Sending the Kardashians to Space

Way back in February, Dr. Kiki hosted Fraser Cain from Universe Today on the Science Hour. The topic was space, but the conversation was important for all branches of science. Though they may have thought they were talking about how to get more funding to explore the universe, in reality Dr. Kiki and Mr. Cain were scraping the surface of a bigger issue. Constantly, asking for more money is not a sustainable way for labs to function. Which is more important for rallying research support, money or popularity? 

The point in the interview that really got to me was when Dr. Kiki tossed out the idea of sending the Kardashians to space, as it might be the only way to get America's attention. A silly quip, but perhaps it isn't too far off the mark. If that thought makes you throw up in your mouth a bit, you aren't alone. Imagine this: Kim steals Khloe's husband during Khloe's first space walk. Kris constantly complains about the food and worries that zero gravity makes Kim's hair look too puffy. It's sickening. But Americans would watch, and space flight would be a front and center topic.

Unfortunately, most lab work makes for really poor television. "Look television viewers, see that tiny silver band? It may have taken ten weeks of failed experiments to see it, but it's there!  See, right there!  Isn't it exciting?"

So how do we generate interest?  What will get people excited, making them more willing to give private donations or vote to raise the proportion of government budgets dedicated to research? Some research groups have great models to raise funds or "awareness" as it is sometimes called. Most of these groups are tied to diseases like breast cancer and autism. It doesn't mean that other research isn't just as valid, but most research groups are failing at speaking to the average citizen.

The blogging community is advancing science communication by leaps and bounds. Projects like The Open Notebook bring more voices to the discussion. Internet users have more access to quality science journalism than ever before. As science writers, professional or no, we live in an exciting time; however, we are still failing to reach those who are not already seeking us out. I love my readers, but I also know that I am personally doing a poor job of reaching out to more than avid science readers and my parents. Public science fairs are great, but few people stumble upon them accidentally. When it comes down to it, Bill Nye is showing up in only a fraction of homes. If you look in the average American's window, the Kardashians will be staring back at you instead.

NASA knew what it was doing when it put an elementary school teacher in a shuttle in 1986. Every classroom tuned in; every American heart was captivated by the story. If the mission hadn't ended tragically, I'd bet that this approach would still be used to draw people in. If, as the rumors say, Ashton Kutcher is one of the first people on a chartered flight to space, I hope that he tapes the whole thing and puts it on YouTube; the more Likes, Shares, and Views the better.

We live in an age when "scientist" is being tossed around by some as a bad word. Many popular news venues have cut or reduced their science reporting departments. The ones still in existence are often drowned out by reporting that suggests scientists are fueled by greed and self-interest with the capacity to easily lie to the public. At many news sources, the only science reporting that makes it to print must be something that could kill you, make you lose weight, or help get you laid. Dear lovers of science, we are greatly to blame for this.

Where were we when creationism wiggled its way in to a science classroom?  Where were we when CNN dropped its science department? Where were we when public funding for stem cell research faced cuts in several states?  Many of us were here, online, yelling at the top of our lungs about these injustices, sitting in our echo chambers with fellow science lovers. Few of us were out in the public sharing our knowledge, sharing why we love science with those who don't already share that love. Maybe we don't need Kardashians in space to win back America's hearts, but we need to start playing the game.

At my day job, I like to throw around research findings like baseball recaps. "Hey, did you hear about the study where they revived 38,000 year old plants from permafrost and got them to flower?" At first this was met with wide eyed stares and quick returns back to how the Brewers pitched the night before, but after a few tries, another person joined the conversation. Now it's pretty effortless to chat about the cool science-y thing we saw on the internet the night before. Try it out at family dinners or waiting in line at the grocery store. Make science communication accessible, exciting, and above all commonplace. Maybe we will never have a country who's people can name more Nobel Prize winners than characters from Jersey Shore, but the more people understand about research, the better. Force science to be popular, and the rest will follow.