ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Guest Blog

Guest Blog


Commentary invited by editors of Scientific American
Guest Blog HomeAboutContact

Entertainers’ Sticking Up for Science: The Help We’ve Been Pleading For?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



In magazine reporting (and maybe science blogging), they say three events suffice to indicate a trend. So let me announce a new trend: popular entertainers are sticking up for science. Here are three trendsetting entertainers turned notable science advocates.

Actor Alan Alda wrote an editorial in Science last week launching a science communication contest to be judged by 11-year olds. He challenged scientists to write an explanation of what a flame is “that an 11-year-old would find intelligible, maybe even fun.” Alda is also a founding board member of the Center for Communicating Science.

Icelandic pop singer Bjork gave a series of shows at the New York Hall of Science this February in support of her latest album, called Biophilia. She also helped develop a series of classes for middle school students on scientific concepts mentioned in the album, like crystalline structures, lunar phases, and viruses.

Last summer, rapper Will.i.am from the Black Eyes Peas used his own money to co-produce a back-to-school TV special called “I.am FIRST — Science is Rock and Roll” promoting education, science and technology. In the process, he successfully goaded singer Rihanna into tweeting “science is dope” to her more than seven million followers.

Alan, Bjork, and Will.i.am: thank you for joining our cause, sharing your hope for America, and spreading the good word about science to a wider audience than most of us could ever hope to reach alone.

Of course, the bulk of our task to restore science to its rightful place in American society remains ahead of us. But I wonder if the good work done by these stars signals the beginning of a deep change in our culture. Is science starting to become cool again?

On the one hand, the outlook for science looks bleak. Last month, Nina Fedoroff, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), said that she was “scared to death” by the anti-science movement. “We are sliding back into a dark era,” she said, as reported in the Observer. “And there seems little we can do about it. I am profoundly depressed…”

But on the other hand, signs of a cultural shift toward interest in science might be appearing all around us. For example, you may have noticed that Natural History has infiltrated home decorating. Last year, a shop called “Curiosity… Intriguing Objects for the Home” opened in my neighborhood in downtown Baltimore. The store sells antique star maps, pieces of coral, and brass magnifying glasses—the accoutrements of a fin de siècle science museum. Across the street from Curiosity, Shofer’s furniture store is displaying glass Bell jars and large Audubon-Society-style prints of jellyfish and sharks.

Maybe science really is becoming cool again, or maybe the trends above are just fads. But I’ve started to think that the recent celebrity interest in science is partly our own doing. Maybe celebrities tend to sympathize with struggling groups that show a kind of helplessness, like AIDS victims, endangered animals, and abandoned children. And maybe scientists have been seeking that kind of sympathy, consciously or unconsciously.

Let’s take another look at how Nina Fedoroff spoke to the press in her new role as AAAS president. Federoff has a lot to be proud of, and you might expect her tone to reflect that. She founded and directed the organization now known as the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences at Penn State University. She has received the John P. McGovern Science and Society Medal from Sigma Xi and the National Medal of Science. But she said, “I am profoundly depressed,” and “there seems little we can do about it”; this is not the usual bearing of a scientific leader or hero. To borrow a bit of marketing terminology, I would describe the archetype of her brand as the needy orphan. She’s purposefully sending the world a message of helplessness.

Federoff joins a chorus of scientific voices begging for aid. A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists came out this February called, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense. And you’ve probably heard of the 2010 report from the National Academies Press called Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5. The titles of these reports imply that scientists are victims of a tempest, fighting a losing battle. Fortunately, there are celebrity philanthropists ready to be heroes to our victim.

Branding scientists as orphans, as a kind of endangered species; that’s probably not a marketing strategy I would have suggested we employ. But at the moment, in Hollywood, it seems to be working.

Images: Alan Alda and Beaker from Muppet Wikia, two photos by author.

Marc Kuchner About the Author: Marc Kuchner is the author of the book Marketing for Scientists published by Island Press. For more information, go to www.marketingforscientists.com or follow him on Twitter @marckuchner. Follow on Twitter @marckuchner.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.






Comments 2 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Postman1 3:34 pm 03/10/2012

    If we want to see more interest in science in the future, and I hope we do, we must start at the beginning. Bring the basics back to the elementary schools. Concentrate on reading, writing, arithmetic, and science and cut back on all the social engineering. Many of today’s high school graduates do not know how to spell, don’t comprehend basic grammar, can’t add without a calculator, and couldn’t explain how to tell the Earth is round. Don’t believe it? Go to the nearest mall and talk to a few. Look at their spelling, texts, tweets, any writing they can provide. Ask a few simple math problems. Ask if they drop a B-B and a bowling ball off the roof of the mall, which will hit first? I will guarantee that you will have a difficult time finding even one who can correctly answer those questions. Without the basics, our future generations can not and will not compete.

    Link to this
  2. 2. Heteromeles 10:54 am 03/11/2012

    As for dropping a feather and a bowling ball off the roof, any kid will tell you (correctly) that the bowling ball will hit first, because of the shape of the feather and the way it interacts with the air. I remember dropping a bunch of stuff as a kid, noticing that they almost always hit at different times, and getting frustrated with physics as it was being taught. It obviously was more important to my teacher to memorize some equation than to understand reality.

    I also remember a freshman chemistry class (one of those massive >1000 student classes with three professors) where one professor told the class, before an exam, that the teachers had a bet on which one would fail more students. Guess how much help I had learning chemistry there?

    And we want to make this stuff cool again? Every time I hear someone talk about “the kids these days would get X wrong,” this is what I think.

    Now, don’t get me wrong. I’ve got a science PhD. I’m more interested in hearing from the kids who got a unit on cladistics in high school biology. A lot of kids are learning a lot of science, despite the bad news. Go cheer them on, instead of expressing concern if they don’t happen to know Factoid X, the way you did when you were their age.

    There are a bunch of reasons science isn’t cool. One is the treatment mentioned above. A bigger one is that science in many cases is hard work for little pay, and the chance of getting a stable job in many fields is on par with the chance of making a living as an actor in Hollywood. A third reason is that colleges, universities, and legislatures think it’s reasonable to strap someone with $30-40,000 in debt to get one of these jobs, while cutting the pay and benefits of staff and professors to make such jobs less appealing.

    Yet despite this all, kids still go into the sciences, in every community. If you want a reason to hope, this is it.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Black Friday/Cyber Monday Blow-Out Sale

Enter code:
HOLIDAY 2014
at checkout

Get 20% off now! >

X

Email this Article

X