Vic McElheny, old pal and former (first too) Knight Science Journalism program boss, passes on a good suggestion – science writers should take a look in the current Nature at the “world view column” by Tim Radford, former science editor for The Guardian. He takes on and rubbishes the idea, often expressed by scientists themselves, that their clan is unusually inept at public explanation of what they do and why it tends to be interesting and occasionally very important and worth the public’s nickel.
My experience has been similar to what he reports. Scientists tend to be good and willing sources. They don’t flee reporters, and their quotes are often brilliant and clear. They often explain things quite well – probably better on average than the typical resident of my neighborhood or member of my own family, who tend toward the well-educated and accomplished. As essayists and lecturers, the share that is excellent seems high. True, some researchers, maybe more than is par, tend toward the reclusive side, but there also frequently is an enthusiasm and clarity of thought that compensates. Radford explains it well and with many a subtle articulation.
He loses me at the end in some details in his thrashing of scientists who, he suggests, hide behind scientific uncertainty as though to shirk societal responsibility. Few good examples of such a thing come to mind. In fact, I find it appealingly counter-intuitive that the best route toward truth are not the highways of faith and blustering confidence, but the meandering byways of doubt and dithering double-checking. So if a scientist disappoints a Congressional hearing by throwing in some caveats and talk of confidence levels, that’s just how it goes.
– Charlie Petit
Leave a Reply