…and this is a 
Guest post by Neil Shubin: preparing for TV
Category: Communicating science • Evolution
Posted on: January 17, 2008 3:59 PM, by PZ Myers
I thought it might be useful for the readers of Pharyngula to get my sense of the Colbert show experience.
Being a scientist on the show carries with it some challenges. We need to convey facts of science correctly and do so in a way reveals how fun our science is to do and to think about. We need to educate, enlighten, and excite. The challenge is we need to do this in 5 minutes with Stephen Colbert sitting across the table. To make matters worse, the show does not tell you the tack Colbert is going to take in advance, largely because so much of what he does is ad lib.
Because of this, I was terrified when I received the invitation last Fri. I took a few hours to accept, largely because I needed a family conference on the strike. Once I came to terms with my decision (the readers do a good in the commentary on the various issues that swirled for us), I began to prepare for the interview.
How did I prepare for the Colbert interview? In watching successful science interviews (of which there are a number of real good examples to emulate) I saw some general patterns to a successful visit. It also definitely appears that Colbert likes scientists and he want them to be able to tell their story.
The best answers I saw responded to Colbert's questions with a sentence that captured the essence of the science in an entertaining way. So, the day of my interview I came up with a number such answers for the questions I thought I'd get. For the most part, I prepared with answers defending evolution vs. other non-scientific approaches.
I was pretty nervous before the interview, so much so that I didn't sleep much the night before. And, as it turned out, my predictions about Colbert's questions were largely wrong-- Colbert didn't even touch creationism and did a number of riffs on things that weren't even in the book (like the final questions). I was aided, though, by the experience of preparing my answers. It exercised my brain in a way that allowed me to respond to the questions he really asked.
In thinking about the experience a few days later I have one thought on language. As scientists we are very used to using language with a great deal of precision (note the string in the commentary on common ancestry, group inclusion, etc.). The challenge is adapting our highly precise vocabulary to the demands of a five minute performance on a show which is fundamentally not about science. It is a tough tightrope to walk to balance between language that is both engaging and precise. I had mixed success, but that has to be our aspiration for these kinds of experiences.
You can ask the question, a valid one, why bother with these kinds shows? If it is so difficult, and the conceptual and linguistic apparatus of science doesn't easily conform to this venue, why do it? For me the answer is that we need to make science part of the public conversation. We live in a society where Britany Spears latest foible gets more ink than Mello and Fire's 2006 Nobel discovery of RNAi-- a breakthrough on a little worm that will likely lead to treatments of many diseases. Something is wrong here.
Thanks for your comments and criticisms and I hope my personal experience gives some perspective.
Neil Shubin
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
I thought you did very well. Colbert did bring up Creationism a few times.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | January 17, 2008 4:06 PM
You did very will and I will be reading your work. Bravo.
Posted by: zer0 | January 17, 2008 4:16 PM
Yeah that was a great interview. Very interesting and definitely accessible to the average viewer.
Posted by: Cameron Pittman | January 17, 2008 4:18 PM
You struck a real blow for the good guys, Neil. You came across as knowledgeable yet not at all stuffy or pretentious (which really puts off the non-scientists, for some reason. Tom Cruise can publicly berate Brooke Shields all he wants, but God forbid a scientist should come across as too intellectual....)
We need to educate, enlighten, and excite.
I think you scored three out of three on that count.
Well done!
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 17, 2008 4:21 PM
I thought you did very well. First book I think I will buy based solely on what I saw of you on the show. I went from knowing nothing about your book to very interested.
Colbert plays a really interesting character, and the interviews he has with people who don't seem to understand the humor is painful to watch. But you seemed to figure out how to play the game. It was fun, entertaining, and I learned something to boot.
Posted by: ryanb | January 17, 2008 4:23 PM
You didn't appear nervous. In fact, you seemed relaxed, confident and tickled to be on the show. And you were clearly enthusiastic about your work.
Posted by: Lana | January 17, 2008 4:24 PM
Great interview! Just the right mixture of clear thinking, wit, and cool, measured response to Colbert.
Now, I'm off to see where I can get a copy of your book.
Thanks.
Posted by: waldteufel | January 17, 2008 4:24 PM
Bravo Neil, I caught the show when you were on and was astonished that such a thing was on national television. Kudos to Colbert too. Loved it and I've been telling my students to see the clip & consider the book. I'll read it for sure. We need more like you. Again, Bravo.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | January 17, 2008 4:28 PM
Dr. Shubin, I also think that you did a very good job on the show. Oh, and I liked the Fermilab lecture too. I have been to enough of those things now to realize that there are some people, like yourself, who are able to communicate science very effectively to the general public and there are those who don't realize that they need to drop down to an undergraduate level to do so since they aren't addressing a graduate seminar or symposium. Kudos and darn that Stephen Colbert for making it such a short interview! ;^)
Posted by: Mena | January 17, 2008 4:29 PM
You did great. I think you did a good job of explaining things quickly, clearly and not so technically that it disrupted the comedic nature of Colbert's approach or became hard to follow. I think this is a success. Using comedy and being able to speak non-scientist is a great asset to the scientific community. It helps people who are interested in the subject but afraid of the vocabulary to feel more comfortable.
Posted by: denise | January 17, 2008 4:31 PM
question:
your choice of the ear as an example representing the history of our evolution was excellent.
what made you pick that specific example to use on the show?
did you have experience using this example previously?
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 17, 2008 4:34 PM
Great Interview Neil!
I'll agree with the statement earlier that this will be the first book I've ever rushed out and purchased solely because of the interview. The ear analogy for evolution was a great device. (Even my 87 year old grandfather got it!)
You kept it short, you kept it sweet, you managed to push forth complicated concepts to an audience that is not the intelligentsia elite. You've done the community as a whole proud!
To that, I salute you!
Posted by: Sparky | January 17, 2008 4:37 PM
Yeah, so; questions. If I buy your book, will it make my breath fresher and my teeth whiter? Does it have enough pictures of naked women in it?
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | January 17, 2008 4:40 PM
Excuse me, I'm going to rush out and buy a copy of the book right now.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | January 17, 2008 4:41 PM
Does it have enough pictures of naked women in it?
who cares? just look at the cover, man!
fish in suit!
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 17, 2008 4:42 PM
well, the cover of Natural History, anyway.
close enough.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 17, 2008 4:43 PM
Dear Dr. Shubin,
As the "house rhetorician" around here, I have to say your ideas on communicating science (or, really, communicating any complex, precise ideas) to a lay audience are spot-on. Is there any chance you might like to write an article telling other scientists and science communicators what techniques you use to make science communication educational, enlightening, and exciting?
Thanks.
Posted by: Interrobang | January 17, 2008 4:45 PM
Great job Neil! I have to say that you handled yourself very well on the show, I really enjoyed it. Myself and many others have noticed that Colbert didn't seem to jump full tilt into his usual creationist banter that he used against Dawkins and other scientists I've seen on the show.
I look forward to reading your book!
Posted by: Steve P. | January 17, 2008 4:46 PM
Britany Spears latest foible
What were you just saying about precise language?
Posted by: The Kenosha Kid | January 17, 2008 4:47 PM
Your comments on communicating science to the public are well taken. Why is it England has professors like Dawkins and Weiseman with titles like "Chair for the Public Understanding of..." and we don't in the US? I think this is something we should work on. We'll nominate you first, of course.
Posted by: teacherninja | January 17, 2008 4:52 PM
Not living in the US means I haven't seen your appearance. However I would just like to say that the story of Tiktaalik, especially the predictive bit: we looked for the right rocks of the same age, went and found it, is wonderful. I have used that a number of times in conversation, real and online, as an example of how evolution is an experimental, predictive science.
I have followed the story of the first amphibians for a good 20years now and I was really proud of science when Tiktaalik was found to so neatly fill that gap. The whole story is a fascinating and inspiring one about one of the seminal processes in the history of life on this world. To have it so complete is a true triumph which makes me proud to be a biologist.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | January 17, 2008 4:56 PM
I presume you refer to the bit about taking the "steering wheel" away from Darwin. Transhumanism on The Colbert Report — now my day is complete!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 17, 2008 4:59 PM
Congratulations. It's a difficult task to appear so relaxed while ensuring good scientific information is broadcast in an entertaining way but you pulled it off.
Posted by: AllanW | January 17, 2008 5:00 PM
I thought you did a great job on Colbert. Obviously the host had done some research about amphibian transitional forms, and minimized his usual TV persona's creationist wackiness. It was a little five minute gem in the vast wasteland.
Posted by: Bert Chadick | January 17, 2008 5:00 PM
I just placed my order for Your Inner Fish on Amazon, also based solely on your interview.
Not only was I moved to buy your book, but halfway through I suddenly realised that these aren't the droids we're looking for.
You can go about your business.
Move along, move along.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 17, 2008 5:04 PM
Nicely done. Colbert reaches a wide audience, and anyone who can keep up with him is going to have an impact on them.
One of the things that made it a good interview was that your comments intrigued Colbert enough that he wanted to find out more. Much of it was new and unusual (to the lay person) information. It kept him from having to devote so much of his energy into being the Creationist contrarian just to keep the show rolling.
Now, if only more scientists would bother with these kind of shows...
Posted by: RamblinDude | January 17, 2008 5:05 PM
I could never have guessed at the anxiety you felt before the interview Neil. You seemed to be sharp, quick witted, and in fact, very funny. The science was precise, and you explained things in a way that would allow a lay audience to truly understand it. Also, as an added bonus, it was all done through the entertaining Colbert format.
In fact, your interview seemed as natural, well-balanced, and sophisticated as Neil deGrasse Tyson's who is well known to be a natural in the spotlight. I'd go as far as to say, yours was even more informative, because your quick wit, and smooth redirections allowed you to cover a great deal of topics that are usually impossible with Colbert's sardonic humor.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | January 17, 2008 5:07 PM
I thought that was the best Colbert science interview done so far. Your answers to Colbert's questions were quick and to the point.
Do you think the writer's strike may have helped make the interview go as smooth as it did? Colbert is a sharp wit but I wonder how the interview would have differed if he'd had his writers preparing questions and comebacks (if they do that for the interviews).
Posted by: Todd | January 17, 2008 5:08 PM
Peter Ashby @#20
You can catch the interview here.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 17, 2008 5:14 PM
You did great, I loved watching your interview. It must be hard to prepare for an interview like Colbert's, but you were very quick on the responses and answered them intelligently.
I look forward to more interviews and I'm going to request a copy of the book too.
Thanks for stopping by Pharyngula.
Posted by: Geral | January 17, 2008 5:16 PM
I bought your book because in the article excerpted from it, in the part about hiccups and tadpoles, you suggested that if tadpoles drank water from a glass upside down their hiccups would stop. I like my science with a shot of funny, and you, sir, made me laugh.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | January 17, 2008 5:17 PM
Enjoyed watching your bit on Colbert. It seems from this and other interviews I've seen that Colbert is a friend of science. He lets the scientists talk, makes witty comments, and actually asks questions that allow the scientists to explain things further (e.g. his question about genes).
Looking forward to the book.
Posted by: Ron | January 17, 2008 5:19 PM
Nicely done! Fantastic job! I have just one small wish--
I found my inner monkey, inner lizard, inner fish;
(And all of this in just my ear? That's so cool what you did!)
My question, though, is where to go to find my inner squid*?
(*or cuttlefish. That would be even better.)
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | January 17, 2008 5:21 PM
Excellent job on the Colbert Report, Neil! I think you really got across what is so inherently exciting about the topic. It was easy to see Colbert was genuinely interested. Needless to say I ordered the book from Amazon immediately. (I remember you -- fondly -- from your grad school days; it's great to see you now having such a positive impact on the presentation of science in the public realm!)
Posted by: Tom Trombone | January 17, 2008 5:27 PM
Well, there was the one creationist reference:"I am not constrained by the data." Perfect.
Posted by: fnxtr | January 17, 2008 5:27 PM
RNAi is good - but don't forget about aptamers!
Posted by: bunbuns | January 17, 2008 5:28 PM
Dr. Shubin,
As a sociologist who studies public discourse, framing (gets ready to have head handed to him by the other folks here), and media, I've just got to say, Job exceptionally done. I was impressed, and entertained. And, I bought a copy of your book for myself and my dad based on the interview.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 17, 2008 5:33 PM
Hey, Neil (pardon me if I dispense with the "Dr.," since I remember you from well before that, when we used to play "Diplomacy" in your parents' basement).
Great work! The comments about precision in language are especially apt. It's not just a matter of having enough time, though.
I work as a copy editor at a newspaper, and one of the jobs dumped in my lap is editing the semi-weekly astronomy/skywatching column, since I have a background in that. Words like "brightness" and "magnitude" that can be interchanged with other words by the average newspaper editor have precise meanings in astronomy that will be destroyed by a substitution.
Posted by: Callimachus | January 17, 2008 5:35 PM
"Your comments on communicating science to the public are well taken. Why is it England has professors like Dawkins and Weiseman with titles like "Chair for the Public Understanding of..." and we don't in the US? "
Wiseman discusses this very question in one of the recent Skeptic's Guide podcasts.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | January 17, 2008 5:37 PM
You did very well on Colbert, and he can drive almost anyone, friend or foe off their balance.
A few questions if I might?
1. What is it that makes you sure Tiktaalik is not just a better preserved Elpistostege watsoni?, as opposed to an Elpistostegid?
2. Are you and Alhberg friends?
3. Oh, and who was the first person to actually recognize Tiktaalik for what it was? Was it recognized in the field, or did someone suddenly realize afterwards in the lab what it actually was?
Posted by: Acanthos | January 17, 2008 5:37 PM
Thanks Brownian.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | January 17, 2008 5:37 PM
Dr Shubin: You did an excellent job on Colbert. You should do as many more such appearances as offer themselves. Along with others here, I didn't detect any nervousness and it seemed like you couldn't have been more comfortable.
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | January 17, 2008 5:43 PM
That was an excellent interview! It took me a while to find it on-line, but I'm glad I did. Score one for science!!!!
Posted by: Mike Goad | January 17, 2008 5:44 PM
Neil Shubin wrote:
Hmmmm. Sounds like "Framing".
Posted by: Greg Esres | January 17, 2008 5:49 PM
I don't think so. Adapting language is not the same as compromising standards to appease (religious) people. Anyway, I think the bulk of the problem with framing is in the realm of religion vs. science, and probably other instances where there is a vested interest from the opposition to undermine science, and not in the public science education generally.
Posted by: andyo | January 17, 2008 6:20 PM
Mr. Shubin,
It was great to see yet another scientist on the Colbert Report. As I said in the other thread, those are my favorite Colbert interviews. Congratulations, you did great.
Posted by: andyo | January 17, 2008 6:32 PM
Snaps to you Dr. Shubin (cringing with that reference).
In that five minutes you were able to get to the gut of what we are all trying to say.
I will buy your book.
Ken
Posted by: Ken Mareld | January 17, 2008 6:33 PM
You looked perfectly relaxed and in control. I was surprised that Colbert actually let you talk. I have already sent away for your book on Amazon.
Posted by: Jeanette Garcia | January 17, 2008 6:33 PM
An excellent interview by Prof. Shubin. It is unfortunate that so few scientists take the trouble to appear on shows like the Colbert Report (which I must confess I never watch), or make public presentations to general audiences. We need more Shubins, Tysons, Krausses, and Millers out there to counteract the crap from the Dumbskies of the world.
Posted by: SLC | January 17, 2008 6:36 PM
I thought you were great on Colbert. It was entertaining without compromise.
In contrast, Mike Behe really screwed the pooch when he remarked that Colbert was "wrong," thus giving the comedian the opening to feign insult and slam shut the interview. Behe became the foil, the butt of the joke, a boob and several other body parts I won't mention.
Posted by: Doc Bill | January 17, 2008 6:36 PM
Caught the interview, and you came off very well. I ordered the book from Amazon right away! Got an E-Mail this morning saying it had already shipped! Looking forward to reading it! :)
Thanks,
CVA
Posted by: CitizenVA | January 17, 2008 6:36 PM
Oh yeah, Shubin? Well answer this, then: if we evolved from fish, WHY ARE THERE STILL FISH???!!!
Ahem...
I've read one or two of your papers in Nature; amazingly cool stuff, but a bit of a hard slog for laity like me. It's great that you've now put out something at a more popular level, and I will definitely be picking it up.
BTW, you did just fine with Colbert. Better than fine, actually. I suppose it's only natural to feel nervous in that sort of setting, but you came across comfortable and assured. And down-to-earth and friendly as well -- a sort of anti-Prof. Frink. If you get more opportunities to appear on television, snap 'em up is what I'd say.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | January 17, 2008 6:40 PM
I loved your appearance on Colbert, Shubin, it was excellent. It seemed like Colbert wanted to bombard you with "so stupid and bizarre questions they dont have an answer" , yet you calmly answered every one of them with spot-on science. To me this interview was one of the finest examples on how to confront soundbite media with precise science. I think many people are sort of thinking that scientist only deals with these.. complicated/abstract questions where the science is just to specialized.. but you showed how the genes have real effects on our bodies.. people are often ignorant or indifferent to facts like that.
Posted by: BicycleRepairMan | January 17, 2008 6:47 PM
How many Tiktaaliks have you found? What are you looking for now?
Posted by: Pete Dunkelberg | January 17, 2008 6:48 PM
OK, just ordered it. But on this side of the Atlantic I have to wait till the end of the month for it to ship! Grrr...
Listen, America, one day soon the euro is going to be the world's reserve currency, and from that happy day on I WILL NO LONGER NEED TO WAIT TWO WEEKS FOR BOOKS BY NEIL SHUBIN!!! And, if you cup your hand (which used to be a fin) round your ear (which used to be a gill), you just might hear a faint bwa-ha-ha from beyond the horizon...
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | January 17, 2008 6:50 PM
Colbert's got 3 out of those 4 covered already. Neil DeGrasse Tyson has appeared 2 or 3 times, he's a "friend of the show" and hopefully got the "Colbert bump". Ken Miller also has done a good appearance. Also, Dawkins, Brian Greene, Peter Agre, and some others I forget.
I have seen Tiktaalik referenced before too in the show and another guest also brought a replica to discuss it (sorry, I forget the name of the guest). In short, Colbert is actually scientifically literate, especially compared with his fellow TV comedians. and throughout his show there are sometimes little science in-jokes. You should probably watch it, if TV is your thing.
Posted by: andyo | January 17, 2008 7:10 PM
I thought you also did a great job in the PBS evolution series a few years ago. I'm really glad that there are paleontologists who can communicate so well with the media.
Posted by: Carlie | January 17, 2008 7:15 PM
I don't think so. Adapting language is not the same as compromising standards to appease (religious) people.
As someone who's been doing research and working in the field of framing, and particularly it's relationship to language, you don't know what you're talking about.
Framing is about choosing the right metaphor ("cupcake recipe"), about using specific exemplars, and about using language in ways that draw upon a preferred way of approaching the topic at hand. It's been blown out of shape in these conflagrations, but it doesn't help when you don't know the literature and spout crap.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 17, 2008 7:22 PM
Dr. Shubin
It seems your book came out in Canada because I had already bought it and had read 80% of it when I saw the interview. I was impressed with how well you expressed the gist of the book in the time you had alotted. Also I do believe Colbert was pitching as in 5-pitch, so you could hit the ball.
Posted by: paul01 | January 17, 2008 7:25 PM
oops.
"came out in Canada a few days early" is what I meant to say
Posted by: paul01 | January 17, 2008 7:26 PM
As someone who's been doing research and working in the field of framing, and particularly it's relationship to language, you don't know what you're talking about.
Thanks MAJeff, saved me from having to hop on and be much ruder :)
Posted by: Peter Hollo | January 17, 2008 7:49 PM
...mind you, the stray apostrophe in "it's" is a shame :P
Posted by: Peter Hollo | January 17, 2008 7:51 PM
I thought you did pretty well considering it was Steven Colbert across the table. That guy is great at ad lib comedy.
Posted by: Matt LaCrosse | January 17, 2008 7:53 PM
The interview was fantastic! I've ordered your book and am looking forward to reading it.
Posted by: Sarah | January 17, 2008 8:12 PM
I thought it was first rate. You came across calmly and clearly, and made your points in an entertaining way. I have seen some well-known scientists who have experience with the media having problems dealing with Colbert's style (Brian Greene was an example), so I think should count this as quite a success.
Posted by: Steve Zara | January 17, 2008 8:13 PM
Great post. :)
Posted by: Alex | January 17, 2008 8:25 PM
"I have seen Tiktaalik referenced before too in the show and another guest also brought a replica to discuss it (sorry, I forget the name of the guest)"
It was Neil's buddy "Ted Daeschler" that was on with Tiktaalik before. They have worked together for quite a while and were involved in the Red Hills finds like the Rhizodont known as "Sauripterus"
Posted by: Lago | January 17, 2008 8:31 PM
Wow, some people are really touchy-feely about this framing stuff. I guess MAJeff and Peter Hollo (thanks for not being rude to me, by the way) are proponents of it? Not that there's anything wrong with that (in my opinion).
Well, I haven't really done much research, nor have been working in the field of framing, and particularly its relationship to language, so I may not know what I'm talking about as thoroughly as yourself, whom, by inference from your post, you were actually referring to when writing that.
But that was a cheap shot. You know, just like stating other people don't know about stuff and you're an expert, or commenting that someone saved you from having to be rude to someone else.
I was just responding to the other poster who thought Mr. Shubin was framing, and from the looks of the post, he was being critical because of that. From what I've read from the opponents of framing (of which I am not one, but I don't go the other way either because I'm not an "expert"), they think that framing in the religion vs. science conflict tends to compromise standards of science, hence my reply.
Posted by: andyo | January 17, 2008 9:01 PM
Great interview! I loved the article (not to mention that compelling cover art) in NH magazine. My library ordered your book and someone has already checked it out. I'm the next one in line for it.
I sincerely hope more scientists will follow your lead and talk to the public about science.
Posted by: Karen S. | January 17, 2008 9:04 PM
By the way, thanks for the clarification, Lago.
Posted by: andyo | January 17, 2008 9:12 PM
"By the way, thanks for the clarification, Lago."
No problem. Here is more on their friendship if you are interested:
http://www.citypaper.net/articles/070199/feat.covstory1.shtml
Posted by: Lago | January 17, 2008 9:20 PM
As a former (medical) student of Dr. Shubin's, I am happy to report that he is every bit as interesting and enthusiastic and intelligent as a teacher as he represented himself to be during the interview. Bravo, Dr. Shubin!
But, the real question is: Does Tiktaalik have a puborectalis homolog?
Posted by: Ben | January 17, 2008 9:26 PM
Colbert! Pharyngula! Colbert! Pharyngula!
Can life get any better?! I think not!
Oh my, I love to get picky.
"...does not tell you the tack Colbert is going to take..."
Should not the author have used "tact" instead of "tack" in this subquote?
Either I'm off in left field, an English major/minor needs to correct me, or just maybe, I'm (insert facial signs of humility here) right?
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | January 17, 2008 9:40 PM
Tack in this sense is meant as the nautical term.
most specifically, "b"
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 17, 2008 9:44 PM
Ichtyic, my humblest apologies for murdering plain English. Thank you. (No wonder my kids continued to roll their eyes at me when they were in grammar school.)
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | January 17, 2008 10:05 PM
Professor,
No cable and I'm on dial up, so watching the interview is out of the question. (That and the fact the vertical is whacked, so I essentially use my tv as a radio with a screen saver.) That said, I commend you for going on The Colbert Report.
However, I must protest your statement that I am descended from a fish. I am not descended from just any fish, I am descended from a lobe-finned fish. And I scoff mightily at anyone descended from a paltry ray-finned fish (assuming any such person actually existed).
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | January 17, 2008 10:11 PM
Colbert is adept at derailing a conversation for purely comedic value.
But his apparent affinity for scientists is easily one of my favorite things about his show. He's willing to give them a good platform to bring these concepts to a much wider audience than they might have found otherwise.
(Though I confess that sometimes, his interviews with the pseudo-scientists like Behe are even more entertaining, for his willingness to let them hoist themselves on their own petard.)
Posted by: Seraphiel | January 17, 2008 10:14 PM
But his apparent affinity for scientists is easily one of my favorite things about his show. He's willing to give them a good platform to bring these concepts to a much wider audience than they might have found otherwise.
Agreed. Was it just me, or did anyone else notice he seemed to almost go out of character (listen to his voice and inflection) when he asked, "Is this tiktaalik..." It may just have been me, but I thought I noticed a subtle shift.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 17, 2008 10:16 PM
And I scoff mightily at anyone descended from a paltry ray-finned fish (assuming any such person actually existed).
bah! your lobefinner ancestors have by and large gone the way of the dodo.
OTOH, we descendants of rayfinners can point to how successful our ancestors have been:
30K species and finding more every day!
i mean, yeah sure, we don't get around all that well on land, but that's beside the point.
(all hail Dagon)
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 17, 2008 10:21 PM
i mean, yeah sure, we don't get around all that well on land, but that's beside the point.
And some of y'all are pretty tasty.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 17, 2008 10:23 PM
And some of y'all are pretty tasty.
yeah, I've been meaning to mention:
would you kindly LAY OFF systematically wiping my ancestors off the face of the planet, please?
I mean, really, just because some of my ancestors used to chow down on some of your ancestors, doesn't mean you all can go on a mass genocidal spree in revenge.
bastards.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 17, 2008 10:28 PM
would you kindly LAY OFF systematically wiping my ancestors off the face of the planet, please?
brains and thumbs, man, brains and thumbs. Do try to catch up :)
Posted by: MAJeff | January 17, 2008 10:30 PM
brains and thumbs, man, brains and thumbs. Do try to catch up :)
oh sure, your kind always brings that shit up whenever you try to defend your attitude of "manifest destiny".
you just keep telling yourself how wonderful those opposable digits are after there are none of my ancestors left for you to stuff those simplistic silly jaws of yours with.
only one set of teeth.
pathetic.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 17, 2008 10:34 PM
btw, look at the cover of Natural History Shubin's article is featured in.
see a lobefinner in that suit, do you? why, no you don't!
take that!
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 17, 2008 10:43 PM
Not even to mention their vanilla sex lives--pffft.
Posted by: thalarctos | January 17, 2008 10:48 PM
Not even to mention their vanilla sex lives--pffft.
no kidding.
such limited imaginations.
just to counter their fictional self identity with being the "dominant" group on the planet, I give you wiki:
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 17, 2008 10:51 PM
You gave a fantastic interview on the Colbert report! I was very impressed. You were able to get your story across in a really interesting (for the general audience included, I would imagine) and insightful manner. It was the perfect kind of science storytelling to really peak the interest of a 'non-scientist' audience. You also did a wonderful job responding to Steven's humour, you guys seemed to work quite well together. Great job. I'll be reading your book soon!
Posted by: LisaJ | January 17, 2008 11:17 PM
Agreed. Was it just me, or did anyone else notice he seemed to almost go out of character (listen to his voice and inflection) when he asked, "Is this tiktaalik..." It may just have been me, but I thought I noticed a subtle shift.
I've seen him do that a few times when he gets really interested in the topic. It's funny, you can tell he's just dying to throw away the shtik and ask some real questions--but he's got a show to do. He's savvy enough to know that he can let his character slip if the interview is really interesting. It's like a code to his audience that he's impressed.
(I guess you can tell I'm a fan)
Posted by: RamblinDude | January 17, 2008 11:18 PM
There aren't many people who are willing and able to step up to the plate and communicate the wonder and excitement of science so effectively. Those who know don't always communicate their knowledge very well; those who are good at communicating don't always understand the intricacies of science.
The scientific community is fortunate in having someone like you, Dr. Shubin, in being willing to put yourself on the spot not knowing how it'll go. I think it was clear that Stephen Colbert was somewhat in awe of you, and his viewers were too, I'm sure.
Posted by: John P. Baumlin | January 17, 2008 11:33 PM
I have to agree with all the above comments. I thought you did great in a very challenging seat-of-your-pants interview. Viewers can tell when Colbert is actually interested in one of his guests, and he obviously wanted you to be able to speak your piece. Your book sounds fantastic, and I'll be picking up a copy as soon as possible. Good work, and never underestimate the value of five minutes of good science, presented well to a wide audience.
Posted by: Ian | January 17, 2008 11:34 PM
@78 & 88 - I saw the same thing.
Great interview Mr. Shubin and Amazon shipped my copy of your book today - YAY!
Posted by: foxfire | January 17, 2008 11:39 PM
Returning to Dr. Shubin's post:
I was aided, though, by the experience of preparing my answers. It exercised my brain in a way that allowed me to respond to the questions he really asked.
I think this is vital. When doing media, be prepared. Understand what types of questions tend to get asked (best if you can review the interviewer's previous