The romance is over (the hard work begins)
| 7 June, 2011 | Morgan Giddings |
7
|
|
When you first fall in love, the passion can be intense, even burning. The object of affection is perfect in every way, they can do no wrong.
After a while, that feeling begins to wear off. Maintaining interest and passion becomes hard work. It’s easier to criticize than to be complimentary.
Some couples seek counseling. Others suffer a nasty divorce. Some find ways to work through the challenges and find a deeper love. But no doubt about it, maintaining a relationship after the first flush of passion is hard work.
The Marriage
Our society’s response to science is like the couple now going through such a phase. They’re looking at each other, asking, “Do I really want to stay with this person for the rest of my life? Another six months?”
Actually, it is more like a specific kind of couple, in the movies: an older rich guy supporting a young, beautiful, but not entirely self-sufficient woman.
At first, he likes having her around, but soon he starts asking himself, why am I supporting her, especially when she buys all those fancy shoes? As he begins to face some of his own financial difficulties, the thought comes to the fore: can I afford to have this woman around?
The metaphor may be a bit over the top, but the predicament of science in 2011 isn’t too far from the situation of that young woman dependent on the wealthy husband. We went through the romance-with-science period starting in the 1950’s. For twenty years science could do no wrong.
In the 70’s and 80’s, this phase was over, but passion remained. Even if it wasn’t perfect, there was still an optimistic view of what science could do for the world.
The 90’s ushered in a phase of some doubt about the marriage. Sometimes science managed to arouse the passion for a short while, but the distractions grew – wars, politics, and other noise started capturing the attention of the patron. His eyes were starting to wander.
Then the 00’s came. By this time, our wealthy husband was in full-on flirtation mode outside the marriage. His interests turned to the pursuit of wealth, fancy cars, entertainment, along with a growing interest in other women–the internet, the housing bubble, the stock market, and many others. Not much attention was left for the marriage.
Then 2008 brought the husband a dramatic financial collapse. The company he ran declared bankruptcy, and he dropped deeply into personal debt. He began rebuilding the company and working to pay off the debt, but it was going to take years–perhaps decades–before he would have hope of achieving his former wealth.
He examined his spending, and said, I have to cut back. But the next day his wife came home with a pair of $1300 shoes–more than she had earned at her own job in two months. He asked himself, “why do I tolerate this? I spend a lot of money on her, but I do not love her anymore.”
The Divorce
We have a situation where the NIH and other agencies fund only 1 in 10 grant. (You can find out more about dealing with that problem here).
The husband doesn’t realize how much his wife contributes to the household in non-monetary ways, because he takes her for granted. She spends a lot of time coordinating vacations that the husband enjoys. She keeps track of the maintenance, and coordinates the cleaning staff. She makes sure that healthy and tasty meals are prepared whenever he comes home. She talks to him about his business, and gives him good, lucrative ideas. Through her activities, his energy levels are higher, he will live a longer life, and his business is on a faster road to recovery.
But all he sees are the costs: the shoes, the car, the makeup, the salon. He sees the expenses, but not the benefits.
To be fair, she doesn’t help the situation. She doesn’t do a very good job of gently reminding him about all the things she does for him. Instead, she just says to herself, “He doesn’t understand, he doesn’t want to listen, so why should I even try?”
And she makes one other mistake. She assumes that her contributions are obvious to him.
Then one day he comes home and says: “Babe, I want a divorce. You’re great and all, but there’s just no passion left.”
After she packs her bags and leaves, he finally begins to realize what she’d done for him, and he misses her. But it is too late. She has moved on.
The Counseling
Is it a stretch to compare this couple to the romance between society and science?
Science is dependent on the generosity of society, much like this particular wife is dependent on the generosity of her husband.
Science and society had a passionate romance that is just about over.
Science contributes to society in many ways, but most are subtle.
Science assumes that its contributions are “obvious” yet most of society simply takes it for granted.
Science contributes to society in many ways, but most are subtle.
Science assumes that its contributions are obvious yet most of society simply takes it for granted.
Science often assumes that society just doesn’t get it, and fails to communicate in a way that society does get.
Occasionally, when a cure for a major disease is developed, or a breakthrough new technology is developed, it gets some attention. But for the most part, society takes scientific progress for granted. It is just how the world works, right?
Society does not understand the investment that is required to keep this whole thing going. It does not realize that we have to spend decades to train a great scientist, starting with a solid education in the childhood years. Society takes for granted that the Western countries are so far ahead that we can attract scientists from the East to make up for our own lack of people skilled in math and science (although we are no longer far ahead, and the attraction could soon turn into an outflow).
We scientists can continue to sit here, pointing the blame at society, much like the scorned wife might point at the husband and say: he did not appreciate me and all that I did for him. But feeling scorned or unappreciated doesn’t bring a sliver of improvement in the situation.
No, in fact we scientists are a part of the problem. In a relationship where the romance has gone, the blame lies with both parties. It takes two to tango.
Society needs our help to recognize, appreciate and support what we do.
We have to begin with the realization that the romance is over, which means the hard work has just begun. The easy days of science funding are gone.
If we want the privilege and luxury of continuing to do science in the future–with society picking up the tab–we must educate society about the value that we bring. Otherwise, it will end in a nasty divorce .
The last time a relative or non-science friend asked you what you do, what was your answer? Did you throw some technical sounding terms at them? If you did that, then you are adding chits to the divorce outcome.
Here are a few principles to help you improve the marriage:
1. Take time to educate others about the value of your science; the end goals and outcomes that your work strives towards, NOT the minutiae. Yes, I know, you can’t predict whether the work will solve cancer or cure HIV/AIDS, but if you aren’t willing to connect the dots between your work and the ultimate outcomes, why do you expect society to keep paying for it? It probably won’t.
2. Realize that doing science is much like driving: it’s a privilege, not a right!
3. From time to time do some introspection. Ask yourself, how does this work benefit the world, or humanity? Make the work matter, rather than just doing it for fun (or better yet, find out how you can have fun and make the work matter). A businessman I once talked to said, “I’d love to sit around and play guitar all day, but I can’t figure out how to get anyone to pay me to do that, which is why I’m in business.” You’ve been lucky to have someone supporting you, but realize that could stop at any time.
4. Drop the utter cynicism about the grant funding game, and realize that most agencies try to do their best to solve real problems with limited resources. Instead of wasting energy on cynicism, spend that energy figuring out how to solve important problems (last I checked, there were still plenty).
5. Take time out to educate youngsters about science. At many public elementary schools, science education is now a part-time thing, just one or two days a week. It is pathetic, and overburdened schools need volunteers who understand science.
Will these principles turn the situation into a utopian ideal marriage full of hot passion again? Of course not. But it is better than sitting around and waiting for the divorce papers to show up.
And, if you want to pre-order a print copy of my grant writing book “Four Steps To Funding,” I’d love to have your input and feedback before I take it to a publisher. In the book I discuss the principles of “communicating value,” which stretch far beyond just the grant writing realm.
|
|
previous post
The analogy is not that far off. I once had disdain for family and friends that did not understand how my research and basic science in general is a long term investment and a driver of innovation and economy. Only during my postdoc do I realize it’s not them, its me.
As scientists, we should place as much effort in making our science accessible to the general public as we do in grant writing. Of course, the obvious rebuttal is that there is no extra time! Well we’ll have plenty of time when the money dries up and there is no more science to do. Currently, only the scientist asks for more money from the government and in this economy, it is falling on deaf ears. Imagine we all got our families and friends to be as passionate about science as we are.
In fitting with the analogy, not only does the wife need to remind the husband how important she is. But what’s even more powerful are the guys at the bar saying “What are you nuts! If you lose her, you’re F#@%’d!”.
Stop whining and start teaching!
I only partly agree with this picture. Take a beautiful woman and a rich old guy who wants her as decoration of his life, showing her off at parties. My lady is more beautiful than yours… and there is an arms race among rich old guys about having the most wonderful female decoration (they often can only show them off, the alternative being to be intoxicated by blue pills). Female specimens are very good at taking advantage of the desperate willingness of male specimens to have some interaction with them. I know people who are in love for ever, though. At mutual advantage. But… if the tits are silicon, if many other attractive features are the product of surgery and special clothes, the romance might be affected. Beautiful women get old too. And they still are beautiful, even when they get older: it is just a different kind of beauty. If they accept it. If they continue to pretend to be beautiful as a teen ager… eventually the lie becomes too evident.
Science is full of fake promises (to impress funding agencies and the public at large). Some are for the worst: the wold will collapse in ten years (then the ten years pass and the world is still there). Some are for the best: with the genome project we will solve all our problems. Some are so evident that it is strange that people continue to buy them: with this rocket here, we will find the Martians.
In the news, every day, there is some miraculous achievement of science. This gene will save you from dandruff, this other one will make you younger. With some friends, I found a jellyfish that can revert its life cycle, going back to polyp. Write “immortal jellyfish” in google and you will find it. The media call it “immortal” but we did not want to play the game of immortality with funding agencies, in spite of the media frenzy (they still write, asking for the secret of immortality) for this story. Now I am still playing with jellyfish and the media (I even hit the cover of Time), but on a more serious way.
False promises are very effective for a while. Physicists are chasing the smallest particle ever, promising to solve all our problems (or promising cosmic catastrophes if their particles will really collide). Some funding agencies decided that it was time for them to stop. Nuclear power is going through some problems, lately.
But if you build rockets, the Martians are a nice way of masking military investments. The people like them (the Martians, not the military investments). Or the asteroid that will destroy the world, so we must build BIG rockets with BIG nuclear bombs to knock it down. And Hollywood is engaged in preparing the public opinion: Armageddon, Deep Impact, Contact, Mission to Mars. You name it.
My favorite obsession is the disappearance of taxonomy in the era of biodiversity. In this case, there is parasitism by other sciences towards the science of describing species. The description of a hairy crab hits the front page of the New York Times, and the impression is that the discovery of new species is a sensational event. It is not. They are discovered by the hundreds every day. And all this fuss about the hairy crab did not help taxonomy much. It helped somebody else, who showed the great enterprises of taxonomy to justify funds that were directed in other directions.
Anyway, there is no alternative to science. It is the only serious way of knowing. But the promises should be honest. If economists promise infinite growth in a finite system, if medical doctors promise to remove all the causes of death (so promising immortality), if modelers promise to predict the future with the click of a computer, then the public will start to distrust science.
They started already. But in many cases people still believe in science. Because people like to be religious, and science is another kind of religion, if presented in the way it is in many cases. The religion game works since the beginning of our species, it is evolving into science (a much more serious way to satisfy our need of feeling safe) but there has to be a better balance between blind faith and reason. The blind faith period for science is probably over. Now it should be the duty of the scientists to show that they still have many answers and can pose even more questions, but that they cannot do miracles. Meteorologists made it, and we trust them even if their predictions often fail (chaos theory explains why, though). Science needs more humility. I fear it is still trying to oversell its products. I already noticed that many research institutes are inserting the word “solution” in their names. People do not like problems, they like solutions. Of course, if the solution is in an after-life world (as religion is hinting at) then the lie can continue indefinitely. But if you promise the solution here and now, then the lie becomes apparent, after a while. And people go back to churches instead of relying on laboratories. But now let me go back to the chain gang, I have to negotiate a BIG project with the EU and, yes, they are just as Morgan described: they care about investing public money in a sound way. And we must be convincing. They asked to reduce the number of deliverables, for instance, trying to save us from all the promises we made! Keep your fingers crossed for us.
Morgan
Ouch – not sure I’m too keen on your 50’s wife analogy, but you raise a really valid point. In the UK, funders (both government and charities) are pushing researchers to make the case for what they do – to explain how their research is making a difference to society.
In medical research, we now have a better understanding of the continuum from basic research to new drug/therapy (even though we recognise that it takes a long time, is not linear etc etc). One of the key points is that getting ‘your’ research published is NOT the end of it – it needs to be ‘handed on’ to the next part of the pipeline, in order that it can make a difference. Projects like the MRC’s e-VAL (http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Achievementsimpact/Outputsoutcomes/e-Val/index.htm) encourage researchers to think about the next steps of their research, and collect evidence that funders can use to explain to the public and their sponsors why funding research is so important.
I’d love to know what ‘proper’ scientists think….
Liz
Well it is quite a complicated issue.
On the one hand science obviously needs to better communicate with public, the public also has right to know where its money goes. This unfortunately implies simplifications, overstatements, solutions-for-all-the-problems-in-no-time otherwise nobody will be interested in listening to us. The public is not trained to understand the language we use, is not prepared to pay attention to claims that are not quickly understandable and exciting. As someone said (today`s featured comment): ” Screaming sensationalism and over-the-top claims seem to be required to get the public’s attention”. On the other hand, as nando boero wrote “Science is full of fake promises (to impress funding agencies and the public at large) ” . That is also my impression – we are not new to overstatements and promises, we offer “solutions” in our grant proposals because nobody wants to hear about the problems.
So where actually is the balance? How can we communicate without making the simplifications and overstatements that some think we don`t do enough and others believe we do too much?
It’s a thin line, between heart and brain….
Well, Iwona, we must single out problems and we must also propose solutions, the problem is that if somebody simplifies and overpromises, the success is guaranteed. Let’s call it scientific populism. You tell the people what they want to hear, and they are happy with it. If the promises fail, you blame somebody else, and continue to promise the impossible. People like to be re-assured. Whom would you listen to, if you were sick? A doctor that tells you that we all must die, sooner or later, or a doctor who promises you that you will be fine? As I wrote somewhere, I do not remember where, the world is full of sick old angry people who refuse to die. And we spend fortunes to keep them alive, while children die of starvation. Somewhere else. We give funds to cure AIDS, but then we learn that the guys who produce the drugs do not want to give them to those who cannot pay for them. The rich can take advantage of scientific research, the poor cannot. I am not so inclined to give my money to these guys.
It is a cultural problem. Science is often not considered as THE way of knowing. And this is very strange. But Morgan is right, science is like love. Maybe. It is perceived in an irrational way. Gut feelings, or heart feelings. No space for the brain in this issues, and this is probably our greatest problem, and this should be the difference between love and science. But, evidently, the heart is stronger than the brain. As all lovers know.
I would say that if the paradigm of how science is done in this country changes, all these metaphors by Morgan would be just science fiction. Science has been performed in academic settings where freedom of ideas and research is the rule, and basic research is the norm. Unfortunately, over the years university faculty has seen their responsibilities expand from teaching to research, publishing, fundraising, training, management, administration, patenting, start-ups, media communication, curing diseases, solving the worlds problems, and more to come. Universities by trying to coerce their faculty into doing all these chores and adding them into ”the list to do” before tenure and continually rewriting the faculty job description , have turned the university professorship career into something ridiculous and even hazardous to attempt. If we, as a society, really want to put scientist to work in solving the problems that afflict us, then we need to do it in a purposely oriented way in which government, financial, and academic sectors cooperate and participate in a coordinated manner, and in a setting in which scientist do the science, and other responsibilities rest on the shoulders of specialist on those fields. Lets stop this madness of asking university faculty to be multitask responsible of everything to do with science. Freedom of thinking must continue ruling the science done in universities, there is where innovative ideas and findings have come from, and is not a privilege or a luxury to keep it that way but an obligation for the society as a whole if we want to better our chances of survival at confronting the many challenges we face. Our political leaders should understand that, otherwise they are useless as leaders and just mere politicians. Lets focus better in electing leaders that have a good understanding of the pivotal role that science has had and will always have in our wellbeing, leaders who also have the political skills to lead the nation into supporting basic science at academic settings and into building the scientific infrastructure we need to make the connection between economic and technological development. Should we add “effective political leader” to the scientist job description ?
I just doubt the credibility of the author as a scientist.
What have she done? What does she know of the pursuit of truth science is about? Her (her! she-in-science, of course) bio says that she “was trained” in this or that. Unlike a service dog, you cant make scientists by “training”.
So another big talker that happens to be “trained” came down and told us that we should sell ourselves instead of pursuing the truth. What a surprise.