Skip to main content

Why do 'public understanding of science' profs get it so wrong?

First there was Richard Dawkins, who as Professor of Public Understanding of Science managed to put more people off science than practically anyone else with his hardline 'anyone who supports religion is an idiot' approach.

Now there's Susan Greenfield, charged with a similar task as the head of the Royal Institution. And guess what? According to Ben Goldacre, she's spreading scare stories (when she's not selling dubious brain training software).

I increasingly believe that scientists are the last people to have the job of improving public understanding of science. Let's give the jobs to popular science authors instead.

I'm available...
Labels:

Comments

  1. Peet16 May 2009 at 13:00

    I know I could probably Google it, but what brain-training software Brian?

    Oh, btw, what do you think of Dawkin's successor?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stephen16 May 2009 at 15:54

    Unedited version of the article is here:

    http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/professor-baroness-susan-greenfield-cbe/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg17 May 2009 at 11:52

    Peet - details in Ben Goldacre link above.

    ReplyDelete
  4. rpg17 May 2009 at 19:02

    But surely neither of those two could really be described as 'scientists' any more?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian Clegg18 May 2009 at 08:40

    In a sense that doesn't matter. They're considered scientists by the media.

    ReplyDelete
  6. rpg19 May 2009 at 12:51

    Point.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
122 comments
Read more

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more