I'm not sure if I mentioned it, but my paper got accepted to a rather prestigious journal. This I am very happy about.
As a result, The Boss wants to see if he can get the media interested in writing a story about our discovery. This I am somewhat excited and intrigued by.
He asked me to write a lay-man style press release as a starting point for the professionals at the University PR department, complete with pictures. On this I was content to spend a few hours.
I was also asked to repackage my work, not as what it really is, but as nano-tripe. You know the dreck like nano-cars, nano-people, etc. This bothered me.
After I sent the thing off, a few days later I got this email from the PR department.
"images are very important for us - the ones that you sent might not be good enough for the journalists. Do you have color images which might look a little better?"
You know, the PR department should be thanking their lucky stars (secret pun intended) that my type of science produces pictures of what I make. Most scientists only get peaks on a graph. I am SORRY that electron microscopes do not produce images in Technicolor!
Don't they think I gave them the best pics I have? I love the subtle implication that maybe I should photoshop and falsify results for the benefit of the journalists.
Do they know what we do in the lab? We do science not graphic-freeking-design!
To say the least, this irks me.
So while I am on a little Ranty-McRant-Rant, let me continue on a related vein.
Most popular science writing out there is horrid. As academic scientists, we are always asked what the application of this is, or what that will do for them and it inevitably this so-called motivation is mentioned in the first paragraph. And yet it is so far from the real point of the discovery that it is near laughable.
Popular science writing is missing the point of academic pursuits. When asked about motivation, the answer is the same for a historian, a philosopher, an anthropologist, a psychologist, a ecologist, a pathologist, or a theoretical physicist:
We do it because we want to explore how the world works.
If altruism was our main driving motivator, we would all be aid workers.
I am not saying that we are all selfish and that none of us are asking questions about what we can do for the world. It just usually isn't the biggest motivator.
I think the biggest insult in popular science is to that of the public. By always putting in the first paragraph something about curing a disease, or solving the energy crisis, we are assuming the public is too shallow to appreciate the beauty of scientific exploration.
I think we owe the public a little more credit.
I leave you with a quote by Richard Feynman, famous Physicist and bongo player:
"I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts."