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]


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%