Scientists suffer from an image problem. If you were to ask a child to draw a picture of a scientist, for instance, you'd probably receive a depiction of an old, crazy-haired white male holding a bubbling test tube, the image drawing heavily from Dr. Frankenstein and Albert Einstein. This image seems to be especially difficult to dig out, and at times even the people who want to bridge the gap between scientists and the public resort to childish name-calling, portraying researchers as freaks and geeks (i.e. "... feel free to imagine startled and upset sheep jumping all over nerdy researchers."). I have grown increasingly tired of the general term "scientist" being equated with a lab-coat clad bench monkey who is socially inept, wasting taxpayer money to answer questions no one wants the answer to. The problem is much bigger than roughly half the country not accepting evolution as reality or the threat of global climate change; those two points are indicative of a much larger conflict between who scientists are and who the public perceives them to be.
Rather than continue to whine and complain about the problem I think it's time we did something about it. The question is "What can we do?" When I participated in a course about communicating marine science to children this question came up and it appeared that a short video illustrating who scientists are was an effective way to change perspectives. Rather than talking generally the film featured short interviews with a diversity of researchers, from grad students up to professors, focusing on people of different ages, races, and fields of research (most importantly showing the scientists at work). The short film focused on marine scientists, of course, but I do think that the principle is sound. If such a film could be made spanning a greater number of disciplines, perhaps in association with a body like the AAAS and distributed to public schools, it could be a good starting place for changing the way people recognize scientists.
I am afraid that in this case I can provide little more than an idea. I don't have the means or the connections to undertake such a project but others in the science blogging community might. Maybe the idea is flawed and we could do something better; if that's the case then I'd certainly welcome any proposals of more effective strategies. (Back in April Chad proposed a pro-science film festival, yet it seems this idea has fizzled out. I think it deserves to be revived.) The point is that I feel that many of us are frustrated with the way science is seen by the public and that we need to do something more than complain about it on our blogs. If we want to instigate change we can't continue to just grumble among ourselves; we really should be using the unique opportunities the science blogosphere presents to do something more to improve the way the public understands science.
- Log in to post comments
Some possibilities:
* A physicist at the Large Hadron Collider
* A marine biologist crashing through the waves on a research vessel
* A palaeontologist trekking through the badlands
Do you have any evidence for this? Personally, I doubt your assertion ... but I have nothing but anecdotal evidence one way or the other.
I sense strawmen being constructed on behalf of scientists. Would you get a better result if you asked a child to draw a picture of a historian, a novelist, a businessperson, a programmer, a social worker, a bureaucrat, a composer, a psychologist?
In ths regard, what's special about scientists?
I've had a series of sketches for portraits of scientists I admire sitting on the backburner for a while now. Your post is really helpful, in that while I do not think of scientists as being that stereotypical, perhaps the portraits could be more dynamic...hmmm...
Otherwise, I do agree a bit with Scott. When kids are given books and puzzles about different jobs, the firefighter wears their gear, the ballerina her tutu, and the medical/scientific people their lab coats. Hopefully, it is as they get older that they realise the difference reality often has.
When Victor Frankenstein constructed his monster he was neither "Dr." nor old. He was an undergraduate student, and in his early twenties.
Lassi; Very true, but I was thinking of the archetype of "Dr. Frankenstein" (or any other stereotypical "mad scientist").
Scott
Having just finished my education degree specializing in science cirriculum areas I can confirm Brian is completely correct about children's preception of scientists. There have been studies that tested primary aged children with what they thought a scientist was by having them draw a picture. As this was covered in a lecture, I don't know the exact papers they were in, but the drawings we were shown from the studies were quite telling. Something like 80-85% of the kids drew lab coated test tube wielding white males. It was very disheartening as our prof put up a couple dozen of these, and reinforced this by saying this is what the kids thought of us.
The remaining 20-15% of drawings though had some interesting results. Many were from kids whose parents WERE scientists, and these kids at least made the connection that their parents were "normal".
My prof also threw in a couple of the kid drawn palaeontologists specifically to make a joke or two at my expense (I of of course was the token Dino guy of the class, and everyone took loving pot shots at it). I wish I could say it is a sterotype that palaeontologist all wear vests with millions of pockets and indy style hat wasn't true, but sadly a LOT (at least grad and undergrad students I've encountered) do!
Brian
I like the video idea, especially the distrubuting it in schools. Sadly it is one of those things that would have to be manditory. Its sad how many of my fellow primary teachers I'm running into that have a very anti-science stance.
Many teach it as little as possible, partially because they don't understand the subject matter (which is sad as this is at an ELEMENTARY level!), and to be fair it can be quite involved. Setting up experiements or tracking down resources is time consuming for us already time strapped teachers.
I say manditory because some teachers are aggresively opposed to science. I've encountered a few angry accusations towards my "know it all science attitude" due to my correcting people on things like fish being vertebrates, magnetics NOT being due to static electricity, and Jupiter not having a proper solid surface.
Personally I've been fighting the sterotype with the kids by altering its connotation. I like to infuse a bit of drama into my lessons and I've made a "mad scientist" looking costume for science. I however have tried to model it more around a comic book/matrix look and make science cool. The kids love Professor Paradigm, and look forward to science lessons with him.
So there are benefits to sterotypes like this. I'm always a little unsure whether my strategy of playing into the sterotype is good thing or not though, but again at least I'm doing something is what I have to remind myself.
This all is inspiring me to do a post on my blog about my efforts. I'll see if I can get copies of those kid drawn pics from my ed prof. I also have some pictures my kids have drawn of Professor Paradigm. The good thing is that you can see that they think Paradigm is cool.
Actually, if you asked me to draw a scientist, I'd probably draw something similar. Not because I think that's what scientists are like, but what else could I draw that people would immediately recognize as a scientist?
I know the National Academies have been publishing biographies (geared toward children) about women scientists. How many other people in the world know this, I'm not sure. I also know that at one time the Academies wanted to set up some sort of science ambassadors program that would allow people to interact with "real" scientists (I heard this from a speaker who came to the university) but I'm not sure how far they ever got with getting that program up and running. So, you are not alone in wanting to change the public perception about scientists.
I think that, instead of applying more pressure on teachers and school as some seem to be suggesting, we should be applying more pressure on scientists to be involved in public outreach. I know that some grants have requirements for including outreach, but NIH grants certainly don't (as far as I can tell) and they supply a lot of scientists with money. Or universities could require faculty and/or students to participate in outreach (though I think that is likely to happen right after hell freezes over).
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the in-house research agency for the United States Department of Agriculture developed a video/publication entitled "Science In Your Shopping Cart". It documents many of the major accomplishments by ARS scientists over the last 50+ years. Perhaps more agencies and universities need to put together similar publications/videos. I fear however that many people will view these enterprises as "wasted time".
The World Science Festival in NYC was a huge success in reaching out to kids and other people of the scientific community. Expanding the reach of events like this would be a good start, and I especially say this as a jealous non-New Yorker!
Get involved in the Coalition on the Public Understanding of Science - COPUS - www.copusproject.org and the Year of Science 2009 - a perfect opportunity for promoting a better image of science and scientists and to engage the public!
(Back in April Chad proposed a pro-science film festival, yet it seems this idea has fizzled out. I think it deserves to be revived.)
It hasn't completely fizzled out, but some verrrrryyyyy slooooowwwwww entities have become involved, and I've been too busy with book revisions to attempt nagging. The principal contact will be back from vacation next week, so I hope to have something to report soon.
Nice goal. However, I want to ask a difficult question. Do you know what you are doing, or do you know someone who does?
What about the film makers who thought there was not enough paleontology on dinosaurs in a certain region, so they go and excavate a fossil bed (and film it). Film makers, not paleontologists. Is that OK? Well, there are ethical issues, but even aside from that, would they do a good job, or would they reinvent many of the mistakes that paleontologists have invented, learned from, moved past, over the last century or so? The latter, of course.
The question is not that it needs to be done ... it does. There are numerous coeval efforts underway in this regard now, or in the recent past. Adding to this effort is a great idea. But doing it well is important.
Chad; I apologize for the mistake. I hadn't heard anything about it since the time you brought it up and those I did mention it to didn't have anything to say about it. I hope that it eventually works out, though.
Greg; I know I can't undertake this project (I say as much in the post itself). I was hoping that this post would start a discussion, give someone who has the means a little inspiration, or otherwise stimulate some projects. I might be able to come up for a few ideas but I know I wouldn't be able to make such a film on my own (I lack the experience and equipment and the time). At least a few other projects already in place have come to light in the comments, but it seems that my idea doesn't seem to have terribly much appeal as a new endeavor.
The reason the public perceives scientists as old and crazy and white-haired is because, I've decided, that by the time I finish grad school, I will be!
(Although, I certainly expect to still be female rather than male.)