Patrick Moore -- the brooding presence with the gruff voice and monocled eye -- has died. The famous British popularizer of astronomy passed away at the age of 89 this week. He had the distinction of being the author of more than 70 books and the host of the world's longest-running television series featuring a single host: The Sky at Night.
Moore was a popularizer; not a traditional research astronomer with a PhD, tenure, grad students and -- most important -- a stack of academic reprints. Moore chose broadcasting over narrowcasting, and tried to educate the everyman. His work was for the public, not the specialist.
That may sound like a worthy, indeed an admirable, life. But to many scientists, it isn't. All too often they feel that talking at a level that the general populace can grasp is somehow a lesser activity. Taking science beyond the lecture hall borders on the unseemly -- as if NBA stars were to routinely engage in pick-up games with the neighborhood kids.
Popularization, and even more so its less frequently used synonym, vulgarization, have a distinctly low-brow tenor.
This is a relatively new development, however. Towards the end of the 19th century, when science was growing like kudzu and inventors including Nikolai Tesla, Thomas Edison and George Eastman were warping its discoveries into everyday products, there was good reason to connect the public to science. Science was something that any educated person could understand -- and in many cases, turn to use. Lectures and popular magazines were ubiquitous. Top-notch academics went on the road to speak of the latest developments. British scientist John Tyndall traveled to New York to give some physics lectures, and when these were written up by a local newspaper, fifty thousand copies were sold.
Explaining the discoveries of science to the general public was considered worthwhile and exemplary.
But a half-century later, attitudes were distinctly different. Science had become both arcane and specialized. Consider the theories of General Relativity and quantum mechanics, developed near the time of the First World War. Both are subtle and intensely mathematical. Scientists assumed that garage tinkerers wouldn't understand them, and couldn't convert the new ideas into practical devices. They largely abandoned popularization and their work turned cryptic.
At the same time, government funding of research (often channeled through universities) cut the umbilical cord between the practitioners and the public. Many scientists didn't care much whether Mr. and Mrs. Front Porch had the slightest clue about their day jobs.
For the last hundred years, science has become a boutique activity, performed by high priests assumed to possess superior intellects and inferior social skills. But we can no longer afford to seclude science in an ivory tower. As Shawn Lawrence Otto repeatedly demonstrates in his book Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, our day-to-day existence is now deeply marinated in science. Even more, our species' future hinges on making the right choices in matters that are shaped by science. What do we do about climate change? About genetic engineering? Future water and energy needs?
We need the next generation of scientists, yes. But a more problematic requirement is ensuring a citizenry that understands enough about research to make the best decisions. And that underscores the critical importance of that seemingly bourgeois occupation, science popularization.
Conveying the excitement, the sheer joy of learning something of everlasting truth and, often, unbounded utility, is not merely a nice thing to do. It's an essential thing to do.
When I was ten years old -- an age at which many people develop the interests that will remain with them for a lifetime -- I was given a book by Patrick Moore about the planets. That was a single, small seed that planted a lifelong flowering in me, yes... but Moore spawned forests around the world.
He was a man of protean accomplishment and noble purpose. We need more like him.
It would absolutely be in the interests of scientists to remember these facts.
I must say that I do not know whether to be amused or offended by being called an "erudite pet", but at any rate, I take issue with that statement, which is by the way, a reflection of what is going on in our country, sadly, this will most likely make us lose our preeminent world position as a technological country.
I hope you realize that academics are largely responsible for the discoveries and the education of those who invent and build virtually every kind of technology that you may use, including the electronics that you are using to disparage us. Before you point out the successful school dropouts, note that they are the proverbial smallest minority... Anyway, life scientists do the discoveries that your physician uses to treat your disease (most physicians do not do research).
Also, who says that we do not live and die in our society? Reverse elitism much? Any kind of honest job is an honorable one. I just happened to choose this one because of a modicum of mental capacities and VERY hard work, make no mistake about that. I am a scientist and professor because I used my abilities...
As for the elitism charge: That's the problem. There is a strong sense of elitism in too many university professors. If you are one yourself then I hardly have to tell you this, as you surely see it.
I absolutely agree that scientists do a tremendous amount of good for our society. I am if anything extremely pro-science myself, being neither conservative enough to deny climate change or evolution nor liberal enough to deny the utility of space exploration, animal research, or vaccinations.
Anyway please read my statement as the rant of someone whose head has been pounding and is generally angry at everybody.
We NEED the kind of training and know-how that the proverbial Ivory Tower represents. We can do away with the elitism of some, but that is another topic. Finally, it is absolutely possible to be a top-notch scientist and a prolific popularizer, do not forget Carl Sagan...
We absolutely NEED the knowledge and know-how associated with the proverbial ivory tower. There is no other way for true, well-done science to progress. We can do without the elitism usually associated with it, but that is another story.
Finally, it is entirely possible to be a top-notch scientist and a prolific communicator; let's not forget Carl Sagan!
Science education works well, science communication works well. It does so everywhere except American and Saudi Arabia. In the US you have some complete whack-jobs in political power. Yip. They banned stem cell research and globally, stem cell research moved elsewhere. Times have changed.
Stop mixing up science and nationalism. Ain't the same thing.
Huh?
And again, I say, Huh?
Where has this author been?
Okay, I know he is an astronomer. With SETI, no less -- the organization that helps us looks for signs of life in the great "out there."
But maybe, just maybe, he ought to pull his head out of whatever dark hole he has pushed it into. Scientists do *lots* and *LOTS* of science in the public view. Perhaps we haven't gotten Fox News to tell about us very much. But science and its efforts get lots of good press.
Ever hear of NASA and the missions we have on Mars? Or the pictures that come from the Hubble telescope as well as others? Or the work being done on battery technology to make electric cars feasible -- with the goal of being able to go 500 miles on a charge and "fill up" on electricity in a few minutes? Or the latest dinosaur fossil finds? Or the new medical treatments? And how about those cell phones?
The problem isn't that science is being done in an ivory tower away from everyone. It isn't, and hasn't been for years. Science is being transformed into usable technology, making our lives more connected and complex.
Science isn't hidden. It is integrated.
One of the DoE centers is currently featuring their brilliant work on their front page. A Scientist shown in a lab holding a lithium battery the size of a penny with big plans to increase it's energy output by X% or something like that. How about letting the battery companies or high school kids figure that one out?
If this is the type of stuff scientists want to communicate to the public, please stay in the ivory tower.
2) "One of the DoE centers is currently featuring their brilliant work on their front page. A Scientist shown in a lab holding a lithium battery the size of a penny with big plans to increase it's energy output by X% or something like that. How about letting the battery companies or high school kids figure that one out?"
Umm... maybe because it relies on a degree of chemical knowledge not available to high school kids? Maybe because, I don' t know, the DoE's job is energy research? And oh, its certainly not possible that such a technology could scale up, could it? /sarcasm
That's a challenge tailor made for high school kids, but not a challenge for the DoE. I mean seriously.
The "Ivory Tower" allusion is apropos, but the current lack of respect for scholarship has reached an alarming level. The aphorism, "Knowledge is Power", somehow now simply relates to data mining for computer search engines. It is, however, the foundation for everything you do in life. Then, maybe at the end you can "Know Thyself".
In the second place, a combination of decreasing general literacy here in the US combined with the author's admitted increase in complexity of the topic has acted to stifle the conversation. I'm a physicist for whom quantum mechanics was my favorite topic in graduate school. I LOVE talking about it, but don't because when I attempt to start a conversation with my non-scientist friends, I see eyes glazing over and sudden urges to find the restroom. In America people are much more comfortable talking about sports or their kids, clothes, houses, cars. (My cynicism derives from having similar responses when I try to talk about art.)
Finally, here in the US especially, the rise of the religious fundamentalists with their absurd positions on practically everything scientific (global warming, the age of the earth, evolution, the response of the female body to rape, you name it) coupled by their complete intolerance to other ideas makes people like me extremely reluctant to engage in a public discourse. Who enjoys being threatened?
I am sure you are well respected and have a gift for science. The gift of communicating is just as vital in the current dilemma faced by the scientific community. Those who vilify the scientists and their findings have a lot to lose when the theories are shown to be proven fact.
Sagan & Moore must have been so excited about their field that their zeal was catching by the populace.
I would not enjoy being threatened and I am sorry that you are.
I took 4+ years of collegel math (calc 1 + 2, linear algebra, diff. eq., bio based statistics, general stats & prob, graph theory, real analysis).
I can't even come close to understanding the mathematics behind the MAJORITY of the cutting-edge research being published today. You cannot water down / popularize the vast majority of the science being realized today.
And, more to his point... start talking about "Schroedinger's Cat" with any number of science enthusiasts and you will realize exactly how far off the people who are actually intrigued by science are.
Not really. Questions that experts can’t answer have always been around. The trick has been to prevent such erratum from permeating public consciousness. While the correct response to such paradoxes was Patrick’s very own catchphrase: We just don’t know.
“Nikolai Tesla, Thomas Edison “
A perfect example of propaganda being deployed to pervert the paragon, that true science aspires to become. AC vs. DC. Practicality vs. presentation.
“Scientists assumed that garage tinkerers wouldn't understand them”
Maybe we need a breed of garage/scientists. Which appears to be happening. With ventures giving anyone access to a 3D printer. Or with scientists that question conventional wisdom and, by playing around, access a graphite super material.
“high priests”
tend to make reference to their own bibles. Which, if containing an error, have no mechanism for self correction.
"Fool Me Twice:"
Failing to ask for a second time, what should have automatically been asked the first.
“What do we do about climate change?”
How about, admit that science has provided us with the potential to destroy ourselves? Much as religion did before it. These two forces are powered by the very lifeforce they were devised to protect. Thus those ways in which they create a threat to their own existence, are counter-productive in the extreme.
“everlasting truth”
The holy beaker of unending quest(ioning). Why would any ideology expose itself to testing, if its opponent was not more than eager to submit itself to a similar Promethean baptism?
I was lucky enough to grow up in the '50's and 60's when we BELIEVED in science and knew we could do anything we wanted to. Go to the moon. FANTASTIC. Fly the speed of sound. Achieve and accomplish what we set out to do. Everyone gained as we grew in knowledge and experience. We all got a better life. We respected knowledge and science. We respected the men and women that achieved and taught. We actually were in awe and wonder of these greats. I am so grateful to them all. "Greed is good" was not a value then.