 | |
| Photograph courtesy Todd Aki, RSMAS |
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Picture of the Week: RSMAS Amateur Underwater Photography Competition
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Picture of the Week: "Magic" Balancing Broomsticks
As a snarky and sometimes obnoxiously precocious kid, it was my favorite game to debunk Old Wives' Tales. I think I got this from my mother, who once sat for an hour watching ice in a full cup melt, just to prove to her own mother that it indeed would not overflow, no matter how much ice she added. My family still fills coffee pots with cold water and ice trays with hot water, despite my insistence that this does nothing more than waste your time and perhaps melt your frozen veggies. (However I've heard some tricky physics about the hot water to ice thing) Once, my dad insisted that on equinoxes you could balance an egg; a special day. That was my cue to run to the refrigerator to balance an egg on a random day. Equinox-schmequinox.
It really is a cool and fun experiment to do in a classroom. Give each kid an egg on the Equinox and challenge them to stand it up. It always works out and it's always neat. But there's just one thing...few people do the counter experiment to prove that it doesn't work on other days. Besides, who just keeps eggs laying around a classroom? So you go around thinking that the Equinox is special, but try it any other day and you will find that it still works. Go...go right now and balance an egg. It will work. And it might make you smile.
A broom however would be a great tool in a classroom. And maybe after giving it the daily balance test, your students might sweep up a little. I'm not sure that I understand why it works. This article on Wired.com gives some explanation. I also can't say if it's easier or harder on one day or another, but it would be a fun concept as a teacher or parent to test with kids. If you do know how it all works, feel free to educate me in the comments. I would love to learn more.
Despite that right now it appears that my Facebook is turning into this:
I believe there is a scientific, rather than magical (or seasonal) explanation to the surreal floating broomsticks. We, in my house however, have our calendars marked for the Summer Solstice, just to see for ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)