Should scientists even bother about the celebrity status? NO!

Krishna: Should we even bother about this ‘celebrity status’? Don’t even compare us with KK. I don’t like it.

Scientists work and the world gets benefited by their hard work. That is enough.

All that the scientific community needs is funding. If the ‘celebrity status’ brings money to their field, scientists will be happy. While not always a direct path to funding, visibility can influence it. Studies have shown that increased reputation, which can be boosted by media exposure, can lead to higher citation rates for research. A public profile can also create opportunities to speak directly to funders or influence public support for certain scientific fields.

The scientists you mentioned are in the science communication arena too. That’s why they became somewhat famous.

While scientists should prioritize their research over fame, engaging with the public as a "celebrity" scientist can be beneficial for both science and society. Because most people can relate and listen more to ‘celebrities’ than scientists. The answer to this question is not simple as it involves weighing the positive effects of greater public engagement against the potential risks and distractions of celebrity culture.

Yes, well-known scientists (and science communicators), such as Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, have historically used their public recognition to educate the public and explain complex scientific topics in an accessible way. By making science understandable, celebrity scientists increase the general public's knowledge and interest in scientific issues.

Popular scientists can use their platform to participate in policy discussions and promote evidence-based decision-making. Having credible scientists as recognizable public figures helps ensure that complex topics are not left solely to celebrity pronouncements and can counter scientific misinformation.

A celebrity scientist can serve as an inspiring role model for students, particularly those who have an active interest in science. A charismatic, visible scientist can help motivate young people to pursue careers in STEM.

But there are risks that come with the celebrity statuses of some scientists.

The "rich-get-richer" effect suggests that fame can disproportionately benefit a small number of scientists and their research, leading to potential bias in which studies get cited or receive attention. This can cause the vast majority of high-quality, serious research to go largely unnoticed by the public.

Science says there is a phenomenon called the "Matthew effect" that dictates terms in judging awards and prizes.

The Matthew effect of accumulated advantage, described in sociology, is a phenomenon sometimes summarized by the adage that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

A small number of people stand at the top of their fields, commanding the lion's share of funding, awards, citations, and prestigious academic appointments. But are they better and smarter than their peers? No!

But the benefits of winning an early-career grant or award were enormous. Those who already won will get more while those who didn't get any before will not be judged positively even if their effort is equally good. (1)

Although there are exceptions, several people in the field complain that awards, rewards and funds mostly go to the individuals who have celebrity statuses as judges are influenced by their names and fames!

The celebrities get more of these awards and rewards and others are ignored even if their work is better!

Undermining scientific integrity becomes a huge problem with celebrity culture. Public acclaim is not always correlated with scientific accomplishment. It can be influenced by communication skills (art) and personality traits. An institution's pressure to engage with the media can also create a conflict of interest, where scientists feel pressured to sensationalize their findings to gain attention, potentially sacrificing scientific nuance.

The media's need for concise and compelling stories can lead to the oversimplification or misrepresentation of complex scientific information in celebrity cultures. Additionally, engaging the public on highly technical or politically charged topics can expose scientists to conflict and even abuse, which many are not trained to handle.

The effort and time required to become a public figure can distract from core research responsibilities. Scientists must balance engagement with the demanding work of conducting research, writing grant proposals, and teaching. That is why most researchers simply have no desire for fame and prefer to work without a public spotlight.

Therefore, the goal for scientists shouldn't be celebrity status itself, but rather effective public engagement and the communication process. The visibility that comes with being a public figure can be a powerful tool for promoting science and countering misinformation. However, it is a tool that must be handled carefully, as it also presents risks to scientific integrity and can distract from the all essential work of discovery and invention.

This is what makes us happy (Image source: Shutterstock)

Footnotes:

1. Qs on science and my replies to them - THE SCIENCE OF JUDGING AND B...