What (some) scientists say

FameLab's approach focuses on entertainment, new faces, and diversity, but another recent science communication effort takes a different approach. Jeremy Stangroom, coeditor of The Philosopher's Magazine, has written a new book, What Scientists Think (Routledge Press), in which he interviews twelve well-known investigators about subjects close to their hearts.The rationale for the book, as he explains in his introduction, is "predicated on the idea that there is something right about this notion that scientists should seek to communicate their views to the wider public." Given Stangroom's day job, it isn't surprising that he takes a rather philosophical approach to his interviews. He focuses on science that relates to the human condition, approaching it as a free-flowing discussion about moral challenges and first principles.For example, in the opening chapter, Stangroom talks to geneticist Steve Jones from University College London about Darwinism and genes. "Darwin got inheritance fundamentally wrong," Jones says. "In fact it's rather hard to know precisely what he thought about it." The conversation flows to the meaning of genes, leading Stangroom to ask whether there is substance to the claims of philosophers who say there is a lot of confusion in the use of the word gene."I don't think biochemists are going to be the least bit interested in what philosophers think about genes," Jones replies. "As I've said in the past, philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex: It's cheaper, easier, and some people prefer it." Moving swiftly along, Jones and Stangroom ponder racial differences in IQ, the debate over genetically modified crops, health insurance, and the future of the human race.In the next chapter, Harvard evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker is probed on "Evolutionary Psychology and the Blank Slate." The conversation moves from the structure of the brain to adaptive explanations for music, creationism, and beyond. Stangroom asks Pinker about the accusations that biological explanations of behavior are determinist and reduce human beings to the status of automatons. "Most people have no idea what they mean when they level the accusation of determinism," Pinker answers. "It's a nonspecific "boo" word, intended to make something seem bad without any content."Stangroom moves thematically on through the book, including conversations about consciousness with Susan Greenfield of the Royal Institution of Great Britain and professor of synaptic pharmacology at Oxford; a discussion with author and broadcaster Kenan Maik about science and the human animal; and a dialogue about cybernetics with Kevin Warwick, professor of cybernetics at the University of Reading.In Chapter 9, Stangroom talks to Colin Blakemore, Medical Research Council chief and neuroscientist, about animal experimentation in medical research. "My view is that if we keep the public informed, if we move forward gradually, then, as and when the benefits accrue, the issues will become progressively less contentious," Blakemore suggests.The book contains interesting material, although much of it is familiar. The scientists Stangroom has chosen to approach have already shown their willingness on numerous occasions to communicate with a wide audience. Their views and opinions have already been expressed clearly in their own books, talks, and articles.The discussions are also limited in their subject, excluding most of physics; Stangroom has, broadly speaking, disregarded the physical science altogether. The geographical spread of the interviewees is not particularly diverse: 10 of the subjects work in Britain, while the other two are from Harvard, so readers will get hardly any insight into the views of African, Asian, or American scientists.There were two main factors governing the choice of topic areas, Stangroom says in an E-mail. "First, there is the issue of authorial competence. I'm not a scientist, which makes the task of engaging in conversation about these things fairly challenging. I know a lot more about the areas of biology, medicine, psychiatry, evolution, etc., than I do about chemistry, physics, etc. So it made sense to concentrate on those areas."The second had to do with his aim to give the book a sociological, philosophical dimension. "That's a lot easier if you're talking about say evolution than it is if you're talking about superstring theory, for example. I also wanted to deal with issues which aren't normally dealt with in popular science literature – hence the interest in psychiatry, cancer, the Left academic challenge to science, and so on."So who is the book's target audience? "I think there is material in there which won't be familiar even to people who know the popular science genre," Stangroom says. "But beyond that the idea is to address an educated lay audience. The book should be comprehensible even to people who have no background in science."

What (some) scientists say

FameLab's approach focuses on entertainment, new faces, and diversity, but another recent science communication effort takes a different approach.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of