I think there were ads running on ScienceBlogs for PBS's new science "magazine" show NOVA ScienceNOW, which premiered a while back. I never got around to watching it until last night when I caught the start of it completely by accident (quite literally-- I dropped a book on top of the tv remote, and it changed the channel to PBS...).
Neil deGrasse Tyson acts as the host of the show, introducing 10-15 minute pieces about reasonably topical issues in science. Some of these are original to the show-- in the first, Tyson squelches around a swamp looking for leeches with a colleague from the AMNH-- and others appear to be derived from other sources-- the segment on SETI was essentially identical to a clip I blogged back in April. Tyson also had a commentary segment at the very end (well, just before the ten minutes of pitches and promos that PBS tacks on the end of everything).
On the whole, I thought it was an very good package. There were some elements that I'm kind of ambivalent about, but it serves as a good illustration of the issues in science communication that have taken up so many blog posts around here, both pro and con.
The one major problem here is that I'm not the audience for this show. The show is very consciously pitched at people who don't have a background in science, and as a result there are bits that don't play very well for me. I can appreciate what they're doing, and recognize when they're doing it well, but I don't have the gut-level reaction to it that they're shooting for.
Most of the show is done extremely well, though, and could serve as a textbook for mass science communication in keeping with all those arguments about framing. The segment about leeches was really well done in this regard, featuring both a patient whose fingers were saved by treatment with leeches, and a biologist whose passion for his subject was clear (but not in a creepy way). Seth Shostak's radio demo for the SETI piece was very effective, and the stem cell thing was another example of excellent framing, with two kids suffering from sickle-cell anemia to anchor the story about possible treatments based on stem cells. In all of those, the scientists interviewed came off really well.
The one major mis-step was in the piece about deep ocean exploration, which featured a weird interlude about the personal life of the main scientist. I didn't mind the stories about how she became interested in biology, but the bit about how she and her husband met felt really out of place. It played like a too-obvious "Look! Scientists are human, too!" insertion, and a slightly desperate attempt to get a human-interest angle into a story about freaky deep-sea creatures.
The parts I was most ambivalent about, though, were the host segments. Neil deGrasse Tyson appears in a bunch of weird CGI-assisted scenarios-- buried in a haystack to introduce the SETI segment, talking about cheesecake to introduce stem cells, voicing a cartoon for the deep sea thing-- that felt really cheesey and condescending. Tyson is a great sport about it, but the whole thing was a little too Sesame Street for me. (Says the guy who talks to his dog, I know, I know...)
This isn't a problem confined to PBS, of course. The same device is used again and again in all the science-y shows on the Discovery Channel and elsewhere. It must be effective for somebody, or at least somebody must think it's effective, but it really doesn't work for me. Which is a big part of why I don't watch more pop-science shows, to be honest.
But then, as I said above, I'm not the person that this show needs to work for. I'm already sold on science, and don't need to be convinced that it's cool, even biology. I'd love to know what people without science backgrounds think about the show-- it certainly looks like something that should work well, but it's hard for me to judge that.
I also wonder how effective this can really be for mass science communication, given that it's a separate hour-long show clearly labeled as a science program. Somehow, I doubt that the folks who normally tune in to PBS for BBC costume dramas are going to be watching this, but those are the people who need to be reached by science outreach. I wonder if, from a practical perspective, these segments might not work better as part of some more general news program, slipped in with something that is more likely to reach humanities types.
As I said, the segments themselves are an excellent example of how to do science communication on film. If you want to know how it's done, watch this show (available streaming on the Web site).
- Log in to post comments
Yes, ScienceNOW is waaay to campy with it's CGI and music. It's as if they are trying to be Bill Nye the Science Guy-ish, but fail horribly... They put Tyson in a bunch of awkward situations where he is in front of a green screen, but Tyson is not a great actor and the graphics themselves are not impressive (and sometimes do not make sense...). I would much, MUCH rather watch Tyson giving one of his own powerpoint presentations that watch him on this show... It's too bad.
My granddaughters, 16 & 12 y.o., love NOVA ScienceNow. It provides a great opportunity for me (a retired scientist) to discuss science with them in a manner that is not forced or awkward.
Yes, it is a bit cheesey for Ph.D.s in science. And no, my granddaughters don't seem to view Neil deGrasse Tyson as being condescending. They just enjoy learning! And I enjoy seeing them happy and laughing!
Yes, it is a bit cheesey for Ph.D.s in science. And no, my granddaughters don't seem to view Neil deGrasse Tyson as being condescending. They just enjoy learning! And I enjoy seeing them happy and laughing!
That's one of the things I find odd about the decision to do the cheesey host segment things-- it seems much better suited to the 12-year-old demographic than the people who usually watch PBS at 9pm on a weeknight...
Glad to hear it works for your grandkids. We need to keep the next generation engaged.
I enjoy watching ScienceNow, but I do agree that I could go without the transitions between stories. I hadn't really thought of them as condescending, but they are campy and do nothing to capture my interest.
I find myself agreeing on all counts.
I watched the show, for me its after Wired Science, while doing actual science calculations. I liked the quality of the visuals in general, but thought that Neil deGrasse Tyson in a diving suit & helmet looked like an out-take from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.
I'll give the show an "A" with these caveats preventing an "A+" -- and there's nothing wrong with being dramatic, human, visual, cheesy, good-natured, and child-friendly.
Remember John Baez's advice about teaching.
How to Teach Stuff
John Baez
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/teaching.html
January 23, 2006
* Teaching is Like Acting - you're standing up there on stage making us watch you: you'd better be worth it. The closest professions to teaching are stage acting and stand-up comedy. Learn how they do it.
* Tell Us a Story - people understand stories better than anything else; take advantage of it. You've got a conflict between bad guys (problems) and good guys (concepts, theories and techniques). Introduce the characters when they walk on stage. Build up suspense through a clear story line. When the good guys win, cheer them on! Foreshadow the future; review the past.
* Keep the Sheep Moving in the Same Direction - a lecture should have a clear and simple plot. Avoid anything that distracts from this. Don't make too many points. Don't be afraid to repeat yourself.
* When You're Teaching a Subject, Don't Think About That Subject: Think About Teaching - don't focus on subtleties that interest you; focus on your audience. Do your preparation before class. Be here now.
[truncated]
As someone who has no background in science but who at age 58 is trying to make up for lost time, I LOVE NovaNow! It's informative, entertaining and opens the door for further investigation on my own. I hope it stays on the air for years to come.
I cannot get into Nova ScienceNOW or most of the current science documentaries. I got into astronomy because of Carl Sagan's Cosmos - more precisely, after watching his bit on the Cosmic Calendar at the end of the first episode. The thing I liked about Cosmos (or the earlier "The Ascent of Man") was that not only did it allow you time to think about the subject matter but it also gave you a sense of awe and wonder. This required long shots, a slower pace, and a host who didn't dumb-down the show. Science producers today think that MTV-style short-editing, with rapidly changing subject matter is best the way to get to younger audiences. Its possible that they are right. But I think there is still some value in more contemplative, old-style science documentaries. Whatever the pace and whatever the technology, you still have to tell good stories.
I haven't watched Cosmos yet (I read the book and have the DVD set on my wishlist for purchase in the near future). I think that there's a place for Nova ScienceNOW along with more epic series, like Cosmos, or Planet Earth, say. I think PBS does a good job covering a wide array of topics, and I find the profiles interesting, too. That's probably the most important part of the show in terms of connecting science with the public.
ScienceNOW is current science news, Sagan and Attenborough and Feynman and Dawkins with their series and books and etc. serve to allow someone to get deeper into subjects without getting a degree.
ScienceNOW isn't really for scientists. I have no choice but to enjoy even the rather dumb parts because my heart belongs to Neil deGrasse Tyson. *shuddering sigh*