 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Dan Greenberg is a longtime observer of science policy and politics. He is the author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press), as well as other books, and has published widely in newspapers and popular and professional magazines.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Michael Nelson, guest blogger
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Marty Nemko, guest bloggerBob Zemsky
Recent Posts
Obama Outlines Changes for Science Policy | Comment
Where $1-Million Is Modest Pay | Comment [17]
Q&A With Dr. Grant Swinger: Welcome the China Menace | Comment [1]
Scientific Misconduct Is Not a Hanging Offense---But | Comment [13]
Reading the News: Getting More in Less Time | Comment [4]
Featured Articles By the Author
Delusions on the Frontiers of Science
Can breaking into the news help propel a scientific career? I’ve often heard scientists say it can, though usually in disapproving reference to a colleague they regard as undeservingly successful via self-promotion. The subject, as far as I know, has not been systematically studied, and herewith is offered gratis to anyone interested in taking on the task.
That research organizations conspire to get into the news is a given of contemporary research. A lab without a PR office is relic of the dark ages. Promotion of the public understanding of science is a holy cause among the managers of science. Torrents of press releases about new scientific findings flow daily to news organizations and science writers. A major underlying assumption behind these efforts is that public knowledge of research somehow gets transmuted into public support of research. And, supposedly, career and grant prospects are enhanced for the researchers named in dispatches from the frontiers of science.
Unfortunately, there’s no evidence linking public understanding of science with public support or government money for science. This reality may offend democratic theory, but it is so. Nanotechnology, for example, is a hot, booming field of research and industrial interest, ramped up to billions of dollars per year in just a short time—though few members of the public have ever heard of nanotechnology.
Individual scientists may relish the spotlight when their work is publicized. But it is quite possible that publicity can be hazardous to a scientific career. Most of the money for serious science is screened by peer reviewers, who—if they’re doing it right—judge on the basis of scientific merit rather than celebrity.
So, why in a time of dire money shortages for the conduct of important research are large sums devoted to publicizing research and researchers? Answer: The scientific enterprise, for all its claims of objectivity, dispassionate pursuit of truth, and dedication to the public interest, is not immune to delusions about how the world works.
Posted at 03:18:58 PM on March 4, 2008 | All postings by Dan GreenbergComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: We've Got a Monster on the Loose: It's Called the Internet
Next: Would a Department of Science Be An Improvement?
Why should anyone be surprised to see that science and scientists must function in the real world? To think otherwise would be delusional. Scientific programs compete for resources and attention and talent on many levels, and many of the priorities are not subject to merit-based peer review. Even the aspects of scientific endeavor that are supposed to be merit based often are not. Aren’t we are entitled to more thoughtful commentary than is contained in this naive piece?
— Joe Erwin · Mar 4, 04:40 PM · #
I honestly do not quite understand what you are talking about. No scientist I know would trade an article in Nature or Science for one in the New Tork Times. I also never heard of individual labs having PR offices. If someone publishes an interesting story in a high profile journal the PR office of the University approaches the scientists involved, writes up a little story which ends up on the newswire. Most get ignored, some get published (but probably not read). The ‘smart mouse’ or the cloned sheep are the exceptions the prove the rule. Scientisits want to be respected and acknowledged by their peers i.e. the people who understand their work and can put it into context, not by the general public. To me, seeking publicity and trying to communicate my research has less to do with self-promotion but with informing the public what happens to their tax dollars.
— Michael · Mar 4, 05:22 PM · #
I concur with Michael. Universities and research institutes do have information offices, but individual labs usually don’t, unless they are very “big deal” programs. And, of course there is some obligation to inform the public about progress in which they have some interest. Mr. Greenberg seems out of touch.
— Joe Erwin · Mar 4, 05:33 PM · #
I remember many years ago, as a documentary film maker, that a Canadian environmentalist friend of mine, Michael Gilbertson, introduced me to a colleague who had written a book on the dangers of plastics to the environment. It had been written for the general public. I had read the book and, not having a PhD in chemistry, could understand very little of it due to the way it was written. The woman who wrote the book berated me for my poor understanding claiming that people like me (media) could do the environmetal movement a lot of harm because of my poor understanding -point taken. However, I had to bite my tongue (and in hindsight I should not have) to keep from replying that she did even more harm to their movement. In my experience, she and otherscientists expect that their academic credentials and their research are reason enough for the public to accept and support their views. Understanding her work was not important for the general public and certainly questioning by the general public was not acceptable. Why then had she written a book geared to the general public? Obviously, she wanted their support for the environmental movement. She realised, as do most environmentalists, that public support translates into political support which translated into laws and funds. Yet, she refused to bow down to help those without her vast knowledge understand her research and her views. That was what I wanted to do and could have done in a documentary, but she preferred to see me as troublesome and even dangerous.
To believe that science operates in some ether environment without need or concern for public understanding and support is frivolous in any area outside of military-related research. We have seen this demonstrated in issues such as the environment, where Dr. David Suzuki does a superb job of making science understandable to the general population, to the dangers of smoking, where the public has seen science for hire at its worst. There is no doubt in my mind that scientific research must dance to the tune of those who fund it. If we want free, independent and somewhat objective science, it must be publicly funded. It will only be effectively publicly funded if the public whose taxes provide those funds support the research and let their politicians know they support it. Science and scientists must come down off their lofty perch.
— bcowan · Mar 5, 09:18 AM · #
Public interest in the Bussard Fusion Reactor spurred the Navy to continue the experiments despite the Navy’s initial disinterest.
It came about because of Dr. Bussard’s Google Talk.
— M. Simon · Mar 5, 10:11 AM · #
bcowan, I completely agree with you. Science ought to be funded mainly by tax dollars and therefore has an obligation to let the public know what it does, how it does it and what the consequences are. Needless to say, that communication has been difficult, and both scientist as well as a public that enjoys the fruits of science but doesn’t care much about the process are to blame. However, this wasn’t the premise of Dan Greenberg’s article. He claims that large sums and efforts are being spent because scientists “relish the spotlight”. Aside from a tiny number of well-publicized cases I just don’t see that.
— Michael · Mar 5, 10:48 AM · #
Michael, bcowan, Dan, et al. There may be something worthwhile in this discussion. My PhD mentor conveyed to me and his other students that we owed it to the public that supported our research to publish the results—in good, high profile journals if warranted by the results, and in less distinguished journals if the results were less striking or important. We owed it to the supporters of the work to enter the results into the published scientific record. By the same token, we owe the public wide distribution of research results that are of importance or concern to them. In some areas, a publicist can help. Why not? But one of the great things about dual careers in research and teaching is that those who communicate with students hone their skills in explaining their research and the topics related to it. Despite protestations to the contrary, those who ONLY teach, and do not continue to explore and discover in the ways active scientists and scholars do, risk losing the freshness and excitement and appreciation of how science really works and how knowledge and understanding are generated. So, yes, communication is a vital aspect of the scientific endeavor. We need to communicate more, rather than less, and we need to foster abilities to communicate with people outside our own specialized fields. We need to communicate with (listen to, as well as, talk to) all the people with whom we interact.
— Joe Erwin · Mar 5, 11:58 AM · #
What “large sums [are being] devoted to publicizing research and researchers?” I wish Mr. Greenberg had provided an example or two, because, frankly, I can’t imagine that large sums are involved – or that research is suffering because dollars are being diverted to publicity and public relations. Also, I can’t imagine why it would be wise to discourage scientists from talking about their work. The fact is that not enough scientists do it, and as a result, we have a society in which far too many people are clueless when it comes to understanding the scientific process. Just yesterday I got into a debate with some women over John McCain’s comment on the autism-vaccine link. His comment made them more likely to want to vote for him. It was obvious from what they said that they lacked understanding of how science works. But unfortunately scientists still seem to be victims of the “Carl Sagan effect,” that is, devalued by their colleagues for choosing to spend their time trying to improve public understanding of science. I find that really sad, and wish something could be done about it. Obviously, attitudes such as those of Mr. Greenburg are anything but helpful.
— greenblue · Mar 6, 10:43 AM · #
Having written about research at public universities for nearly 35 years now. I’m confident of a few simple points: 1) While some researchers’ egos may drive them to seek visibility for their work, most researchers consider communicating with the public about their science simply a pain in the ass; 2) Regardless of that, many researchers feel an obligation to undertake that pain because the public deserves the chance to learn about new science; 3) The public couldn’t care less about the science unless they see it either as having a readily applicable value to them or those they care about, or it is intrinsically interesting to them, based on whatever floats their boat! and 4) Those institutions that have experienced science writers on staff who are dedicated to informing the public of the science — not of their institution’s agenda — are trusted and listened to by the news media which carries science news to the public. Respectfully, Dan’s vantage point is somewhat skewed by a career of seeing research from the political side as a Washington insider, rather than one of the rest of us among the unwashed masses.
— Earle Holland · Mar 6, 03:10 PM · #