Why should science be made accessible to all? Does it change how we see the world?

Krishna: Good questions. There are two questions here. Let me answer each one separately.

1. Why should science be made accessible to all?

Doing hard research by scientists in fort-like labs that are inaccessable to the outside world is one side of Science. Then communicating it in the right manner the world can understand and get benefited by it is a different ball game altogether.

Scientists publish their work in science journals with all the data and statistics and in a language that seems like Greek and Latin to the man on the street even if he is literate. Then think about the situation of illiterates. To a large section of people, these science journals don't exist at all!

These journals are used by scientists to communicate their work only to their colleagues in their field.

After making these exciting discoveries by scientists, without the ability to communicate their importance to a variety of audiences will severely diminish the potential of this work to positively affect society(1).

Usually transferring the complex science concepts from the labs to the ordinary world in the manner that makes some sense will be done by science journalists. They do it in the way in which they understand because it is very difficult even for them to understand the jargon and data and depend on the scientists' explanations to communicate the difficult subject. Therefore a miscommunication is taking place with the result that science is being misunderstood and even hated by some. People feel the disconnect with science all around in the West (and to some extent in the East too) from a common misconception that evolution is a theory that says human beings descended directly from the monkeys, to the worry that physicists in Geneva might suck the universe into a tea cup — or something uncomfortably smaller - unsubstantiated fears that the Large Hadron Collider, used to study subatomic particles, might create a black hole. Some think science is responsible for all the ills we are facing in the world now. One third of Americans are rejecting the theory of evolution . A move ‘s afoot to keep climate science and evolution out of classrooms in the US. And on several major issues we face, the views of public drastically differ from those of scientists in some parts of the world. Despite tremendous progress brought by science and technology, several people - irrespective of their literary status - still remain entangled in blind and superstitious states of mind as in the dark ages proving that the communication system had failed to a large extent. Moreover, the influence of politics and commercialization of the fruits of science are taking their toll on both scientific research and journalism with the former dancing to the tunes of its mentors and the latter falling prey to conflicting stories. This is resulting in ordinary people being left to deal with the chaos themselves driving them to question the integrity of science (1).

The idea that a scientist’s job ends at the laboratory door is a dangerous one and communication is an essential aspect of our work for the world to recognize our contribution to the scientific world... for people to use our work as foundation to theirs which might lead to important inventions and discoveries, to use it as citations/quotes frequently. Being a scientist goes far beyond the moment of discovery. Being a scientist means making sure that other people understand what you have found. It benefits your our science. Most of the policy decisions taken these days by the governments around the world are science and technology related. So making people and politicians understand the scientific way of doing things is very essential. If we ourselves don't do it, others may spread misinformation about it (2).

We are trying to correct this situation with science communication. Science is not finished until it’s communicated.

Public science communication is a moral responsibility, outreach through which scientists can help their communities. It is good if we are able to publish our work in Nature or e-Life. But it would be excellent if people get benefited by it and if we are able to save some lives because of our good science communication skills. Every publicly-supported scientist owes the people who pay for science an explanation they can understand. The job isn't done until everybody knows about it. Science is a 'we' subject not an 'I' subject. It impacts the whole world. The excitement of making new discoveries and then seeing its impact on us as a society is so important. The public needs to understand how these discoveries might affect their lives. Science communication should be a responsibility shared by professional communicators and scientists (2).

2. Does it change how we see the world?

Yes and absolutely yes! Let me explain that ‘how’ with an example.

People without any science background think ‘Nazar' (Buri nazar in Hindi/Urdu, evil eyes, looks, views in English, 'disti' in Telugu) can cause harm and therefore each and every person should use grey pumpkins by hanging them in front of their houses to neutralize the effect of 'Nazar'. Okay, if that gives them some sort of satisfaction, we have no right to say people cannot follow what they believe in. But when people spread this superstition, everybody around starts believing in it. So everybody starts using grey pumpkins too. These pumpkins, after sometime, become black and shrivel and people think this is because these pumpkins took your nazar and saved you!

But these pumpkins become black because of “fungal spores”, according to people of science like us. These pumpkins shrivel because of losing water, not because they take your nazar.

What is worse is these fungal spores come out of the pumpkin and spread all over the place whenever a breeze brushes it causing allergies in people. Imagine a whole neighbourhood infested with these spores spreading asthma in the vulnerable! They make you more sick, according to people like us who follow science, instead of removing your sickness caused by ‘nazar’(3).

I just gave an example but this is how science changes your full understanding, gives you the right perspective based on evidence and facts. You visualize the whole processes and the working of the universe before your eyes!

We scientists live in a completely different world because of this - we see it differently, perceive it differently, analyse it differently and use the knowledge in a totally different way.

We want everyone else too to have these benefits by following science.

Footnotes:

1. Science Communication
2. How scientists should communicate with laymen
3. Superstitions don't have any science behind them!