"The chalk-dusted fringes"

[Technomancer]

This has been an question tumbling around in my head for a while now, but I was reminded of it by Chris Mooney's recent "Media Matters" article (found here), in which he quotes one of ABC's journalists describing science as occupying "the chalk-dusted fringes of American culture". I think, to a great extent, this sentiment is correct. What interests me is how might that be changed (if it should be)? How can the public become more interested in and excited by science, than by say Britney Spears?

[Doubleshadow]

I have to agree that science is largely marginalized in popular culture. It's seen as the unglamorous domain of awkward, socially inept nerds, and this can be partially attributed to the portrayal of scientists in movies and the media. The stereotypical unattractive, unappealing, scientist is the reliable foil to the polished hero, and by the time kids are old enough to realize that Hollywood lies, it's already embedded in their mind that science is something to be avoided. It doesn't help that the media seems to pick the most awkward scientist they can find to explain things, feeding into peoples preoncieved notions so they have someone to look down on to feel better about themselves.
Scientists who defy these stereotypes need to be seen in the media often enough to undermine the accepted perceptions so that science is seen as something to engage, not avoid. They're plenty of charismatic scientist who are excellent speakers, who clean up quite nicely and would be both nice to look at and nice to listen to. Even if people are not able to understand everything about what the scientist says, they'll find the speaker more accessible.
As an example, here is Brian Cox (the "rock star physicist") discussing the LHC. As a trained speaker, I saw this set up and the quality of the speaker and thought this was a perfect example of PR for the masses. Bravo!

TED

[Technomancer]

I have to agree that science is largely marginalized in popular culture. It's seen as the unglamorous domain of awkward, socially inept nerds, and this can be partially attributed to the portrayal of scientists in movies and the media. The stereotypical unattractive, unappealing, scientist is the reliable foil to the polished hero, and by the time kids are old enough to realize that Hollywood lies, it's already embedded in their mind that science is something to be avoided.

I think that has a lot to do with it, but the schools could try to combat this a bit more. A greater degree of enthusiasm (or knowledge) from the teachers would go a long way. A greater sense of the coolness and fascination of what is being done needs to be inculcated, and I'm not sure how that would best be done.

It doesn't help that the media seems to pick the most awkward scientist they can find to explain things, feeding into peoples preoncieved notions so they have someone to look down on to feel better about themselves.

All to true, in both ways. Most of us doing scientific work don't get a lot of training or practice in being comfortable in front of a camera, and are likely to come off at least as a little awkward no matter how well we might do in front of our peers. Of course, there are also those people who just stink at public speaking regardless of how expert they are in their field.

Scientists who defy these stereotypes need to be seen in the media often enough to undermine the accepted perceptions so that science is seen as something to engage, not avoid. They're plenty of charismatic scientist who are excellent speakers, who clean up quite nicely and would be both nice to look at and nice to listen to.

There are a few of those guys (not having heard Cox speak, I might have gone with Brian Greene as an example), although part of the problem is getting them away from their own research. A scientist who becomes a public figure is often at risk of sacrificing his own research (or being accused of doing so). Anyways, it's cool to know you're also a fan of the TedTalks

[Peanut]

Science, at least in Maryland, is also getting nerfed slightly in schools. For instance, I know that because of the HSA 9th grade Biology isn't actually Biology anymore...it's more like an advanced version of middle school science with a more focused look at Biology. It wasn't until I took AP Biology my Senior year that I actually took real Biology...and that's kind of sad honestly. I also know that this change in subject matter is really really bothering my 9th grade Bio teacher who is actually a good teacher and, despite the HSA, tried his best to teach the class the way it should be taught. He's also getting up there in years so I wouldn't be surprised if this plus his age will lead to him retiring (which would be a shame really...).

I think that has a lot to do with it, but the schools could try to combat this a bit more. A greater degree of enthusiasm (or knowledge) from the teachers would go a long way. A greater sense of the coolness and fascination of what is being done needs to be inculcated, and I'm not sure how that would best be done.

This would help however it probably won't happen, there are just certain areas and schools that aren't going to get a large number of teachers who can actually teach for various reasons (one of which is pay). And it honestly only takes one bad year of teaching to turn a kid off to a subject, for instance I had a horrible French teacher my freshmen year of high school and now I have no interest in trying to learn French...at all.

[Technomancer]

It wasn't until I took AP Biology my Senior year that I actually took real Biology...and that's kind of sad honestly. I also know that this change in subject matter is really really bothering my 9th grade Bio teacher who is actually a good teacher and, despite the HSA, tried his best to teach the class the way it should be taught.

I have to admit that for myself after an unpleasent high school experience, I only became more interested in biology when I was better able to appreciate its wider theoretical context. It's a shame though since for younger children, this is at least one field of science that can be much more engaging because of its "hands-on" nature. One can for example, see how it plays out in a stream, or even a drop of water, or talk about life's history through fossils. A lot of other concepts can be brought in using biology as well. Hell, even the nature shows can be very interesting.

[Syreth]

Bolstering funds for the pay of public school teachers would probably help. Since teachers aren't paid enough, there's not enough incentive for people to be competitive about being good teachers.

It also might come from the fact that many people don't care to learn much outside of their personal areas of interest. If someone's life goal is to become an artist, will they be likely to care that much about biology? In some ways, I tend to think that a high degree of specialization is a good thing.

But I don't think that disinterest in science can be explained simply by that. I think that a disinterest in science reflects a greater disinterest in learning. Because really, when it comes down to it, all you have to do to succeed in school is pass the test.