Verbs for Scientists

Part of the problem in communicating science to the public is the scientists themselves.

“Scientists have a responsibility to communicate what they do,” said science journalist Tom Siegfried this morning.  “Part of the whole purpose of science to communicate what you found out to the world at large.”

Michael Lemonick, who has declared himself the morning’s iconoclast, argued that that would require too much of scientists.  “You’re asking people to do something beyond their job,” he said.

Even if communicating with the public is not a responsibility of a scientist, it is an essential part of being successful.  In order to write a successful grant, you must convince the funders that your research is important.  In order to get a faculty position, you must explain your work to people in different specialties.  Even fellow scientists will have no idea what you’re talking about unless you can explain it in something close to plain English.

Scientists usually like to talk about their work, and if they have achieved any prominence, they are usually very good at talking (and writing) about it.  But we are not taught to communicate.

Even though we are funded by public money (the NIH is paying for my PhD!) and work in the public interest, communication with the public is not emphasized.  Instead, we learn how to talk in the jargon of our field, to write scientific papers, grants, and give research presentations.  We use words like elucidate, attenuate, and potentiate.  When we do talk about the significance of our research, we are instructed to condense it into one long, unreadable sentence; “These studies may help elucidate the role of the neurotransmitter transporter GAT1 in contributing to epilepsy, stroke and excitotoxicity.”

Cartoonist Larry Gonick said that there should be a class called “Verbs for Scientists.”
I say “Please!”

I believe this is a tricky area in science writing.  The problem involves finding your audience.  It’s true, I have often been interested in articles written in Scientific American and Nature magazines as I have strolled through the airport.  In most of my attempts to read these articles, it seems as though they are written for folks who have some education in the article’s respective field.  I simply move on to Maxim, something that most males can relate to (even scientists I assume).  If telling the average person about science is the goal, then the articles need to be ‘dumbed down’ and then, like you say, people may stop and think about what is being written and further investigation can occur.  I have found that NPR does a very good job at this; I can listen to an NPR broadcast about science and take something of what I have heard with me.  I never find myself tuning out because the verbage is over my head.  So, I’d say that if science wants or feels the responsibility to give something to the majority of people, then they need to lose the ego and find a way to relate information in an understandable way.  Perhaps having a different forum for that part of the population that would be bored by a ‘dumbed down’ report would be best (aside from what we consider today’s science journals).  If scientists reading about other scientists work is the primary objective, and scientists are the primary audience, then science writing is right on track.