How to be kool
Martin Robbins alerts us to a new exciting red-hot totally hip yeeha thing where scientists get their pitchas taken with rappers and everybody suddenly understands how rad science is.
So here we are again, witnessing the isochronal cavalcade of embarrassment that is GQ’s annual ‘Rock Stars of Science‘ feature. Like a puppy trying to hump a leg, the idea is simple, and probably a bit wrong.
The concept arises from the tedious modern worship of even the most minor celebrities, paired with the idea that standing next to somebody cool can make you cool – a hypothesis comprehensively debunked by Tony Blair in 1997. From that, GQ extrapolate that making scientists pose awkwardly in the background of photos of rock stars, like morons in the background of a news report, is a great way to promote science and scientists.
You have to click on it and look at his pictures, which I can’t be bothered to steal and put here, but you need to see them to get the full hilarity.
His real point though is that it’s bullshit. Science really is exciting, and it’s not because scientists can stand in the same frame as a rapper.
I still can’t help but feel that if you have to resort to rockstars make science cool, you’re really not very good at communicating science. Because science is way cooler than rock stars. And if you still don’t believe me, here’s a picture of the Sun. Taken at night. Through the Earth.
I do believe him.
Sunday’s Times (London) Culture section had a big thing about young scientists in Britain and how there is no brain drain, really there isn’t. And they illustrated it with these weird photos of the profiled scientists, in which they’d made the heads over-sized and then put them back on the bodies, because they’re SCIENTISTS — geddit?? Geddit?? They’ve got these big BRAINS, right? Geddit? Bleah. I think it’s because we don’t teach science adequately to everyone, so that non-scientists think scientists are a different species.
Who in their right mind would think this would be a good idea to promote science? Oh wait, I see who. Never mind.
I know one of those doctors! And, yes, he’s way cooler than the no-name “star” posing in front of him.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: How to be kool http://dlvr.it/96lL8 […]
It’s very…sad.
It didn’t surprise me at all to see Mooney cheering it. He seems easily impressed by celebrity and influence, and always pining for people to admire. That’s sad, too.
And of course there is no science but medical science.
It’s kind of sad and pathetic that someone who styles himself as The Great Communicator of Science resorts to this mickey-mouse ad campaign, and then claims that he doesn’t have to show it works. Is that scientific?
No, but it’s totally framic.
Eww. I had gone for months without looking at the Intersocktion and was doing just fine. Now I feel all icky inside. Pardon me while I go wash my neurons.
@9 Hamilton:
I have the same icky feeling. Wow, we are so not helping.
Yeah, you could be. Sorry to disagree with y’all, but I don’t have a problem with this at all. Actually, I think it’s kind of cool, like J. Craig on the Sorcerer II. Do you honestly think that promotion degrades scientists? Read your history. Louis Pasteur was a celebrity. Nancy Wexler is a celebrity. This is how we get things done. Sneer at it if you wish.
I can’t say it bothers me. I mean, yeah, it’s pathetic that this is where American culture is, but that’s the cause of these kind of things rather than an effect. My beef was more with execution; they couldn’t get cooler musicians than Joe Perry and Will.I.Am.? I can appreciate things of which I’m not necessiarily the target audience. In a country where science is disliked and distrusted to some extent or anoher by most people, campaigns like this may be a good idea even if they’re a little bit ridiculous, and I agree that they probably are.
There is a difference between scientists being celebrities in their own right (eg Hawking on Star Trek), as opposed to this condescending attempt to “lend” scientists some of the social currency of the rappers, for whom this is really just another opportunity to get noticed by the public (with the added advantage that they get to feel smug at the same time)
Typical Mooney – not getting it while complaining that everyone else doesn’t get it. (Yes, I clicked on his link against my better judgement). Seriously, Mooney thinks you need to be a paid up ‘elitist’ ™ to find those pictures silly. And since when has GQ suddenly become the the Tea Party’s style bible.
Sorry Chris, this is just another PSA gone wrong. It’s only a matter of time before it turns up in a snarky Cracked.com list.
Do you honestly think this kind of product placement “brings science to the masses?” If you do, you’re sadly wrong. You know what interests people in science? Engaging, brilliant people, who are also lucky enough to have a talent for conveying their passion in words. Dawkins, Coyne, Brian Greene, Dennett, Sean(s) Carroll.
Bugger off. It is not. If this kind of celebrity-focused ad campaign had a measurable impact on public interest in science or its method, I’d concede. But I don’t see how it could. It’s not hurting, to be sure, but it has nowhere near the efficacy of a well-written best-seller, such as Unweaving the Rainbow, Why Evolution is True, or Breaking the Spell.
I love Debby Harry, but I’m not fooling myself into believing that seeing her on a poster with “scientists” is going to “wake up” a generation.
Please.
A good indicator that “Rock Stars of Science” wouldn’t work and doesn’t work, for me at least: Dr. Mehmet Oz is included, and Brian May, Ph.D (significant rock guitarist and recent Ph.D recipient in astrophysics) isn’t included, either because the dolts who thought this up did not think to ask him, or Dr. May said “no thanks.”
On a positive note, it’s given me an idea for a new addition to the sneer review gallery – I’ll post a link when it’s done.
Rock Stars of Accomodationism.
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2010/11/rockstars-of-accomodationism.html
I enjoy a scientist appearing on “Simpsons” or “Big Bang”. Or thos funney Intel ‘rock star’ ads. It’s playful, and fun.
This though, is really stupid and like you say, completely counterproductive. It says nothing at all about science other than ‘scientists can pretend to be cool when being posers’
My beef goes further though, to what is become ‘public science education’. There has been so much emphasis over the years on selling science to children, that the typical science exhibit is tragically dumbed down. Almost aways when a new exhibit hits a local museum (even our ‘science center’) it’s really primarily a kid’s show. No real substance, just a lot of flashy, techy, presentation graphics. I don’t even bother to go, because there really is little to learn there.
I’m of 2 minds about ‘public science education’. Granted, there is often not a lot of substance to museum/science centre public events, but the target audience is not supposed to be those who already have a good grasp of science and think it’s fun and interesting to read science books (and science blogs). If it is important for more members of the general public to have a basic grasp of science, then there is nothing wrong with using exciting presentations with flashy graphics to get the point across. For those who want to explore further, these days there are lots of books and videos available, and for those with local universities, there are often university-sponsored events and presentations which are usually open to the public (the challenge is finding out about them, as they are not generally widely publicized.)
I don’t think science has an image problem, but I do think rock stars and rappers have an image problem. I remember when sportswear was highly unfashionable, and as far as I’m concerned it still is. But market forces are good at telling us what is fashionable, especially if you link it to someone you look up to. Want to sell grills? Then link it to George Foreman.
No, rappers and rock stars are not cool to me, I’m not falling for market forces and advertising. When I buy stuff, it’s for practical reasons. But of course, I’m not cool at all, and I don’t care. I’m not an angsty teen any more, I am happy with my squareness.
The real role models when I was a kid were people like David Attenborough, Carl Sagan, Magnus Pyke, Johnny Ball, David Bellamy, and all sorts of rather nerdy square eccentric scientists and educators, that were intelligent. Image is not the problem, substance is the problem. I want educators to push substance and not image. Don’t turn off the brain of the young but make them think, make them actually work at knowing stuff and don’t fall for marketing hype which is NOT education.
[…] Butterflies and Wheels discusses the same […]
Next on the agenda reality tv. I’m a scientist get me out of here!
Sigmund: “Rock Stars of Accomodationism” is hilarious! Total lolz! And all of this has reminded me of another example of your lolzy genius :)
Ya Sigmund is the resident monarch of hilariosity. Furthermore…he is (like Dr Science) in science – so he’s as kool as it gets.
The Rock Stars of Accommodationsism should put on a benefit concert. They could call it You’re Totally Helping! (All proceeds go to The “Tom Johnson” Scholarship Fund.)
Ken, I didn’t say promotion degrades scientists, and I don’t think it does. My quarrel is with the claim that the GQ thing will promote science. I just see zero reason to think it will. Why would it? How could it? It’s not even like seeing pictures of sexy laughing people on the beach drinking Coke or smoking Marlboros – it’s just pictures of rappers with some random guys standing in the background. Is anybody going to look at those pictures and think “Wow, science turns out to be way cool!”?
Consider WEIT, Pharyngula, Cosmic Variance, The Loom, Respectful Insolence, Bad Science, Evolution Blog, to name just a few. Those all promote science, along with doing other things. I think that’s terrific. I have no quarrel with promotion whatsoever; on the contrary, I think it’s a good thing. I just think it should be good promotion.
Physicist Brian Cox, formerly of Irish band D:Ream, has inherited Carl Sagan’s ability to communicate the sheer awe a scientist feels towards the universe.
Anybody who thinks scientists lack a sense of the numinous should look into his eyes.
[…] And since I’m revisiting things, I’ll revisit another one: the make science look cool by putting random guys in photos with rappers thing. […]
And why not? Other than occasional programs specifically targeted to kids, art exhibits, history exhibits, programs about current events, politics, music, or home repair are, even if targeted to newcomers, built on an adult level. And they’re attended largely by adults with occasional children rather than school teachers with hordes of little charges.
I’m not so sure this is helping. It’s not the flash that is the problem, but the fact that the demonstrations are plainly targeted at a grade school audience. Too much of the ‘science is fun’ thing, not just that the audience may not be sophisticated. The quiet, unintentional, message is that learning science (and by science we seem to mean cute little demo experiments) is a children’s pastime. If you want learn more, there is usually nothing much there. I just don’t go to these things anymore.
I’m not saying that the kid-centric programmes are the only things that museums and science centres should be doing, but they do have their place, and help pay the bills. There is certainly more substance available for those who are interested – eg Cafe Scientifique (http://www.cafescientifique.ca/ in Canada, or http://www.newscientist.com/art/info?id=in48 for other countries), or check out meetup.com for topics of specific interest in your area. Also, CFI groups often host speakers on scientific topics.