Why is Jeremy Clarkson more famous than me?
| 28 June, 2010 | Richard P. Grant |
8
|
|
Carmen D’Cruz flies the flag for science communication
|
|
previous post8 thoughts on “Why is Jeremy Clarkson more famous than me?”
Legacy comments are closed.
User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the post under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks.
Click here to post comment and indicate that you accept the Commenting Terms and Conditions.
It almost seems that every scientist publishing for acceptance in a peer reviewed journal would need to have a personal science-savvy-everyday-language translator. Not only does it have to be explained well, it has to be well written so that the reader doesn
Brilliant! I labor in the vineyards of corporate environmental programs, now sustainability more broadly writ, and the desire for simple local optima when systems optima are required is epidemic. Millions of hours every year are squandered mashing out details and linkages because “stakeholders” “can’t take too many specifics”.
But what do we do? Is there such a thing as elegant accurate simplicity?
This is a problem I struggle with daily. On the one hand, you’re trying to get across incredibly complex issues in a few words; on the other, you don’t want to alienate people. Sometimes you have to trust that the reader *does* have wiki open, and go with it. The rest of the time you don’t tell the whole story.
Who is Jeremy Clarkson?
“Is there such a thing as elegant accurate simplicity?”
what you need is a medical editor. use us 🙂
Such science writing does exist and it is not written at a 6 year old level. The New York Times science columnists do a reasonably good job, though at times I think they leave out the caveats. The other great source is, surprisingly, The Economist magazine. Their science articles are well written, well placed in context and current. Furthermore, they do not seem to get caught up in the hype of “this will cure all our problems”. It seems a shame that given their great example of how to do science writing well so few other members of the press even attempt to follow their lead.
<>
There’s a lot of talk at the moment about engaging the public in science. I used to work as a personal finance journalist and I wouldn’t have had a job if people could be bothered to shop around, read the small print and figure out what to do with percentages.
I know this sounds horribly cynical, but a lot of people don’t want to make an effort. They either don’t have the time, the ability, the confidence or the inclination. Younger people don’t want to study science because it’s hard and science jobs don’t pay much.
<> No, the masses don’t know. If they did, there would be no multi-billion alt med industry and the advertising industry would collapse.
There’s also a gap between being interested in individual high profile science stories and adopting a more questioning, scientific approach to life. Most people only engage with science stories that directly effect them, like MMR for example. And then they just want someone to tell them the facts rather than dig for themselves.
Even if there was a 30p newspaper that focussed on or promoted good science writing, why would people buy it unless it also had sport, celebrity news and stuff about fashion/cars etc? There is no way that most people would ring up an expert to ask about a particular issue.
So, although I agree with you entirely that the public needs to be turned on to science, I have a horrible suspicion that the only way to do it in the current culture is to get celebs on board. And that sucks.
Meanwhile, the job of scientists and people who care about facts is damage limitation – making sure that public money isn’t spent on woo, for example.
The time has come to say bye to the mythical “Common Man”; “Layman” Or “Man of ordinary prudence”. These terminologies emanated (perhaps), when early Industrial Society had challanged the semi-literate Agrarian. Hypocrisy prevails among all members of Human specis and “Pleading ignorance” is one of the varients of “Games people play”. There are people who brag about there inability to send short messages from cellphones; or stating that they cannot get to send an e-mail. (“I can only switch the Computer off”). It is a case of making a virtue of inadequacy. It usually has stereotyped situations. Call a Lawyer/Engineer/ Accountant to inaugural of a Conference addressing Doctors. You guessed it (1) I am glad I am meeting Doctors at Invitation (2) I do not know why I am called here (3) I am the only Layman in this august audience. Or at a meeting to shut the juniors up, a fossil will typically say, “All this is fine but my gray hair feels we are doing something which we do not know!” Thus, such a facade of ignorance seeks a reward of focussing attention to an individual than the subject matter; or else to sabotage a consensus nearly formed. One can garnish such statements with “What else a Layman/Villeger/Migrant/Underdog/Novice like me say? But one thing is for sure …” Sounds familiar? Carmen D