Skip to main content

Science with Impact - Anne Helen Toomey ****

It may be a cliché that many scientists are bad communicators - but that doesn't make it untrue. All too often, scientists either don't want to communicate outside their own circle, or are very bad at it - but the reality is, both from a funding viewpoint and to make sure science has a positive impact (a keyword in Anne Helen Toomey's assessment of how scientists should look at their communication) we need scientists to be better at engagement.

The opening of the book leans quite heavily on Star Trek, which might divide audiences a bit - one danger in communication is thinking that everyone else shares your enthusiasms, though as it happens, it works for me. (Incidentally, I don't know how a self-designated Trekker, apparently a 'more distinguished term' than Trekkie, could refer to the 'USS Starship Enterprise', a bit like referring to Dr Doctor Toomey.)

There's an element here that's similar to books like How to Talk to a Science Denier, looking at why some don't follow scientific consensus (Toomey has an excellent example in a US island that's disappearing due to climate change impacts, but the residents won't accept this). But there's more to Toomey's book. Science denier challenging books (and many scientists) use an approach that approximates to 'My view is right, can't you see that, stupid?' But Toomey suggests we can learn lessons from the eradication of polio from India in a very short timescale by listening rather than lecturing. And that we need to concentrate more on social influence than on straight information like the leaflets beloved of health services, or catchy slogans. The two keys, she suggests are direct contact with people with appropriate scientific views and redundancy in provision (with, of course, an appropriate ability and attitude in communicating to others with different starting points).

There's plenty more, for example, on the importance of researchers sharing information with those who are involved in their area of study (for example environmentalists giving useful information to farmers). It's not unreasonable for the non-scientists to ask 'what do I get out of this?' especially when the science is funded by the public. Toomey also looks at peer reviews, ways to communicate and the importance of moving from the idea that science proves things to a better understanding of uncertainty.

There's relatively little here on better writing, which is perhaps the biggest omission. Toomey rightly emphasises that better writing is not enough - but the fact remains that not only are most scientists' attempts to communicate with the public poor, the majority of scientific papers are badly written as writing per se. I may be be biased, but I think scientists could make more use of science writers to communicate with the wider public. Overall, though, an important and thoughtful contribution to the debate on both how get the message of science across and how to ensure it results in appropriate action. (Just a shame the price of the book isn't mass market.)

Paperback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more