I'm sorry, Randy. I can't be the voice of science. Maybe I can be one of the voices of science, but no one can be the voice of science. Science is too diverse, too complex, too wonderful, and too precious for any one person to be the voice of science.1 But Randy has a point.
If you share agree that science is undervalued in society; that too few people understand how scientists can contribute to solving problems like global climate change, biodiversity loss, and control of infectious diseases; that too few people understand the role scientists can play as neutral arbiters of what policy options are achievable;2 then you have a responsibility to do what you can to share the wonder and the beauty of science with as many people as you can. That's part of what I'm trying to do here.
The good news3 is that this is something I can do.As I mentioned a long time ago, I know myself well enough that the one thing I can do reasonably well in communicating is to be clear. I'm not very funny (at least not intentionally), and I don't have good stories to tell. What I can do is to share what I know in ways that are reasonably easy to understand so that those who want to learn are able. That's my "voice". And I've learned that no matter how much I wish I weren't a wallflower,no matter how much I wish I could tell a good story, I can't. That's not me. I can only be myself, even if that means I am a cerebral, literal minded, poor storyteller who thinks too much. At least that's my genuine voice, so that's what you'll hear.
Following Randy's advice, though. I will try to lighten up now and then, maybe even kick my shoes off and wiggle my toes in the sand or (horrors!) roll up my pant legs and wade out from shore. In short,I can't stop being a scientist. But maybe I can stop being such a scientist.
If you share agree that science is undervalued in society; that too few people understand how scientists can contribute to solving problems like global climate change, biodiversity loss, and control of infectious diseases; that too few people understand the role scientists can play as neutral arbiters of what policy options are achievable;2 then you have a responsibility to do what you can to share the wonder and the beauty of science with as many people as you can. That's part of what I'm trying to do here.
The good news3 is that this is something I can do.As I mentioned a long time ago, I know myself well enough that the one thing I can do reasonably well in communicating is to be clear. I'm not very funny (at least not intentionally), and I don't have good stories to tell. What I can do is to share what I know in ways that are reasonably easy to understand so that those who want to learn are able. That's my "voice". And I've learned that no matter how much I wish I weren't a wallflower,no matter how much I wish I could tell a good story, I can't. That's not me. I can only be myself, even if that means I am a cerebral, literal minded, poor storyteller who thinks too much. At least that's my genuine voice, so that's what you'll hear.
Following Randy's advice, though. I will try to lighten up now and then, maybe even kick my shoes off and wiggle my toes in the sand or (horrors!) roll up my pant legs and wade out from shore. In short,I can't stop being a scientist. But maybe I can stop being such a scientist.
1If you've been paying attention, I know what you're thinking. "He's thinking too much. He's taking Randy's words too literally. He's ruining the story." Fair enough. All of those things are probably true. Randy knows what he's saying, and I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that there's a single voice of science. He's trying to scream at each of us to take our responsibility for communicating science seriously.
2Which is different from deciding which policy options are desirable. If the distinction I'm making here isn't obvious, go back and take a look at this essay where I discuss it in the context of John Holdren's nomination as presidential science adviser.
3Or the bad news, if you think these posts are long and boring. Of course, if you think they're long and boring, Why do you keep coming back?
Kent! You made a joke! In footnote #3! You're going to have to retract that post about being unlikable. You are the most likeable geek nerd scientist I know.
More seriously: I agree few people understand how science can help solve problems like climate change and biodiversity loss, but that's a two part problem. One, many, many people are not convinced that those are problems that require solutions. And two, few people actually understand how science works, so they can't see why it produces answers that are more useful than those they get, say, from Glenn Beck.
So what you're telling me is that I really am Helvetica -- classic and reliable (as well as a bit boring).