When I was an undergraduate student, my first impression of a scientist was that of a rigid, serious, and reclusive person. Of course, since then, my view has changed. Especially since I am a scientist. Do I think of myself as a rigid, serious, and reclusive person? No.
Another first impression which often is repeated back to me is that many scientists live in an academic, intellectual world which is not accessible to an outsider. I have found that this is one of many misnomers (a wrong judgment) of a scientist which is propagated throughout time over and over again. Why?
What is a scientist?
According to Wikipedia, a scientist is a person who researches to advance knowledge:
A scientist is someone who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest. In classical antiquity, there was no real ancient analog of a modern scientist. Instead, philosophers engaged in the philosophical study of nature called natural philosophy, a precursor of natural science.
The above definition does not answer the question as to why scientists are so rigid. What the above description does describe is the fact that scientific inquiry (scientific research) is conducted in a variety of subfields to advance the knowledge of that subfield. Which involves language and procedures which are specific to that subfield. What subfields do I speak of?
Take Chemistry, for example. Within the field of Chemistry, there are subfields: Organic Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry, and Physical Chemistry. Each of the above is hyperlinked to their respective Wikipedia page for clarification.
An Organic/Inorganic Chemist is tasked with the synthesis of chemical compounds in a laboratory. Whereas, an Analytical Chemist might be more concerned about exact quantities and the limits of measurement for various analytical (laboratory) instrumentation.
Last but not least is the Physical Chemist who delves deep into the theoretical/experimental aspects of chemistry — from measurement to basic principles from both thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. This entails everything of the energy required for a reaction to the structures involved in chemical reactions.
Each scientific field (or professional field for that matter) has a unique language and methods by which the profession operates. The language is the avenue by which professionals in the given field use to communicate advances in the field. Specific techniques and practices which are used by professionals are unique to the area. Furthermore, the methods are standardized arouond the world.
As I said earlier, the methods and procedures can vary across fields of science. Returning to the Wikipedia page for a Scientist the variety of careers which scientists can occupy are wide:
Scientists are motivated to work in several ways. Many have a desire to understand why the world is as we see it and how it came to be. They exhibit a strong curiosity about reality. Other motivations are recognition by their peers and prestige. The Nobel Prize, a widely regarded prestigious award,[30] is awarded annually to those who have achieved scientific advances in the fields of medicine, physics, chemistry, and economics. Some scientists have a desire to apply scientific knowledge for the benefit of people’s health, the nations, the world, nature, or industries (academic scientist and industrial scientist). Scientists tend to be less motivated by direct financial reward for their work than other careers. As a result, scientific researchers often accept lower average salaries when compared with many other professions which require a similar amount of training and qualification.[31]
Being a scientist is not restricted to each nation in the world. The universality of science rests on the standardization of science around the globe. That is the main avenue by which scientists can communicate new advances and old concepts which needs revisions.
Science is Standardized Around The World
The language and methodology of science (along with other fields) is standardized around the world. Which means that anyone who would like to communicate concepts of science or research conducted in the scientific laboratory needs to speak the specific language. That language is standardized.
The standardization of science tends to limit the language which scientists can use to communicate science to the public. Ask any scientist what he/she does for research and chances are that the answer will involve complicated language. Hesitancy is also a response often encountered by the public when speaking with a scientist about their research. This is a problem.
There are two primary sources of problems in science communication. First, is the obvious. Projects which are worked on in scientific laboratories are typically held tightly in the hands of scientists. Many scientists work hard on projects and are wary of communicating outside of the realm of publishing. Once the work of a scientist is published, the work cannot be stolen. Ideas are documented to the original person. The same is true of a scientist working for a large corporation. Corporate secrets are guarded closely by corporations.
Secondly, the inability of a scientist to properly communicate is due to the specific language which is used on a daily basis in the profession. Scientists might get hesitant when asked about their projects. The hesitancy is often because the scientist does not know how to describe the research project in simple terms to the layperson. Some scientists like Professor Richard Feynman had a natural talent for communicating science. A large number of scientists do not.
The inability to communicate to the public is often translated as too complicated or too complex for the public to understand, which is not the case at all. Although some scientists do not feel comfortable reaching outside the normalized language of science to describe their work. As a result, scientists are perceived to be proud or arrogant or a hermit. This is a major downfall of most scientists. And very often not true at all.
Most Scientists are Curious and Talkative
Not all scientists are outgoing. Some scientists are introverts, whereas a large number of scientists are extroverts. A scientist who is an extrovert can be perceived to be not serious — which again is far from the truth. Scientists tend to be very serious about being taken seriously by their colleagues. Still, this behavior is not suitable for society or the public to see this acting on the part of the scientists.
Scientists need to emerge from their comfort zone and go out to interface with the public at events. Only then will the true nature of scientists become better known. Most scientists I know, are friendly people. And they are more talkative than they would like to lead on in the public eye.
Last but not least, scientists tend to think that time spent in the laboratory is indicative of how serious of a scientist they genuinely are. Which again, is not the case. Yes, the time spent in the laboratory is significant. Although performing good science is not merely accomplished by spending a considerable amount of time in the laboratory. Spending quality time thinking and conducting research is of utmost importance. Ensuring that each step of the scientific process is being accomplished correctly and recorded correctly is the absolute most crucial part of practicing science.
Scientists are often misjudged by the public. Part of that lies on the shoulders of scientists. The other part is on the shoulders of the public. Public engagement in science is a two-way street. Which is to say, it takes two to tango. Yes, scientists should make a better effort to reach out and engage with the public. I will not deny that. On the part of the public, there could be vast improvements as well. Notably, instead of perceiving that science is inaccessible due to the narrow language and methodologies used in the profession, each member of the public could do due diligence and try to learn about science. That way each party can meet each other halfway. We might have a long way to go in closing the gap. Although, starting the discussion into the gap and a solution is the first step toward finding a solution.
Related Blog Posts:
