The organizers of the Science in the 21st Century conference at the Perimeter Institute have started to collect talk abstracts for the meeting. Actually, they started a couple of weeks ago, but I'm a Bad Person and haven't gotten around to writing anything for them yet.
It doesn't help that this sort of thing is outside my normal range of talks, which has been strictly physics-based. This broader public intellectual stuff isn't something I have a great deal of experience speaking about. I do write in that vein here, though, and since blogging is my obvious subject for this, I might as well rehearse it here.
I'm leaning toward a title something like "Talk to Your Dog About Science: Weblogs as a Tool for Public Outreach. Though I might opt for being a little less cute, and go for "Weblogs and Public Outreach: Why You Should Talk to Your Dog About Science." The content I have in mind is sort of a mix of my posts on What Everyone Should Know About Science and The Funding Issue and the introduction to my book, that none of you have read. A quick pass at an abstract would be:
At a time when the great challenges facing our civilization are scientific in nature (climate change, sustainable energy, pandemic disease), public understanding and appreciation of science seems to be at an all-time low. I will argue that the Internet in general and weblogs specifically provide an opportunity to address this lack of understanding, both through bringing science outreach directly to the public, but also by humanizing scientists to the public. I will illustrate with examples from my own experience blogging about physics for a popular audience, and explaining quantum mechanics to my dog.
I figure the talk has to be about blogs, and really, the dog needs to be in there somewhere, because it's absolutely the best anecdote I have. I'm less certain about whether to go with the hectoring "We have failed at our jobs as scientists" approach, or to just try to be gentle and funny. It could go either way.
I'm open to suggestions, though-- you know where the comments are.
- Log in to post comments
Pavlov got by with using a dog. Schrödinger required a cat. Both would be eviscerated by PETA then have their weenies slapped by Switzerland for offending the dignity of the respective species.
In the 21st century they'd have to use lawyers - and expensively, expansively reach no conclusions at all.
I'm curious why you think "public understanding and appreciation of science seems to be at an all-time low." I know this kind of rhetoric is said a lot, but I don't buy it.
We spend far more on science and science education than at any other time in human history. I haven't actually run the numbers, but I'd be shocked if that weren't true even on a per capita basis, allowing for relatively minor year-to-year variation in budgets. People like Steven Hawking, Richard Feynman and Brian Greene become bestsellers and virtual superstars on the basis of their popular works.
Don't get me wrong: I think your abstract is great, otherwise, and I'm really looking forward to your talk. But this particular point - no way!
I'd go with Talking to My Dog about Science: Weblogs and Public Outreach.
I would answer #2 by saying that I don't think that any of the three books mentioned (assuming the author has in mind "Joking" and not "QED" by Feynman) have done that much for public appreciation of science. [Greene's book did not even convince me that String Theory is Physics.] Superstars, yes, but surveys don't show any greater understanding or appreciation of, let's say, lasers ... let alone AMO research into fundamental properties of a quantum universe.
I hold out much greater hope for Chad's book.
Everyday life is so consuming that nobody has the time to think about Science. But when scientific discoveries try to question ethics or morality, everyone joins the argument leading to chaos. Yet science moves on.
Vanessa @ Future of Physics Blog
I'm curious why you think "public understanding and appreciation of science seems to be at an all-time low." I know this kind of rhetoric is said a lot, but I don't buy it.
Well, I'm not sure I believe it, at leat in that strong a phrasing. I tried to weasel a little with "seems to be." It sounded better than any of the vairants on "public understanding and appreciation of science aren't anywhere near where we'd like them to be."
I agree that there appear to be some really good opportunities for science to find an audience-- look at the success of shows like Mythbusters, for example. That's one of the reasons I think blogs and other "New Media" tools can make an important difference, if we as scientists can get our act together and encourage serious efforts in that direction.
How about "it's critical to increase public understanding of science." It doesn't read quite as nicely as the original. But, it's a lot more defensible, at least in my opinion.
More generally, my opinion is that public understanding and appreciation of science is at an all-time-high, but that may be not nearly high enough for the challenges we have to face.