I attended a workshop this week in scientific communication. It was fascinating and involved pieces on talking to the public, talking to peers, and talking to the media. Its amazing how much scientists expect the general public to take an interest in their work and expect them to do the legwork to get to even a basic understanding of what we as scientists believe should be obvious knowledge (what causes the seasons for example). In fact, this is exactly the arrogant point of view that the public finds turns them off science. It is up to the scientists to communicate their work in an effective manner.
And its not that difficult to do. Its not about dumbing down, we shouldn't dilute the concepts. The public can handle challenging ideas. Its about how its put across. Short sentences, no jargon, and as few a words with three syllables or more (whats known as a low fog index). And this needs to be done by the scientists, who know their work better than anyone else, and are more enthusiastic about their work than anyone else. If they can transfer just some of this to the public in an effective manner then this is how the public will become better informed.
I couldn't find the video clip but take a look at this transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1453920.htm
Towards the top there is a fantastic explanation (it works better visually with props) of the Transplantational Molecules work that won Professor Peter Doherty the Nobel Prize. Complex science I'm sure you agree, easy as anything once its been explaned by an ethusiastic man with a bowl of fruit. Its a good explanantion, even without the visuals.
Later on during the week, I've been asked to think about writing a press release for my first paper which will be out in a couple of months (Its now In Press, which is exciting!). I thought the timing was excellent, and I definitely now have the skills to give it a really good go.
And so to my little rant for the day. I'm all for scientific terminology being used in common parlance. Everyone (well, some people, lets not be an arrogant scientists here) understands what some scientific phrases mean when applied to non-scientific situations. But when that phrase is used in the common usage in the situation where it could also happen in the scientific sense then it becomes annoying and a bit stupid. Two examples from the Australian press this week when talking about the Japanese earthquake and the consequences thereof.
The first from the Sydney Morning Herald: "Aftershocks to be felt around the world" - Erm no. They won't be, the aftershocks will be felt in Japan. I understand that using aftershocks to imply that an event will set off a chain of further events that may have far-reaching consequences is common, and it makes some sense. But you can't use this word when there will actually be aftershocks.
*Just been watching the very good George Neegus, one of Australia's best journalists, he just mentioned aftershocks in relationship to the financial markets, but used the phrase "aftershocks of a different kind". Well done to him.
The second was referring to fallout from the quake. Again, a phrase which is relatively easy to understand in the context in which it was put. However, when there is a genuine risk of fallout from a nuclear disaster, this reference is misleading, wrong and frankly stupid.
*ugh, Channel Ten news just did it again.
Two of my geologist cohort went on to further degrees in the world of writing, one as a journalist and one as a publisher. And good luck to them. But overall, when the journalism profession is mostly composed and run by people with arts degrees such mistakes are likely to go un-noticed. The world needs more journalists with science degrees. And more scientists to communicate their work efficiently and well to the public. And the responsibility for this lies not with the journalism profession but with science in general and scientists. We must make ourselves and our work more well-known, not expect the general public to do the leg-work to understand us.
And its not that difficult to do. Its not about dumbing down, we shouldn't dilute the concepts. The public can handle challenging ideas. Its about how its put across. Short sentences, no jargon, and as few a words with three syllables or more (whats known as a low fog index). And this needs to be done by the scientists, who know their work better than anyone else, and are more enthusiastic about their work than anyone else. If they can transfer just some of this to the public in an effective manner then this is how the public will become better informed.
I couldn't find the video clip but take a look at this transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1453920.htm
Towards the top there is a fantastic explanation (it works better visually with props) of the Transplantational Molecules work that won Professor Peter Doherty the Nobel Prize. Complex science I'm sure you agree, easy as anything once its been explaned by an ethusiastic man with a bowl of fruit. Its a good explanantion, even without the visuals.
Later on during the week, I've been asked to think about writing a press release for my first paper which will be out in a couple of months (Its now In Press, which is exciting!). I thought the timing was excellent, and I definitely now have the skills to give it a really good go.
And so to my little rant for the day. I'm all for scientific terminology being used in common parlance. Everyone (well, some people, lets not be an arrogant scientists here) understands what some scientific phrases mean when applied to non-scientific situations. But when that phrase is used in the common usage in the situation where it could also happen in the scientific sense then it becomes annoying and a bit stupid. Two examples from the Australian press this week when talking about the Japanese earthquake and the consequences thereof.
The first from the Sydney Morning Herald: "Aftershocks to be felt around the world" - Erm no. They won't be, the aftershocks will be felt in Japan. I understand that using aftershocks to imply that an event will set off a chain of further events that may have far-reaching consequences is common, and it makes some sense. But you can't use this word when there will actually be aftershocks.
*Just been watching the very good George Neegus, one of Australia's best journalists, he just mentioned aftershocks in relationship to the financial markets, but used the phrase "aftershocks of a different kind". Well done to him.
The second was referring to fallout from the quake. Again, a phrase which is relatively easy to understand in the context in which it was put. However, when there is a genuine risk of fallout from a nuclear disaster, this reference is misleading, wrong and frankly stupid.
*ugh, Channel Ten news just did it again.
Two of my geologist cohort went on to further degrees in the world of writing, one as a journalist and one as a publisher. And good luck to them. But overall, when the journalism profession is mostly composed and run by people with arts degrees such mistakes are likely to go un-noticed. The world needs more journalists with science degrees. And more scientists to communicate their work efficiently and well to the public. And the responsibility for this lies not with the journalism profession but with science in general and scientists. We must make ourselves and our work more well-known, not expect the general public to do the leg-work to understand us.
No comments:
Post a Comment