(Issue 8 ? posted May 16, 1997; archived May 30, 1997)
When I was in graduate school in the late 1970s, Carl Sagan was reaching the zenith of his fame. The astronomer, who died last December at the age of 64, frequently appeared on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. He produced and starred in Cosmos, still the most successful series in the history of public television. He wrote a best-selling book, The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence. He was frequently quoted in news stories, commenting on everything from the latest astronomical result to the dangers of nuclear war. But though Sagan was arguably the most famous scientist since Einstein and produced a great deal of solid scientific work, many researchers regarded him with derision and condescension.
I remember my graduate school mentors holding up as a
negative example Sagan's obvious eagerness to popularize and
promote science. You don't want to be like him, I was told. He's
not a serious scientist. He's more interested in money and
glory than in science. How many scientists do you know who own
television production companies? How dare this astronomer write a
book about brain evolution? Sagan's not a real scientist, I was
told in so many words; he's a "disco" scientist.
Although the criticism of Sagan mellowed somewhat as the years went on, it never stopped completely. This criticism was partly due to envy toward Sagan's fame and wealth. But mostly, I think, the criticism came because Sagan violated a number of science's barely articulated cultural norms.
There's a taboo in the culture of science against blowing
one's own horn. There's a taboo in the culture of science against
"publishing in the New York Times." There's a taboo in some areas
of science against doing anything but "pure" research, the more
esoteric and more removed from practical considerations, the
better. And there's a taboo in the culture of science against
simplifying that exquisitely esoteric work to the point where it
can be understood by the hoi polloi.
I argue that it's important for all scientists to shed these cultural strictures, and to be willing, even eager, to publicize their research, to cooperate with reporters, and to be quoted in news articles. In this week's Press Box I'll discuss why scientists should cooperate in publicizing their research. In Issue 10 (to be published on June 13th) I'll discuss the best ways for scientists to work with reporters. And in Issue 12 (to be published on July 11th) I'll discuss how to work most effectively with institutional public relations people.
In all three articles I'm relying on my own experience as a science journalist. I was trained as a neuroscientist, and worked for seven years in university public relations before becoming a full-time freelancer five years ago. I'll also be depending on the excellent analysis offered in a pamphlet called "Communicating Science News: A Guide for Public Information Officers, Scientists and Physicians," prepared and distributed by the National Association of Science Writers This pamphlet can be found online, and copies of the printed version can be ordered.
Some of the reasons for publicizing one's research in the
news media are altruistic. For one thing, it's clear that science
and technology play critically important roles in our society,
and it's clear that most people get most of their information
about science from the news media, not from formal education. So
by helping reporters, scientists are helping to educate the
public about an important aspect of public affairs.
Second, it is the taxes paid by that same public that support most scientific research. Scientists have an ethical obligation to provide an accounting to their financial backers of how the money was spent.
But there are good selfish reasons as well for cooperating with reporters. The budgetary times are tough, and scientific and medical research falls in the minority of the national budget called "discretionary" or "non-entitlement" spending. If scientists expect the public and their representatives to keep ponying up the dough, they'd best keep them informed of their return on investment.
A second selfish reason for publicizing scientific research is that it's not only the public that gets its science news from the news media. Scientists apparently get much of their scientific news there as well, and not only in areas far removed from their specialties. This was demonstrated clearly in a fascinating study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Philips et al., 1991).
The authors of that study looked at NEJM articles
published in 1978 and 1979, comparing those that were reported in
the New York Times with those that were not. They found that
research that was reported in the Times received 72.8 percent
more citations in the year after publication than those that
weren't reported. The significantly increased number of citations
persisted for at least ten years.
The study included a nifty control for the reasonable supposition that the Times was just reporting the most significant studies, which naturally would have received more citations. In 1978 the Times suffered a 12-week strike. Throughout the strike the Times produced but did not distribute an "edition of record," so it was clear which articles the Times deemed worthy of coverage even when they weren't publishing. It's telling that these newsworthy but unpublicized articles showed no increase in citations in subsequent years.
A third selfish reason for cooperating with reporters is
that cooperating helps ensure that reporters will get their facts
straight. When a reporter calls a scientist for comment she is
almost always intending to write an article with or without the
scientist's cooperation. While it is always possible to be
misquoted or misunderstood, scientists have a much better chance
of getting their points across if they talk than if they clam up.
In my next Press Box article I'll discuss how scientists can
decrease the likelihood that they will be misquoted or
misunderstood.
We'll never know the full extent of Carl Sagan's contribution to American science. It certainly goes far beyond his accomplishments in planetary science, his specialty. I suspect that his eagerness to communicate the excitement and romance of science to anyone who would listen has a lot to do with the fact that research budgets have emerged relatively unscathed even in these very tough budgetary times.
Robert Finn is a contributing editor for The Scientist who has written for many publications including Discover, Science Digest, Nature, and the Los Angeles Times.
Endlinks
The Demon-Haunted World - Sagan's last words reviewed in the HMS Beagle. The Dr. Carl Sagan Honorary Site points to many commemorative articles.
Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, Stephen Jay Gould, Stephen Hawking, and James Watson. - other popularizers of science who are documented on the World Wide Web.
