Science as a Media Event
One require not make any extensive surveys of various media to offer evidence for this failure. It is enough to see how sports has managed to gain a lot more coverage in several media over the last few decades vis-a-vis science. One might argue that this is so because there are often some sports events occurring all over the world which naturally draw the attention of media. But contention here is that scientific activity, scientific community and laboratories all over the world can also be turned into what are referred to as ‘media events’ if sufficient pains are taken by science communicators to accomplish this status for science. Very first and foremost it will need the maximum cooperation of scientists.

For instance, anniversaries of scientists, institutes, organisations and societies, such as the World Health Day, etc., can be celebrated discussions and debates with the concerned scientists organised and doors of concerned laboratories and organisations thrown open to masses and media.

Be that as it might, intention by means of this paper is to highlight the essentials and limitations of science popularisation so that there appears a fundamental alter in the way of seeking at this subject. Hopefully, it will lead to far more successful strategies to popularise science among the masses.

Science writing is an art

Science popularisation is mostly done by science- trained persons and expert scientists. It is therefore looked upon a lot more as a scientific activity rather than anything else. But science writing is much more of an art rather than a science. It is scientific only in the sense 1 should have scientific knowledge but all the writing abilities are required to make a excellent presentation of science. It is due to the present lack of emphasis on the art aspect of science popularisation that this field of activity has suffered to date. Those few scientists or science-trained persons who have consciously or unconsciously known the art of science writing and have practised it, have only been effective in popularising science.

Science is a human activity

The second reason why well-known science does not tick with the masses is simply because it is not projected as a human activity but an activity of scientists who merely think in the search for truth – and absolutely nothing but truth! The human side of science is completely neglected in all well-known science presentations. The follies and prejudices of scientists, the emotional life of scientists, the irrational circumstances in which scientific function is often undertaken and discoveries and inventions produced, etc., are rather often deliberately not highlighted fearing that it would give poor name to science and scientific investigation. In short, the human face of science or scientific investigation is frequently neglected in common science presentations. There is therefore a powerful need to have to give science a human face. It would not only mean adding human stories to well-known science presentations but also talking about realities in scientific study.

Tip of the iceberg presentation

The third reason why well-known science presentations frequently go wide off the mark and make the audience yawn and go for some thing else is the inability of science communicators to distinguish between technical report writing and well-known science writing, thanks to their scientific training or background. They attempt to cram into a well-known science presentation as much as they know or discover out about a subject.

Really, well-known science presentation should be like the tip of the iceberg. It ought to even so make one not only familiar with the tip of the iceberg but also conscious of the unseen larger part of the iceberg floating under the water. In other words, it really should reveal little about science but enough to make 1 realise the existence of that science with its entire ramification. It really should excite one’s curiosity enough so that one would like to probe further into that science. It need to not necessarily tell every thing about a science but at the exact same time it should not miss science.

Some critical observations

The author’s experience with popularising science over the years has forced him to arrive at some postulates. They are merely based on experience and intuition. Any analysis has not been conducted to back them up with facts and figures. In fact, much study is needed to prove or disprove them. If in case they are proved, they can easily be known as the ‘Laws of Science Popularisation’ due to the fact regardless of the greatest of our efforts we have not been able to popularise science the way we want among the masses. There should be some hidden laws governing our efforts to popularise science. These postulates are stated as follows:

Postulates of science popularisation

1st : Only those elements of science obtain attention in a society, which suit its objectives or which inspire awe.

2nd : A science communicator tends to impose his or her limited suggestions of science, scientists and scientific study upon the audience.

3rd : The amount of space allotted to science in different media of a country is the index of the high quality of life of its average citizen.

4th : The top quality of science communication or presentation in a country is directly proportional to the good quality of science produced in it.

5th : To popularise science is to humanise science.

One can deduce specific issues from these postulates. The 1st postulate indicates that individuals at large read science because it serves their purpose or since the subject is topical, sensational or controversial or simply excites their curiosity. A handful only read science for the sake of knowledge per se. A lot research is necessary to identify those subjects so that science could be more efficiently popularised. For instance, wellness science and environment interest folks at significant, astronomy and space fascinate them, Nobel Laureates, UFOs, etc., are held in awe by them.

The Second postulate is harmful for science itself. Consciously or unconsciously, the layman imbibes the limited or narrow image of science, scientists and culture of science from the communicator, whether he be Jacob Bronowski or Peter Medawar. Notions such as scientists are mad people or scientific investigation is but yet another profession are creations of science communicators. That makes science communicator a really responsible individual.

The third and fourth postulates are intuitive relationships between two unrelated things or activities. Further research is necessary to prove or disprove these two laws by taking information from diverse countries. Nevertheless, 1 ought to add here that in India we raise a hullabaloo to boost science coverage in our media at the initial available chance but it frequently comes to absolutely nothing. Also, whilst writing a well-known science post on a subject 1 typically requirements the assistance of a scientist doing analysis in that really subject. But in India the scientist of the concerned subject is typically not obtainable for consultation and as a result our writings lack the needed good quality, verve and colour.

The fifth, the last but not the least essential postulate, although obvious, reminds us that we should give science a human face so that masses are not afraid of it. It is the simple aim of science popularisation.

Christmas tree of science popularisation

The aim of drawing the ‘Christmas tree of science popularisation’ is to illustrate the significance of different media that take science to the masses, though each and every medium has its own significance and a essential role to play in communication. But unless a individual climbs up the tree, as his or her interest in science is aroused or increased – in other words, unless 1 begins to read newspapers, magazines and then books – he or she would not have turn into fully science literate.

Necessarily, the percentage of men and women reading books would be really modest as the top of a Christmas tree indicates. But it is a must to know this tree due to the fact the role of any medium should not be underestimated and every medium ought to be given equal significance simultaneously. For instance, if a student’s interest in science is aroused by science fair or ‘Jatha’ held in the town, it has to be sustained and maintained by wallpapers, newspapers and even books otherwise, one’s interest would flag and eventually die. Other supplementing media really should be created obtainable to the student in form of public libraries, for instance. So, the Christmas tree of science popularisation needs to be watered and tended cautiously to generate a science literate society.

Conclusion

According to the postulates forwarded here there are (as but unknown) limits to the extent science can be popularised among the masses. It is not possible to have a totally science literate society. Moreover, science communicators require to take into account aforementioned aspects about science popularisation for far more efficient communication of science to the masses.

ProVFX Visual Effects and Editing School has been written by Pranay Rupani who is a Freelance Writer
Freelance writer for MetroMela and Channel 6 Magazine. Managing partner of ProVFX Visual Effects and Editing School.
Post from articlesbase.com
Related Sciences Articles