 |
 |
Ian Russell's point about the way scientists are perceived is an important one. Not only do we -- in a broad, literarily free sense of the word we -- fail to communicate what science is really about, but we seem to also convey the image of "sad" people. Over the years I've done not only a lot of university teaching to the specialist students who have already opted to specialise in science, but have also given a number of lecture courses of the "science for artists" variety, and have visited schools and been the "honoured guest" at prize-givings and speech days, and talked about astronomy to local lay groups such as "Women of Europe" and the like. In my experience the first thing that one needs to do is to communicate a human empathy, the perverbial "common humanity", so that the listener expects to understand you. The expectation that a scientist will be a frightening, distant, incomphrensible person is very wide-spread. A couple of years ago, the wife of the headmaster of a school I visited said she had been dreading my visit and having to entertain me because she expected to be intimidated and to have no common ground as the basis of conversation. She seemed surprised and delighted that we got along so well, and that she could not only share common interests from the "real world" with me, but that she could enjoy talking to me about my science. It takes time; I never go to a school unless I am prepared to spend the day so that there is casual time to communicate with both the staff and students; if I talk to a local group I always try to be available for dinner/drinks/etc. If communication has been established on a human level, the questions become more interesting, more involving, more searching. In the actual communication of the science, I find that most people really want to understand the process as well as the results, and that however brief and superficial (of necessity), taking people with you on the path to the results is desperately important. It is the only way to convey both the adventure, and the uncertainties, and to clarify why results seem to change. Too much of the science communciated in the media is purely result orientated, which leads to disillusionment when things change, or when seemingly dramatic new findings are followed by catastrophies (like thalidomide). Presenting process as well as results is hard work, and requires careful planning and thinking about what people already know, what methods they employ in their own work, and relating our processes to those they understand. Clearly, much of the work imaginative and enthusiastic teachers do aims to do just this; the science teachers I have met vary from the energetic, imaginative, inovative to the steriotypical authoritian, distant 'Sir' teaching a dry set of facts. Maybe we can't all play the bongo drums like Feynmann, but sheding the image of arrogance, of "You really can't understand what I do, but here is what I have learnt" would help. Humour helps a lot! [And, to pick up another theme: if we were paid better and were less harrassed it would be easier to be 'human'--for one thing we'd have the time!]. Cheers all, Dr. Judith Perry Institute of Astronomy University of Cambridge Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 0HA [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%