Comments on: Don’t Be Such A Scientist! An Interview with Randy Olson http://www.benchfly.com/blog/dont-be-such-a-scientist-an-interview-with-randy-olson/ Advice for Your Life in Science Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:19:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Science Career Development Resources | BenchFly Blog http://www.benchfly.com/blog/dont-be-such-a-scientist-an-interview-with-randy-olson/#comment-3035 Science Career Development Resources | BenchFly Blog Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:17:14 +0000 http://www.benchfly.com/blog/?p=2902#comment-3035 [...] Don’t be Such a Scientist: Randy Olson -professor-turned-filmmaker describes the problem with scientific communication and how to solve it [...] [...] Don’t be Such a Scientist: Randy Olson -professor-turned-filmmaker describes the problem with scientific communication and how to solve it [...]

]]> By: BenchLife: Your Life in the Lab | BenchFly Blog http://www.benchfly.com/blog/dont-be-such-a-scientist-an-interview-with-randy-olson/#comment-2764 BenchLife: Your Life in the Lab | BenchFly Blog Wed, 01 Dec 2010 04:40:05 +0000 http://www.benchfly.com/blog/?p=2902#comment-2764 [...] Don’t be Such a Scientist: Randy Olson -professor-turned-filmmaker describes the problem with scientific communication and how to solve it [...] [...] Don’t be Such a Scientist: Randy Olson -professor-turned-filmmaker describes the problem with scientific communication and how to solve it [...]

]]> By: How to Create an Elevator Pitch | BenchFly Blog http://www.benchfly.com/blog/dont-be-such-a-scientist-an-interview-with-randy-olson/#comment-1989 How to Create an Elevator Pitch | BenchFly Blog Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:40:47 +0000 http://www.benchfly.com/blog/?p=2902#comment-1989 [...] Don’t Be Such a Scientist! An Interview with Randy Olson [...] [...] Don’t Be Such a Scientist! An Interview with Randy Olson [...]

]]> By: screen writer http://www.benchfly.com/blog/dont-be-such-a-scientist-an-interview-with-randy-olson/#comment-634 screen writer Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:58:41 +0000 http://www.benchfly.com/blog/?p=2902#comment-634 I think the current market encourages treatments as opposed to cures. This is becaues they are cheaper to develop and they have lower risk, but are also hugely profitable. No one has to deliberately squelch anything. That's free market, it doesn't take risks unless its forced to, not if the "other guy" isn't. I think that scientists would adamantly defend this position..of not finding cures by using the science, restating the difficulty faced etc. but in reality they might admit that its very easy to just go to the lab and do research and still get the same, (but less risk of failure). I see a vacuum of leadership from top down, but also apathy. Government labs aren't motivated, not enough. Companies aren't motivated, not when "they're doing all they can". Influenza vaccines are big $. 10,000 deaths from influenza, sitll no antiviral that work. The difference in effort/motivation has to be very big to get the cure, instead of the treatment. It is physically possible, is it not? that I believe. I think the current market encourages treatments as opposed to cures. This is becaues they are cheaper to develop and they have lower risk, but are also hugely profitable. No one has to deliberately squelch anything. That's free market, it doesn't take risks unless its forced to, not if the "other guy" isn't. I think that scientists would adamantly defend this position..of not finding cures by using the science, restating the difficulty faced etc. but in reality they might admit that its very easy to just go to the lab and do research and still get the same, (but less risk of failure). I see a vacuum of leadership from top down, but also apathy. Government labs aren't motivated, not enough. Companies aren't motivated, not when "they're doing all they can". Influenza vaccines are big $. 10,000 deaths from influenza, sitll no antiviral that work. The difference in effort/motivation has to be very big to get the cure, instead of the treatment. It is physically possible, is it not? that I believe.

]]> By: screen writer http://www.benchfly.com/blog/dont-be-such-a-scientist-an-interview-with-randy-olson/#comment-632 screen writer Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:37:08 +0000 http://www.benchfly.com/blog/?p=2902#comment-632 Consider what is at stake, in the development of a cure for a major illness, or a class of diseases like DNA viruses. The point is not that obfuscation happens only in science, it is that it has the potential for the most damage in science! This is becuase bad science has a ripple effect into the future. And yes money is wasted in other fields too, but I would argue that money wasted in basic science is also the most damaging, long term. A wrong turn in the race for a cure means not only lost time, but intangible problems, non development of other techniques, technologies etc. So those are the differences I see. So in that context I would say the $100 million failed biotech is bigger failure than what it appears, and its just a symptom of something deeper. Consider what is at stake, in the development of a cure for a major illness, or a class of diseases like DNA viruses. The point is not that obfuscation happens only in science, it is that it has the potential for the most damage in science! This is becuase bad science has a ripple effect into the future. And yes money is wasted in other fields too, but I would argue that money wasted in basic science is also the most damaging, long term. A wrong turn in the race for a cure means not only lost time, but intangible problems, non development of other techniques, technologies etc. So those are the differences I see. So in that context I would say the $100 million failed biotech is bigger failure than what it appears, and its just a symptom of something deeper.

]]> By: screen writer http://www.benchfly.com/blog/dont-be-such-a-scientist-an-interview-with-randy-olson/#comment-631 screen writer Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:35:09 +0000 http://www.benchfly.com/blog/?p=2902#comment-631 I think you can talk about comparisons between communication in science and other fields, like business, but my point was really about science and basically what I think science is up to. To answer your question, I would say that the issues here about science communication are far more real and pressing than what I might say are business or even legal decisions/issues, at least in the context of fundamentally helping society and making forward progress. Wall street will NOT help us fight the next plague, its up to the scientists and science minded people to do this. My point is that people need to wake up and also pay attention to what the scientists are up to, as opposed to just delving at the surface, and taking what they see on t.v. about science all for granted. Its better for all. I think you can talk about comparisons between communication in science and other fields, like business, but my point was really about science and basically what I think science is up to. To answer your question, I would say that the issues here about science communication are far more real and pressing than what I might say are business or even legal decisions/issues, at least in the context of fundamentally helping society and making forward progress. Wall street will NOT help us fight the next plague, its up to the scientists and science minded people to do this. My point is that people need to wake up and also pay attention to what the scientists are up to, as opposed to just delving at the surface, and taking what they see on t.v. about science all for granted. Its better for all.

]]> By: @jen_leslie http://www.benchfly.com/blog/dont-be-such-a-scientist-an-interview-with-randy-olson/#comment-617 @jen_leslie Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:24:34 +0000 http://www.benchfly.com/blog/?p=2902#comment-617 I found Olson's book to a bit of all the things he preaches against. It's sort of disorganized, rambles on, really negative and critical... guess the scientist habit is hard to kick I found Olson's book to a bit of all the things he preaches against. It's sort of disorganized, rambles on, really negative and critical… guess the scientist habit is hard to kick

]]> By: Josie http://www.benchfly.com/blog/dont-be-such-a-scientist-an-interview-with-randy-olson/#comment-611 Josie Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:17:22 +0000 http://www.benchfly.com/blog/?p=2902#comment-611 Are you suggesting that scientists deliberately miscommunicate in order to hide the fact that they're not making any progress, or something more sinister like coming up with expensive treatments and no cures?.... interesting point. I think even the research that is worthy of reporting is often miscommunicated, or communicated poorly ... and I think that often (some) scientists don't really worry that they're poor communicators because of the power trip you mention. I've met a few megalomaniac scientists who would assume that people don't understand not because of their poor communication, but because they're just not quite smart enough to get it. Maybe I'm cynic??? Are you suggesting that scientists deliberately miscommunicate in order to hide the fact that they're not making any progress, or something more sinister like coming up with expensive treatments and no cures?…. interesting point.
I think even the research that is worthy of reporting is often miscommunicated, or communicated poorly … and I think that often (some) scientists don't really worry that they're poor communicators because of the power trip you mention. I've met a few megalomaniac scientists who would assume that people don't understand not because of their poor communication, but because they're just not quite smart enough to get it. Maybe I'm cynic???

]]> By: dayman http://www.benchfly.com/blog/dont-be-such-a-scientist-an-interview-with-randy-olson/#comment-610 dayman Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:28:39 +0000 http://www.benchfly.com/blog/?p=2902#comment-610 Also, this: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOtEQB-9tvk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOtEQB-9tvk</a> Also, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOtEQB-9tvk

]]> By: dayman http://www.benchfly.com/blog/dont-be-such-a-scientist-an-interview-with-randy-olson/#comment-609 dayman Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:21:49 +0000 http://www.benchfly.com/blog/?p=2902#comment-609 All fields have jargon, as a way to make communication inside the field easier as it allows your colleagues to know exactly what you are talking about, and often you forget that others don't know it. For comparisons sake, I am not a middle eastern politics expert, but I have a friend who is. He uses lots of words that I have no idea what he is talking about, and sometimes he does it just to show off, but I don't think the terms were originally generated to obsfucate. Also, because I don't understand it doesn't mean that it is irrelevant, it means that <i>I lack the backround to understand it</i> . There is a ton of books, blogs, articles, TV shows, and people out there to allow me to understand it, but it would require an effort on my part to take the time to learn it. As for some biotech's not producing anything, it happens in all fields because discovering new stuff is hard. And expensive. As a society we seem to be willing to put the money in science because it's breakthroughs can improve the lives of the most people. Many non-scientists argue that antiseptics were the greatest discovery for all of humanity after the wheel and fire, all three of which are science. There is one statement you made that I could not agree more with: "Message/communication is important..." We do need scientific spokespeople to explain things, but we also need societies that have the scientific background to understand it. In America, at least, many students become dismissive of science and math because it is difficult and requires learning and memorizing tenants in order to understand and appreciate it. If you lack those fundamentals, communication is never going to happen because one side has its fingers in its ears. Really it boils down to: <b>Why do you think science is so different than other fields?</b> Lawyers have jargon. Business people use money for risky things that often don't work because they are new. Government workers often cannot adequately explain their policies. These are all symptoms of specialization, and without it there would be very little progress unfortunately. All fields have jargon, as a way to make communication inside the field easier as it allows your colleagues to know exactly what you are talking about, and often you forget that others don't know it.

For comparisons sake, I am not a middle eastern politics expert, but I have a friend who is. He uses lots of words that I have no idea what he is talking about, and sometimes he does it just to show off, but I don't think the terms were originally generated to obsfucate. Also, because I don't understand it doesn't mean that it is irrelevant, it means that I lack the backround to understand it . There is a ton of books, blogs, articles, TV shows, and people out there to allow me to understand it, but it would require an effort on my part to take the time to learn it.

As for some biotech's not producing anything, it happens in all fields because discovering new stuff is hard. And expensive. As a society we seem to be willing to put the money in science because it's breakthroughs can improve the lives of the most people. Many non-scientists argue that antiseptics were the greatest discovery for all of humanity after the wheel and fire, all three of which are science.

There is one statement you made that I could not agree more with: "Message/communication is important…" We do need scientific spokespeople to explain things, but we also need societies that have the scientific background to understand it. In America, at least, many students become dismissive of science and math because it is difficult and requires learning and memorizing tenants in order to understand and appreciate it. If you lack those fundamentals, communication is never going to happen because one side has its fingers in its ears.

Really it boils down to: Why do you think science is so different than other fields? Lawyers have jargon. Business people use money for risky things that often don't work because they are new. Government workers often cannot adequately explain their policies. These are all symptoms of specialization, and without it there would be very little progress unfortunately.

]]>