Scientists have discovered that...(rant)

[Markyboy698]

Grrrr. Why do the media rarely drill down into scientific disciplines when describing work to the public? Check the BBC news pages and you'll notice that they nearly always start their science news stories with the word 'scientists' appearing as the subject (e.g. Scientists have discovered that...'. Contrast this with their approach to entertainers, who will usually be named as the subject, and their discipline will be added as a subject complement (e.g. The actor Russell Crowe told reporters that...). This difference may appear subtle, but serves to reinforce the gulf that exists between media attitudes towards entertainers and scientists.

Im not just a scientist. I'm an epidemiologist and an individual. I demand recognition on behalf of all scientific disciplines. Rise and be counted!

[scoping]

Grrrr. Why do the media rarely drill down into scientific disciplines when describing work to the public? Check the BBC news pages and you'll notice that they nearly always start their science news stories with the word 'scientists' appearing as the subject (e.g. Scientists have discovered that...'. Contrast this with their approach to entertainers, who will usually be named as the subject, and their discipline will be added as a subject complement (e.g. The actor Russell Crowe told reporters that...). This difference may appear subtle, but serves to reinforce the gulf that exists between media attitudes towards entertainers and scientists.

Im not just a scientist. I'm an epidemiologist and an individual. I demand recognition on behalf of all scientific disciplines. Rise and be counted!

Entertainers give to the public what they want! Scientists not....

[The Prof]

Welcome to you both, Marky and scoping! Nice to see you here on the Forums.

I'm not sure there is anything sinister behind the 'scientists say' appended to the headlines. Of course you could read it as 'scientists SAY, but then what do they know?'. But instead it could be meant in the opposite way, mainly that the factoid reported carries extra punch because it was done by scientists.

Consider the following three hypothetical examples:

1.Climate change caused by man is myth
2.Climate change caused by man is myth, scientists say
3. Climate change caused by man is myth, Tom Cruise says

With number two, the editors are making sure that people know that this is something special, scientists coming out against a theory, not just your average crackpot (3) or an unattributed opinion.

Or at least that's how I view it. You see similar things with other bodies that are considered to be respectable. Whereas entertainers aren't required to weigh in on important matters.

[Markyboy698]

My point isn't about entertainers trying to do science, it is about recognising scientists individually (or in groups) in the sense that their contribution is given due recognition. Which one of the following would you be likely to see?

1) Eating fast food every day takes ten years off your life, say scientists.
2) Eating fast food every day takes ten years off your life, a team of nutritionists from Univerisity of Reading report in the latest volume of the journal Science
3) Eating fast food every day takes ten years off your life is the message from a paper published by Dr Ben Hardwick and colleagues this week in the journal Science

Compare

1) Acting is a great way to keep your mind sharp, say entertainers
2) Acting is a great way to keep your mind sharp say two actors currently appearing on stage at the Barbican
3) Acting is a great way to keep your mind sharp say Dame Judi Dench and her co-star, Will Smith, currently appearing together in the blockbuster West-End hit play 'The Lady in the Lab'

My beef is that the media don't particularly care who the scientists are, and simply perpetuate a general disinterest. Who did the work is usually of secondary or even tertiary importance.

[hedge]

Why should Joe Blow care which particular scientist weighed in? The fact that at least one team were able to show something is enough, at that level, surely. Plus a headline needs to be brief by definition, and almost all science news stories report, eventually, where the research emanated from, in the body of the article...

[Beatrice]

I agree. Headlines aren't about giving credit, they are a summary of the news. British broadsheets are pretty good at giving credit to the scientists and their affiliations in your average news story.

They don't on short 100 word summaries like those you find in the Metro or London paper, but I don't mind - would you rather know a few details about why scientists are claiming that yogurt causes cancer, or would you rather waste half the word allowance spelling out who showed it? The important thing is getting the message out, I would have thought, in the popular format.

[tideliar]

...did someone moderate me? Yesterday I left a loverly semi-intelligable rant here in agrement with Markyboy...today..nada...

[Editor]

Did you preview and forget to post?
I didn't smite you...Dan???

[tideliar]

Pants. I bet that's it. I was in a hurry

[Octavia]

It's all the same question as why so few scientists are celebrities. Why isn't science right up there with acting, sports, writing, painting, singing as far as acclaim to its practitioners? Why will you NEVER see a scientist on the panel of News Night Review? Why aren't scientists considered creators of culture?

[Markyboy698]

Indeed, Octavia, that is the salient question. The word 'celebrity' derives from the idea that individuals are 'celebrated' for their acheivements. There are so very few scientific celebrities because science is very rarely celebrated. It is reported, often with a degree of positivity, but there is no real appetite in the media, or the general population, for describing science or scientists in celebratory terms.

[Dbl Helicks]

Had never thought about it before, but you're right. This is really weird, isn't it? Scientists should be on a par with writers, artists, sports personalities. But then if you look at what seems to get most celebrated these days (being on television even if you aren't famous, such as reality tv; or being the one person in the girl band who can't sing or dance, like Posh Spice), this is anti-achievement.

There are a few, mind. I would say that people such as Robert Winston and Stephen Hawking are celebs of sorts.

[Markyboy698]

Dbl - I think most people would think of these two people as celebrities, but how many more would go on the list?

[tideliar]

Hmmm.... in the States there are a few regulars who crop up all a lot on science TV shows, but thinking about it, all of them are astronomers... all names elude me right now, but the two you'll see most often are the head of the Smithsonian (physics?) in Washington DC [a very animated and cheezetastic middle aged black man], and the author of Hyperspace and the string-theory-for-the-public books [a very animated and cheezetastic middle aged asain man].

This, I think, is because astronomy is a qualitative, not quantitative. It gives us pretty pictures and epic storylines. Not particularly scientific per se (although ex-Mrs. Dr. tideliar will have my head for that! ), and easily digested by a public who like to stare at the TV and be spoon fed cool images and factettes in the name of self-education.

[Freddie]

there is no real appetite in the media, or the general population, for describing science or scientists in celebratory terms.

Or in terms of fiction, as this website demonstrates!

Quite coincidentally today in the Metro it was announced that E4 will air a Big Brother early next year called 'The Celebrity Hijack' edition. Celebs will play the part of BB, giving various 'brainy' tasks, and the housemates will be 'gifted' young people. The Metro article mentioned scientists, but didn't specify whether these would appear in the ranks of contestants or BBs.