The recent jaw-dropping performance of Donald Trump and his cronies,
firing off random statements without even bothering to check whether
they are true, is not as disturbing as the fact that they seem to be
getting away with it. It is no longer enough for a reputable press
outlet to cry foul – the corrections are shrugged off as partisan
conspiracy theorists, and the exposé no longer leads to shame, or the
mending of ways. Say something loud enough and often enough, and it
starts to sound true. Get away with it enough, and it becomes a viable
strategy.
The resistance to truth has been building for some time. The general public has had enough of experts, we were told last year before the Brexit referendum. But actually, expert views going unheeded by governments is nothing new. And the public has been swayed by charismatic pseudoscientists for hundreds of years: today’s homeopathy practitioners are just a modern version of yesterday’s snake-oil salesmen.
Among the scientific community, the preferred solution to countering irrational beliefs and outright lies has always been education and engagement. More science in schools. Science exhibitions in museums. Professional science “communicators” trudging through the tundra or hanging intrepidly off helicopters on television. And more recently, encouraging ordinary jobbing scientists to be more open about their work: pub talks, library chats, science stand-up and café scientifiques remain on the line-up in major cities, and such activities are finally being incentivised in universities, along with research output, grant income and teaching.
This is all worthy stuff, and probably works at some level. But is it enough?
I think not. First, countering the “alternative facts” mentality by providing the actual facts is only the first step. I’d even go so far as to say that it’s fatal to assume that all you need is the right message. As the snake oil peddlers know only too well, a persuasive, trusted persona is often much more effective.
Unfortunately, scientists have traditionally endured a bad reputation, rooted in ancient fears about meddling in the territory of the gods. This classic uneasiness has been reinforced in modern times by conspicuous PR disasters such as the Manhattan Project, and by the nagging suspicion that clever technology attempting to enhance nature to improve our lives might have a sting in the tail. Society’s ambivalence about science is reflected over the past century in fiction, in which the trope of well-meaning boffin losing control of his experiment is played out again and again in Hollywood and in countless speculative novels.
While science communicators and friendly jobbing scientists engaging with the public probably helps improve the overall reputation of scientists to some extent, there is always the worry that they are preaching to the converted – the sort who already like science, know roughly how it works and are not too susceptible to irrational beliefs and conspicuous lying. The real conundrum is how to reach the sort of person who wouldn’t be caught dead in a science museum or darken the door of a pub featuring researchers earnestly describing their PhD instead of widescreen sport.
My feeling is that scientists have to invade the space of popular culture in a way that they have never managed before. In their description of the new thriller Apple Tree Yard on iPlayer, the BBC described the protagonist incorrectly as a ‘doctor’ instead of a scientist – were they afraid that the S word might kill ratings?
When was the last time you saw a scientist as a contestant on a celebrity quiz programme, or switching on the Christmas lights in a town centre? How many times do scientists turn up as characters, major or minor, in television sit-coms, soaps or movies and novels about ordinary life, as opposed to in science fiction? How often are scientists asked to air casual opinions on political panels or broadcast interviews of major world events – in a milieu where it’s not uncommon to see sports figures, politicians, journalists and the like asked to comment on issues not in their remit?
Science is the invisible profession. Most people have no idea what scientists do, and may harbour a vague feeling of suspicion or uneasiness about the whole endeavour. Never seeing scientists participate in normal life only enhances the sense that they are the ‘other’, doing things that are ‘secret’ and by extrapolation, potentially dangerous.
Until very recently, Hollywood scientists were almost always portrayed with unflattering stereotypes. Though refreshing changes have occurred in recent years, with scientist characters becoming more human (and even female), we still have a long way to go to improve the image of science and its practitioners – the vanguard of rational thought – in the eyes of the world.
We scientists can no longer go it alone. We need new allies, and new strategies. Non-scientists who believe that science and the truth are concepts worth salvaging can actively help sell science too. Contrary to popular scientist belief, the humanities may actually hold the key. Writers: include more scientist characters in your fiction – not necessarily flattering portrayals, but human ones. Producers – get more scientists up on air, not even necessarily talking shop. Make them familiar, down-to-earth presences in our day-to-day world, until people are comfortable with the idea of rubbing shoulders with researchers and understand them as multi-dimensional people. Only then will the world at large have any chance of trusting the messenger.
The resistance to truth has been building for some time. The general public has had enough of experts, we were told last year before the Brexit referendum. But actually, expert views going unheeded by governments is nothing new. And the public has been swayed by charismatic pseudoscientists for hundreds of years: today’s homeopathy practitioners are just a modern version of yesterday’s snake-oil salesmen.
Among the scientific community, the preferred solution to countering irrational beliefs and outright lies has always been education and engagement. More science in schools. Science exhibitions in museums. Professional science “communicators” trudging through the tundra or hanging intrepidly off helicopters on television. And more recently, encouraging ordinary jobbing scientists to be more open about their work: pub talks, library chats, science stand-up and café scientifiques remain on the line-up in major cities, and such activities are finally being incentivised in universities, along with research output, grant income and teaching.
This is all worthy stuff, and probably works at some level. But is it enough?
I think not. First, countering the “alternative facts” mentality by providing the actual facts is only the first step. I’d even go so far as to say that it’s fatal to assume that all you need is the right message. As the snake oil peddlers know only too well, a persuasive, trusted persona is often much more effective.
Unfortunately, scientists have traditionally endured a bad reputation, rooted in ancient fears about meddling in the territory of the gods. This classic uneasiness has been reinforced in modern times by conspicuous PR disasters such as the Manhattan Project, and by the nagging suspicion that clever technology attempting to enhance nature to improve our lives might have a sting in the tail. Society’s ambivalence about science is reflected over the past century in fiction, in which the trope of well-meaning boffin losing control of his experiment is played out again and again in Hollywood and in countless speculative novels.
While science communicators and friendly jobbing scientists engaging with the public probably helps improve the overall reputation of scientists to some extent, there is always the worry that they are preaching to the converted – the sort who already like science, know roughly how it works and are not too susceptible to irrational beliefs and conspicuous lying. The real conundrum is how to reach the sort of person who wouldn’t be caught dead in a science museum or darken the door of a pub featuring researchers earnestly describing their PhD instead of widescreen sport.
My feeling is that scientists have to invade the space of popular culture in a way that they have never managed before. In their description of the new thriller Apple Tree Yard on iPlayer, the BBC described the protagonist incorrectly as a ‘doctor’ instead of a scientist – were they afraid that the S word might kill ratings?
When was the last time you saw a scientist as a contestant on a celebrity quiz programme, or switching on the Christmas lights in a town centre? How many times do scientists turn up as characters, major or minor, in television sit-coms, soaps or movies and novels about ordinary life, as opposed to in science fiction? How often are scientists asked to air casual opinions on political panels or broadcast interviews of major world events – in a milieu where it’s not uncommon to see sports figures, politicians, journalists and the like asked to comment on issues not in their remit?
Science is the invisible profession. Most people have no idea what scientists do, and may harbour a vague feeling of suspicion or uneasiness about the whole endeavour. Never seeing scientists participate in normal life only enhances the sense that they are the ‘other’, doing things that are ‘secret’ and by extrapolation, potentially dangerous.
Until very recently, Hollywood scientists were almost always portrayed with unflattering stereotypes. Though refreshing changes have occurred in recent years, with scientist characters becoming more human (and even female), we still have a long way to go to improve the image of science and its practitioners – the vanguard of rational thought – in the eyes of the world.
We scientists can no longer go it alone. We need new allies, and new strategies. Non-scientists who believe that science and the truth are concepts worth salvaging can actively help sell science too. Contrary to popular scientist belief, the humanities may actually hold the key. Writers: include more scientist characters in your fiction – not necessarily flattering portrayals, but human ones. Producers – get more scientists up on air, not even necessarily talking shop. Make them familiar, down-to-earth presences in our day-to-day world, until people are comfortable with the idea of rubbing shoulders with researchers and understand them as multi-dimensional people. Only then will the world at large have any chance of trusting the messenger.
No comments:
Post a Comment