 |
| ...but for how long? |
With geek chic the new black, thanks in part to television shows such as
The Big Bang Theory and
The IT Crowd, "science", in its many guises, can only blame itself if it doesn't surf the current wave of popularity and hang 10 in the public psyche. However, the way in which it is presented may well be the barrier to its continued coolness.
The proliferation of scientist - presenters is a slightly puzzling and probably unnecessary. The family in Braintree or
the man on the Clapham omnibus (obviously watching on iPlayer for mobile), doing their best to understand what an
event horizon is, are unlikely to ask for the proofs or want the protocol for the experiment. However, it seems
de rigueur for programmes to be fronted by Dr. Stare intently down a microscope or Professor Show insincere surprise at something I've seen a 1000 times before. Surprising as non-professional-scientist presenters of the past, such as David Attenborough, Johnny Ball and Patrick Moore, sit pride of place in the vault of British treasures. The knowledgeable amateur, even if they are a celebrity such as Dara O'Briain, James May or Kate Humble, is a sounder choice as host. Capable of a sufficient level of scientific scrutiny and able to convey the information for general consumption.
 |
| Eye candy with a PhD |
Getting on the telly is an ambition scientists, like the rest of the country, are not immune from. The clamor for their 15 minutes of fame has led to petty infighting epitomized by articles such as "TV science has to shift out of Top Gear" written by
Sue Nelson in the Telegraph. Her portrayal of science broadcasting as a the new lads' mag, monopolized by loud mouth blokes with women reduced to the role of intelligent eye candy is packed with David Cameron for Boris Johnson levels of resentment. The supposition that
Top Gear-esque shows are a little low brow fails to acknowledge the fact that science broadcasting is for the masses and not for the already engaged few. As long as accuracy is maintained, and hyperbole kept in check, scientific broadcasting is safer in the hands of the interested professional rather than the diva scientist presenter.
 |
| Protecting your share of the limelight |
That comedians and TV personalities are supposedly muscling in on scientists' territory is nothing unusual in today's attention obsessed media. While the
Lib Dem conference passed with little fanfare, apart from the debate as to whose whipping boys they would prefer to be after the next election, price freeze Ed and hardworking Dave had their spotlight stolen by no holds barred exposés written by engaged non-politicians. While Damian McBride's
Power Trip has the hallmarks of a deprecating but ultimately self serving,
Kerry Katona bankruptcy buster, Matthew d'Ancona's more journalistic
In It Together reveals
the problems of compiling wholes in an artificial construct comprised
of known parts which have previously not interacted in a common goal.
 |
| Bio-circuits to make something useful |
The challenge of constructing functional units from disparate parts is one faced by coaches in every team sport. A dying breed choose the more passionate fly by seat of your pants and
storming out of press conferences approach, whereas the majority adhere to Billy Beane's emotionless, stats led
Moneyball philosophy. Evidence based decision making, rather than relying on your gut instinct after three double brandys, has recently become the mantra from banker to beaurocrat but has long been the guiding principle of scientific research. However, scientists' ineffective communication of the evidence behind their choices led to, among others, the GM - Frankenstein food - furore of the 90s and could threaten the rapidly emerging field of synthetic biology.
Synthetic biology concerns the design and construction of biological devices, systems and circuits, unequivocably following
Moneyball principles, from DNA parts, derived from a spectrum of flora and fauna, of known individual function but of only predicted action when combined as a whole. A biological Meccano based GM kerfuffle for the 21st century? Most probably if scientists are left to their own devices; so it may be time for researchers to exude influence from behind the lens and let James, Kate and Dara do the explaining.
