If the title of this post caught your eye and made you curious about reading it, it is a safe bet that you know who Carl Sagan was. It is also entirely possible that Sagan turned you on to science. If so, we have that in common.
He is so well-known that I will not say much but the “basics”. Sagan is one of my scientific heroes. Even though I have always loved science, reading his books helped me understand why. He was an outstanding scientist, with more than 500 (!) scientific papers to his name. However, Sagan is best-known as a science “popularizer”. He wrote several books, mostly about astronomy and the relationship of humans with the universe in general, but he also wrote about the evolution of human intelligence in his Pulitzer Prize-Winning book “The Dragons of Eden”. He also wrote the novel “Contact”, which was adapted into a move of the same name. My favorite Sagan’s book, bar none is Broca’s Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science.
Without a doubt, Sagan is best known as the host of the hugely popular series “Cosmos” which he hosted. At one time, it was estimated that the series was seen by roughly a ninth of the world’s population! By most measurements of success, he’d made it. However, he paid a price.
The Sagan effect can be defined in various ways. One of these versions states that the scientific popularity of a scientist with the general public is considered to be inversely proportional to the quantity and quality of that scientist’s scientific work. In other words, the more popular the scientist is, the poorer the productivity and quality of her/his work. This is based on the biased perception of some, but by no means all scientists that whomever is spending too much time and effort communicating science to the public must not be a very good scientists at all.
Do I have to tell you that I do not agree with that? Some of my thoughts on that are here and here.
Anyway, Sagan did pay a price. Many attributed his tenure denial from Harvard University to this perception from fellow faculty and it is well documented that this was an actual factor why he was not chosen to become a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the USA (the equivalent of the Royal Society of England). The members of these organizations are considered the TOP scientists in their respective fields and countries.
His tenure denial prompted his move to Cornell University, for which I have a soft spot (;-)… Plainly stated, Harvard’s loss, Cornell’s gain. GO RED!
Ironically, after being denied NAS membership, the NAS itself gave him its highest honor, the Public Welfare Medal for his “distinguished contributions in the application of science to the public welfare”… I’d like to think that the thoughts in Sagan’s head while receiving the award were something like “…why you little ##{^^^€>|{%!?…“.
Now my question to you, dear readers: what do you think, what is your perception? Are scientists called to share their science to laypeople? Are scientists who do it second-rate scientists?
Picture credit: http://www.socwall.com/desktop-wallpaper/15654/be-cool-like-carl-by-sa/
If you want to know more
Davidson K (1999) Carl Sagan: A Life. Wiley.
Ecklund EH et al. (2012) How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36240.
Poundstone W (1999) Carl Sagan: A Life in the Cosmos. Holt and Company.
Russo G (2010) Outreach: Meet the press. Nature 468: 465–467.
Pingback: Some of the responsibilities of a science writer – Part I | Baldscientist
I think it is vital to be able to communicate science effectively at all levels and I think it is something few people can do well. If we did not have any great scientists who could communicate on this level we would have less people inspired to study science. We’d also risk communication in the media being innacurate or misleading leading to health scares etc…….or do we have this already!
Exactly! Thank you!!!!!
Scientists who don’t share what they’ve learned with the public can’t see the forest for all the trees
That’s an excellent point…
Not everyone can be a public communicator like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox, and yet if someone doesn’t want to involve the wilder public, they’re really missing a wonderful aspect of science and how it can shape a better future
I’ve also gotten the impression that the science community tends to think less of scientists who spend “too much” time on science communcation, though I don’t think that’s justified. Having said that, some scientists manage to maintain their reputation as scientists despite their popular work (eg, Stephen Hawking) while others seem to eventually replace the practice of science with its popularization (eg, Richard Dawkins). I think this is an important subject which should get more attention. Science communication is both difficult and important; scientists who venture into the field should be encouraged and rewarded, not penalized.
I couldn’t agree more. You gave the perfect example, Hawking, who has sold millions of popular science books and yet as you well said, kept his scientific reputation intact. Dawkins is another one of my favorite science writers when he writes science. When he strays from science, he goes way off the mark. At any rate science communication is an important and (should be) an essential part of science…