Raab Mae RaabDr. McLaughlinWR 13300-093 April 2015

Science Popularization: Friend or Foe?

One of the most popular comics on the immensely popular blog The Oatmeal is called Why the Mantis Shrimp is My New Favorite Animal. According to an article from the online Encyclopaedia Britannica, the mantis shrimp is a marine crustacean of the order Stomatopoda, and there are over 350 known species. They are mostly found in coastal waters, although some are known to live around 4,300 feet deep. Formidable predators, they use large grasping forelimbs to smash the shells of their prey (Mantis shrimp). Similar information can be found in the comic from The Oatmeal, but in a much different format: the author of the comic chooses to call the forelimbs of the mantis shrimp murder sticks, and to be sure, undersea nightmare is a much more exciting name than Stomatopoda. However, the creator and author of the comic, Matthew Inman, is a cartoonist, not a scientist who has extensively studied mantis shrimp. He was able to create a relatable and entertaining comic about them because of information he learned on the internet: a result of science popularization. As you will see, this situation shows that popularized works may offer shreds of scientific understanding without illuminating the depth of knowledge required to appreciate scientific findings. A professor from Vrije Universiteit Brussel defines science popularization as ...nothing else than an endeavour to image scientific ideas in such a way that everyone (especially non-scientists) can grasp the fundamental concepts and have an idea of what science in essence is (Cornelis). A case can be made to say that sites like The Oatmeal, WebMD, and the Facebook page I Fucking Love Science are evidence of science popularization. From there, it is plain to see that popularization is also evident in movies and television series, such as Cosmos, which stars Neil Degrasse Tyson. TED, the most popular online lecture series, comes to mind, since it provides a space for experts in academic fields and non-experts alike to discuss a range of topics that anyone with internet has access to (Nelson). This paper will analyze how the internet has influenced the spread of scientific knowledge to the masses. To do so, I will give a historical background of science popularization and take a look at the responses of both scientists and laypeople. In doing so, I will display how science popularization has been motivated in the past and illustrate differences in the way science is prepared for the public. I will investigate the online vehicles of science popularization to further understand their merit, credibility, and popularity. By displaying how popularized science is received on the internet I will show that for science popularization to work best, the non-scientist public must better understand their position as media viewers, and have a basic understanding of the depth and breadth of knowledge required to fully understand scientific concepts. Popular science is a modern term, reflective of a recent influx of interest among common people with science. According to Jonathan Topham, the word 'popular' was only used in the sense of 'intended for or suited to ordinary people' in the titles of six books before 1800 (Topham 7). As science knowledge grew in the nineteenth century, the concepts became more complex and difficult to explain. A book published in 1895, Popular Science, shows that popularization was coming into effect, as it aims to include material that will help readers become familiar with scientific literature and impart the habit of careful reading (Luquiens 1). Thus, as science became more specialized and outside of the range of public understanding, there was a greater need for people who could share the concepts in a more digestible format. As Fujun Ren and Jiequan Zhai explain in their book Communication and Popularization of Science and Technology in China, The specialization of science was the basic driver for the appearance of science popularization. This trend continued throughout the twentieth century, spurred by a second scientific revolution with which scientific knowledge expanded to include atomic structure theory, relativity and quantum mechanics. This combined with the growing significance of science and technology to economic, industrial, and military fields called for a greater need of popularization (Ren and Zhai 15). John Desmond Bernal gives a summary of public perception of science at this point: ...it was necessary to carry on extensive science popularization across society to let the public know about the work of science, understand scientific achievements as well as sciences possible influences on human civilization. Thus people would be able to have a comprehensive understanding without misunderstandings or prejudice, and provide necessary support to scientists research work. (Ren and Zhai 15)This need coincided with the explosive growth of internet use. This medium of information technology has enabled enabled the spread of scientific information and thought in a plethora of ways and formats, including podcasts, Facebook accounts, YouTube Videos, online medical sites, and blogs. The internet brought a complete revolution in the science communication field, making it more lively and vivid (18). The benefits were felt by scientific communities since the internet allowed them to share and look up research faster, but this advancement was not without challenges and criticism.Scientists who wanted to communicate their research to the public encountered some difficulties when trying to close the gap between themselves and the non-scientist public. In a newspaper article from 1996, the author writes about a scientist, Stephen Jay Gould, who was criticised often for writing essays for the layman. On popularization, Gould says I believe in making all of science available to everybody and I believe you can do it without sacrificing content...But I don't like trivialization and commercialization" (Mahler). This gives an apt description of the struggle that science popularizers face, at least those who wish to communicate information with a sense of the hard work and dedication that was involved in doing the science. However, as Gustaaf Cornelis writes, Since the reader is not a scientist, a 'translation' has to be made, making science more accessible. He adds that for this to be done, the communicating scientist must make selections as to what to include, and that some of the information is lost in the process. To some, this can be taken in stride, and serves as an opportunity to refine the skill of imparting information. In a science periodical, Athene Donald says that to take research that excites me...and write it clearly and succinctly for a public audience is a good way of improving my style, and public engagement is an essential part of an academic scientists remit (Donald 17). Donald is the Master of Churchill College at Cambridge and has her PhD in Physics, so it is evident that she has had plenty of experience in relating complex ideas to those who have little to no background knowledge (New Master for Churchill College). These sentiments have been expressed by scientists who publish their work in an academic setting on scholarly websites, and the issues they address are merited. Although they may publish what they think is an easily understandable version of their research, it is often further shaved down and simplified by people who make sites like I Fucking Love Science and The Oatmeal. These sites have swelled with popularity among the public, and the people who created them have become highly influential.Taking a look at the influencers in particular - the people who create the pages and sites that so many laypeople follow - sheds more light on how popularized science can be spread. The idea that we can engage in self improvement or self education is apparent and attractive on these sites, as complicated ideas are formatted to be friendly and understandable to a large audience. I Fucking Love Science, a Facebook page created by Elise Andrews, quickly grew to be a phenomenal and unexpected success for her. She says she created the page just as a compilation of all the things she found interesting, and rapidly gained followers almost overnight. "I created the page and uploaded all the content Id been posting to my personal profile, and then I went to bed. I woke up, and I had over 1,000 followers," she said (Wills, Why Everyone F*cking Loves Science and Elise Andrew).She is not a scientist, but she does have an educational background in biology, which gives her the advantage of knowledge and the ability to tailor it to a mainstream audience (Wills). Most of her article titles, like Biohackers Say Theyve Figured Out How To Inject Eyeballs With Night Vision are much more attention grabbing than the scientific title of the actual research theyre derived from, which in this case is A Review on Night Enhancement Eyedrops Using Chlorin e6. Furthermore, the IFLS page cites one of its sources as ScienceMic, a popular science website who also published the article under the title A Team of Biohackers Has Figured Out How to Inject Your Eyeballs With Night Vision. They make the article even more applicable to the public by using the word your. The more scientific title above is from IFLSs second source, Science for the Masses. The site states its mission here:Science for the Masses is a research group composed of professionals in research, the health care industry, and technical design. We operate independently of any university, college, or government agency. Our mission is to aid in the development of citizen science; we want to see the tools and resources necessary to perform scientific research made available to anyone that wants them. To this end, all of our research is and will be published free and open source, and will be repeatable by the laypersonmeaning no multimillion dollar lab equipment. (L., Gabriel and T., Jeffrey About Us)So, it is evident that the internet has made it possible for almost any person with a remote background in science and writing ability to synthesize information and repeat it themselves, develop a love for it, and spread the information in their own words, as articulated by this Reddit user: people who claim to "love science," are actually more fascinated with...the catchy headline, the "breakthrough" discovery, or simply just the overall idea of increasing our knowledge about the universe through testable hypotheses and experimentation (skyence). While Science for the Masses presents information in a scientific way, the internet allows for that information to be used by others to post on personal interest websites. RadioLab posted a podcast about color that centered around the mantis shrimp on May 21, 2012 called Colors. In fact, The Oatmeal says his comic, Why Mantis Shrimp Are My New Favorite Animal, was inspired by this podcast. In order to make the listening experience fun, Colors is fraught with sound effects, voice inflection, and storytelling. The use of dialogue is also interesting: The main host delivers the information about mantis shrimp, and a second host reacts with incredulity and comic amusement. Furthermore, the talk opens up with broad, existential musings: ...maybe our perception of colors began in the world, but maybe it was finished inside the mind...And today, hundreds of years later, this is still an open question, and The colors we see are tricks of the imagination (Colors). This catches the listeners attention, as if the radio talk will enlighten them with a scientific, tangible understanding of how our imaginations work to form colors. (Imaginations have no scientific link to how we see colors.) Regardless, this is evidence that the collaborative and accessible nature of the internet provides a way for us to investigate those momentary musings and skate over the answers to the questions we didnt know there was an answer for in the first place. This is the speculative issue with popularization; that science for the layperson is not truly science, and that it pollutes a good understanding of what science is. However, this understanding is not necessary in all situations. When relying on the internet for an understanding of scientific concepts, people should be able to better discern between the knowledge they as non-scientists glean from such sources and the knowledge scientists garner from lifelong experience. For example, googling WebMD to self-diagnose the cause of ones stomach pain produces a myriad of results, ranging from benign ones such as indigestion to more serious ones like Crohns Disease (Abdominal Pain). Although this article is derived from information from the National Institutes of Health, people cannot truly know the cause of their pain without consulting a doctor. Similarly, we (assuming we are non-scientists) cannot delude ourselves into thinking that we can obtain a true appreciation for the rigor and knowledge involved in scientific pursuits just by browsing blogs and religiously listening to Radiolab.In situations where only surface knowledge is required, acknowledging the disparities between learned scientists and the general public is unnecessary. In its best form, popularization works to engage the public in discussions about science, and raises questions about science in a harmless manner. As with the blue and black versus white and gold dress internet phenomenon, no one is making a life or death decision about it. For people who are told by their doctor to do certain things or take certain drugs, the internet offers a way for people to validate that information. However, when there are larger situations at stake, such as a cancer diagnosis or discussion about global warming, people are likely to be more misinformed than knowledgeable. Furthermore, if large groups of people make decisions that aim to improve common good based off of uncredible thought trends rooted in misinterpretation of source information, then tangible, harmful effects could ensue. A prime example of this is the modern anti-vaccination movement. Recently, there has been conflict with vaccinations where parents have been choosing to not have their children vaccinated. This presents many health dangers for communities, as the strength of vaccinations depend on the level of vaccinations in a community. Medical facilities often have to deal with the situation described here: Doctors and HCWs (health care workers) constantly have to face parents and patients who search information about vaccination. A lot of these people have previously found data about vaccinations from a lot of sources, such as papers, media or in websites and in these sources most contents come from anti-vaccine movements. (Tafuri et al.). Somewhere along the line of internet use for science popularization, people misconstrued information about vaccines and were led to distrust conventional science. In this case, real medical harm was at stake.Thus, in order to fully appreciate popularized science, people must acknowledge that they cannot understand the information to its entirety without fully understanding the intricacies behind it. There is nothing harmful about the knowledge presented until it is taken out of the context it was meant to serve, in which case people have disregarded their position as viewers of popularized science. As with anything on the internet, discretion is needed, and it is our own prerogative to deem what we view as credible or not, and if we base our understanding of a concept on a source, we must take that source for what it is. Since there is such an immense amount of popularized science at our fingertips, we must have the ability to discern the depth of knowledge incorporated in a source, and from there determine the extent to which we can internalize it.

Works Cited

"A Review on Night Enhancement Eyedrops Using Chlorin E6." Science for the Masses. 25Mar. 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015. Donald, Athene. "More Women, More Science Blogs." Nature 517.7532 (2015): 17-. Print."Colors." Audio blog post. Radiolab. WNYC, n.d. Web.Cornelis, Gustaaf C. "20th WCP: Is Popularization of Science Possible?" 20th WCP: IsPopularization of Science Possible? Philosophy of Science. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.Luquiens, Jules. Popular Science. Boston : Ginn, 1895. Print.Mahler, Jonathan. A Scientist Puts 'Paleo' Back into Liberalism. lxxxxviiii Vol. , 1996. Print. "Mantis Shrimp | Crustacean." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web.3 Apr. 2015. "New Master for Churchill College." University of Cambridge. Web. 3 Apr. 2015. Ren, Fujun, and Jiequan Zhai. Communication and Popularization of Science and Technology inChina. Web. "Science for the Masses." Science for the Masses. Web. 3 Apr. 2015. skyence. CMV: When laypeople say they "love science," they more specifically mean that they"love" the *idea* of science, rather than the nitty-gritty minutiae of science. Reddit. n.p.,30 May 2014. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.Tafuri, S., et al. "Addressing the Anti-Vaccination Movement and the Role of HCWs." Vaccine32.38 (2014): 4860-5. Web.