Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be.
-John Wooden
When I refuse to change, I am reminded of this blog posting that Nature tweeted (and I retweeted...see I am trying to embrace new technologies, although I have only tweeted 2 tweets...change can be slow, at first!). This blog entry summarizes a study which concluded that scientists who actively engaged the public performed better academically. Additionally, this blog entry highlights that the article was from 2008 and it would be interesting to see if this finding still holds up in the world of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and newer social media outlets. But, is there a time where exposing too much is a bad thing? The hashtag on Twitter #overlyhonestmethods reveals the everday truths about mistakes in scientific experiments tweeted by scientists themselves. This article highlights some examples. However, I did a quick Twitter search of this hashtag and revealed these tweets:
"I said I chose the 36hr timepoint based on the literature, but I actually chose it b/c I overslept the 24hr timepoint"
"I'm sure the measurements were done in centimeters, I mean I'm pretty sure....."
Does this "overexposure" create a bad image for a scientist?
My first instinct is to say yes. But, maybe not. Maybe the public perceives scientists as human when their flaws are exposed making them and the subject at hand relatable and intriguing to the masses. With the scientific world connected, I think I need to change and become a connected science educator for my future students. While I feel like I have this blogging thing down, I need to embrace Twitter, Facebook, Diigo, YouTube, and RSS feeds as a viable method for obtaining and sharing scientific knowledge and findings. If I don't, maybe (as the article points out) I won't outshine academically. In a world where jobs are hard to come by (especially in academia), I can't afford not to change. So here's to making a conscious effort at being "plugged-in" to the new and changing technologies out there. That way, when I do teach students...I will already know various ways to connect with them and hopefully make science exciting for all.
Exposing science as a natural human process and way of thinking / being in the world that is chaotic and messy is a good thing in my opinion. The neat and tidy image of "final form" science seems to me a tad bit misleading...yes?
ReplyDeleteHave you every read Latour & Woolgar's book, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (http://books.google.com/books/about/Laboratory_Life.html?id=XTcjm0flPdYC) Good stuff...
I agree with you that the final, published form of science is very misleading. There were a lot of trials, errors, and mistakes that end up leading to those discoveries. And, I think the Twitter hastag exposes the truth when it comes to bench basic science research and how mistakes ultimately lead to the greatest discoveries. Like my blog post said, initially I thought that this Twitter hastag could expose science as being flawed and full of mistakes...making the public skeptical. However, I realize that perfectionism is what the public probably finds more skeptical. So, the transparency in whatever form it comes in (i.e-Twitter) is probably the best method to generate public support for scientific research and maybe even get them somewhat interested in the subject along the way.
DeleteI looked the book up on Amazon and it sounds like a good read. Will have to put that in my reading queue.
Good for you for being willing to change by trying to incorporate more technology into your life and 'plug in.' It's something I struggle with too...I like to go off the grid for awhile occasionally.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an interesting point about being overly honest about science. I understand your concern that some of the statements related to the overly honest hashtag could give people the wrong impression. However, the public is screaming for transparency these days...especially from government. I think if science wants to get the thumbs up from public opinion then it too needs to be as transparent as possible. Humans make mistakes...most scientists joke about how some of the best discoveries in labs stem from mistakes during experiments, and I think there's definitely some truth to that. Most of our labs are funded by the government (through NIH) and the government is funded by the taxpayers...so don't the taxpayers have a right to know the 'truth behind science?' I'd argue that what's giving science a bad name is all the dishonesty... i.e. the large number of retractions in scientific journals (although there's always a few bad eggs).
I just think in the end science should be as open as possible just as you are being as open as possible to the use of technology in the classroom.
I totally agree with you. Science does need to be more transparent, but at the same time it needs to be responsible. Funny that you brought up about how the best discoveries come from mistakes. I almost wrote that in the blog post. But, as you mention, I think transparency is good and more scientists should be willing to be more open just as science educators should be more open to technology in higher education.
ReplyDelete