I previously asked the question, "Are scientists likeable?" This query was aimed at our "image problem", i.e., scientists typically come across as dull, pedantic nerds. As a result, the public turns off and may fail to hear the science message, which might be quite important. The failure of scientists to participate effectively in science communication is a problem, particularly with the decline of accurate science journalism and an increase in anti-science groups.
But there are glimmers of hope. Several initiatives exist that are designed to stimulate science students to become better communicators and be more creative in doing so. The most recent one I've discovered is called Chlorofilms, a nonprofit project whose mission is "to promote the creation of fresh, attention-getting and informative video content about plant life and to make the best of these videos easy to find from a single website".
I was amazed at the imaginative films that have been submitted--well thought-out, creative, and quite sophisticated. Here's one winner of a recent contest hosted by this organization:
fantastic vesicle traffic
You'll notice that this video likely required the creator to synthesize what is known about vesicles and to envision how they look and work in order to develop this film. Enhancing your creative or artistic side just might spill over into your left brain (analytical side) and stimulate some new scientific insight or idea.
Besides, I'll bet these young videographers had fun creating their films.
This query was aimed at our "image problem", i.e., scientists typically come across as dull, pedantic nerds. As a result, the public turns off and may fail to hear the science message, which might be quite important.
ReplyDeleteYou have been repeating this causal claim (as have others) over and over. Where's the evidence that (1) scientists "typically come across as dull, pedantic nerds" and (2) that this causes the public to "turn off" and "fail to hear the science message"?
The fact that people say this over and over and over and over doesn't make it true. Since we're supposed to be scientists, where's the *evidence* that it's true?