John Wilkes' call for scientists to communicate more with the public (The Scientist, Jan. 8, 1990, page 15) is an excellent idea, but he seems to underestimate the negative consequences. In addition to being ignored by promotion and tenure committees for their popular writing and becoming the object of ridicule by colleagues, there is often open contempt shown for scientists who write for popular audiences. The recommendation to write a letter to the local newspaper sounds great, since a scientific viewpoint is too often absent from popular publications. However, writing letters is not without negative aspects, which include having your letter edited to say something other than what you meant, being ignored completely, or offending a large audience. Having submitted more than 90 letters to the editor for a combination of popular and scientific periodicals and having more than half published, I can attest to the disadvantages. Fortunately, the advantages ...
Letter: More Time Communicating
John Wilkes' call for scientists to communicate more with the public (The Scientist, Jan. 8, 1990, page 15) is an excellent idea, but he seems to underestimate the negative consequences. In addition to being ignored by promotion and tenure committees for their popular writing and becoming the object of ridicule by colleagues, there is often open contempt shown for scientists who write for popular audiences. The recommendation to write a letter to the local newspaper sounds great, since a scient
Written byDavid Hershey
| 1 min read
Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
1:00
Interested in reading more?
Become a Member of
Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here
Add The Scientist as a preferred Google source to see more of our trusted coverage.
Meet the Author
- This person does not yet have a bio.View Full Profile
Published In
