Customer Reviews

Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I suppose this disclaimer will have all the impact of one of those "Some of my best friends are..." statements, but I want it known that I really like Randy Olson. I think "Flock of Dodos" is a great documentary, and it would be hard indeed not to like Olson personally. He really does have a flair for film communication, and in that fairly narrow realm has something worth saying and consequently worth listening to.

But this book is too autobiographical--to the point where some sections should have started "Dear Diary"--to be of much practical use to scientists looking for clues how to communicate better. For those handful of scientists actually interested in filmmaking, sure, this is absolutely a must-have book. But for the lab denizen looking for ways to maybe spice up that presentation a little, there are tips and key principles presented in "Such," but perhaps not enought to provide enough help. I would recommend a more general book on how to create a memorable presentation if that's what's being sought.

As a critique of science's pitiful position vis a vis inspiring, motivating, and educating the public, "Such" probably has more value.

And let me add that apart from what I took to be an overabundance of sentences that began with "And," "But," and "Well," the writing of the book, the actual prose, is a paradigm of what Olson is trying to promote: A style wed to substance that helps pull an audience along with humor and stories and a refreshing nontechnical approach. Much as I liked that sort of element in the book, I closed it thinking there is still a need for another book, perhaps from a medium other than film, to provide additional perspective. One of the best living science communicators (probably because he is not a scientist who learned how to communicate but a communicator exceedingly adept with science) is Carl Zimmer. I would love to see a book by Zimmer on how he manages to make so much science compelling and understandable to his audiences, which include, for example, the New York Times.

I also wonder if Olson didn't perhaps write this book a bit too early. The need is now, I get that, and perhaps it was the urgency of the times, in which science illiteracy really does threaten humanity's future, that prompted Olson to rush this work a little. But with only two feature movies under his belt, and really only one that is widely known, could it be too early for him to be writing a book of this sort? Olson seems to circle back to a limited number of circumstances (I understand that his experience with an acting teaching was transformative, but grew a little weary of references to even this pivotal event) a few too many times. An ability to draw a greater breadth of experiences might have served the work well.

On the other hand, Olson DOES make excellent use of historical anecdotes and fascinating examples suggested by research to flesh out the prose, and the single greatest selling point of everything Olson puts his hand to, seemingly, is passion. A little passion can help us get over the hill if other things are lacking, and Olson brings so much passion to this book that we fairly fly, like a chase scene set in San Francisco. I just wish, with all that, the car had been packed a little more carefully for the trip.

There are people in science who know what they're talking about. And there are people in the realm of science who make a greater impact on the general population. Often, these are not the same people, and Randy Olson takes us on his quest to figure out "why?". Why won't people listen to scientists who know what they're talking about? They've spent their whole lives focusing on their field of expertise. Why do their real-life adventures and thrilling discoveries go unnoticed by the general public? It is a common obstacle that I share with my peers in scientific fields who have a drive to use their knowledge to make a difference in the world. Can you imagine how discouraging it is when our thoughts and stories about our life's work are met with yawns and glazed eyes?

This book picks the issue apart scientifically, but (thankfully) is not written scientifically. I find scientific writing to be dense and, well, a little difficult to read (making me sleepy and blurring my vision a little). Olson practices what he preaches and presents his rather strong argument through compelling anecdotes and current examples that are common knowledge. His conversational writing style is a pleasure to read, and this is a must-read for all seasoned and aspiring scientists.

I am a professor at a research university and I care deeply about communicating science to the public. I am grateful to the author for writing a book on this important topic. The book does contain a few useful insights on what not to do. However, I feel that the useful part of the message could be condensed into a three- to five-page memo. A lot of the material deals with why the author thinks he is funny or innovative or right, why he thinks his work is under-appreciated, or why he thinks his personal history is relevant. All of the navel-gazing really distracts from the message. This is unfortunate, considering that this is a book on communication. I would recommend reading the three- to five-page memo to my fellow scientists, but I would hesitate recommending reading the book.

Over the course of the last half century, the teaching ability of professors at Universities has declined to a point that when a student actually gets a good teacher as a professor, it is an unexpected surprise. Those of us that have worked in the university research environment know the focus of most professors is their research, while the education of the student is an unfortunate but necessary requirement that allows one to continue his/her research. Scientists have forgotten that they actually are at universities for two reasons: 1. Teach students (and public), 2. Perform research. It is sad reality of the current university system that the first reason is often forgotten.

This book is a long overdue shock to the complacent college educational environment, and a must read for young scientists studying any curriculum. Randy Olson has combined his experience as a PhD professor of biology, training from USC Film School, and experience as a movie/mockumentary director to write a book that outlines a list of guidelines (not steps or rules) for scientists to use in order to make their work better understood to the masses. As Mr. Olson intimates and this reviewer would agree, what is the purpose of studying science to further the knowledge of man, if the scientist is the only one that understands the usefulness of their work?

It is the opinion of this reviewer that scientists have a moral obligation to become good communicators. Randy does a great job of outlining guidelines to better ones self as a communicator. These guidelines (chapters) include: Don't be so cerebral, Don't be so literal minded, Don't be such a poor story teller, Don't be so unlikeable, Be the voice of science. I would also add "Don't be afraid". Though not a chapter, Randy addresses this idea throughout. After all, how does one gain wisdom? Through experience and failure. I believe it was Homer Simpson that suggested "You will never fail if you never try, so don't try!"

This is not a step by step manual on how to do this, then do this, then do this, and you will be a great orator of science. As Randy states, if this type of list is what you are looking for, look elsewhere. It is a guide on what to consider when communicating science to the masses, with suggestions on training to become a better communicator. His suggestions range from something as simple as always practice and prepare your talks (which so many scientists forget to do), to take a course in improve theater! The book encourages each person to reflect on their own strengths, embrace them, and become a good communicator in their own way, not to copy others and try to fake it. Not everyone can be a great teacher, but we can all be better.

When first reading this book I was interested, and as I moved forward, I became enthralled about the contents, lecturing my wife on a daily basis about the contents within. I began using a highlighter and taking notes, many, many pages worth of notes that I can use to improve my skills as a teacher/communicator (and for what it's worth, I believe I am already a very good communicator of science to the public). Randy's use of personal experience to get points across will make you think about experiences in education in your own life, from great, to good, to bad and to horrible. It will help you to use your experiences to become a better communicator. In writing a book about his experiences, he pushes you to learn about you. The book is about your betterment after all.

I would suggest the reader not gorge themselves, but read the book slowly over the course of a few weeks. There is a lot of meat in the text that needs some time to digest, and sometimes, requires a reread. In a dream scenario, a weekly study group would be a fantastic way to discuss many of the books critical ideas. If young scientists in all disciplines could all read this book in their undergraduate or graduate work, I have no doubt it would make each one reflect on themselves, their abilities and become a better teacher. It also might not be a bad idea for some of the young scientists to give this book as a gift to some of the older ones. It's never too late to learn!

Olson's "Don't be SUCH a Scientist" was written by a man who practices what he preaches. This scientist-turned-Hollywood producer generously invites us to follow his unorthodox journey from a tenured Harvard professor to a film producer of, shock!, science-themed films. His self-deprecation is charming and his myriad of first-person accounts, impressive; but it's the clear, consistent, delivery of his common sense message that earned this book a five star review. If scientists want to connect with the public--and they ought to considering, just for starters, the public funds 50% of the basic research in the U.S. through our tax dollars--they can do so very effectively if they are willing to, well, shake old institutional habits and learn some new tricks.

What makes a great communicator? Think of the most dynamic friend you have. He/She is probably a darn good story-teller. Passionate, articulate, likable. No matter what topic this person is talking about, it's compelling. These skills happen to be innate to some people; though, in my opinion, scientists seem to suppress them (enthusiasm = un evolved dummy). As a result, authentic, effective communication between the public and scientists is rare.

Enter Olson with his original, practical and always respectful How To primer. From how to be likable (and why that's important) to how to translate a complex scientific topic into a stimulating, even emotional, message. Sprinkled between are anecdotes and data but the author follows his own advice and keeps his message entertaining, engaging and brief. (I read this book cover to cover during a two hour hour train ride.)

In addition to reading the book, I recommend the reader also view two particular Olson films: Flock of Dodos, in which he gives viewers an up close and personal view of the drama, law and science entangled in the national debate over Evolution vs. Intelligent Design in schools; and, Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy which is too rich for words but it will explain why only Olson is qualified to write this book for and about, scientists.

One final note, while this book is focused largely on how scientists can improve their communication skills, one could substitute the word scientists with "Economists" or "Lawyers" or any other field in which practitioners seek to engage the public's attention.

I've worked in "the media", (radio and television) and I feel anyone interested in current events should give this book a read.

The title implies it's meant for scientist but the casual, conversational tone is easy to read for a layman. The message is deep but written in a way that makes it simple to grasp and comprehend. I found myself smiling quite often at the author's take on a wide variety of subjects.

Today, we're all inundated with news about the environment, healthcare, finance, etc. and that can leave us confused and bewildered. This book will help you understand why some of the folks with big intellects tend to make the "hard" seem "impossible"- without meaning too.

The "experts" our media trots out for us often know what they are talking about but we don't always understand what they are talking about. This book addresses that gap of understanding and helps you understand how to hear what they mean, which is not always what come out of their mouths.

If your an average citizen and have to visit with a doctor, lawyer or other person of high intellect/education, you might benefit from a better understanding of the way they think and communicate. He makes it clear their education and environment makes talking to "us" harder than it should be. Now I understand why.

The authors reveals a good story of his own, too. This book is hardly a Hollywood "tell all" but the author does a nice job of sprinkling in some personal brushes with the rich and famous. He balances that with a taste of the cerebral and mundane in a way that made me appreciate the conflict between the left brain and right brain thinking.

Scientists can be lousy communicators. As a scientist, this is not news to me. The welcome news is that there are well-worn strategies from other disciplines for how to do a better job, and Randy Olson has outlined them in his primer for those in need of better communication skills. Some scientists and science communicators may not welcome the entire critique contained in the book, feeling that they are already effective. Olson's own experiences would seem to suggest that effective communicators are few and far between. Most scientists will find the advice hard to swallow, but I think that reaction only makes the argument more compelling.

The title is particularly apt; I had to remind myself not to be such a scientist even while evaluating the book. I wasn't offended at the advice, but the main thesis seemed to suggest that the being good at the endeavor of science wasn't good enough. "Yikes," I thought, "I need to be a skilled communicator too?!" Communicating outside of the peer group/specialty is not really part of the scientist make-up (personal experience and Myers-Briggs personality type testing confirm this). Moreover, it is definitely (as Randy points out) not part of the training we get in becoming professional biologists. It's hard enough to get the degree and a job.

The book also did a good job of getting me to argue with myself (again, such a scientist). In the section: The Power of Jack Black, Olson compared the efficacy of and response to gloomy vs. wacky PSAs. A station programmer picked Olson's wacky one over others, including a more serious one on ocean conservation, because he said that viewers didn't want to see "...such a dark and gloomy message on their TVs." All I could think of was the anti-pollution "crying Indian" PSA of my youth, which still haunts me to this day. That seemed gloomy AND effective. Wasn't that a flaw in the argument? Then again, that PSA relied on stark visual imagery, instead of hammering you with bleak statistics and facts. Point, Hollywood.

This book is a must read for scientists. Even if they don't personally enact the advice proffered by Olson, they should know where they stand in a world of competing communication. He is not making this up; he has lived the advice he is giving out. And, if we can't do it all, we may all need to get publicists and hire P.R. firms.

As a scientist, I try to read and review a lot of science books that are put out for public consumption, simply because I have realized some of these books are terrible, unintelligible even. I guess I figure if I am bored by a book and I am a scientist, other people probably will be too.
My critiques usually focus on 4 criteria: 1) Is the topic interesting?, 2) Is the presentation engaging?, 3) Is it accurate?, 4) Does the author spend a lot of time fluffing his/her own ego?
The truth is that Don't Be Such a Scientist wins in most of these categories. Most scientists realize there is a communication problem, although there is a great deal of discussion and controversy about whose fault is it and what can be done about it. As many funding organization push for greater communication of results and accountability to the public, it is imperative that we scientists acknowledge and work to address this issue if for no other reason than self-interest. After all, someone has to pay our bills.
But that is the issue Dr. Olson raises exactly. Although in many ways science results in a product (information/technology/etc.), few scientists have been able to recognize that every product, particularly in the "information age" needs good PR and marketing to be successful, if for no other reason than to stand out against the constant din of the world. He uses his own life to attempt to explain how marketing yourself and your issue (science) evolves. On the whole this is a light-hearted, quick read (1.75 hrs for those scientists who argue they are too busy to read books) that made me laugh at others, but also at my own communication failures. I enjoyed it immensely.
However, as I pointed out to the author yesterday, I do feel it failed the ego test. I understand his point, which is that he was trying to explain the topic by using his own life as a science communication metaphor, however, as a scientist (feel free to guffaw here) I would have appreciated a larger data set (e.g. something that showed this communication style works for a wide variety of scientists today). Ironically, this desire was fulfilled by watching the scientists talk to his camera man during "Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy".
I hope we will see a follow-up book that focuses on pointers for scientists to communicate effectively, maybe a compendium that he would edit. In the meantime, I am wondering whether Dr. Olson could use his Hollywood connections to get at least some of us makeovers? Maybe Tyra or Stephen Colbert is available?

Randy Olson has written an important book.

Many of the most important issues of our age -- global warming and the collapse of the oceans, to name two -- are, at root, scientific issues. But science's failure to communicate effectively about them with the lay public has resulted in widespread ignorance about the root causes of those issues; or, worse, has provided room in which deliberate misinformation can take root and thrive.

"Don't Be Such a Scientist" is not the first book written about the need for science to close the communications gap. But it is the first to move beyond broad generalities and into specific ways that scientists can improve the way they communicate. Its recommendations aren't tied to specific issues -- the "what" of communication -- but on the "how", making it a useful tool no matter what issue you're researching or advocating.

This practical focus on the nitty-gritty of effective communications is so powerful that as I read "Don't Be Such a Scientist" I found myself wishing there were versions of it for other professions that tend to get wrapped up in their own jargon: "Don't Be Such a Lawyer," "Don't Be Such a Policy Wonk," "Don't Be Such a Computer Nerd"... scientists are far from the only ones who could profit from the advice in this book.

Which is why I call this book important. Communicating effectively is hard. This book will make it easier, whether you're a scientist or not. Recommended.

Style and substance. When it comes to communicating, that's what matters. This is the central premise of Randy Olson's new book Don't Be Such a Scientist. It might be the central premise of existence.

To understand this book, you have to understand Randy Olson, so the book is part advice, part autobiography--tales from Olson's career as a tenured academic and his unique and therefore bumpy transition to Hollywood. Because he is a bit of an outsider in both worlds, Olson is well positioned to examine the strengths and shortcomings of both science and communicating.

For the sake of disclosure, I should mention that Randy Olson and I have known one another for over two years now. We met after I sent him an accusatory email (quibbling, like SUCH a scientist, over proper accreditation in an article Olson had written) that wound up with Olson co-inviting me to give my first academic talk at Scripps, me blogging on the topic of Shifting Baselines for two years (our seafood debate kicked it off), and, earlier this year, a friend and I pulling a cunning New Year's prank on Olson (my friend pretended she was an escort who was looking for Olson's neighbor and he fell for it like SUCH a scientist).

Disclosure out of the way, I can honestly (and perhaps a bit biased, too, as I have heard much of this book over the last couple years and always found it engaging and worthy of repetition) say: buy this book.

It takes enormous bravery (or stupidity--but, in this case, I can confirm it is the former) to opine on how to effectively communicate. The lambasting can go wrong and the missiles of scrutiny can easily turn toward the pro communicator. Olson must balance delicately between self-assuredness and self-deprecation. He also must practice what he preaches. He does.

With humor, anecdotes, and succinctness, the book is an effortless read (for a title with 'science' in it, this is a real feat). Olson's years of experience and valuable insights are particularly valuable for young scientists who can still alter their ways undetected. He advises on the power of positivity, spontaneity, and marketing. He discusses the two types of errors scientists can make when communicating: accuracy and boredom. Both are fatal but only one of which is ever discussed in the halls of academia (you can guess which one).

Olson is also convincing that film is a new language and we all must learn to speak it. However, he does not delude us (or himself) that they will ever replace more conventional educational techniques. Olson says films are not designed to educate but are designed to motivate. And in today's inhospitable climate (think global warming or stem cell research), motivation should be an end product of science. Indeed, what is the use of all this knowledge, if nothing changes as a result?

The niche-ness of Don't Be Such a Scientist is evident (it's a book mainly for scientists, after all, but it's also probably more for Americans than Britons). And some scientists might be put-off by the accusations that they are dry, boring, and disconnected to the 'lower regions' of the body. But I can imagine that the same scientists who have a difficult time digesting Olson's Hollywood-steeped conceits will enjoy his erudite anecdotes about Ayn Rand and John Steinbeck and his Popperian quips: "Film has infinite power. And guess what - that's not a falsifiable hypothesis so you can't tell me I'm wrong!"

What is a falsifiable question is: does society take science as seriously as it did 50 years ago? The answer is a resounding no. This is not because scientists are poor communicators but because, as Olson touches on lightly, we now live in an attention economy and the competition is stiff. Today's scientists must struggle even harder for center stage. Olson is not concerned with the broader phenomenon of dumbing down our culture (although I do know one of his favorite films is Idiocracy). He says: this is how the world is changing; here are some tools so that you can adapt and be heard above the cacophony. But he never asks if this is the world we want to live in. That is up to us.