One need not make any extensive surveys of different media to provide evidence for this failure. It is enough to see how sports has managed to gain more coverage in various media over the last few decades vis-a-vis science. One may argue that this is so because there are always some sports events occurring all over the world which naturally draw the attention of media. But contention here is that scientific activity, scientific community and laboratories all over the world can also be turned into what are called ‘media events’ if enough pains are taken by science communicators to achieve this status for science. First and foremost it will require the maximum cooperation of scientists.

For instance, anniversaries of scientists, institutes, organisations and societies, including the World Health Day, etc., can be celebrated; discussions and debates with the concerned scientists organised; and doors of concerned laboratories and organisations thrown open to masses and media.

Be that as it may, intention through this paper is to highlight the essentials and limitations of science popularisation so that there appears a fundamental change in the way of looking at this subject. Hopefully, it will lead to more effective strategies to popularise science among the masses.

Science writing is an art

Science popularisation is mostly done by science- trained persons and professional scientists. It is therefore looked upon more as a scientific activity rather than anything else. But science writing is more of an art rather than a science. It is scientific only in the sense one should have scientific knowledge but all the writing abilities are required to make a good presentation of science. It is due to the present lack of emphasis on the art aspect of science popularisation that this field of activity has suffered to date. Those few scientists or science-trained persons who have consciously or unconsciously known the art of science writing and have practised it, have only been successful in popularising science.

Science is a human activity

The second reason why popular science does not tick with the masses is because it is not projected as a human activity but an activity of scientists who simply believe in the search for truth – and nothing but truth! The human side of science is totally neglected in all popular science presentations. The follies and prejudices of scientists, the emotional life of scientists, the irrational circumstances in which scientific work is often undertaken and discoveries and inventions made, etc., are quite often deliberately not highlighted fearing that it would give bad name to science and scientific research. In short, the human face of science or scientific research is often neglected in popular science presentations. There is therefore a strong need to give science a human face. It would not only mean adding human stories to popular science presentations but also talking about realities in scientific research.

Tip of the iceberg presentation

The third reason why popular science presentations often go wide off the mark and make the audience yawn and go for something else is the inability of science communicators to distinguish between technical report writing and popular science writing, thanks to their scientific training or background. They try to cram into a popular science presentation as much as they know or find out about a subject.

Actually, popular science presentation should be like the tip of the iceberg. It should however make one not only familiar with the tip of the iceberg but also aware of the unseen larger part of the iceberg floating under the water. In other words, it should reveal little about science but enough to make one realise the existence of that science with its entire ramification. It should excite one’s curiosity enough so that one would like to probe further into that science. It should not necessarily tell everything about a science but at the same time it should not miss science.

Some important observations

The author’s experience with popularising science over the years has forced him to arrive at some postulates. They are merely based on experience and intuition. Any research has not been conducted to back them up with facts and figures. In fact, much research is required to prove or disprove them. If in case they are proved, they can easily be called the ‘Laws of Science Popularisation’ because despite the best of our efforts we have not been able to popularise science the way we want among the masses. There must be some hidden laws governing our efforts to popularise science. These postulates are stated as follows:

Postulates of science popularisation

1st : Only those elements of science receive attention in a society, which suit its goals or which inspire awe.

2nd : A science communicator tends to impose his or her limited ideas of science, scientists and scientific research upon the audience.

3rd : The amount of space allotted to science in different media of a country is the index of the quality of life of its average citizen.

4th : The quality of science communication or presentation in a country is directly proportional to the quality of science produced in it.

5th : To popularise science is to humanise science.

One can deduce certain things from these postulates. The first postulate indicates that people at large read science because it serves their purpose or because the subject is topical, sensational or controversial or simply excites their curiosity. A handful only read science for the sake of knowledge per se. Much research is required to identify those subjects so that science could be more effectively popularised. For instance, health science and environment interest people at large, astronomy and space fascinate them, Nobel Laureates, UFOs, etc., are held in awe by them.

The Second postulate is dangerous for science itself. Consciously or unconsciously, the layman imbibes the limited or narrow image of science, scientists and culture of science from the communicator, whether he be Jacob Bronowski or Peter Medawar. Notions such as scientists are mad individuals or scientific research is yet another profession are creations of science communicators. That makes science communicator a very responsible person.

The third and fourth postulates are intuitive relationships between two unrelated things or activities. Further research is needed to prove or disprove these two laws by taking data from different countries. However, one must add here that in India we raise a hullabaloo to increase science coverage in our media at the first available opportunity but it often comes to nothing. Also, while writing a popular science article on a subject one often needs the assistance of a scientist doing research in that very subject. But in India the scientist of the concerned subject is often not available for consultation and as a result our writings lack the necessary quality, verve and colour.

The fifth, the last but not the least important postulate, though obvious, reminds us that we must give science a human face so that masses are not afraid of it. It is the basic aim of science popularisation.

Christmas tree of science popularisation

The aim of drawing the ‘Christmas tree of science popularisation’ is to illustrate the importance of various media that take science to the masses, though every medium has its own significance and a vital role to play in communication. But unless a person climbs up the tree, as his or her interest in science is aroused or increased – in other words, unless one begins to read newspapers, magazines and then books – he or she would not have become fully science literate.

Necessarily, the percentage of people reading books would be very small as the top of a Christmas tree indicates. But it is a must to know this tree because the role of any medium should not be underestimated and every medium should be given equal importance simultaneously. For instance, if a student’s interest in science is aroused by science fair or ‘Jatha’ held in the town, it has to be sustained and maintained by wallpapers, newspapers and even books; otherwise, one’s interest would flag and eventually die. Other supplementing media should be made available to the student in form of public libraries, for instance. So, the Christmas tree of science popularisation needs to be watered and tended carefully to produce a science literate society.

Conclusion

According to the postulates forwarded here there are (as yet unknown) limits to the extent science can be popularised among the masses. It is not possible to have a fully science literate society. Moreover, science communicators need to take into account aforementioned aspects about science popularisation for more effective communication of science to the masses.

ProVFX Visual Effects and Editing School has been written by Pranay Rupani who is a Freelance Writer

Political leaders, tech executives, and academics often claim that the U.S. is falling behind in math and science education. They cite poor test results, declining international rankings, and decreasing enrollment in the hard sciences. They urge us to improve our education system and to graduate more engineers and scientists to keep pace with countries such as India and China.

Yet a new report by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, tells a different story. The report disproves many confident pronouncements about the alleged weaknesses and failures of the U.S. education system. This data will certainly be examined by both sides in the debate over highly skilled workers and immigration. The argument by Microsoft, Google, Intel, and others is that there are not enough tech workers in the U.S.

The authors of the report, the Urban Institute’s Hal Salzman and Georgetown University professor Lindsay Lowell, show that math, science, and reading test scores at the primary and secondary level have increased over the past two decades, and U.S. students are now close to the top of international rankings. Perhaps just as surprising, the report finds that our education system actually produces more science and engineering graduates than the market demands.

These findings go against what has been the dominant position about our education system and our science and engineering workforce. Consider reports on national competitiveness that policymakers often turn to, such reports as the 2005 “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” by the National Academy of Sciences. This report says the U.S. is in dire straits because of poor math and science preparation.

The report points to declining test scores, fewer students taking math and science courses, and low-quality curriculums and teacher preparation in K-12 education compared to other countries.

The call has been taken up by some of the most prominent people in business and politics. Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft, said at an education summit in 2005, “In the international competition to have the biggest and best supply of knowledge workers, America is falling behind.” President George W. Bush addressed the issue in his 2006 State of the Union address. “We need to encourage children to take more math and science, and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations,” he said.

Salzman and Lowell found the reverse was true. Their report shows U.S. student performance has steadily improved over time in math, science, and reading. It also found enrollment in math and science courses is actually up. For example, in 1982 high school graduates earned 2.6 math credits and 2.2 science credits on average.

By 1998, the average number of credits increased to 3.5 math and 3.2 science credits. The percent of students taking chemistry increased from 45% in 1990 to 55% in 1996 and 60% in 2004. Scores in national tests such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the SAT, and the ACT have also shown increases in math scores over the past two decades.

And the new report again went against the grain when it compared the U.S. to other countries. It found that over the past decade the U.S. has ranked a consistent second place in science. It also was far ahead of other nations in reading and literacy and other academic areas. In fact, the report found that the U.S. is one of only a few nations that has consistently shown improvement over time.

Why the sharp discrepancy? Salzman says that reports citing low U.S. international rankings often misinterpret the data. Review of the international rankings, which he says are all based on one of two tests, the Trends in International Mathematics & Science Study (TIMMS) or the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), show the U.S. is in a second-ranked group, not trailing the leading economies of the world as is commonly reported.

In fact, the few countries that place higher than the U.S. are generally small nations, and few of these rank consistently high across all grades, subjects, and years tested. Moreover, he says, serious methodological flaws, such as different test populations, and other limitations preclude drawing any meaningful comparison of school systems between countries.

As far as our workforce is concerned, the new report showed that from 1985 to 2000 about 435,000 U.S. citizens and permanent residents a year graduated with bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in science and engineering. Over the same period, there were about 150,000 jobs added annually to the science and engineering workforce.

These numbers don’t include those retiring or leaving a profession but do indicate the size of the available talent pool. It seems that nearly two-thirds of bachelor’s graduates and about a third of master’s graduates take jobs in fields other than science and engineering.

Michael Teitelbaum, vice-president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which, among other things, works to improve science education, says this research highlights the troubling weaknesses in many conventional policy prescriptions.

Proposals to increase the supply of scientists and engineers rapidly, without any objective evidence of comparably rapid growth in attractive career opportunities for such professionals, might actually be doing harm.

In previous columns, I have written about research my team at Duke University completed that shattered common myths about India and China graduating 12 times as many engineers as the U.S. We found that the U.S. graduated comparable numbers and was far ahead in quality. Our research also showed there were no engineer shortages in the U.S., and companies weren’t going offshore because of any deficiencies in U.S. workers.

So, there isn’t a lack of interest in science and engineering in the U.S., or a deficiency in the supply of engineers. However, there may sometimes be short-term shortages of engineers with specific technical skills in certain industry segments or in various parts of the country.

The National Science Foundation data show that of the students who graduated from 1993 to 2001, 20% of the bachelor’s holders went on to complete master’s degrees in fields other than science and engineering and an additional 45% were working in other fields. Of those who completed master’s degrees, 7% continued their education and 31% were working in fields other than science and engineering.

There isn’t a problem with the capability of U.S. children. Even if there were a deficiency in math and science education, there are so many graduates today that there would be enough who are above average and fully qualified for the relatively small number of science and engineering jobs. Science and engineering graduates just don’t see enough opportunity in these professions to continue further study or to take employment.

With U.S. competitiveness at stake, we need to get our priorities straight. Education is really important, and a well-educated workforce is what will help the U.S. keep its global edge. But emphasizing math and science education over humanities and social sciences may not be the best prescription for the U.S. We need our children to receive a balanced and broad education.

Perhaps we should focus on creating demand for the many scientists and engineers we graduate. There are many problems, from global warming to the development of alternative fuels to cures for infectious diseases, that need to be solved. Rather than blaming our schools, let’s create exciting national programs that motivate our children to help solve these problems.

No country is against the development of science and scientific research.

It has been recognized by everyone that without science there is no development.

Therefore, promotion of scientific research in all area is taken up seriously.

Research both in basic and applied sciences is essential to achieve national and international developments.

In fact, basic science is costly as compared to the applied science.

In a recent article on science for sustainable development published in Current Science (Curr. Sci.) Dr. I. P. Abrol mentioned that low level of funding is frequently cited as one of the major factors for the declining state of science in India.

Not only Dr. Abrol, many other Indian scientists used to tell the same ‘low level funding’ for the poor science in India.

It was the state of affair once, but now the situation is considerable improved.

All branches of science, agriculture, engineering, medicine, veterinary, biotechnology, nanotechnology, information technology do not suffer from ‘low level of funding’ nowadays.

In fact, most of the research institutions are not able to spend the allocated fund for scientific research in time.

Anyway much of the fund goes for salaries, some for the upkeep of the building and other infrastructures and the rest only is used for scientific research.

In the name of research projects funded by various foreign agencies and also the Government of India itself, amounts to over funding sometimes.

I still remember some of the World Bank funded projects in Agricultural Sciences.

Crores of rupees allotted to Agricultural Universities and National Agricultural Research Institutes.

In addition to it large number of projects in the name of National Fellows and Professor of Eminence are also in place.

Plenty of money for science, but no one appears to appreciate these good days of science.

We are certainly well off as far as the funding position for science is concerned.

We all know that the project fund is mostly spent for buying costly equipments which are invariably imported from foreign countries.

These instruments cost lakhs of rupees.

So, there are series of procedures to be followed for buying these equipments.

Tenders are called, opened, compared, placed orders, credited the amount in a bank and finally received the instruments.

Sometimes the scientist who placed order forgets to include a small piece of accessory for operating or maintaining the instrument.

While the instrument is installed, such mistakes are found out and intimated to the scientist by the installing engineers of the Sales Company.

They start thinking about the mistake so late and make a representation to the funding agency to sanction additional amount required for the missed accessory.

It take awful lot of time to get a positive reply, till then the instrument remains as a dead elephant in a corner of the laboratory which are not generally rat-proof and not even air- conditioned.

By that time the sanction for the additional amount reaches, and the accessory bought, the main instrument is damaged by rats which are fond of the pleasant smell of the plastic wires and chips attached within the instrument.

What I describe here may look like a story, but it is really not a fiction, but a fact which is always untold, kept secret and hidden.

Generally, no one question our scientists because they are in a higher scale of pay and position enjoying the perquisites offered by the government.

By that time, the senior scientist either retires or gets transferred to another institute.

The poor equipment becomes an orphan and no one takes care of it in that non-working condition.

Thus the fund for science is wasted once for all.

These dreams are known to the administrative officers and the comptrollers.

They try to underestimate the credibility of the scientists.

But that is generally taken as professional jealousy.

Anyway this is one side of the whole affair.

In the other side, the allotted fund is not properly released to the scientist to spend for his project unless and until he meets the administrative rules for buying the equipment.

If the Director or the administrative officer does not like a particular scientist, then the story becomes very serious.

Thus the fund is not spent within the stipulated time of the famous March end.

Knowing such difficulties scientists try to spend the allotted fund urgently by placing orders for easily available items such as steel almyrahs, fans, air-conditioners, refrigerators, plastic chairs, hot plates, room heaters, computers etc., etc.,

When I was a student and later a staff I could see truck loads of steel almyrahs, book cases, and refrigerators unloaded in science departments towards the end of March every year.

It looked very strange to me, but later on I could understand the circumstances under which they are bought.

Funding science is done by every government every year.

Who looks into the spending aspects of the funds?

Also who looks into the scientific research results due to such levels of funding?

The spending aspect is always looked into by the auditors checking the bills, dates and the correctness of spending according to the government audit rules.

The scientific research based on the funding and the equipments are not strictly monitored, although it is said that there are many committees established for this sake.

The outcome of scientific findings should have a direct bearing on the fund spent and the scientific instruments used.

But invariably most of the scientific research ends up in reports and publications either in Indian journals or in few so called international journals which are very rarely read by other scientists.

Sustainable science activity is desired by retired scientists, but I doubt that is possible to achieve.

Most of the scientific researchers are fed up over time and their thinking is outmoded.

They started with a sharp thinking in handling problems basic or applied, but over time their thinking lose the sharpness.

If you talk to any senior or junior scientists today, they spend more time in discussing their administrative difficulties rather than their scientific output.

Even if they talk about their outputs which will be a repetitive work or some one’s results confirmed.

These are facts every one of us – scientists – fully know.

Some of these facts are fashionably written in Curr. Sci. published by Indian Academy of Sciences.

When I read those comments, I feel very sad because this journal is found in libraries of almost all Universities of the world and also in the net free of cost.

The publishers of Curr. Sci. escapes cleverly saying that all articles published in Curr. Sci. especially editorials, opinions and commentaries, letters and book reviews are deemed to reflect the individual views of the authors and not the official points of view, either of the Current Science Association or of the Indian Academy Sciences.

Those who read Curr. Sci. journal knows very well the views of various scientists expressed in the ‘Correspondence’ section.

Exposing the setbacks in scientific world of India is a welcome step, but I do not know by doing so how many are rectified so far?

All the setbacks expressed make good reading, sometimes they are funny too.

The contents of the Correspondence section continue to be the same setbacks for the past decades and I hope it may be for the future decades too.

In a country like India, science and scientific research are not treated the way they have to be treated.

They are in the hands of the auditors who are not scientists but they count the money not the outcome of science.

In their eyes, whether one is scientist, business man or anybody – all are thieves.

Their job is only to find out the mistakes committed in spending the fund.

They do not know some of those mistakes are to be committed to carry out scientific research.

But who has to change the Government Secretariat administration which is still the same inherited from the British?

A new administration is absolutely needed for scientific institutions for better utilization of fund.

Indian science will remain with the same setbacks of the past decades forever if we follow the same set of account rules.

I feel it is an urgent matter the science administrators of Government of India have to look into seriously for the benefit of science in India.