What listening to Undeniable made me think about Science Vulgarization

I was very exited about reading Undeniable. Since I didn’t grew up in the US, my first knowledge of Bill Nye and his show Bill Nye the Science Guy came after I was at least in my early 20s. Hence I did not get to experience his effect on science appreciation as a kid but that is not to say I didn’t get excited about science as I was listening to his book. The fact that the book is read by Nye himself was the cherry on top of the sundae; he can transmit all of this energy and love for science a way that made me feel like a child again, learning about what makes science great.

Did I learn about evolution with this book? A little. A lot of the facts that are presented in the book are facts that, working in science, I’ve been exposed to before, albeit in a more academic background. At the same time, since I do not work on evolution myself, there were a couple of items that I wasn’t aware off or that needed refreshing in my head.

However, what I take out of this book is how good a person can be making a subject accessible without dumbing the subject down. All the information and data Nye uses are accurate and well researched, but at the same time, the tone and terminology used makes it easy to understand, especially if this is the first time you are approaching evolution.

Bill Nye has known detractors in Creationism followers. But, as a lot of scientists working on vulgarization, he has detractors in the scientific community for making science “too accessible” or for his colorful persona. Often Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are compared, unsurprisingly since both of them try to bring more scientific knowledge to the masses. But while de Grasse Tyson is often looked up as an astrophysicist who happens to become a spokesperson for vulgarization, people seem to forget the Nye himself is a mechanical engineer, with a big science background himself, and not just a quirky actor talking about science. The difference off course lies in their own delivery.

Because Nye’s character became famous as a children educator, people often think of him as “less of a scientist” than de Grasse Tyson. But actually, taking so many different topics and making them understandable to children takes a lot more energy and talent in vulgarization that some people might think.

We often assume that things explained to a children level are “dumb” or even too easy. Idioms such as “child play” imply that if a kid can understand it, so can an adult. But the truth of the matter is tat vulgarizing science for kids is much more complicated than it is for adults. First of all, think of the fact that a lot of notions we take for granted might not be obvious yet to kids. At the same time, treating the kid as ignorant or “not smart enough” can push him to be easily uninterested and move over to another thing. People who go for the vulgarisation level provided by someone like deGrasse Tyson are often the type of people who already have a basic knowledge of science and want to learn more, without reading a review on astrophysics. The beauty of what Nye does is that he takes the subject to the child in us, to the person who hasn’t been exposed as much to a certain topic and makes it fascinating, so much that we want to go up a next step.

So let’s give it up for all the people working on children science programs in museums, schools and TV. For those who light up the first sparks in our heads. And while we are at it, let me know who was that person for you. 

via GIPHY

Too vulgarized?

Last week I talked about the need of proper scientific writers and proper vulgarization. Today I want to elaborate on the “proper” part. As with everything, there are always two extremes with vulgarization. We mostly talk and refer to the lack of, when scientists (myself included) have a hard time taking their research and putting it into more common terms. Case in point, every time I have to explain to my grandmother what is it that I do. I struggle to avoid the very specialized terms I’ve come used to using with people around me at the lab, but I get there and she has the general idea.

However, there is such a thing as too vulgarized, and most of the time, when this happens people get misinformed and get the idea that finally, science is not such a big deal. For example, yesterday was our nephew’s birthday. He got the visit of an educational zoo, with lizards, snakes, a ferret…bunch of little animals. She did a great job simplifying the terms and facts about the animals, when explaining to the kids (average of age was 6). But when a couple of adults asked questions…she kept using the same terms that she used with the kids. Now, I am not saying this was her fault, it could be that she only has that information about the animals, or she simply didn’t want to get too much into details. But it got me thinking, how a lot of times, what is sold as vulgarizing a subject tends to rather be infantilizing the subject, underestimating the audience.

This is a problem for me for several reasons. It not only assumes that the regular audience is incapable of grasping certain terms/ideas unless explained to them as if they were kids, and it takes the ideas to such a basic terminology that the point gets lost. You can always go for simpler terms, while incorporating the right definitions, and off course, giving sources and means for people to get more in depth information, shall they be interested in it.

I have mentioned before that when doing a presentation you have to know your audience, and this also applies to any type of communication. While the terminology used on your paper or thesis might not be ideal to explain to you dinner party why is so important to vaccinate addressing them as if the complexity of the subject is beyond their grasps also perpetuates the image of the scientist that thinks of the rest as commoners. A lot of people can be offended when they are feeling patronized, and with reason.

The key here is to find that balance in your discourse that is engaging, understandable and yet, remains true to its scientific nature. I am not saying, by any means, that I know how to find that balance. All I am pointing out is that we have to be careful not to go to the extremes.

Do you have any examples of "too vulgarized"? Please share them in the comments, and in the mean time, keep doing good science. 

On Vulgarization

The image of the lone scientist observing natural phenomena or creating systems and theories in ("splendid") isolation is now understood to be an unrealistic image --a myth, now viewed as an idealization even in the science of previous eras.

      --Manual of Scientific Style, 2009.

As I've mentioned a couple of times, after deciding I no longer wanted to remain in academia once I finish my PhD, I would like to go into scientific writing. It seems funny to me how much in need of people dedicated to this craft our society is. 

You might be puzzled by what I just said, but the thing is, a lot of journalist that are in charge of the science area of your newspaper or even TV news (and this is when there is a science area) are people who sadly lack a scientific background. Without such background it can be hard to pass the right message on scientific developments. Off course it can be done, but as anything, the more you understand one subject the easier is to explain it to others and make it more accesible.

One of the definitions of vulgarization is "To disseminate widely; popularize". However, there is a faint line between popularizing a subject and just using less complicated words and assuming that is enough. Case in point, I was reading about the case of a man in Kansas, who died due to an infection with a brand new described virus (Bourbon virus, you can read a bit more about it here) on an article from my local newspaper. 

At the end of the article, the journalist wrote that the person died "even though doctors had given him antibiotics". The thing is, you cannot treat a virus infection with and antibiotic. We discussed this with my boyfriend, A, and we had several hypothesis: maybe he had a bacterial infection along with the viral infection and that's why he was getting antibiotics; maybe the journalist meant antivirals instead of antibiotics. Either way, the information was erroneous, and what is worst, it can be read by someone without enough knowledge as if some viruses could actually be treated by antibiotics. 

My point here is that the person reporting this news should've had the knowledge, but because not a lot of us actually go into this path...well, that's what you get. There is a ridiculous believe that vulgarizing can be bad, amongst certain scientist (not pointing fingers, but mostly older ones, sorry!), that we should stay in our high horse, riding along with unnecessarily complicated jargon and look over our shoulders for the "laypeople"...And then be offended when a so called celebrity gets people to stop vaccinating. 

No, we as scientist have the responsibility to not only share our knowledge with our scientific community, but also with the rest of the world, and we have to be able to do so in simple, but not simplistic terms, an issue I will tackle next week. We have to be able to share those amazing things that we see everyday and explain what makes them so amazing to others. That is why I want to be a scientific writer. That is why I think we need more of them. 

What do you think of vulgarization? Please let me know in the comments, and in the mean time, keep doing good science.