Skip to main content

Should science writers (and scientists) be globe-trotting?

In their The Studies Show podcast The Science of Johann Hari, the excellent Stuart Ritchie and Tom Chivers point out the entertaining way the blurbs for former journalist Hari's books boast about his epic journeys to interview scientists. These include 'Confused, he set out on a three-year, thirty-thousand mile journey to discover what really causes addiction - and how to solve it.' (Chasing the Scream) and 'Finding the answer to this high-stakes question led him on a journey from Iceland to Minneapolis to Tokyo...' (Magic Pill). Ritchie and Chivers also include a claim for another book with a forty-thousand mile journey, though this seems to have disappeared.

The podcasters point out that these 'epic journeys' seem to have consisted of flying to a few places to interview people. But I think there's a more worrying issue in a globally heating world - what was the point of making the journeys in the first place? All he appears to have done was interview people. I have interviewed people around the world, but I have not flown for over 25 years. For example, back in 2013 I interviewed the late Steven Weinberg for a piece in the Observer. No flying was required. It may be a surprise to epic journey takers, but we have these amazing devices now called telephones and video calls. 

If I'm honest, I think we can broaden this not just to other science writers and journalists, but also to scientists in general. It feels decidedly hypocritical when climate scientists in particular travel around the world to attend a conference, but the same applies to all scientists. (In fact, all academic disciplines.) Incidentally, it's strange how often conferences are in exotic locations that don't necessarily have any connection to the topic. Of course there are many legitimate reasons for writers and scientists to fly. It may be to get to the right place to undertake an experiment, or to investigate something that is happening, for example. But it is hard to justify doing so just to talk to other people.

I accept that calls and video conferences are not quite as good as being there in person. But this is a matter of balancing the positive and negative impact. When those of us who write about science or undertake it make long-distance travel to have conversations part of our jobs, we are, like it or not, setting a visible example that climate change doesn't really matter. It's surely time that we put globe-trotting behind us if we really believe there is a global heating crisis.

Image from Unsplash by Leio Mclaren

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

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...
123 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
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