Today’s post is by Geoff Chapman who trained as a botanist, and worked at the University of the West Indies studying tropical plants. and at the University of London’s Wye College. He has published numerous books, for example: Reproductive Versatility in the Grasses, Grass Evolution and Domestication, and The Plant Life of China: Its Diversity and Distribution. During lockdown, with his wife he published World in a Small Garden a fully colour illustrated 100 page coffee table book for two charities. This prompted Garden Life Explored due out this September which, like its predecessor, will sell for charity. In what follows Geof explores how to communicate with people effectively about the science-based issues we face today. As with all our blogs, the views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Association.
- Sciences such as astrophysics, medicine and meteorology can be developed by specialists and the lay person can take an interest if they wish. The lay interest is entirely optional. Locally, we have, for example, the Ashford Astronomical Society expressly appealing to younger people and novices.
- Environmental science is different in that its discoveries MUST awaken wide awareness and prompt constructive response.
- Two responses can be compared. One is that by Greta Thunberg and which is characterised by large scale public demonstrations. The other is the extremely sophisticated approach of David Attenborough utilising the best in photography and supported by the BBC and the Open University.
- Each has a place and should in my view be supported and encouraged.
- The Attenborough ‘floor’. A point of great interest is how far he can or does choose to go from spectacular photography to explanation. There is, I think, often a floor below which he does not go having made, with great skill, a judgement about how much is enough. My implication is that to go further risks losing the audiences’ attention and understanding.
- In my subject, where I have a professional awareness, I can readily identify what more he might have said but does not.
- Richard Dawkins has talked about the ‘crystalline beauty of science’. I know what he means but I also recognise that many people simply cannot be comfortable with the thought processes which characterise science.
- By contrast, many such people can readily fall in step with Wordsworth’s view of daffodils. Additionally, they may or may not have some wider literature awareness.
- Within a lifetime, public perception has changed from the auditory (via radio for example or having to digest text) to the visual (via television for example). This means that there is less pressure to use imagination to process information. Who nowadays would produce even a textbook without pictures?
- It does not follow that less effort is required for understanding and the reverse may be true.
- The reaction to our first coffee table book was instructive. Over and over again the response was ’Lovely pictures’!
- I was eventually moved to ask ‘But have you read it? ’The responses were, ‘Some of it’ or, ‘I am getting round to it’. This more than makes the point about the predominance of the visual.
- All of this prompted on my part a reflection and a search for an answer to the question, ’How do you impart science to the unscienced via a coffee table book?’
- My answer, at this stage, is the idea of a three legged stool. It helps to realise that while all the legs are the same length they are not all the same thickness.
- The first and thickest leg is arresting photography. We have to capture and hold interest and so this is a concession to that which people have come to expect * .
- The second and thinner leg is that combination of ideas to stir the imagination and the means has been to choose striking quotes from literature.
- The third and thinnest leg is the science itself. Having captured and held interest one hopes to say something briefly about the science.
- We need to be realistic about reading habits. Who, on first acquaintance, digests every word? Especially with a coffee table book you pick it up and put it down with the assumption that it will be beguiling rather than demanding.
- There is also the very worthwhile possibility that, having purchased the book, you can show it to an acquaintance who will ask you a question about it. That could prompt you to take a second look .
* The most extreme example of contrast I can find is Dylan Thomas’ ‘Under Milk Wood’ with the subtitle ‘A Play for Voices’. Perhaps mistakenly, it was made into a film narrated by Richard Burton. Yes, he had a wonderful voice but the pictures substituted the visual for the author’s intended aural. I think it would have been better if Burton had simply read it but would have captured fewer fans for Dylan Thomas.
Note: But what pictures cannot do is express the complexity of why these terrible things are happening. Only words can do that. (John Humphrys, (2006) Beyond Word. Hodder and Stoughton).
……………………………………………………..
Geoff can be contacted at: geoff@chapman.invictanet.co.uk