing, in poster sessions and seminars; and what we’re about to do, in dark alleys at night with a baseball bat. We also talk to lay people, possibly in slightly simpler (and sexier) terms. <\/p>\n
\nPart of this is to encourage children to become scientists\u2014or at least convince them that science is important\u2014other times it’s to secure our funding, or explain why there’s no link between the measles vaccine and autism, or why GM crops are better for us and the environment. Other times it’s because we want to persuade people with treatable diseases to take this drug and live, rather than go to a homeopath and die<\/em>.<\/p>\n \nAnother part of this is to persuade normal people that scientists are just like them, really (we eat, breathe, love, read, watch TV, have children, lose arguments, get depressed), but that our years in training help us to understand the natural world and give us some insight into how it is that everything seems to so nicely fit together<\/a>.<\/p>\n \nSometimes our Department encourages us to do this, sometimes we’re lucky enough to have a Faculty office with trained communicators. I’ve even been sent on a course run by the Medical Research Council.<\/p>\n \nStill, most scientific papers are written in reasonably formal, stiff, walking-as-if-there’s-a-carrot-up-his-arse passive voice and third person something-that’s-not-quite-English. <\/p>\n \nHere’s an example:<\/p>\n \n[Butterflies] were subjected while being held by hand to hindwing removal. (The hindwing was severed with scissors along a line just distal to the point of articulation of the hindwings with the thorax, so that only a small triangular flap of each hind wing remained)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \nHere’s the same sentence, rewritten so that my daughters can understand it:<\/p>\n \nWe cut the back wings off butterflies.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \nApparently this was to prove that Hindwings are unnecessary for flight but essential for execution of normal evasive flight in Lepidoptera<\/a>.<\/p>\n \nIn other words,<\/p>\n \nIf you cut the back wings off butterflies, they can still fly, but can’t duck, dive and weave.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \nIs anyone else here thinking you utter, utter bastards<\/em>?<\/p>\n As scientists, communicating what we do and why we do it is important. We communicate with other scientists\u2014what we’ve done, in papers; what we’re doing, in poster sessions and seminars; and what we’re about to do, in dark alleys at … Continue reading
\nB. Jantzen, T. Eisner (2008). Hindwings are unnecessary for flight but essential for execution of normal evasive flight in Lepidoptera Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105<\/span> (43), 16636-16640 DOI: 10.1073\/pnas.0807223105<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"