My title promises quite a bit here, though I have significantly less to offer on this matter. Lately one of my concerns has been how I might contribute to the coolification of scientists in America (probably it would help if I didn’t use the word coolification). This has always seemed strange to me because scientists get paid very well, maybe not exactly commensurate with their education, but mid-upper middle class income at least. Plus, they get to generally work on stuff that interests them, and helps other people. Beyond that, science has a reward mechanism built in that not many other professions do: peer recognition. I’m not sure that many people realize this, but a criteria that a research scientist must meet to achieve a tenured position is by publishing a minimum amount of work, say 3-4 papers per year, something like that. Well, these papers are largely not for public consumption, but stand to provide accolades to that scientist if the papers are well received. Indeed, this idea of being rewarded with fame amongst your peers is one of the main reasons that I am pursuing this type of career. So, good money, help society, work on your own interests, achieve (limited) fame…why aren’t there more American graduate students?
When I was in High School, Dad and I spent quite a bit of time learning about the stock market and talking about investing, and along those lines I picked up a magazine called “Fast Company” that profiled successful companies and people. Interestingly, many of the people and companies profiled in Fast Company are either in jail or bankrupt, ahh corporate greed. But, the magazine portrayed high-profile, high-octane business as exciting, challenging and immensely rewarding. What’s my point here? Well, business people want fame, sure, who doesn’t want to be the next Jack Welch? But, more than that, they want to make a profit. And if someone is making better profits than them, business people are willing to change, to grow. Fast Company was part of that, they sought out the most successful people to show young ambitious businessfolk how it can be done better.
Science has nothing like Fast Company. In fact, the lack of profit motive in science is more than overcome with the motive for notoriety, but these are very different. A scientist does not necessarily want to read about some young, hip, cappuccino sippin’ postdoc whose ideas are revolutionizing the field. Nay, that instant fame would be undeserved, says the field! Scientists inherently dislike attention-grabbing, and folks like Carl Sagan (who did decent science) become the target of ire from those scientists who don’t have their own special on PBS. Fame is a funny thing, unlike the profit-motive, the fame-motive can inspire jealousy and deep hatred- very unscientific behavior! Anyone who worries about office politics probably hasn’t seen the academic politics that can arise when a scientist feels he should be the second author on a paper, not the fourth. So, to be more than just a reductionist, I’ll suggest a solution to this.
In every field there is some prize(s) that signify the highest levels of achievement. In fact, there are usually two different types. The first, prizes such as the Nobel are given for a masterful piece of work. The other type is induction as a fellow in the relevant society of your field, these are given because your peers think you’re neat. For instance, induction as a fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineering (ASME) is a high honor, but one that’s kind of the grown-up version of a popularity contest.
Its this first category of prizes that promise to help out science, because an overly-gushing profile of someone whose work achieved the highest possible recognition in the field is certainly understandable, and would be acceptable to all of the rest of the scientists because, although that journalistic attention would add a little to the reputation of the awardee, everyone else wants to see how that scientist did it so they can change and grow–and win the award themselves someday. These hip, glossy profiles of the scientists and their work would help move the public image of scientists away from the labcoat and safety-goggles one (though there are those types!) to the hip, cappuccino sipping, internationally traveling, conference going, image that such high-achievers can convey.
The name “Fast Science” probably wouldn’t work because it reeks of shoddy work, but someone out there who wants to start a magazine, it could even be an e-zine (man that’s an old word, so 1998!). Perhaps it could take the form of a multimedia blog. Our high school and college students need examples, people to look up to, and the Fast Science idea might just help.
