**My apologies if this appears twice. I sent this yesterday, but I still
have not seen it today. Thus, I have sent it once more:**
Dear all:
Here, I provide some more questions for discussion. In my humble opinion, I
think it is essential to communicate important scientific findings in a way
that sticks(Question 1)and clearly lays out the implications of the
research(Question 2).
Question 1: What can scientists do to make sure the ideas they communicate
are not forgotten?
When I asked a student about what might make ideas stick with the public,
the answer was "make it popular", meaning get a non-scientist, popular
celebrity on board. What do you think about this idea? I am personally NOT a
big fan of popular media, BUT non-scientist, popular people and things they
say seem to stick in the public's mind. Attaching scientific messages with
celebrities would not mean the science had to be changed, but it would be
another way to make key ideas stick.
Question # 2: How might scientists effectively communicate the implications
of their research to the public to unsure proper funding?
If the general public realizes the implications of science, it has an
important role to play in influencing government funding of science through
lobbying, etc.
Also, with Question # 2, I provide a quote from Hubbell's book (see below).
- Hide quoted text -
"In recent years, international attention to biodiversity issues has
been growing. In my experience, however, too few people, including many
of my distinguished academic colleagues and policymaker friends and
acquaintances, fully grasp the enormity and urgency of this scientific
and socioeconomic problem. In part because of this ignorance, investment
in science of biodiversity lags far behind investment in biomedical
research."
-Stephen P. Hubbell ('The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and
Biogeography')
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Laura S <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear all:
>
> I think it is important to have ALL ideas on the table for discussion.
> Thank you Stephen, and everyone else for posting (publicly and privately).
>
> Why did I ask these questions? I wanted to see what others think about
> these questions, and to have a discussion. I also asked them to connect with
> others. I am interested in collaborating with others to promote the
> communication of scientific ideas to the public; I have volunteered my time
> in various public outreach activities that promote science understanding,
> but I would like to do more. I would like to do more because I think science
> has an essential role to play in many areas, e.g., education, environmental
> concerns, conservation, and policy making.
>
> **In my humble opinion:
> I think scientists should be wary of judging what the general public care
> about. I am constantly inspired by what the public is willing to learn about
> science, and the questions they ask about science. Unfortunately, often the
> school system (K-12) does not give a proper treatment of the process and
> nature of science for non-scientists to understand how and why scientists
> conduct science.
>
> ***Here are two questions for further discussion - all ideas are
> encouraged:
> Do you think post-secondary institutions properly support (financially,
> with job-security, etc.) scientists who choose to promote science to the
> general public?
> Do you think open access journals have an important role to play in making
> science more accessible to the general public?
>
> Thank you,
> Laura
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Stephen Caird <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> I hate sounding cynical, but sometimes I wonder if the problem isn't
>> so much scientists not getting the word out--I feel as though most
>> scientists are thrilled with an opportunity to explain the
>> innerworkings of whatever it is they study in much detail, say, the
>> role of carbohydrates in biofilm formation--but moreso a problem with
>> the general public ::not caring:: about the explanations to be given
>> for natural phenomena.
>>
>> Have you ever tried to explain to someone what trans fats are, and
>> what effects they may be having on one's health? Few people care to
>> know the difference between trans- and cis- conformations, enzyme
>> specificity, etc., so as to actually be informed on the subject--in my
>> experience, many people are already placated with the understanding
>> they have of something, regardless of how close it is to the truth.
>>
>> I may tell someone that our fat metabolism enzymes are very slow to
>> degrade trans-fats, and their response may be that they've been eating
>> margarine all their life with no problem, and that they like it more
>> than butter, so what?
>>
>> Or someone, enthralled with nature, simply won't shake the ideas that
>> 'everything in nature works together symbiotically toward a common
>> goal,' 'forest fires are all bad,' not considering, or willing to
>> consider, that competition happens, and that fire happens, species
>> have adapted to the conditions prevailing within their range on the
>> planet.
>>
>> What a rant--I half-apologize for that...hardly--perhaps not one
>> bit--constructive, but that's my two cents for now.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On 4/7/11, Laura S. <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Dear all:
>> >
>> > I am interested in your thoughts. If needed, I can elaborate more on
>> these
>> > questions.
>> >
>> > Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the
>> general
>> > public?
>> >
>> > What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific
>> information to
>> > the general public?
>> >
>> > Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the
>> > scientific method?
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Laura
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> " Genius is the summed production of the many with the names of the few
> attached for easy recall, unfairly so to other scientists"
>
> - E. O. Wilson (The Diversity of Life)
>
--
" Genius is the summed production of the many with the names of the few
attached for easy recall, unfairly so to other scientists"
- E. O. Wilson (The Diversity of Life)
