Editorial staff P.M. magazine in Munich/Germany
P.M. magazine / Knowledge matters
The other day I had a friend from
This is nothing a German would worry about, but my American friend got
very upset. He felt like he had landed in a rigid, medieval class society where
common people were cut off from the communication of the educated and powerful,
i.e. those who conversed and wrote in Latin. In his town, my friend told me,
there is a big monitor right by the stage which translates the words of the
singers. I was dumbfounded: How simple it could be to open cultural frontiers
and have people participate directly!
Whenever I tell this story, well educated Germans frown, look at me full
of pity and remark mockingly: Those weird Americans, no culture! Of course,
most of the Germans who do react like this don‘t understand Italian either.
Nevertheless, in their case, they reject any help in understanding. Strange as
it seems: People like that are actually advocating that we should walk into a
fine arts presentation with eyes closed. What an absurd idea!
With this little story we are right in the middle of the theme of this
international conference. I believe communication in science, at least in some
European countries, is pursuing this very same course and setting up
insurmountable barriers to the public. Scientists like many other
professionals, including physicians, administrators and lawyers, indulge in
jargon that nobody understands but themselves. Scientists in the old world are
still regarded somewhat a little bit like magicians or even deities. The more
secret their language, the more they impress lay people. If people were able to
follow their thoughts many members of this vocation would probably feel uneasy
and regard this fact as a loss of status and reputation. Consequently, they
maintain their highly abstract language. Unfortunately, they endanger public
understanding and support.
Surely, this cannot be in the best
interest of the scientific community, especially at the dawn of the new century
when people are demanding more and more transparency in all relevant affairs.
If science continues this policy, it risks coming under heavy fire by citizen
action groups, especially if research is publicly funded. The American
revolution got underway with the battle-cry »No taxation without
representation«. As taxpayers don’t we want to know where money is going and if
it is being used for the good of the people? This is a basic principle of
democracy. I am afraid science has a long way to go before it comes to terms
with this line of thinking.
Exactly 200 years ago Alexander von Humboldt set out on a five-year
adventure to explore the virgin jungles of
The
During the early period of science writing, popularizers did manage to
break out of the scientific ghetto. Still, they remained too close to it and
only managed to play the role of missionary. William Lawrence of the New York
Times was probably thinking about them when he wrote: »True descendants of
Prometheus, science writers take the fire from the scientific
This positive attitude changed as Western society became more reluctant
about scientific progress in the 1960s. Henry Pierce of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette
made this critical remark: ». Other
journalists maintain a more healthy skepticism towards news sources. But we,
bless us, go in with our bright baby-blue pencils poised, faithfully recording
anything our scientists - gods - tell us. Never does it occur to us that these
guys too may have motives that are less than noble.«
Writers like him introduced a new
era. They were more distant and disrespectful. This attitude marked the birth
of investigative science journalism. Earl Ubell stripped scientists of their
privileges when he remarked dispassionately that scientists were to reporters
what rats are to scientists: »I am looking at you through my microscope and
trying to describe you...What scientists and doctors do, not what you say about
what you do, is ultimately what ought to be getting reported.« In the middle of
the 1980s the agenda setting initiative in science writing shifted from the
The global society of the 21st century will rely more on science than
ever, especially since knowledge has become a primary resource. Science writers
are on the way to becoming information brokers. We provide the facts people
need in order to make up their minds. This assures the functioning of
democratic processes. Moreover we make people realize that this is a wonderful
world and that it pays to care for it. Lastly, we are the ones who empower
readers. We revive their buried yearnings for scientific adventure, bold hypotheses
and thinking on a large scale.
My suggestion: Let’s turn our readers into scientists.
Quotations Lawrence, Pierce,
Scripps, Ubell found in:
Dorothy Nelkin: Selling Science. How the Press Covers Science and Technology
(
With thanks for permission to reproduce material: International conference on
Public Communication of Science and Technology, 1998, Berlin; 2nd
World Conference of Science Journalists, 1999, Budapest.