Posted on by ScientistSim

You will never influence the world trying to be like it

In October 1927, the Solvay conference (a prestigious invite-only Physics meeting) was in session. In one room were Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Max Planck and even Erwin Schrödinger. 17 of the 29 attendees would go on to win Nobel prizes, with Marie Curie achieving that honour in two fields. Pictured below is the historic photo (recently colourised by Sanna Dullaway) to serve as proof that those coffee breaks must have been the greatest in history.

Solvay conference

 

These individuals would decide the course of quantum physics at this meeting, what was to come and what the field is now was down to them.

Why do we oooh and ahhh at the guest list of the Solvay conference? People have an obsession with genius. And as scientists, perhaps we have a wish to emulate them. One of the ways to do this is to look at those individuals that have managed to completely distinguish themselves from all other scientists by winning the Nobel Prize.

So what are the trends? Well for a start, it is best not to be a woman. Of the 900 Nobel laureates, only 49 are of the fairer sex. Furthermore, it’s best to be an American, as a whopping 257 individuals have been born there (29%, as compared to 1% of the winners being South African). It is also best if you have a birthday on 21 May or 28 February and happen to be 61 years old at the time of the award. Oh, and be a Harvard affiliate (26 were). The Curie family had 6 Nobel Prizes in the extended family (Marie received 2, Pierre her husband, shared one with her in 1903; their daughter Irène Joliot-Curie and her husband Frederic shared one in 1935 and in 1965 Marie’s second daughter’s husband received the Nobel Peace Prize. There have been 5 married couples, 1 sibling and 8 parent-child pairs of laureates – so perhaps working with family is the best thing to do. Basically, your best chance of winning a Nobel Prize, statistically, is to be a 61 year old male physicist who works for Harvard or Caltech (who have so many Nobel laureates they have their own parking space) and is related to a Curie.

What one must consider is that out of the estimated 108 billion people that have ever lived, only 900 have won this prize. Clearly this is not the best indication of genius. There must have been a good number of other inventors and problem solvers that have lived throughout our time, and not all of them were 61 year old Harvard alumni. It is interesting that humans always look at the exceptional, when really everything we currently understand about human intelligence is based on the average. We tend to think genius is based on how much you’re above the average IQ. Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking had MENSA IQs of 160. But Richard Feynman, widely regarded as a genius, only had an IQ of 120. In addition, last year, a 12 year old girl got an IQ score of 162. Does this mean she will develop the next theory of relativity? Unlikely. Child protégés do not typically remain that way as IQs change over time. In a great article “What your IQ score doesn’t tell you”, the writer goes on to describe that the test doesn’t tell one about the ability to perform tasks or make things work – a pretty big part of life really. IQ is not the same as “common sense” and is certainly not the same as intelligence.

“Intelligence” as defined by Dr Robert Sternberg is made up of 3 facets: analytical skills, practical ability and creativity. You need some common sense to make that IQ work. But perhaps what truly distinguishes genius is not just a Nobel prize, crazy hair and marrying your cousin (something Einstein did) but how creative you can be with the world around you. Einstein and Max Planck were accomplished musicians (violin and piano respectively), Richard Feynman was an acclaimed artist and Marie Curie, well she liked to cycle. Creative people are generally polymaths, they have a wide variety of knowledge and skills and potentially we should focus more energies on other creative pursuits than just work. And while you certainly can’t learn to be a Caucasian bearded man, one can encourage creative behaviours. While some imagine that the coffee breaks during the Savoy conference were packed with Physics, its highly probable that Albert whipped out his violin and Max joined in on piano, while Erwin Schrodinger made a few bits of furniture for his latest dollhouse, Marie went for a brisk cycle and Niels Bohr played a bit of footie.

You will never influence the world trying to boost your exceptional IQ, or fitting into the “workaholic” mould. Be different; feed your creative side. Heck, keep pigeons if you have to; it worked for Tesla (well sort of)!Tesla Oatmeal

An excerpt from “The Oatmeal’s” cartoon“Why  Nikola Tesla was the greatest geek that ever lived”, a truly great read!

Posted on by Joey Hulbert · 1 Comment

Part 1: four reasons to improve your #scicomm skills

Most people aren’t scientists. And scientists love to split metaphorical (and literal) hairs amongst themselves, creating a barrier of jargon and statistics between themselves and the rest of the world. But in the current era of information overload, all people create their own hypotheses, their own ideas, and draw their own conclusions based on whatever unverified information is out there. And, more and more, this means that the average person does not trust the average scientist.

SciComm

It is becoming crucial for scientists themselves to speak up, because science should not be hidden, mysterious, unintelligible. Below I have listed four reasons for improving our science communication skills, effectively improving the accessibility of science. If you have more reasons, I encourage you to comment below.

Improve democracy

The success and effectiveness of democracy depends on the education of the voters. The more innovative, skillful, and knowledgeable the voting population is, the stronger the democracy. Making an effort to increase the accessibility of science will enhance the education system, inform more decisions, and promote innovation. Science also provides opportunities to improve citizenship. Involving the public in, or effectively sharing about the scientific process will improve democracy.

ResearchCitizenship

 Inspire the next generation

Many of the tips for communicating science (e.g. less jargon, shorter sentences, etc.) essentially lower the reading level required for understanding science writing, thereby improving accessibility and reaching younger audiences. Thus, improving our science communication skills will enable us to reach and inspire a younger audience.

In addition, social media is widely recognized as a tool for communicating science and has been described as the language of the youth. Mastering outreach on these platforms requires improving science communication skills (e.g. introducing a paper with only 140 characters on Twitter), but will likely reach youth that wouldn’t have known about our research otherwise.

Adapt to shifts in funding

More and more, the importance of this skill is being recognized, with top-down calls for more science engagement and ‘science for society’. Requirements from grant-funding agencies are, right now, changing! For example, many project proposals have to commit to disseminating the outcomes to society or incorporate ‘broader impacts’, such as mentoring a student or conducting educational outreach.

I was first introduced to the ‘broader impacts’ requirement when applying for the National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship Program in the US. Each proposal required a section titled ‘Broader Impacts’ where I was meant to explain how my project would immediately benefit society, aside from the results of the research. Educational outreach and public engagement are ideal criteria for this section, and both of these activities heavily depend on science communication skills. To my knowledge, the NSF now requires a statement of broader impacts on every proposal.

Ensure accuracy

The final reason I suggest improving your science communication ability is so that you can share your own research yourself. Regardless of how good external science communicators are (science journalists, media specialists, marketing agents, public relations, etc.), the scientists that did the research have the best understanding of its significance. Inevitably, like the ‘telephone’ game we played when we were children, the message gets distorted the farther it gets from the source. Results are commonly reported inaccurately in media because the writers aren’t scientists, and they want to sell issues rather than report results. Generally, the results aren’t distorted, but the relativity, representation, and implications are.

The personal justification for me to spend time practicing and improving my science communication comes from the same part of the heart as my passion for research. If you are like me, having pursued a career of research as a means to make a positive impact on the planet, I am confident fine-tuning your ability to communicate science will increase the size of that impact. Together we can improve the face of science in the public eye, inspiring others and informing more decisions, while learning to make the most of the world we live in for the people around us.