Skip to main content

Popularize science? - Dare to write what you know!

"Play what you know!" An actress who has to play a raging serial killer need not be a serial killer herself (it might even be contraproductive in some way... maybe a bit messy on the set). Method acting tells her to get the emotional framework as close as possible to the feelings of a serial-killer - by re-enacting emotions she relates to (remembering the guy, her first boyfriend left her for would be an example).
"Write what you know!" is one piece of advice for authors that is all too often misunderstood as Jason Gots, associate editor of BigThink, points out. Authors must not restrict their prose to retelling their own (very possibly boring) life - they should map their real-life emotional experiences to the world of their fictional characters. Never been to Mars before? Well, you probably visited some decaying neighbourhood in Detroit or Bilbao. I am sure you found some Martians there. You know how your fictional character feels as he leaves mothership. The same is true for science-communication.
Science-communication is not among the greatest strengths of the average scientist. Some do it brilliantly, some barely speak even in 'real life', some try, but shouldn't. It is wrong, to demand that 'every academic should be blogging'. 
Why?
Science communication is important. The transfer of knowlede is imperative. The lack of good, adequate science communication is one of the reasons why science has a comparatively weak standing in everyday's culture - despite it's omnipresence. It is 'chique' to state with a smirk 'I never understood physics - and always flunked math-tests at school'. In contrast it would be cultural suicide to describe a classical concert as 'loud but I really don't care what that fiddling is all about'.
Without any research to back that up, however, I would presume that the percentage of people, who understand Ohms law (of resistance) and the number of those who understand a musical composition is equally low.
Conventional 'high culture' gives access through emotions, feelings, opinions (making it possible for a wide public to chatter about it) - while it is rather unconventional to have an opinion on Ohms law. That access to the arts, however, is equally incomplete and inadequate at the end. Both, science and the arts, have an additional level of complexity that is not accessible to the layperson. Music is done no justice if it is reduced to mere sentiment.(You might enjoy the german text "Wissenschaft ist keine Kunst")
Real science can not be slapped on the untrained public. It needs real science communicators to translate in a useful way. Science communication consequently has to be done by well-trained science-communicators, while scientists have to get training to 'talk to' those communicators. The journalists in turn will be fit at asking the right questions and then use their 'method-acting' to entertain the public with a meaningful projection of emotions the audience can relate to onto the science they chose to communicate.
Science communication goes wrong if a substitute-emotion is communicated instead. Just as if that method-actress would chose to impersonate her ex-boyfriend instead of transforming her rediscovered feelings for the role of the serial-killer, it is wrong to write about "time-travel and warp-drive" when scientific work on problems with the interpretation of relativistic effects in an neutrino-experiment was the issue (... is anybody still following me?).
"Write what you know", in this context, means for scientists: when they communicate science they should attempt to transfer their very own emotional experiences to the world of the reader. Some are really good at it!  "Write what you know" tells the science-journalist to adapt his storytelling power to the scientific story. As a method-actor would do.

Comments

Fischer said…
"Know what you write", on the other hand, is a very much correct (and sadly underestimated) principle, especially in science communication.

Popular posts from this blog

Academics should be blogging? No.

"blogging is quite simply, one of the most important things that an academic should be doing right now" The London School of Economics and Political Science states in one of their, yes, Blogs . It is wrong. The arguments just seem so right: "faster communication of scientific results", "rapid interaction with colleagues" "responsibility to give back results to the public". All nice, all cuddly and warm, all good. But wrong. It might be true for scientoid babble. But this is not how science works.  Scientists usually follow scientific methods to obtain results. They devise, for example, experiments to measure a quantity while keeping the boundary-conditions in a defined range. They do discuss their aims, problems, techniques, preliminary results with colleagues - they talk about deviations and errors, successes and failures. But they don't do that wikipedia-style by asking anybody for an opinion . Scientific discussion needs a set

My guinea pig wants beer!

Rather involuntary train rides (especially long ones, going to boring places for a boring event) are good for updates on some thoughts lingering in the lower levels of the brain-at-ease. My latest trip (from Berlin to Bonn) unearthed the never-ending squabble about the elusive 'free will'. Neuroscientists make headlines proving with alacrity the absence of free will by experimenting with brain-signals that precede the apparent willful act - by as much as seven seconds! Measuring brain-activity way before the human guinea pig actually presses a button with whatever hand or finger he desires, they predict with breathtaking reproducibility the choice to be made. So what? Is that the end of free will? I am afraid that those neuroscientists would accept only non-predictability as a definite sign of free will. But non-predictability results from two possible scenarios: a) a random event (without a cause) b) an event triggered by something outside of the system (but caused).

No theory - no money!

A neuroscientist I was talking to recently complained that the Higgs-research,even the Neutrino-fluke at CERN is getting humungous funding while neuroscience is struggling for support at a much more modest level. This, despite the undisputed fact that understanding our brain, and ultimately ourselves, is the most exciting challenge around. Henry Markram of EPFL in Switzerland   is one of the guys aiming for big, big funding to simulate the complete brain. After founding the brain institute and developing methods to analyze and then reconstruct elements of the brain in a supercomputer he now applies for 1.5 Billion Euro in EU-funding for the 'flagship-projects' of Blue Brain -and many believe his project is simply too big to fail. Some call the project daring, others audacious. It is one of the so very few really expensive life-science endeavours. Why aren't there more like that around? Why do we seem to accept the bills for monstrous physics experiments more easily? Is