Are there any superstar scientists?
- Thread starter nanoboy
- Start date
I've read reports that there is a new version of Sagan's "Cosmos" series being put together by the guy who makes "Family Guy". Apparently he is a science fan also. Hopefully he won't massacre it.
I supposed that one might consider James Cameron to be a scientist to the extent that he has advanced undersea exploration by developing technologies, using them to explore, and making documentaries about what he finds.
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
Seth MacFarland of Family Guy won't destroy Cosmos. He has the highest respect for the original. Ann Druyan and Steven Soter (two of the three original writers) are scripting it. MacFarland basically is just funding it and making sure it gets on a major network (Fox) and not cable so that it can have the highest possibly audience.
I'm not a "Family Guy" fan, but Seth MacFarland does seem to have a genuine respect for astronomy and space exploration - he was in a few episodes of "Star Trek Enterprise". Hopefully the new "Cosmos" will be a good show.
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
Yes, I have Stephen Hawking's book, and I read it, but man that was tough going. 
When I heard that he was in the cafe at uni, I grabbed it off my desk to get him to sign it, only for a colleague to remind me that he can't write. Funny, but sad. 
James Cameron is probably not a scientist in the "publishing journal papers" sort of way, but he has definitely facilitated the furthering of our knowledge in a scientific field, so he is a scientist by that definition, I suppose.
What about guys like Jeff Corwin and Dr Brady Barr?
When I heard that he was in the cafe at uni, I grabbed it off my desk to get him to sign it, only for a colleague to remind me that he can't write. Funny, but sad. James Cameron is probably not a scientist in the "publishing journal papers" sort of way, but he has definitely facilitated the furthering of our knowledge in a scientific field, so he is a scientist by that definition, I suppose.
What about guys like Jeff Corwin and Dr Brady Barr?
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
Fantastic point! I forgot about those guys from Mythbusters.
Yeah, I think that they are scientists, in that they put forward hypotheses, test them, and 'publish' the results. Indeed, the show's format follows scientific protocol: Hypothesis, Introduction and background of the problem with some references to previous work in the field, methodology for testing the hypothesis with some limited statistical analysis, results, and discussion/conclusion (busted!). Sounds like science to me!
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
Haha. Well, given the target audience, they needed a female host(ess), and clearly it worked with you.
What about Bjorn Lomborg? He is a (relatively) famous statistician/enviro scientist that went head to head with Al Gore about how to address climate change.
I suppose Nanoboy was thinking more in the terms of Slavov Zizek dating Lady Gaga.
Actually, it may come as a surprise to those of you outside the rigid academic world, that writing for the general public is not encouraged among scientists. Scientists get ahead by publishing academic papers in peer reviewed journals. Appearing on television is often considered a distraction from important things like proper academic investigation. it is often mentioned that true investigation is done in labs or in the field, and that the media stars only popularize science but that they do not advance it. I have been on various international evaluation commitees and collaborated as tenure referee, and believe me this is still the prevalent attitude.
Is this correct ? Of course not. Popularizing science is an important way to win vocations for future scientists. And also how would science change public attitudes and values without communicating to the general public. Scientists like jane goodall, carl sagan, richard dawkins, steven jay gould were read be many us current researchers before and after dedicating our lives to science. May i add also desmond Morris and loren eisley. Thier work was important. But in the university and research institutes commitees popularizing science is not accepted by many senior figures who can make or break careers.
Then again, is Slavov Zizek still dating lady Gaga ?
Actually, it may come as a surprise to those of you outside the rigid academic world, that writing for the general public is not encouraged among scientists. Scientists get ahead by publishing academic papers in peer reviewed journals. Appearing on television is often considered a distraction from important things like proper academic investigation. it is often mentioned that true investigation is done in labs or in the field, and that the media stars only popularize science but that they do not advance it. I have been on various international evaluation commitees and collaborated as tenure referee, and believe me this is still the prevalent attitude.
Is this correct ? Of course not. Popularizing science is an important way to win vocations for future scientists. And also how would science change public attitudes and values without communicating to the general public. Scientists like jane goodall, carl sagan, richard dawkins, steven jay gould were read be many us current researchers before and after dedicating our lives to science. May i add also desmond Morris and loren eisley. Thier work was important. But in the university and research institutes commitees popularizing science is not accepted by many senior figures who can make or break careers.
Then again, is Slavov Zizek still dating lady Gaga ?
Vitamin C is not dangerous, even in the doses advocated by Pauling in his dotage. Don't forget that everything born on the planet since the Test Ban Treaty of 1963 is healthier because of him! Can anyone else match that?
I don't rate Gould very highly, he wrote quite well but only to the extent that he made the obvious seem really obvious but rather boring through repetition. Sagan was more interesting, but I found him repetitious too. Mind you, I ought to confess that I've been a Dawkins fan since The Selfish Gene first appeared in paperback.
Alan
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
Carlos, this mentality is changing - at least in the developed world. It is not uncommon for universities to have departments whose role it is to manage public relations. Many universities encourage academics to list their expertise in a publicly available database specifically for the press to contact them. This is quite common with (but not limited to) universities that are:
a. trying to climb the university rankings and want as much publicity as possible
b. trying to attract students to choose their university over others - and want as much publicity as possible
While I agree with you that the mentality has existed in developed countries in the past, and still exists in developing countries, I think that it has changed radically in the last decade in developed countries. Indeed, many academics use social media to engage the public/students, and get this, many academics are opting for publishing their work on their blogs so that the world can read it for free and give them rapid feedback. Academia is evolving, but a bit too slow for my liking.
I think that we will see a generation of young academics who understand that careers are made not only through publications, but by being visible to the public. Universities (and academics) are realising that publishing a paper in an obscure journal that might get two citations a year just isn't the way to go in this era.
Nanoboy,
it is more a question of generations than developed or underdeveloped countries. I am on evalutating committes for different countries, since i have a U.S. education and publish in more than one language.The standard practice is still to promote and hire scientists by their output on international peer acepted publications. As i mentioned, the problem is getting out information to the public by scientists. I have clearly seen that some senior scientists accept that one of their own can get media coverage, but a young scientist that would try to get a tenure position on only media coverage and public relations would not be hired permanently in Mexico, spain and the U.S., 3 countries were i have acted as an academic consultant.
This elitist position is very bad, because it promotes the notion that scientists are wierdos in ivory towers. We definitely need to have young scientists that can speak to the general public, not only superstars, but the academic auditing system ( which began in the U.K.by the way) must be changed. I agree with you that change must come, because there are many important social and natural problems that are too important to be left only to the understanding of scientists and academics.
Of course, zoos and museums are important institutions for giving the general public this informations and collaboration between scientists at these places and universities is now more recognized and i have seen greater recognition of work done at museums and zoos by university committees, and i have defended colleagues who do such work many times but there is still a lot to go.
it is more a question of generations than developed or underdeveloped countries. I am on evalutating committes for different countries, since i have a U.S. education and publish in more than one language.The standard practice is still to promote and hire scientists by their output on international peer acepted publications. As i mentioned, the problem is getting out information to the public by scientists. I have clearly seen that some senior scientists accept that one of their own can get media coverage, but a young scientist that would try to get a tenure position on only media coverage and public relations would not be hired permanently in Mexico, spain and the U.S., 3 countries were i have acted as an academic consultant.
This elitist position is very bad, because it promotes the notion that scientists are wierdos in ivory towers. We definitely need to have young scientists that can speak to the general public, not only superstars, but the academic auditing system ( which began in the U.K.by the way) must be changed. I agree with you that change must come, because there are many important social and natural problems that are too important to be left only to the understanding of scientists and academics.
Of course, zoos and museums are important institutions for giving the general public this informations and collaboration between scientists at these places and universities is now more recognized and i have seen greater recognition of work done at museums and zoos by university committees, and i have defended colleagues who do such work many times but there is still a lot to go.
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
Those are fair points. Having worked in a developing country for a few years, I feel that changes in mentality there occur at a glacial pace.
But yes, I agree that an academic cannot become tenured based solely on media coverage (I was not suggesting that though), and that the system still focuses on journal publications (and attracting research grants) when there are other means of publishing your work.
Are there any superstar Mexican scientists at the national and/or international level?
Good question nanoboy,
I can think of only two mexican scientists who are kind of superstars. One is Mario molina, mexican scientist on has studied climate change and won the nobel prize in 1995.
he has a lot of influence here and appears often on the media. however, he works for MIT and studied in the U.S. Yet he is the only mexican scientist to win a nobel prize for science. The role of nobel prizes is making superstar scientists has yet to be mentioned here.
The other superstar scientist in mexico is archeologist Eduardo matos moctezuma, who discovered the templo mayor aztec ruins near the cathedral of mexico city. Finding ancient ruins certainly can make you famous in countries with a long history and the ruins themselves bring in a lot of money. Matos has appeared often on National geographic and history channel programs and is highly respected in academic fields.
An interesting aspect here is that many respected academic leaders in mexico who wish to influence society do try to participate in politics. take this example from the zoo world. Amy camacho directed the highly respected Africam safari park. She became director after her father died in a tragic accident. In a country marked by machismo, Amy worked very hard to build a zoo with international standards, made Africam safari one of the 3 top zoos in mexico and the only zoo in the country to be accredited by the AZA. Highly regarded and respected as an spokeperson for animal and nature problems, Amy was noticed as a possible political figure. Amy camacho is now eniviromental minister for the state of Puebla. Her brother frank camacho now directs africam safari. In the middle of so many corrupt mexican politicians, Amy is a truly hopefull figure, but is participating in politics really worth it ?
I can think of only two mexican scientists who are kind of superstars. One is Mario molina, mexican scientist on has studied climate change and won the nobel prize in 1995.
he has a lot of influence here and appears often on the media. however, he works for MIT and studied in the U.S. Yet he is the only mexican scientist to win a nobel prize for science. The role of nobel prizes is making superstar scientists has yet to be mentioned here.
The other superstar scientist in mexico is archeologist Eduardo matos moctezuma, who discovered the templo mayor aztec ruins near the cathedral of mexico city. Finding ancient ruins certainly can make you famous in countries with a long history and the ruins themselves bring in a lot of money. Matos has appeared often on National geographic and history channel programs and is highly respected in academic fields.
An interesting aspect here is that many respected academic leaders in mexico who wish to influence society do try to participate in politics. take this example from the zoo world. Amy camacho directed the highly respected Africam safari park. She became director after her father died in a tragic accident. In a country marked by machismo, Amy worked very hard to build a zoo with international standards, made Africam safari one of the 3 top zoos in mexico and the only zoo in the country to be accredited by the AZA. Highly regarded and respected as an spokeperson for animal and nature problems, Amy was noticed as a possible political figure. Amy camacho is now eniviromental minister for the state of Puebla. Her brother frank camacho now directs africam safari. In the middle of so many corrupt mexican politicians, Amy is a truly hopefull figure, but is participating in politics really worth it ?
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
Earlier in the thread I posed a challenge to readers to name 3 Nobel Prize winners in the last decade, but no one did. Indeed, I myself could not name 3, so I do wonder if winning a Nobel Prize (if you are a national of a developed country) really does make you a household name. Having lived and worked in the Caribbean for a few years, there were a couple Nobel Laureates (in literature though - Vidia Naipaul and Derek Walcott spring to mind) that every adult and child were aware of (and proud of). So they were superstars in their home countries - but not in the field of science. An Australian won a Nobel Prize last year I think, but who in Australia (outside the scientific community) really remembers her name?
I have heard of Moctezuma (if ever someone had a name that aligned with their profession, it would be him). That's great that you have at least 2 superstar scientists.
Science and politics mix as well as oil and water. It will become quite frustrating for a scientist/conservationist when they realise how the game of politics is played. It might be more effective to be a powerful lobby that can influence political decisions, rather than try to wear both hats.