"Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey"...airs March 9th

"Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why the new Cosmos matters so much"

by

Jason Shankel

March 3rd, 2014

io9

This Sunday, March 9th, what is arguably the most important science show of all time returns to TV as Neil deGrasse Tyson hosts an all-new, updated version of Carl Sagan's Cosmos. We caught up with Neil DeGrasse Tyson on his whirlwind tour of the universe to discuss the what the show is and isn't, explaining why science matters to modern audiences, and his personal asteroid.

io9: How has the press tour been treating you?

Neil deGrasse Tyson: It's exhausting but exhilarating. While it's a huge hit to my day's calendar, I'm persistently reminded that for most people who are conducting interviews it's not "oh, this show is coming out and I gotta do an article." There's an enthusiasm and an anticipation. I find I'm deeply hopeful about what this means for the future of America and the world, that science literacy is something that can be embraced and nurtured and that the comfort level people have with science can change.
 
We were certainly excited to hear that you would be updating this series. We've come so far since 1980, not just in science but in visual effects and filmmaking that this is a great way to carry forward Dr. Sagan's legacy.

Tyson: The methods and tools of storytelling are significantly advanced, yes, but it's not only that. Because it's on network, we have some resources that have allowed us access to people who have previously brought their craft to cinema. Our director of photography is Bill Pope, who was the director of photography for the Matrix trilogy and Spider-Man.

When you think of a typical documentary, you think of somebody in a lab coat with a test tube and there's a camera on a tripod and they get asked a question and they answer it. In that scenario, the camera is visiting the scene. It's you, listening to the person.

When Bill Pope gets a hold of a camera, he brings the methods and tools he developed working on those films to bear on our telling of the story of the universe. So now when you see Cosmos, it doesn't just affect you intellectually, as it should, but also emotionally and spiritually. Spiritually with a small "s" — the awe and wonder of looking up. Because of this we have high expectations for the potency of the series.

Were there other factors that went into the decision to air this on commercial television, as opposed to PBS?

Tyson: When we first shopped around the idea, we went to the normal list of networks, PBS, Discovery Channel, Science Channel and National Geographic. While we were doing this, I met Seth MacFarlane at a special meeting in California intended to connect Hollywood storytellers and artists with scientists. I didn't think much would come of it, but Seth called me one day when he was in New York and invited me to lunch. He told me he wanted to do something to serve science in America and he asked me what he should do. I thought maybe he could invest in a pilot that we could use to show sponsors. He said "I have a good idea, let's take it to Fox."

Now, there are a series of thoughts I'm about to share with you that I think lasted about 12 seconds. My first thought was "This is the stupidest idea I've ever heard, he doesn't get it, this is a waste of a lunch."
But then I said, "Wait a minute, Fox is 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight Pictures, they brought Avatar and Slumdog Millionaire to the screen. Yes, there's Fox News, but also the Fox Network which has acerbic liberal commentary of The Simpsons and Family Guy. And there's Fox Sports. I realized Fox has more demographics of American culture going through their portfolio than any other network. And so, I concluded that there's no better place to be than on Fox.

So 12 seconds later I told him it was a great idea.

You often talk about the need for science to feed our everyday needs, to spur innovation and fuel the economy. Now you're working in an industry, filmmaking and visual effects, that has benefitted greatly from that kind of technological achievement. Do you feel that validates your point of view on the role of science in culture?

Tyson: My view is slightly different from that. It's not that space itself is what will be our savior. It's that when you go into space, it stimulates an interest in the STEM fields. It's the stimulated interest that promotes innovation in science and technology that leads to the 21st century economy. It's not "let's go to space because space does all this." It doesn't do it directly. It does it indirectly. And you get to make discoveries along the way. That's the fun part.

The IT revolution, as significant as it is, has left us unfulfilled with regard to transportation, energy use and infrastructure. There's more to society than information. We've been distracted by the stunning advances that information technology has brought us, to the exclusion of very deeply held needs that we have in society.

What is our control over natural forces so we don't have disasters like tsunamis and hurricanes? Do we run away from them? Or do we find a way to tap the energy of a hurricane and have that energy drive the city that the storm would have otherwise leveled? This is a whole other frontier that would be addressed if we go into space, because space involves hardware, people, going places you've never been before, life support, a knowledge of the solar system and the sun, and I see that as a transformative force that can turn a sleepy nation into an innovation nation.

You've been somewhat critical of people who say that our problem is leadership, that we need another Kennedy to lead us back into space. Did I see that you called Buzz Aldrin "clueless?"

Tyson: Ha ha! I don't remember calling him "clueless." I at one point said that there are factions among us who suffer from "Apollo necrophilia."

The context was he said something about our need to go into space being driven by our destiny or our DNA.

Tyson: I certainly have arguments against that. If I said something halfway disrespectful it's because we're friends and I can get away with it. He longed for the days when people remembered every astronaut that was launched. That was one of my early disagreements with him. It's the fact that we don't know the names of astronauts that makes it evident that going into space has become routine, and that's a good thing.

Speaking of things becoming routine, how do audiences today compare with 1980? Do you feel that people need less basic science explained to them today? Or more?

Tyson: As an educator in modern times, I'm going to answer you differently than I would have 35 years ago, because I'm just that old. My day job is in a museum. How long does a person stay at a museum? A couple of hours? There are people who would want exhibits at a museum to have a whole lesson plan so you can poll people and ask them "What did you learn?" Then you'd judge the success of the exhibit based on how well people do on these exams.

I have a different view. The person is going to spend incalculably more time in a classroom than they ever will in a museum. So a museum shouldn't be a supplement to a classroom. It should be a force to ignite flames within a person's soul of curiosity. An exhibit should make a person say "Wow! I've got to find out more about this!" and trigger them to explore more advanced accountings of the topic, in books or science videos. Once the flame is lit, the learning becomes self-motivating.

Cosmos at its best should be about that, and not about presenting you Wikipedia pages to read.

What would Carl Sagan learn if he was able to see your version of Cosmos?

Tyson: I want to clarify that the goal of this Cosmos is not to update the science. A lot of science has happened in the last 35 years. We've discovered a thousand exoplanets, for example. But that's not the goal, because any time of day you can channel surf and find a documentary about black holes, colliding galaxies, the search for life, the Big Bang, dark matter, the Higgs-Boson, etc. There's no end of documentaries that serve that goal.

Cosmos has, as its mission statement, the effort to convey to you why science matters. That is a different motivating factor than "Here's all this science I want to teach you." When you take ownership of why science matters, then you are self-motivated, driven. You take the responsibility yourself to continue to learn. It's a new Cosmos not because there's so much more universe to talk about, but because the country and the world needs to know more than ever why science matters.

You've said that astrophysicists are the most humble people in the world because they confront their ignorance on a daily basis.

Tyson: Ha ha! Precisely. If you ask me what was around before the Big Bang, I have no idea. What's at the center of a black hole? I have no idea. What is dark matter? Dark energy? I have no idea. These are not complex questions that require an advanced degree to ask. There are things we do know, and we're proud of that, but as scientists we use that to put a foot in the unknown and use what we know as a carrot to keep us searching.

You've said that dark matter and dark energy should be renamed "Fred" and "Wilma." Care to elaborate on that?

Tyson: Yeah, because if I say "dark matter" you say "What kind of matter is that?" Well, we don't even know if it's matter. It's really dark gravity. Dark matter is a misleading term. There is so much first impression in the word. People ask "What do dark matter and dark energy have in common?" because they sound the same.

If I called them Fred and Wilma you wouldn't ask what they have in common. You'd ask about them separately. But because they both have the word "dark" in them, people think they're related. Maybe they are, but at the moment there's no evidence that's at all the case. These are two entities that got involved in the name game earlier than I think they should have.

The main belt asteroid 13123, discovered by Shoemaker and Levy, was named "Tyson" after you. How does it feel to be a literal rock star?

Tyson: Ha! I never thought about it that way! In fact, the very word "asteroid" means "star-like" in Latin. In a telescope, they look just like stars, dots of light. In the early days, people just named things after what they look like.

But it is a high honor, although given the number on my asteroid, it should tell you that there 13,122 other asteroids with names on them. So, it's not a very exclusive club. I have many more achievements that fewer other people have achieved than had asteroid named after them.

Yet, it's still kind of a cool thing. Yeah, asteroid. Still kind of cool.
 
Cosmos premieres on March 9th on Fox.

Astronomers and public perception

Abstract:

Society's view of astronomers has changed over time and from culture to culture. This review discusses some of the many ways that astronomers have been perceived by their societies and suggests ways that astronomers can influence public perception of ourselves and our profession in the future.

Michael J. West's "Public Perception of Astronomers: Revered, Reviled and Ridiculed" .

Use this blog's search engine with any of the following names: Ralph Alpher, Robert Stawell Ball, Herber Curtis, Arthur Eddington, Galileo Galilei, George Gamow, Fred Hoyle, Stephen Hawking, Percival Lowell, Carl Sagan, Harlow Shapley, Neil deGrasse Tyson.

"Popular scientists of the past" poll

Who is your choice for "popular" scientist of the past?

Albert Einstein...4
Carl Sagan...1
Don Herbert [Mr. Wizard]...1
Philip Morrison...0

Well, I must say, I expected billions and billions of replies. Though I did not vote for him, I figured that Einstein would be the favorite. Actually, Einstein never did that much popularization of science. It's kind of strange but the populace fell for him and did the promoting. Sagan...I guess people became tired of him. He certainly did inspire a lot of people though. I lost interest when he started chasing aliens. And I thought that a few old codgers would vote for Don Herbert as I did. Morrison is not a household name but he did a lot to promote science including his wife Phyllis who did a lot of work with crystallography.

Albert Einstein:

Many links here...

Albert Einstein's birthday

Deceased--Martin J. Klein

Carl Sagan:

NASA, Sagan, extraterrestrial life

Don Herbert [Mr. Wizard]:

Mr. Wizard...missed mentor

Mr. Wizard--more

"Watch Mr. Wizard"--1954 episode

Philip Morrison:

PSSC Physics

Philip Morrison...physicist


Popularization of science

NASA, Sagan, extraterrestrial life

What is the underlying reason for this?

"NASA seeks next Carl Sagan - and extraterrestrial life"

by

Daniel Trotta

September 3rd, 2008

Reuters

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, famous for its manned missions to the moon, announced the creation of the Carl Sagan Postdoctoral Fellowships in Exoplanet Exploration on Wednesday.

The fellowship is named after the late astronomer who popularized science through his books and television appearances.

The fellows will search for life on planets outside our solar system, the so-called exoplanets, more than 300 of which have been discovered since 1994.

Many of the planets discovered orbiting distant stars are gaseous and icy giants believed unsuitable to support life. The challenge is to find Earth-like planets orbiting Sun-like stars.

That search will be aided by NASA's Kepler mission, due for launch next year, that will survey 100,000 stars looking for smaller planets.

In addition, the agency wants to attract young scientists who share Sagan's wonderment about the cosmos who will dedicate themselves to answering the question, "Are we alone?" through improved telescope technology or other means.

"Many feel it's only a matter of time before we find Earth-like planets in Earth-like orbit around solar-like stars and that such planets might be capable of sustaining life," Jon Morse, director of NASA's astrophysics division, told a news conference.

The Sagan fellowships -- $60,000 annual stipends awarded to four or five fellows per year -- are the third named after famed scientists. Others are named after Albert Einstein and Edwin Hubble.

When Sagan died in 1996 at age 62, only 11 exoplanets had been discovered.

"We're learning an enormous amount," said Charles Beichman, director of NASA's Exoplanet Science Institute. "We know the rate of star formation. Ten years ago, we didn't know about the fraction of stars with planets. Now we know ... 10 percent have Jupiters and in a few years we'll know about Earths."

"How many of those worlds have life? That's a slightly longer-term question, but is absolutely something that 21st century science can accomplish," he said.

Popularization of science

The popularization of science has been "good, bad, and ugly" at times...sometimes exploiting the stereotypical scientist [usually in cartoon representations such as Prof. Frink of The Simpsons, Professor Hubert Farnsworth (who is 160 years old, has seen Uranus many times, and invented the "Smelloscope", the "Death Clock", and the "What-If Machine") of Futurama, glamorizing a specific science [Carl Sagan, Brian Green, David Attenborrow, or Neil deGrasse Tyson], offering sound educational science [Mr. Wizard (Don Herbert), Bill Nye (Bill Nye the Science Guy), or Beakman's World].

Can there be a genuine bridge built between science and the populace that can explain in a good way the methodology and results of science? I am not sure why people aren't interested in science a little more--lack of interest, of childhood/adolescent exposure through the educational system, of ignorance. But whatever the reason, it appears that people have to have a "hook" in presentation to gain their interest. And, unfortunately, it is under the umbrella of the mysterious or paranormal. The "hook" has to be the promise of the unknown answered, new and startling evidence, unreleased government secret evidence, spectacular film techniques [film, video, animation, computer graphics], bold audio, and a host of recognizable fame [the likes of a Frank Baxter, Philip Morrrison, Don Herbert, Bill Nye, Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, or Carl Sagan]. Production techniques can put one in awe, fast talking commentators can cloud issues, script writers can omit relevant material and create bias. The bottom line for most of these productions is to profit--make a buck through sponsorship. Good science programing is difficult to find where presentation of material is not biased and relevance is placed on logic and the scientific method. Despite the drawbacks mentioned above, at least some science is being presented to the public, but it will ultimately be the responsibility of the populace to sort through the presentation of material and decide for themselves. But, there is plenty of yakety-yak about the illusion of a rock face on Mars and ancient civilizations. For the most part the science programs are entertainment and not science. There are exceptions to the rule in programing and many of these tend to be tedious and obviously don't draw the crowds that a Sagan or Hawking would acquire. The answer is better educational background, some knowledge of logic and the scientific method, and a critical eye to discern good science from bad science.

Fred Hoyle was one of those pre-Carl Sagan individuals that attempted to bridge the gap between science and the general population, proposed an explanation for the origin of elements heavier than hydrogen ["nucleosynthesis"], and offered the cosmological hypothesis of the "steady state" universe as contrasted to the "big bang" hypothesis. His relationship with orthodox cosmology was a mixed bag with the "nucleosynthesis" and "steady state" concepts--one accepted and one untenable in light of identification of the "back ground radiation" thus supporting the expanding/"big bang" idea. It is unfortunate that Fred Hoyle in later life should be labeled a crank scientist whose company included Immanuel Velikovsky. Extrapolation of the "nucleosynthesis" idea to include bacteria ridding stellar dust particles and thus allowing dispersion of life throughout the universe ["panspermia"], devastating diseases dispersed in the same manner, evolution was to intricate to happen naturally and thus the result of some alien consciousness--all threw him into the crackpot category. Exaggerated eccentricities are not uncommon among high profile scientists: Carl Sagan's SETI or Stephen Hawking's promotion of genetic engineering to thwart errant global minded robots. I think his contributions far outweigh the "crackpot" label and should be considered mere eccentricities--the wheat can be extracted from the chaff.

What about periodicals [Scientific American, Discover, National Geographic, etc.], books both fiction and non-fiction, or even the pulp of science fiction [ Analog Science Fiction & Fact Magazine ]. Do they provide a good bridge as an entity themselves and the contributing authors [on a regular basis or periodically]? The contributors may be low key but they can provide the means of explaining the realm of science to the layman. However, I doubt that they will be successful in eliminating all the periodicals. Now as for the science books in bookstores, it is once again a matter of economics and the complicated world of publishers. It would not be practical for a book store owner to stock a multitude books on "quantum mechanics", but books by Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, George Gamow, Bill Nye, Rachel Carson, or Jane Goodall would have a better chance. As a tip, those science books that would never see a resting place at a retail bookstore would find a niche at a run down second hand bookstore or thrift store. Lots of college texts and personal libraries find a temporary home there.

A simple honorarium to a pioneer, George Pal in the film industry that married fascination with astronomy and a good story. For us older ones it was a fantastic thrill to watch science blossom in the 1950's and 1960's to such, as viewed now, naive films as Destination Moon, War of the Worlds, The Time Machine, and When Worlds Collide. Besides making a few bucks for Paramount they did inspire a generation of science nerds and nerdettes.

Ok, ok...don't laugh but the issue of discussing science with the younger generation via the Harry Potter books and films is quite real and worthy. Such complicated things as energy breaking atomic bonds, aerodynamics of broomsticks, visualizing the invisible, magnetism, etc. To quote the conclusion of one of the cited articles: But, as science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke once noted, "Any smoothly functioning technology gives the appearance of magic."

The other evening I was thinking about people who have attempted to popularize various venues of science and it came to me that a rather unique individual that was featured some time ago on one of those Sunday morning magazine type programs: John Dobson . Scratching your head and wondering who John Dobson is? John Dobson is a man of the streets that brought astronomy to the populace. Dobson was not without controversy for he attempted to debunk the existence of the photon [via Einstein's own Theory of Relativity] and became an advocate of the "steady state" universe. But the greatest claim to fame was through an organization called "The San Francisco Sidewalk Astronomers"--a co-production founded in 1968. Dobson and friends brought astronomy to the people and he even provided plans for making a homemade telescope. A remarkable individual who loves science and desires to share the same.

Now recently deceased, D. Allan Bromley was one of those individuals that attempted to bridge the gap between physics and the populace. He was a popular and well liked physics and engineering professor at Yale University, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, author of many papers and books, won the National Medal of Science in 1998, chairman of Yale's Physics Department [1970-1977] and dean of Yale's Faculty of Engineering [1994 to 2000], and science and technology advisor to President George H.W. Bush. At Yale's he was referred to as "father of modern heavy ion science" and did much to develop and promote Yale's physics department.

This is a few years old but nevertheless is worth mentioning for the "Kalinga Prize for the Popularization of Science Award" was given to Brazilian immigrant, German born Ernst Wolfgang Hamburger. Hamburger is the director of the Estação Ciência [a center of the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil] that is dedicated to the popularization of science and technology. The Kalinga Prize is sponsored by UNESCO and amounts to about $2,000 and the Albert Einstein Silver Medal.

"Mr Hamburger has contributed to the development of the Estação Ciência, through the organisation of many exhibitions and the mobilisation of sponsors for innovative activities such as the Projeto Clicar, created in 1996 with the support of the national petroleum company, Petrobras. Estação Ciência receives 25,000 visitors a month, mostly children and adolescents. Projeto Clicar was established to provide a special space with computer equipment to young people who wish to explore independently the various facets of human knowledge. In 1999, close to 600 children from troubled social or family backgrounds took part in the project. Educators and students assist the children in their exploration."--UNESCO press release.

Yet another small scale attempt to bridge science [in this case mathematics] with non-experts can be attributed to this year's winner [Elias Stein] of the "Bergman Prize" sponsored by The American Mathematical Society in honor of Stefan Bergman [late Stanford mathematician]. "People are impressed by what are called his expository abilities," Breen said. "Math is no different from other sciences in that people specialize . . . A person [must] explain his specialty to other people who aren't specialists. He is very good at that."

And then there was James Burke who provided two excellent British series called Connections and The Day the Universe Changed during the late 1970's. Apparently he is still around and involved in a huge project aimed at the interaction between youngsters and science and how many people and events are connected. The web site example runs like this.

Question:

How was Napoleon important to the development of the modern computer?

Answer:

Napoleon troops in Egypt buy shawls and start a fashion craze.

In Europe the shawls get made on automated, perforated-paper control looms.

This gives an American engineer Herman Hollerith the idea to automate calculation using punch cards.

Which get used to control ENIAC, the first electronic computer.

There are fond memories of my high school physics class. With compliments of the audio-visual department [they were Geeks too] there rested in repose and ready to spring into action was a 2,000 foot reel of a 16mm print of the next installment of two physics professors--Hume and Ivy. This was the classic "Frames of Reference". I guess such instruments of teaching have evaporated:

The history of another activity fostered by the CCP, the Film Repository, has been more uneven. AAPT had long been interested in instructional films, and during the 1950s its Visual Aids Committee, headed by Mark Zemansky, brought out in cooperation with McGraw-Hill Book Company a series of short films on topics in elementary physics. The more ambitious series of longer films, some equally appropriate for high school or college, was produced by the Physical Science Study Committee. An increasing number of excellent films were produced and marketed by others. But with a few notable exceptions, such as "Frames of Reference" (Hume and Ivy), the use of films in formal instruction has all but disappeared.

Science via art:

Arthur Ganson:

"Thoughtful Mechanisms: The Lyrical Engineering of Arthur Ganson"

"Arthur Ganson/MACHINES"

Opera...most don't like and have false visions of stout women wearing iron bras, helmets with horns, or singing things that are incomprehensible. That isn't a true representation of operas. Operas can be contemporary such as The Great Gatsby or Billy Budd as well as a newly commissioned opera by the San Francisco Opera...Doctor Atomic. The theme is Robert Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project and to be presented October 1st. John Adams composed the score. Peter Sellars is the director and librettist.

"Doctor Atomic"

"Doctor Atomic to Premier in San Francisco"

"The Opera That Chooses the Nuclear Option"


Well, he isn't Arthur Godfrey [ukulele impresario from early television] but he enchants and commands the attention of his students, Walter Smith [Haverford College physics professor] strums the ukulele and sings of physics.

Not all are happy with some who claim to bridge the gap for I read the following article from Scientific American [June 2002] by Michael Shermer entitled "The Shamans Of Scientism".

On October 28th, 2003 PBS/NOVA began a series regarding the universe, string theory, and the "theory of everything"--The Elegant Universe. I must say that NOVA tries very hard to bridge the gap between science and the general public. They utilized every bell and whistle in the store room. Wonderful graphics, support audio, and the usual guest interviews. The cool thing, despite the Newton’s apple myth, was the introduction of a new guru of science--Brian Greene who just happened to write the book The Elegant Universe. Nevertheless, it was a pleasant presentation attempting to explain "string theory". And now that Carl Sagan is gone and Stephen Hawking inaccessible, Brian Greene does a fine presentation. If any of you saw the broadcast, please provide your opinion.

Since the death of Carl Sagan, a vacuum was left when it came to popularizing science, but there are new individuals on the horizon. There is Brian Greene and now Neil deGrasse Tyson [Astrophysicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium, New York City] who recently hosted NOVA's four part Origins. Like Greene, Tyson is quite qualified academically and has a fine smooth persona of presentation. His on camera presentations are flawless and professional and avoid the pedantic. The "voice overs" are clear and carry the pipes of a professional radio personality/announcer. Neither Greene nor Tyson, as of yet, has achieved the status of "charm" that Sagan had, but they nevertheless do a fine job in popularizing science.

As Neil Tyson said about Origins:

Origins Is the attempt to bring to the public, really for the very first time, a synthesis of all the branches of science that have relevance to answering the question, 'What is the origin of our place in the cosmos?'

From an historical perspective David J. Rhees has written an interesting account of the juxtaposition of science and the populace during the early part of the 20th Century and specifically the rise of a journal called "Science Service".

From the introduction:

The founding of Science Service in 1920 marks a watershed in the history of the popularization of science. It represents the first successful attempt of the American scientific community to create a permanent independent institution for spreading a knowledge of and sympathy for science among the general public. It also marks the end of a decline and the beginning of a revival in the popularization of science, a revival which Science Service played a significant role in furthering.

"A NEW VOICE FOR SCIENCE: SCIENCE SERVICE
UNDER EDWIN E.SLOSSON, 1921-29"

And finally, Paola Catapano was the producer and host of the twelve hour webcast celebrating the World Year of Physics 2005. She works at CERN and is deeply involved in methods of getting science to the public.

Her thoughts:

We have arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. Science popularization is "the" tool to bridge the growing gap between society at large and the world of science. An institution such as CERN, the largest world laboratory for particle physics, has a key role to play in trying to bridge this gap. In the case of CERN, the promotion of the institutional image coincides with the popularization of fundamental physics and the role of science as a progress "engine" for knowledge. It is therefore a social duty for the scientists to communicate science. However, it is only recently that scientists have developed an awareness that the future of fundamental physics also and increasingly depends on the society’s commitment and the interests of non-physicist citizens. Communicating science to a non knowledgeable public means translating ideas and concepts that are often extremely complex and distant from common sense into a comprehensible language and creating interest in the public without betraying the scientific truth. A very difficult if not almost impossible task !

To illustrate the science-society gap and the difficulties of science communication, some results from two surveys conducted in 1997 on visitors to two similar particle physics exhibitions, "Quark und Higgs" in Vienna and "Quark 2000" in Rome are presented. These case studies illustrate the distance between the scientific community and the public and are an example of how scientists involved in the job of communication do not understand the need to "translate" their jargon and the need to study their audience’s requirements before producing texts, exhibitions, video-clips etc.. The public interpretation of basic science and the public’s failure to understand it correctly are highlighted in these surveys.

Any science communication action, like any marketing initiative, cannot ignore the perceptions, the needs and the previous knowledge of its target public. As obvious as it may appear, this essential starting point has too often been neglected in the popularization of basic science, and in the world of particle physics in particular. The conclusions of the study are an attempt at highlighting the importance of introducing a professional approach in setting a public-oriented science communication strategy.

And:

Science popularization is ”the” tool to bridge the gap between society at large and the world of science.

Compared to formal science communication - science taught in schools - informal science communication, made by the TV, the press, ”science centres” and visits to scientific laboratories, has an important advantage: it makes the public meet science in a direct, informal way and at its own terms. The public is given an opportunity to develop a personal relationship with science, according to the needs, interests and abilities of the individual.

But selling science is a tough job. The object of the sale is not a consumer good, but rather ideas and concepts that are sometimes so complex and distant from common sense that translating them into a comprehensible language and creating interest in the public without betraying the scientific truth is almost impossible. From my experience in the Communication and Public Education Group at CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics in Geneva, I learned that any science communication action, like any marketing initiative, cannot ignore the perceptions, the needs and the previous knowledge of its target public. As obvious as it may appear, this essential starting point has been completely neglected in the popularization of basic science, and in the world of particle physics in particular.

The present research work analyses the public perception of science through two surveys conducted in 1997 on the visitors to two similar particle physics exhibitions, "Quark und Higgs" in Vienna and "Quark 2000" in Rome. The failure to convey the message of basic science at both exhibitions is highlighted. Based on the surveys’ results and on the analysis of more succesful science products science on TV and in the European press, proposals to ”package” science more attractively in order to increase its "sales" are made.

By underlining the importance of adopting a marketing approach in science communication, the present research work hopes to be a modest contribution to an effective public oriented science communication strategy.

Here is a secondary thought...is there an alternate reason in some cases to inform the general public about the realms of science? Sure the main objective may well be to broaden the knowledge base of the public’s contact with certain sciences, and, yes, to inform the public in regards to potential hazards globally and individually, but, is it not also possible that the aim may be to enhance certain avenues of science either in terms of revenue or organized groups of people. Say for example, the PBS/NOVA program on “string theory” might be an attempt to gain public backing for certain programs of further investigation. NOVA employed the best of current technology with spectacular computer graphics, special guest appearances of famous and key people involved in the specific realm., and a fine presentation by Brian Greene. Could this be a way of enhancing public awareness and solicit funding for further research? This is not a negative indictment at all but merely an alternate perspective and a good one nonetheless for it does spur public involvement. Granted the cost of doing physics of this nature is not cheap, but it does heighten the awareness of specialized research projects. After all, we are interested, if not amused in some cases, of the “ultimate” answer to how the universe is constructed and are terribly fascinated by fantastic ideas of parallel universes, worm holes, etc. and this may just provide a means for the alumni or lay person to sponsor such projects through contributions or grants to a favorite university doing similar research. What I am saying is that there may not be a single agenda in bridging the gap between science and the public for knowledge [abstract or “down to Earth”], entertainment, sociological, psychological, and promotion of a particular point of view are all relevant.


Further reading:

"A Conversation with Brian Greene"

"A MEETING WITH THE UNIVERSE"

"A NEW VOICE FOR SCIENCE: SCIENCE SERVICE
UNDER EDWIN E. SLOSSON, 1921-29"

"Benefits of informal education"

"Benjamin Franklin, Civic Scientist"

"Bio: Brian Greene"

"Celebrating Einstein with dance"

"Communicating scientific research"

"Dangers of dramatizing science"

"Earth and Sky"

"Fred Hoyle"

"FRED HOYLE"

"How Scientists View Their Public Communication"

"Jack Horkheimer"

"Let's dance"

"NOVA Science Now"

"Penny Magazine Online"

"Physics for taxi-drivers"

"Physicists on the Money"

"Physics-Related Stamps"

"Popularised science communication modes in Italian popular science magazines (1788-2002)"

"Rap the key to explain relativity/Forward thinking he may have been - but even Einstein would be surprised at the latest use of his theory of relativity"

"Science and The Simpsons"

"Science, delusion, and the appetite for wonder"

"Science Friday"

"Science treads the boards"

"Scientific Photography"

"Sir Fred Hoyle"

"StarDate"

"The Naked Scientists Online -- Internet Science Radio Online"

"The Physics Chanteuse"

"What's Wrong with This Picture?: Educating via analyses of science in movies and TV"

"Who's helping to bring science to the people?"



Here are the NOVA transcripts for the Elegant Universe:

Einstein's Dream

String's The Thing

Welcome to the 11th Dimension


Here are the NOVA transcripts for Origins:

Earth is Born

How Life Began

Where are the Aliens?

Back to the Beginning


Book:

The Science of Harry Potter: How Magic Really Works by, Roger Highfield

ISBN: 0670031534

A review


Special:

Neil deGrasse Tyson's home page with biography and selected papers


Media:

An Audio/video Interview With Brian Greene

Two Neil deGrasse Tyson "Cybercity" audio interviews with Jack Landman


Also see:

Asimov of the 1920s--Edwin Slosson

Berkeley Groks

"Classics Illustrated"...a cult phenomenon?

Harry Potter and science

Honorarium to George Pal

Lawrence Bragg...people's scientist

Mr. Wizard...missed mentor

Mr. Whipple--comet man

NASA's Solar System Ambassadors Program

Neil deGrasse Tyson...new representative

Penny Magazine

Pied Piper of Astronomy

Students and science

Victorian popular astronomer: Sir Robert Stawell Ball

Yale physicist D. Allan Bromley--for the people

Golden Disk: "It has a good dance beat. I would buy it"

Somewhere on a distant planet is the equivalent of American Bandstand where Dick Clark has just received the latest and hottest platter discovered on a strange space craft traveling nearby and captured for analysis. The kids love the new sound. "It has a good dance beat. I would buy it" exclaimed one teenager.

The "A" side had this:

"Johnny B. Goode"

Deep down Louisiana close to New Orleans
Way back up in the woods among the evergreens
There stood a log cabin made of earth and wood
Where lived a country boy named Johnny B. Goode
Who never ever learned to read or write so well
But he could play the guitar just like a ringing a bell

Go go
Go Johnny go
Go
Go Johnny go
Go
Go Johnny go
Go
Go Johnny go
Go
Johnny B. Goode

He used to carry his guitar in a gunny sack
Go sit beneath the tree by the railroad track
Oh, the engineers would see him sitting in the shade
Strumming with the rhythm that the drivers made
People passing by they would stop and say
Oh my that little country boy could play

Go go
Go Johnny go
Go
Go Johnny go
Go
Go Johnny go
Go
Go Johnny go
Go
Johnny B. Goode

His mother told him "Someday you will be a man,
And you will be the leader of a big old band.
Many people coming from miles around
To hear you play your music when the sun go down
Maybe someday your name will be in lights
Saying Johnny B. Goode tonight."

Go go
Go Johnny go
Go go go Johnny go
Go go go Johnny go
Go go go Johnny go
Go
Johnny B. Goode

And the "B" side offered:

"Bye, Bye Johnny"

She drew out all her money out of the Southern Trust
And put her little boy aboard a Greyhound Bus
Leaving Louisiana for the Golden West
Down came the tears from her happiness
Her own little son name 'o Johnny B. Goode
Was gonna make some motion pictures out in Hollywood

Bye, bye, bye, bye
Bye, bye, bye, bye
Bye bye Johnny
Good bye Johnny B. Goode

She remembered taking money out from gathering crop
And buying Johnny's guitar at a broker shop
As long as he would play it by the railroad side
And wouldn't get in trouble he was satisfied
But never thought that there would come a day like this
When she would have to give her son a goodby kiss

Going
Bye, bye, bye, bye
Bye, bye, bye, bye
Bye bye Johnny
Good bye Johnny B. Goode

She finally got the letter she was dreaming of
Johnny wrote and told her he had fell in love
As soon as he was married he would bring her back
And build a mansion for 'em by the railroad track
So every time they heard the locomotive roar
They'd be a' standin', a' wavin' by the kitchen door

Howling
Bye, bye, bye, bye
Bye, bye, bye, bye
Bye bye Johnny
Good bye Johnny B. Goode

There is some truth in the above...Chuck Berry's "Johnny B. Goode" is included in the music samples on the Golden Disks carried by Voyager 1 and 2--the only rock 'n roll selection. It is sometimes difficult for me to understand everything that has happened in science in the past 40 years or so, but the one single event that stands out that has been extremely successful and plunges the personification of mankind into deep space is the phenomenal events surrounding the missions of Voyagers #1 and #2. Launched just a month or so apart in September of 1977, no one had dreamed of the spectacular missions these two spacecraft were to accomplish. They provided data of Saturn and Jupiter beyond expectations and survived their five year life span by many years There was a bonus: Reaching the outer most planets Uranus and Neptune. And like the Martian rovers...they keep going on and on. In addition to all of the data regarding the planets Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus and their moons and other phenomena [like rings], the record of man was carried into deep space. And just how far away are they? As of March 7, 2008, Voyager 1 is over 15.80 terameters [15.80×109 km, 105.9 AU, 14.62 light-hours, or 9.82 billion miles] from the Sun and it takes about 14 hours for Voyage 1 to receive a message from Earth. Will the Golden Disks be intercepted and understood by an alien civilization? I guess it depends who one polls. I doubt it.

A few responses:

mattf:

"Well, I think that the likelihood of it ever being found by another race is very small anyway (how many civilisations would be able to detect it before the human race is wiped out? 0 is my guess). However if an intelligent race did discover where it came from I think that they would probably immediately attempt to contact us; although it is impossible to predict the equivalent of 'human nature' in an alien species, I would have thought that contacting a new intelligent race would be attractive for anyone. I wonder, though, if some aliens might arrive within days of receiving a message and blast us into oblivion for living in their galaxy..."

ynon:

"I think that the odds of the disk being discovered by intelligent aliens is extremely remote even if there's intelligent life throughout the universe as I think there is, though widely dispersed. We all know how enormous the number of stars in the visible universe is, not to mention the possible number of planets and moons. Even if it only averages being one planet or moon per Galaxy on the average we're talking about many billions. Maybe it is only one out of every thousand Galaxy's, we're still talking about many millions. Not to mention the universe beyond that which we can see. If it ever does happen the odds are that it will take a very long time. I think it is mostly wishful romantic thinking on our part to send the disk. However I did think it was a good idea and still do. Why not?"

Bellatrix:

"Knowing more about ourselves and the little part of the universe that surround us is an important action. This was the role of both missions and they were successful in that. All data that they could get about the solar system help us to understand ourselves and our own planet - plus, it will serve for many generations ahead.

About the gold disk, I personally doubt if it will be found someday. But instead of being just spatial "junk" right now, the spacecraft’s have the noble mission of carrying a bit of our existence there.

Anyway, we cannot lose our hope. As Carl Sagan said: "The spacecraft will be encountered and the record played only if there are advanced spacefaring civilizations in interstellar space. But the launching of this bottle into the cosmic ocean says something very hopeful about life on this planet.""

bandgsmith:

"It's our little love note in a champagne bottle bobbling on the sea of forever. Who know?"

isb:

"As for being found by an intelligent race that is a difficult one. I believe that there must be other life forms out in the expanse of space, with all reasoned argument, there has to be. But, I would have to say that for any of the Voyager space craft to be found by another race? No."