Scientist, Speak Up: Four Views

One As Mary Woolley stated,1 it is long overdue for scientists to talk to and communicate with nonscientists. I agree that science will greatly benefit from letting the general public know more about what scientists do. I also agree that we cannot rely entirely on science writers and journalists to interpret science to the general public. Scientists themselves have to do so. I especially like the response to the inquiry to scientists, "What do you do?" I agree that a confident "I work for you" would do wonders to start a conversation off. There is a special group of the general public that I feel it is even more important for research scientists to talk to: science teachers and their students. No matter if it is an elementary, middle, or high school, or even two-year and four-year college teachers, scientists have to do more to explain to them their work. Science education needs more scientists talking to, not only the science teachers, but more importantly to science students--no matter what their education level. Some ways in which this can be done are: * a brief article for the local newspaper, a local newsletter, or a local, state, or regional science education group, * a presentation to a civic association, a senior citizen or community center group, the local library, a church group, or an education advisory group. For research scientists to do one thing a year should not take more than two or three hours at the most. If every research scientist did just one thing a year, then what a marvelous increase in communication would occur. Being in my current position as Multicultural/Equity in Science Director and board member of the National Science Teachers Association, I especially encourage scientists to reach out to those young people belonging to cultures or groups currently underrepresented in science. Remember, you work for them, too. Elizabeth T. Hays, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Physiology Barry University 11300 N.E. Second Ave. Miami Shores, FL 33161 Two I very much liked the Commentary by Mary Woolley and wholeheartedly endorse the notion that we scientists have to speak up. I would like to suggest that The Scientist publish regular anecdotes that can serve as examples to spread the word to the general public about the benefits of scientific research. Kate Barany, Ph.D. Department of Physiology and Biophysics M/C 901 University of Illinois Chicago, IL 60612 Three Mary Woolley's plea to scientists to speak up about their research to the public is undoubtedly well intended, but unfortunately is rather naive. In the present atmosphre of draconian competition for grants between rival research groups, secretive "anonymous peer review," and monopolization of editorial boards of many research journals by cliques of "old boys," public speaking by a scientist about his or her research more often than not will result in inviting personal troubles. This is especially true when research involves a significant degree of uncertainty and controversy, as most true research usually does. Thus, tight lips may not be the most heroic stance, but pragmatically is the best strategy for grantsmanship survival. Unless the funding and peer review system will take decisive steps toward openness and genuine public accountability, calls to scientists to "speak up" are bound to remain preaching in the desert. Alexander A. Berezin McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7 Four I agree entirely with Mary Woolley's premise, but she has neglected to take into account a most critical factor in her recommendation that we "talk" to the public. That factor is the preexisting state of mind of the "audience." I have been trying for 20 years to do what Woolley advocates. My experience and that of my colleagues in such an effort, more often than not leads to hostility and insults rather than to education and respect. It does not depend on whether the "very interested adult" understands the words the scientist uses but rather on what he already believes to be true and wants confirmation for. Any reader who has tried to have a meaningful discussion with a believer in homeopathy knows what I mean. How does a scientist discuss the therapeutic efficacy of a remedy for flu made from the infinite dilution of a homogenate of duck heart and liver. How does one refute the existence of a spinal "subluxation"? What words can be used to challenge the credibility of one who claims to be able to "levitate" or to walk on water? Woolley states, "When you are on your next flight home and a fellow passenger asks, 'What do you do?', respond with confidence, 'I work for you.' You never know where the conversation might lead." True, but is it worth the gamble? Saul Green, Ph.D. Science Editor The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and President, ZOL Consultants 340 W. 57th St. New York, NY l00l9 1. M. Woolley, "Scientist, Speak Up", The Scientist, 15[1]:6, Jan. 8, 2001.

Scientist, Speak Up: Four Views

One

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of