"The Mystique of Science in the Press" - A Reading Report

Article of Review: Nelkin, Dorothy. “The Mystique of Science in the Press.” Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1987. pp 14 – 32.

Summary
In her chapter, The Mystique of Science in the Press, Dorothy Nelkin argues that the press creates an air of mystique around science which is responsible for a public perception of it as being esoteric and possessing greater value than any other pursuit of humanity. Rather than promoting public understanding, Nelkin claims that such media coverage distances the real importance of science from the grasp of citizens. She constructs her view on the basis of four themes: the scientist as a star, science as a resource, the purity of science, and the authority of scientific theory.

The Scientist as Star
Nelkin’s first theme illustrates the media’s tendency to glorify scientists, portraying them as heroes or celebrities who are engaged in an international competition for awards and esteem.

Science as a Resource
In her second theme, Nelkin addresses the frequent portrayal of science by the media as the most important resource of society. In her opinion, such an idealization casts a light of diminished importance on other human endeavours, such as liberal arts.

The Purity of Science
Nelkin’s third theme focuses on the media’s depictions of science as being a profession apart because it is unemotional, impartial, and possessing higher values than those in other fields. She argues that the media idealizes science by portraying cases of scientific fraud as being aberrations.

The Authority of Scientific Theory
In her final theme, Nelkin discusses how, in its choice of theories to advance, the press sometimes uses disputed and unproven science to promote certain views. This has the consequence of blurring the line between that which is regarded as “hard evidence” and that which is considered “theoretical.”

Conclusion
Nelkin concludes by commenting on the accessibility gap between citizens and science that is perpetuated by “the mystique of science in the press.” Such a gap concerns her in a time when science is so integral to society, especially in policy making.

Commentary
Who was Dorothy Nelkin?
Without ever attaining an advanced degree beyond her Bachelor of Arts in Sociology from Cornell, she achieved the status of University Professor in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at New York University. She was an author of some 26 books on various topics related to science and technology in society. Much of her work revolved around exposing the potential societal consequences of “unchecked” advances in science. She was a sceptic when it came to believing that science would live up to the desires of its advocates. In 2003, she died of cancer at the age of 69.

My Views on the Mystique of Science in the Press
An interesting point I noted was in Nelkin’s theme “scientist as star” where she addresses the media’s propensity to portray female Nobel laureates as down-to-earth, everyday people which starkly contrasts depictions of male Nobelists. She states that: “As a remarkable exception to the usual coverage of scientists in the press, the portraits of female Nobelists only highlight the prevailing image of science as an arcane and superior profession, and points up the lack of attention to its substance.” Her use of this particular illustration was a source of confusion for me, preventing me from identifying how it highlights or even relates to “the mystique of science in the press.”

Nelkin’s theme “science as a resource” presents an argument that struck a chord with me regarding the superior representation of scientists, or “techs”, relative to liberal arts types, or “fuzzies”, by the media. When I was in University and even as far back as my highschool days, I was discouraged by my parents, peers and science teachers to pursue studies outside of science with the exception of English and other requisite courses. Little did I realize then of the significant impact that greater exposure to liberal arts would have had on my ability to communicate, particularly with respect to writing.

Another point of interest I found in Nelkin’s theme “the purity of science” makes reference to the age old reverence of science by its contributors — being primarily male — and by the media as having purely logical, as opposed to emotional, motivations. This relates to a discussion we had as a class in which, if I recalled correctly, the consensus was that science, as a product of culture by definition, necessitates that emotional motives, in addition to logical ones, be attributed to its proliferation.

In Nelkin’s theme of “the authority of scientific theory,” a noteworthy point that she neglected to make, which I feel would have added to her argument, was of the media’s widespread dependence in legitimizing stories on the alleged “reliability” of the peer-reviewed scientific community. When the press cites scientists in an effort to validate their view, I think that the effect is to further propagate the idea in the public’s psyche that the word of scientists should be taken at face value and undisputed.

In conclusion, Nelkin’s chapter opened my eyes to the notion that the press, without doubt, is largely responsible for creating a public perception of mystique around science. My personal sentiments coincided with Nelkin’s concern that, in an age when science has profound influence over societal decision-making, such a circumstance subsists.

That's all for now!

Amazing Science Search – A constructivist activity for science adventurers

I recently devised a science scavenger hunt, which was inspired by television’s Amazing Race, for the Science Adventurer Boys program at Science North. The boys were aged 8 to 11 and, as members of Science North, all had some prior exposure to the science centre. My aim was to use the existing science infrastructure at the centre in a way that was novel to the boys. Drawing from constructivist learning theory, I geared the activity to provide an experience that was both challenging and stimulating (Hein, 1998). I designed the science search to present the participants with tasks and questions pertaining to the content of the science centre. These tasks and questions had multiple conclusions and “correct” answers, in a sense, giving the activity multiple entry points and layers.

When I began writing the science search, I was admittedly uncertain of how to gauge the motives and interests of boys of the 8 to 11 age group. I had little prior experience with this type of audience other than time I’ve spent with my 10 year-old nephew. In an attempt to better understand my target audience, I combined my knowledge of my nephew’s behaviours with memories of my childhood. I also gathered some useful suggestions from my classmates. An important factor that they got me to consider was that boys of this age range tend to have short attention spans. This led me to realize that it was important to design the search so that it could be completed within an hour. I decided too that it was necessary to divide the search into several stages with each requiring no more than ten minutes to complete. When I finished designing the search, I was confident in having made an effort to understand my audience.

Implementation of the science search began by dividing the boys into two teams of three. I supervised one team and Alan Nursall, Science North's science director, supervised the other. We gave the boys the search instructions which directed them to various stops throughout the centre. At each stop, the instructions prompted the teams to complete a few tasks and answer questions about their findings. Alan had the idea of giving each team a digital camera so that they could document their discoveries, which turned out to be a novelty for most them because they had few if any previous opportunities to use cameras. Upon successful completion of the tasks at each stage, Alan and I would assign our respective teams a letter (e.g. “O”). Once all of the stages were completed, the teams each had six random letters that, when unscrambled, spelled the word FOSSIL. We then directed the boys to the Nature Exchange where they were each entitled to choose a small fossil for keeping.

After seeing the science search in use, and getting feedback from the boys and Alan, I was proud to discover that, for all intents and purposes, it was a success. The boys seemed to appreciate the challenging and competitive nature of the search, and the motive of finding a treasure. I achieved my attempt to have multiple entry and exit points as indicated by the varying findings of the two teams. For example, one of the tasks I gave the teams was to “find an animal that has protective armour.” I further asked them to identify the animal as being either warm blooded or cold blooded. Alan’s team found the porcupine and classified it appropriately as warm blooded. In contrast, my team opted to use the cold blooded snapping turtle in their findings.The main lesson that I gathered from this experience was that, before engaging an unfamiliar audience, it’s necessary to make a multi-pronged research effort in order to better understand their needs and motivations.

That's all for now!

Reference
Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the Museum. Routledge, New York, NY. pp. 25 – 40.