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!”