This is Part One of an interview I did with science writer and Rutgers graduate Brian Switek for Progressiveu.org. I thought it may be of some interests to Rutgers students:
Connelly: You have written about some of the many images of dinosaurs in Western media. Why do you think dinosaurs appeal to our society?
Switek: That is a very good question! Unfortunately I can probably only provide a partial answer, but I will give it my best shot. I think dinosaurs are so fascinating because they were real monsters that demand an explanation. They were not make-believe or creatures that we just dreamed up; they really did occupy the world for over 150 million years (and some are still with us today in the form of birds). When looking at the skeleton of a dinosaur it is difficult not to wonder about what kind of habitat it lived in, what kind food it ate, what color it was, and so on. While fossil mammals are generally familiar enough for the public to ignore, dinosaurs were so different from anything alive today that we can’t help but be fascinated by them. I am sure there are other factors that make dinosaurs so popular, especially relating to history and society, but I think that the foundation of our fascination comes from the fact that dinosaurs represent a lost world that flourished and was extinguished long before humans existed. Their very existence makes us reconsider the old religious dogma that everything was created all at once in a peaceable kingdom.
Connelly: You recently wrote for the Times Online that there is a dangerous link between science and hype. The instance you use is that of the discovery of Darwinius masillae, which was hailed as a “missing link”, despite this being a misnomer. Why does this link between science and hype exist in the first place?
Switek: Communicating science to the public is a tricky thing. Unfortunately many people believe that science is either too boring or too complicated for most non-scientists to understand and so everything has to be given a high gloss to make it interesting…The danger is that such practices ultimately hinder rather than help science communication. While hyped-up announcements might bring new discoveries to the attention of the public it, does not do us much good if the actual science runs contrary to what is being proclaimed. The case of Darwinius is an excellent example of this. In public Darwinius was announced as “the missing link”, but in the scientific description the scientists stated that Darwinius might be a close relative of early anthropoid primates, or the group to which monkeys and apes (including us) belong. Yet even this more moderate conclusion was not based upon solid science. A reappraisal of Darwinius published this past October by a different group of scientist confirmed that it was not a close relative of anthropoids at all, but was more closely related to lemurs. In the case of Darwinius the hype clearly overtook the scientific evidence.
This is harmful for science communication because it makes scientists seem like glory hounds who have a religious-like fervor for evolution. While it is true that many scientists immediately voiced their skepticism of the claims being made about Darwinius, I would wager that more people encountered the overhyped reports about the fossil than the more balanced appraisals. Darwinius is a very interesting animal represented by a beautiful fossil, certainly worthy of public attention, but unfortunately an opportunity to communicate science responsibly was lost when it was decided that the fossil primate should be presented as our ancestor despite the lack of hard evidence that this was so.
Connelly: How can this kind of sensationalism be avoided?
Switek: How such unfortunate events can be avoided is difficult to address because most of the decisions are not being made by scientists or science enthusiasts. Media companies are in control. There are some good reporters out there, and some media companies are better than others at accurately reporting science (the New York Times jumps most immediately to mind, though even they don’t get things right all the time), but in general there has been a decline in science reporting in which many news sources simply reprint press releases.
Fortunately, though, there are a few ways interested people can cut through some of the hype. The easiest way is to simply make the most of Google and look for science blogs covering the same story. Science blogs are often written by scientists, students, and knowledgeable amateurs, and chances are that at least one writer will pick up on a big story and write about it. Even better, try to find the original scientific paper online. While many journals require paid access (often available through university libraries) many journals are allowing open access to important new papers so that anyone who is interested can read them. These articles take a little bit of expertise to get through but there is really no substitute for looking at the original research. These days at least some familiarity with ongoing debates and technical details is required to fully understand whether stories are being reported accurately or not, and right now experienced science bloggers are among the best fact-checkers for overblown science news.
Connelly: You are a self described “evolution geek.” Where did your interest in evolution originally come from?
Switek: I loved dinosaurs and paleontology as a child, and those interests naturally fed my fascination with evolution. It is pretty difficult to look at the fossil record and deny that evolution is real. When I first encountered creationism in the spring of 2006, though, I was puzzled as to why so many people claimed that evolution was a lie. That summer I read dozens of books, creationist pamphlets and explanations of evolution alike, and the more I learned about evolution the more questions I had about it. I realized that for years I had effectively “believed in evolution” without actually understanding it, and even though I knew creationism was only religiously-motivated claptrap there was admittedly a lot I did not know about how life evolved.
But the wonderful thing about science is that the more you learn, the more questions you have. When I finally grasped the basic concepts of how evolution works it was impossible not to start wondering about nature. That is what has kept me passionate about evolutionary science. Answers are nice, but the questions are what keep me coming back.
Location: SinglePost