Who are you?
| 2 July, 2010 | Richard P. Grant |
10
|
|
There was a rather strange column in Nature this week, discussing the work of the Science and Entertainment Exchange of the US National Academy of Sciences, an organization that exists, in brief, to help entertainment producers get it right. Strange, because the article by Daniel Sarewitz pours scorn on such a project. But what’s really surprising is Sarewitz’s claim, and I detect a certain amount of approval, that scientists work too hard to develop social skills or to dress properly.
Now, it’s my experience that there are a few nerds with neither social skills nor dress sense (although the ones I’ve known tend to be computer programmers rather than scientists); after all, most people learn such skills before they start their professional life. But this links in with the common meme that scientists have no interest in art, either.
And frankly, that’s so much banana juice.
You’re probably aware of the usual counter-argument to that claim, that most arts graduates couldn’t tell you the second law of thermodynamics (mind you, neither could most biologists, I’d wager). That’s besides the point. The point is rather that most adults have no interest in art outside of their day job. Eastenders is about as far as it goes.
Rather, I suspect that professional scientists not only have awesome social skills (not least because they spend their entire lives persuading people to give them what they want), but also have a deep and abiding love of art, music and literature. Because an appreciation of such things usually comes from the level of education and parental background rather than the specific pressures that come from their vocation.
Perhaps we should ask about the reading habits of firemen, or bankers, or checkout operators, or fighter pilots, before we dismiss scientists as cultural philistines.
Because there is a huge effort from places like the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society to engage with art, to inspire art from science and science in art. The virus sculptures of Luke Jerram (also see my photos at LabLit), and the giant flying pterosaurs are just two examples that spring to mind. And the Royal Society itself, as I’ve mentioned a couple of times, is celebrating its 350th birthday with a Science and Arts festival.
The amazing thing is that people, ‘ordinary’ people are interested in this. We had a good crowd at my Caf
|
|
previous post
It is important to remember that we (scientists) are a heterogeneous group of people so any generalization leaves many of us out.
Specifically, I must say that I not only know many scientists interested in the arts, also I know several high-level scientists with enormous talent to the arts and music.
Hmmm, and here I always thought the stereotype scientist was an evil genius trying to destroy the world.
I find the stereotype to be highly offensive. I have published over 120 papers and have kept my work funded since the early 70’s. I think this establishes me as a decent scientist. Not Nobel class, but decent enough. I also have performed professionally as a singer and musician (banjo and guitar) and play for free if asked. I also have published several short stories professionally, and I have read War and Peace twice and the collected works of Shakespeare. I dress well enough and maintain a neat appearance, due in some part to my wife’s influence. I can do quite well at any cocktail party or social gathering.
I am, however, still working on destroying the world, or at least establishing myself as World Dictator. Resistance is futile.
Before becoming a scientist one has to pass through a stage of upbringing that has a lasting impact on things he/she is set out to do in life. The way he looks at science and life depends upon the genetic wherewithal and the atmosphere prevailing at home and in the surroundings where he is exposed. It leaves a scar or tag throughout his life. A scientist more often than not takes interest in a wide variety of activities not typically related to science, but all these activities enrich his life and add a dimension to his personality. It is helps him understand the deeper meaning of behind the causo-mechanical events that sometimes haunt him and pester his mind. In both success and failure in his scientific endeavor he tends to adopt equipoise that frees him from the stress of the rat race of success and reward. Various pursuits like dabbling in music, fine arts, literature, etc. enable him to look upon his own work with a sense of subdued satisfaction. He can perceive better what is on the other side of the wall and what might have happened had he not done what he did or if he had chosen another approach to the problems. He adopts an attitude of resilience and thereby scores better in the game of life. As to finding arts in science and science in arts, it is like examining two sides of a coin. One inspires to enter the realm of another. One cannot remain unmoved by the manner of movements of stars and galaxies. Sometimes resignations in scientific endeavor find an outlet in literature, as it has happened in my case.
Not surprised that this commentary appeared in Nature. In England there has long been a sort of an academic border war going on between those with a literary education, who tend to regard their technically trained counterparts as boorish philistines, and those with a technical training, who sometimes regard their literary counterparts as effete snobs. The classical description of this appears in C.P. Snow’s essay “Two Cultures”. A more graphic depiction of this attitude can be found in H.G. Wells’ allegorical novella “The Time Machine”, in which a future humanity has evolved into two separate species, the brutish tech-savvy Morlocks, and the gentle but vapid Eloi. Mr. Sarewitz’s commentary seems to indicate that this mind-set is alive and well in the UK. In the US, the dichotomy seems to be much less pronounced, possibly because of the distribution requirements in the curricula of most undergraduate institutions.
I agree with the previous comments that scientists are a heterogeneous bunch, but I cannot help thinking to myself that if Richard Grant has never met a scientist with poor dress sense who is awkward in company and doesn’t appreciate the arts, he doesn’t get around much.
As I say, computer programmers. Any two of those, but seriously, the number of scientists who would fit all three is small.
Daniel Sarewitz’s opinions exhibit a common, though extremely narrow-minded and shortsighted vision of today’s scientists. I have met many scientists that illustrate his point (we’ll call them Purists), and even more that do not. I believe the arrogance of the Purists and the apathy of the rest has alienated the public at large and led to the deterioration of faith in the value of Science. While I believe that mass media such as this magazine and Scientific American and the like have attempted to make knowledge more accessible and understandable to the greater public, they are swimming against the current of popular opinion. Art in any form; architectural, abstract, or technology-driven is part of the answer.
In plain words, if the folks paying for our research, not the government that hands it out, not the scientist who just writes the grant asking for money, but the actual taxpayer and/or stockholders who put their hard earned paycheck into our hands no longer understand our work or have faith in the overall endpoint benefit to their offspring, we deserve to lose our jobs.
In the end, returning knowledge for money IS our job, and a significant one.
Recommend you look at my article about stereotypes about scientists among members of the USA adult general population. It’s now in hard copy in Public Understanding of Science and can be accessed at:
http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/372
Susan
True that! A lack of artistic appreciation?! Just take a look at the breathtaking beauty of the series of covers on your stack of Nature or Science magazines. Present those to any art class at any renouned university, and you’ll see a lot of jaws dropping.
Good point, Paul.