Don’t be such a scientist February 3, 2010
Posted by sarah in: science , trackbackI just finished reading a book called Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style
For all his good advice, I have to say Olson picked a rather unfortunate title. It’s impossible to buy this book as a gift for someone without seeming, well, rude. Being a scientist, obviously, I did just that for the scientist I share my life with. He wasn’t too impressed (but did finish the book, then placed it on my side of the bed).
It’s a short and snappy read, filled with anecdotes rather than facts and figures, and that reflects exactly the point Olson tries to make. His advice is broken down into five simple statements:
- Don’t be so cerebral
- Don’t be so literal-minded
- Don’t be such a poor story-teller
- Don’t be so unlikeable
- Be the voice of science
It’s all quite common sense stuff but it gives some good food for thought. Anyone who’s ever worked in outreach or with media knows it’s really tough to find a balance between absolute factual accuracy and good storytelling and Olson goes into this problem in some detail.
One interesting point he makes is that science is essentially a negating profession:
The entire profession of science has at its core a single word, and that word is “no”. Science is a process not of affirming ideas but of attempting to falsify ideas in the search for truth. This is what a hypothesis is – an idea that can be tested and possibly falsified and rejected.
It’s true that in science we’re taught to be hyper-critical, to pick others’ work apart and try to find the holes. That pervading negativity can be hard to stomach for people – I think (hope?) that every scientist probably goes through phases of self-doubt and insecurity. This is actually one of the big reasons I started writing this blog: I wanted to say “yes” to something. I wanted to read a paper and have a space where I could say “how neat is this?” rather than have to focus on tearing it to pieces. And I’m sure many scientists enjoy outreach for that very reason.
Another part I found myself agreeing with was Olson’s discussion of what he calls “the bane and the joy of science blogs.” It’s good that more and more scientists are writing blogs to talk about their work to a wide audience, but unfortunately the basic premise of many science blogs is “anger” – an easily accessible emotion for most of us. Now, I certainly have nothing against a well-timed rant, but bile and scorn are not a very constructive way to have a dialogue. It can make scientists seem very arrogant and patronising towards those not working in academia, and this precisely works in favour of those who undermine science – anti-vaccination, anti-evolution folks etc. A good example of this is the mudslinging that’s gone on over the subject of science and religion – but let’s not wade into that debate.
It’s a fun book to read that has some inetresting insights. I’ve definitely made some mental notes to myself for things to keep in mind next time I talk to non-scientists about my work, or even prepare a science talk.
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?