[tt] CHE Brainstorm: Dan Greenberg: Delusions on the Frontiers of Science

[Premise Checker]

Delusions on the Frontiers of Science

About the Author

Dan Greenberg is a longtime observer of science policy and politics. He is 
the author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of 
Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press), as well as other books, 
and has published widely in newspapers and popular and professional 
magazines.


Can breaking into the news help propel a scientific career? I~Rve often 
heard scientists say it can, though usually in disapproving reference to a 
colleague they regard as undeservingly successful via self-promotion. The 
subject, as far as I know, has not been systematically studied, and 
herewith is offered gratis to anyone interested in taking on the task.

That research organizations conspire to get into the news is a given of 
contemporary research. A lab without a PR office is relic of the dark 
ages. Promotion of the public understanding of science is a holy cause 
among the managers of science. Torrents of press releases about new 
scientific findings flow daily to news organizations and science writers. 
A major underlying assumption behind these efforts is that public 
knowledge of research somehow gets transmuted into public support of 
research. And, supposedly, career and grant prospects are enhanced for the 
researchers named in dispatches from the frontiers of science.

Unfortunately, there~Rs no evidence linking public understanding of 
science with public support or government money for science. This reality 
may offend democratic theory, but it is so. Nanotechnology, for example, 
is a hot, booming field of research and industrial interest, ramped up to 
billions of dollars per year in just a short time~Wthough few members of 
the public have ever heard of nanotechnology.

Individual scientists may relish the spotlight when their work is 
publicized. But it is quite possible that publicity can be hazardous to a 
scientific career. Most of the money for serious science is screened by 
peer reviewers, who~Wif they~Rre doing it right~Wjudge on the basis of 
scientific merit rather than celebrity.

So, why in a time of dire money shortages for the conduct of important 
research are large sums devoted to publicizing research and researchers? 
Answer: The scientific enterprise, for all its claims of objectivity, 
dispassionate pursuit of truth, and dedication to the public interest, is 
not immune to delusions about how the world works.

Posted at 04:18:58 PM on March 4, 2008 | All postings by Dan Greenberg

Comments

Why should anyone be surprised to see that science and scientists must 
function in the real world? To think otherwise would be delusional. 
Scientific programs compete for resources and attention and talent on many 
levels, and many of the priorities are not subject to merit-based peer 
review. Even the aspects of scientific endeavor that are supposed to be 
merit based often are not. Aren~Rt we are entitled to more thoughtful 
commentary than is contained in this naive piece? Joe Erwin · Mar 4, 05:40 
PM · #

I honestly do not quite understand what you are talking about. No 
scientist I know would trade an article in Nature or Science for one in 
the New Tork Times. I also never heard of individual labs having PR 
offices. If someone publishes an interesting story in a high profile 
journal the PR office of the University approaches the scientists 
involved, writes up a little story which ends up on the newswire. Most get 
ignored, some get published (but probably not read). The ~Qsmart mouse~R 
or the cloned sheep are the exceptions the prove the rule. Scientisits 
want to be respected and acknowledged by their peers i.e. the people who 
understand their work and can put it into context, not by the general 
public. To me, seeking publicity and trying to communicate my research has 
less to do with self-promotion but with informing the public what happens 
to their tax dollars. Michael · Mar 4, 06:22 PM · #

I concur with Michael. Universities and research institutes do have 
information offices, but individual labs usually don~Rt, unless they are 
very ~Sbig deal~T programs. And, of course there is some obligation to 
inform the public about progress in which they have some interest. Mr. 
Greenberg seems out of touch. Joe Erwin · Mar 4, 06:33 PM · #

I remember many years ago, as a documentary film maker, that a Canadian 
environmentalist friend of mine, Michael Gilbertson, introduced me to a 
colleague who had written a book on the dangers of plastics to the 
environment. It had been written for the general public. I had read the 
book and, not having a PhD in chemistry, could understand very little of 
it due to the way it was written. The woman who wrote the book berated me 
for my poor understanding claiming that people like me (media) could do 
the environmetal movement a lot of harm because of my poor understanding 
-point taken. However, I had to bite my tongue (and in hindsight I should 
not have) to keep from replying that she did even more harm to their 
movement. In my experience, she and otherscientists expect that their 
academic credentials and their research are reason enough for the public 
to accept and support their views. Understanding her work was not 
important for the general public and certainly questioning by the general 
public was not acceptable. Why then had she written a book geared to the 
general public? Obviously, she wanted their support for the environmental 
movement. She realised, as do most environmentalists, that public support 
translates into political support which translated into laws and funds. 
Yet, she refused to bow down to help those without her vast knowledge 
understand her research and her views. That was what I wanted to do and 
could have done in a documentary, but she preferred to see me as 
troublesome and even dangerous. To believe that science operates in some 
ether environment without need or concern for public understanding and 
support is frivolous in any area outside of military-related research. We 
have seen this demonstrated in issues such as the environment, where Dr. 
David Suzuki does a superb job of making science understandable to the 
general population, to the dangers of smoking, where the public has seen 
science for hire at its worst. There is no doubt in my mind that 
scientific research must dance to the tune of those who fund it. If we 
want free, independent and somewhat objective science, it must be publicly 
funded. It will only be effectively publicly funded if the public whose 
taxes provide those funds support the research and let their politicians 
know they support it. Science and scientists must come down off their 
lofty perch. bcowan · Mar 5, 10:18 AM · #

Public interest in the Bussard Fusion Reactor spurred the Navy to continue 
the experiments despite the Navy~Rs initial disinterest.

It came about because of Dr. Bussard~Rs Google Talk. M. Simon · Mar 5, 
11:11 AM · #

bcowan, I completely agree with you. Science ought to be funded mainly by 
tax dollars and therefore has an obligation to let the public know what it 
does, how it does it and what the consequences are. Needless to say, that 
communication has been difficult, and both scientist as well as a public 
that enjoys the fruits of science but doesn~Rt care much about the process 
are to blame. However, this wasn~Rt the premise of Dan Greenberg~Rs 
article. He claims that large sums and efforts are being spent because 
scientists ~Srelish the spotlight~T. Aside from a tiny number of 
well-publicized cases I just don~Rt see that. Michael · Mar 5, 11:48 AM · 
#

Michael, bcowan, Dan, et al. There may be something worthwhile in this 
discussion. My PhD mentor conveyed to me and his other students that we 
owed it to the public that supported our research to publish the 
results~Win good, high profile journals if warranted by the results, and 
in less distinguished journals if the results were less striking or 
important. We owed it to the supporters of the work to enter the results 
into the published scientific record. By the same token, we owe the public 
wide distribution of research results that are of importance or concern to 
them. In some areas, a publicist can help. Why not? But one of the great 
things about dual careers in research and teaching is that those who 
communicate with students hone their skills in explaining their research 
and the topics related to it. Despite protestations to the contrary, those 
who ONLY teach, and do not continue to explore and discover in the ways 
active scientists and scholars do, risk losing the freshness and 
excitement and appreciation of how science really works and how knowledge 
and understanding are generated. So, yes, communication is a vital aspect 
of the scientific endeavor. We need to communicate more, rather than less, 
and we need to foster abilities to communicate with people outside our own 
specialized fields. We need to communicate with (listen to, as well as, 
talk to) all the people with whom we interact. Joe Erwin · Mar 5, 12:58 PM 
· #

What ~Slarge sums [are being] devoted to publicizing research and 
researchers?~T I wish Mr. Greenberg had provided an example or two, 
because, frankly, I can~Rt imagine that large sums are involved ~V or that 
research is suffering because dollars are being diverted to publicity and 
public relations. Also, I can~Rt imagine why it would be wise to 
discourage scientists from talking about their work. The fact is that not 
enough scientists do it, and as a result, we have a society in which far 
too many people are clueless when it comes to understanding the scientific 
process. Just yesterday I got into a debate with some women over John 
McCain~Rs comment on the autism-vaccine link. His comment made them more 
likely to want to vote for him. It was obvious from what they said that 
they lacked understanding of how science works. But unfortunately 
scientists still seem to be victims of the ~SCarl Sagan effect,~T that is, 
devalued by their colleagues for choosing to spend their time trying to 
improve public understanding of science. I find that really sad, and wish 
something could be done about it. Obviously, attitudes such as those of 
Mr. Greenburg are anything but helpful. greenblue · Mar 6, 11:43 AM · #

Having written about research at public universities for nearly 35 years 
now. I~Rm confident of a few simple points: 1) While some researchers~R 
egos may drive them to seek visibility for their work, most researchers 
consider communicating with the public about their science simply a pain 
in the ass; 2) Regardless of that, many researchers feel an obligation to 
undertake that pain because the public deserves the chance to learn about 
new science; 3) The public couldn~Rt care less about the science unless 
they see it either as having a readily applicable value to them or those 
they care about, or it is intrinsically interesting to them, based on 
whatever floats their boat! and 4) Those institutions that have 
experienced science writers on staff who are dedicated to informing the 
public of the science ~W not of their institution~Rs agenda ~W are trusted 
and listened to by the news media which carries science news to the 
public. Respectfully, Dan~Rs vantage point is somewhat skewed by a career 
of seeing research from the political side as a Washington insider, rather 
than one of the rest of us among the unwashed masses. Earle Holland · Mar 
6, 04:10 PM · #