Passionate N00bity

I was somewhat disappointed when I first started attending non-class seminars for my projects in the lab and my interests to find that there wasn't much rambunctious cheering or passionate cheering. Sure, everyone is very polite and asks Very Intelligent Questions and I understand that much of this is due to an inherent respect for the speaker's effort in gathering and interpreting their data and an abstract need for civility. However, if we're doing science because we love the intellectual challenge, why don't we get more worked up about it and express that excitement? I know that science is not the same thing as sports, but why can we not get up the same passionate lather as sports fans in our arenas of data and theoretical abstraction?

Part of this is due to my dream of one day delivering a data talk in the form of a power ballad, but it's also due to confusion as to when I may break down the barrier of formality and ask a douchey question within the cloak of excited admiration? I recently saw a speaker present some really awesome new biotechnology she had developed in the course of her project and its applications. The tangibility of the data (real-time fluorescent tracking of cells in a living matrice by 2-photon microscopy; which basically meant actually seeing immunotyped immune cells crawling around and interacting with each other) was surreal and exhilarating, but when she talked about her methodologies I was left wanting. I don't want to out the speaker, so I cannot say exactly what my beef was, but it had to do with the algorithms by which she chose to quantify her data. I refrained from asking this question in the Q&A session because of the very civility I mention above, it just seemed like too rude a question to ask in such a polite intellectual subculture as an academic presentation. Of course, on the other hand, there was also the possibility that my question would have revealed my ignorant n00bity, and to be honest that also played a part in me not asking.

Nonetheless, when can we whup it up and get excited about the science all around us? Can I ever high-five or fist-bump a speaker when they've shown me something awesome or would doing so break down this fifth wall academic politeness has surrounded us with?

In Defense of Cliches

Bora Zivkovic of A Blog Around the Clock and Ed Yong of Not Exactly Rocket Science alerted me via Twitter to an article in Wired Science by Betsy Mason entitled "5 Atrocious Science Cliches to Throw Down a Black Hole". In short, the article claims that "Holy Grail", "Silver Bullet", "Shedding Light", "Missing Link", and "Paradigm Shift" are overplayed, tired terms that should be banned from scientific reportage.

Betsy Mason is wrong.

We need cliches. We depend upon cliches, and cliches are quite useful in the proper context. While it may be true that the above terms do get thrown about quite a bit, they're still quite useful. Science journalism is already a convoluted field that must continually walk the line between being too esoteric for its mainstream, non-scientist audience and maintaining proper accuracy to satisfy its scientific constituents, which keeps information flowing. Banning the use of any widely understood vehicles for explanation just raises the barrier to effective communication between science and the public. And when we, as a scientific community, have already made it clear that we're not usually pleased by the transmission of our findings to the public through the prism of science journalism, do we really need to throw in even more barriers?

This article indulges in a great deal of unfortunate professional myopia. From the perspective of a scientist, calling research, such as active in vivo RNAi therapy, the Holy Grail of cancer research will seem inaccurate given the breadth of other therapies being developed to combat cancer. It may be more accurate to place RNAi therapy in the context of all the other therapies, from advanced laser ablation at the level of individual cells to cytolethal fusion proteins, but with this accuracy comes a great sacrifice in public comprehensibility. Science is detailed, science is convoluted, and science is very nuanced. But unless we're willing to write and peer-review multi-chapter articles for the popular press, if those outlets would even carry the required tomes, we must tell a complex story simply and linearly in order for anyone but the most educated and avidly interested members of the public to understand it. Using widely understood cliches as vehicles to convey that comprehension is not just necessary, it's laudable.

I do not mean to impugn the intelligence of the general population. Perhaps naively, I still believe that the public is usually smarter than we give them credit for. But at the same time, scientific communication is a form of technical communication with clearly defined words and standards. We use "attenuated", "potentiated", "significantly", "stochastically", "sufficient", and "necessary" in very specific ways that don't necessarily* translate into normal, everyday public usage. We can't well use these standards to communicate effectively to the public, instead we must speak to the public on the public's terms, which by and large will involve either sports analogies or cliches. The above maligned cliches are here to stay, and they remain quite useful. If they continue to help convey broad understanding of scientific concepts, then I will continue to welcome them and their use.

*Like that.

UPDATE (tweets):
[@ToasterSunshine] @BoraZ @edyong209 | In defense of the "5 atrocious science cliches": http://bit.ly/15vgZL | Must speak to the public on the public's terms.

edyong209@ToasterSunshine You present false choice between cliches and jargon. Entirely possible to write lay-friendly copy w/o cliches.
edyong209@ToasterSunshine Or at the very least, without seriously misleading cliches.

ToasterSunshine@edyong209 Yes, sometimes cliches may be overused/misleading. But to call for a ban takes tools away from communicating scientists.
ToasterSunshine@edyong209 Scientists get jargon + don't need cliches or analogous metaphors as vehicles for understanding research. Public probably does.

edyong209@ToasterSunshine If tools are crap, they won't be missed. Good writers/communicators ought not to rely on cliches *anyway*.
edyong209@ToasterSunshine Neither article nor I calling for end to analogy/metaphor but end to MISLEADING ones.
edyong209@ToasterSunshine Again, I think you're presenting false choice between jargon and cliches. Metaphors are good but we can do better.

betsymason@toastersunshine I don't advocate a ban on metaphors for science, just the most overused, hyperbolic & annoying cliches. We can do better.

ToasterSunshine@edyong209 @betsymason I don't dispute that "paradigm shift" is overplayed. I do stand firmly against anything that attenuates science comm.

edyong209@ToasterSunshine Not attenuation. Sci-com benefits if misleading terms are lost, writers forced to think creatively. Atten'g BAD comm= good.

ToasterSunshine@edyong209 Agreed less bad comm good, but cliches not always misleading/bad. Cliches often help capture interest and sustain story reading.
ToasterSunshine@edyong209 See rec Herceptin research: "Herceptin magic bullet against breast cancer stem cells" vs. "Herceptin inhibits even HER2- tumors".
ToasterSunshine@edyong209 HER2 = jargon, but HER2 also absolute key to story. Accurate inclusion in headline turns general audience away. Need interest.

More Percolationy Mind Blather

1) I find myself increasingly tempted to place bumper stickers reading "CAREFUL: MORON DRIVING!" on large SUVs parked in 2 or more spots in parking lots. If you can't competently handle your vehicle, you shouldn't be driving it.

2) I am coming to peace with the joggers on my walking route home. Or maybe they've learned and have been running more heavily so that I hear them over traffic. I still, however, favor mandatory jingly bells.

3) I wonder if I should actually start dressing like a tech. Most of the other techs wear jeans and T-shirts. I wear Dickies pants, a dress shirt tucked in, a belt, and Converse sneakers. I recently found out that many people in the department thought I was a post-doc. I hadn't thought I'd yet acquired that stench of quiet desperation and soullessness.

4) Something that smells worse than 2-betamercapthenol actually exists. A 3-day old plate of Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron smells absolutely terrible, the kind of reek that makes you want to scrub your eyeballs out with lye and burn your clothes. Also, my boss doesn't seem to even so much as notice the smell.

5) Today I had sprayed down a bench with 70% ethanol and had an open flame nearby. The undergrad asked why I didn't just set it on fire. Naturally, I thought to myself, "Why don't I just set it on fire?" So I did*. Pretty blue flames!

6) At what level of autonomy do robots ascend to androids?

7) My dog has a visceral and deep-rooted hatred of the vacuum cleaner, to the point where she will literally try to attack it. She is in battle mode as soon as it comes out of the pantry, and she doesn't understand why when I'm trying to get her to let go of the hose. Maybe she and the vacuum cleaner could become friends if I rubbed bacon on it?

8) I've been increasingly tempted to drink more often so that I can force myself to fall asleep earlier, because otherwise sleep doesn't ever really seem to kick in until ~2am. This becomes a problem when I've got morning experiments scheduled.

9) I am deeply appalled by the horrific quality of childrens' science programming on TV. Johnny Test and Grossology, with some rare re-runs of Jimmy Neutron, are all that's out there. I mean, Discovery Kids also has Boneheads about paleontologists, but that just seems far too narrow. I've made claims along these lines before, but I have been paying closer attention to the programming schedule since. I've yet to find any refuting evidence.

10) I should really stop bobbing my head to the music while riding the bus. The busses here don't play music and I don't use headphones/earbuds.

11) I tried counting out a kilometer the other day recently, just to see, but quickly found out that my attention span is only 0.5km long. At least I got halfway there. It should be noted, however, that this was done mostly on campus, so there wasn't much to look at to distract me.

*Not the first time I have done this, nor the largest amount of ethanol, but likely the largest surface area.