Scientists: Is it Time to Sex Up the Image?

[billiards]

Do scientists have an image problem?

The linked article (below) talks about how the stereotypical white lab coat may be detrimental to the public perception of scientists, is it time for a change?

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0708/070804

 

[zoobyshoe]

Unsurprisingly to Rohn, the vast majority of fictional labs are inhabited by the kind of stereotypical scientist described above, something she believes is damaging to the profession and potentially counterproductive to the general public’s understanding of some of the issues facing twenty-first century science: “If science was better represented then perhaps we wouldn’t have so many people campaigning against animal testing or stem cell research, perhaps they would understand the issues better.”

I don't think opposition to animal testing or stem cell research has anything to do with lab coats.

 

[Kurdt]

Just need to get the PF sisterhood to be the science poster gals.

 

[Cyrus]

hmmmmmmm, no.

 

[robphy]

Scientists do have an image problem:
http://images.google.com/images?q=scientist
but why don't doctors?
http://images.google.com/images?q=doctor
Is it really about the coat?

In recent news,...

"Physicists shedding stodgy lab coats" (about AAPT Greensboro; Neil deGrasse Tyson)
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070731/NEWSREC0101/70809020

"Math Book Helps Girls Embrace Their Inner Mathematician" (about Danica McKellar)
http://www.wired.com/culture/education/news/2007/08/winniecooper_QA

 

[Math Is Hard]

Yay, Danica! She's so awesome. (and a UCLA girl - w00t!)

http://www.wired.com/images/article/full/2007/08/danica_mckellar_580px.jpg

 

[Evo]

hmmmmmmm, no.

 

[ranger]

Yay, Danica! She's so awesome. (and a UCLA girl - w00t!)

http://www.wired.com/images/article/full/2007/08/danica_mckellar_580px.jpg

Judging by the cover picture, title, and the horoscope and crush thing, its pretty safe to say that this book pretty much sucks. What the hell is a math-o-phobe? It should be Arithmophobia or Numerophobia.

 

[robphy]

Judging by the cover picture...

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594630399/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[ShawnD]

Sorry to bring a dose of reality to the science forum, but there is no negative perception of scientists. Case in point: where is there a shortage of scientists? Try to get a job as a chemist or physicist; I dare you. You'll be competing against hundreds of other potential scientists who can't find work because there are too many people in science. Right now in my city, working an entry level job at a warehouse pays about $17 minimum whereas an entry level chemistry job is more like $15, and there's basically no such thing as entry level physics or entry level biology.

If there was a negative perception of science and scientists, the market would not be saturated like it is now. This fear of bad image is being put forth by nerds who are looking for somebody (society?) to blame for their own social retardation.

 

[robphy]

It's not all about "jobs [in science]".
It's also about public awareness, appreciation, and understanding of science.

 

[BobG]

Judging by the cover picture, title, and the horoscope and crush thing, its pretty safe to say that this book pretty much sucks. What the hell is a math-o-phobe? It should be Arithmophobia or Numerophobia.

I don't know. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand without at least taking a look inside.

Michael Kelley has gotten good reviews for his 'non-traditional' math books, and Colin Adams, Joel Hass, and Abigail Thompson have gotten good reviews for their "How to Ace Calculus: The Streetwise Guide". A math book doesn't have to be a textbook to connect with its readers.

Of course, the first is a high school teacher and the second three are professors - they all have at least some experience teaching. I would think that would be as important as their knowledge of math. McKellar's a little lacking in the area of teaching experience.

Chapter 7 sounds kind of encouraging, though: "Is Your Sister Trying to Cheat You Out of Your Fair Share? (Comparing Fractions)." With seven kids in my family, making sure none us were cheating was a pretty big motivator to learn math. But then, we were brats.

 

[billiards]

Sorry to bring a dose of reality to the science forum, but there is no negative perception of scientists. Case in point: where is there a shortage of scientists?

In the UK a shockingly low number of students go on to do physics, maths and chemistry at a higher level. There is also a lack of new teachers in the core scientific disciplines. A lot of people see scientists as people completely dettached from the community, there is almost something not real about them, as though they are in another world.

Perhaps the low ratio of female to male scientists is another sympton of the scientists' image problem?

 

[Cyrus]

I was saying that in response to the OP, not the sisterhood. Oh great, now I am screwed. I should have used the quote feature.

 

[Cyrus]

This fear of bad image is being put forth by nerds who are looking for somebody (society?) to blame for their own social retardation.

Greatest quote ever.

 

[gravenewworld]

Judging by the cover picture, title, and the horoscope and crush thing, its pretty safe to say that this book pretty much sucks. What the hell is a math-o-phobe? It should be Arithmophobia or Numerophobia.

Sexing up science?

Ohhh mannn the chick from mythbusters... :!):!):!):!):!)

In the UK a shockingly low number of students go on to do physics, maths and chemistry at a higher level. There is also a lack of new teachers in the core scientific disciplines. A lot of people see scientists as people completely dettached from the community, there is almost something not real about them, as though they are in another world.

I'm sorry but I would have to agree with this. I have gone to several American Chemical Society (ACS) conventions ( and these conventions easily attract 50-100 thousand+ people everytime) and have met some of the whackiest, no social skilled, absent minded people there. I work with a lot of Phds from all different fields like chemistry, medicine, biology, pharmacology, biophysics, and computer programming. And you know what? They don't give a crap how they look. A lot of scientists that I work with are THE worst dressed and least social skilled people I know. I'm sorry but I have to laugh everytime I see the one Phd where I work who wears sandals with white socks pulled all the way up to his knees. There are a lot of Phds who are not in touch with the world but only with their work. Psh why can't more Phds dress like Einstein did? That man had some serious style.And I know a lot of people on this board think that style shouldn't matter etc. but you know what my best friend in the marines who specializes in intelligence told me? 80% of all communication is NON-verbal, thus your outward appearance says TONS, no matter if you like it or not. The first thing he looks for on a mark is their clothing. By what they are wearing he can tell exactly what class they are from and exactly how much they could be closely associated with sources that he wants.ahaha yes I am drunk right now too. I just killed 5 belgiums 2 of which were 10+%. I am about to crack open my dogfish head 120 min IPA whic h is 20%. I'll be back. PF is always awesome to browse after you have had a few brewskies.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Let's not forget the contributions from Ms. Spears.

Britney's Guide to Semiconductor Physics

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's not all about "jobs [in science]".
It's also about public awareness, appreciation, and understanding of science.

Opposition to animal testing and stem cell research has nothing to do with lab coats.

 

[gravenewworld]

I found pics of the mythbusters chick!

http://beerbrains.mu.nu/archives/KariB-thumb.jpg

Too racy? I don't know. The mods can delete if they want. It is just the same thing as a bikini though.

 

[fourier jr]

Sexing up science?

Ohhh mannn the chick from mythbusters... :!):!):!):!):!)

yesssss & don't forget natasha stillwell!

 

[zoobyshoe]

I found pics of the mythbusters chick!

http://beerbrains.mu.nu/archives/KariB-thumb.jpg

This only suggests that Skepticism and Debunking is very hot. An easy case to make since it's true.

 

[arunma]

Wait...physicists get labcoats? I obviously missed the memo, because I don't get to wear a labcoat to the lab. Man, I'm always the last one to find out...

Sorry to bring a dose of reality to the science forum, but there is no negative perception of scientists. Case in point: where is there a shortage of scientists? Try to get a job as a chemist or physicist; I dare you. You'll be competing against hundreds of other potential scientists who can't find work because there are too many people in science. Right now in my city, working an entry level job at a warehouse pays about $17 minimum whereas an entry level chemistry job is more like $15, and there's basically no such thing as entry level physics or entry level biology.

If there was a negative perception of science and scientists, the market would not be saturated like it is now. This fear of bad image is being put forth by nerds who are looking for somebody (society?) to blame for their own social retardation.

Yes, I agree completely. There are way too many people in America with bachelor's degrees in science and engineering. I think people have finally caught on that psychology and English don't get you anywhere, and have flocked to the hard sciences. I know all to well the difficulty of getting a job in science, which is precisely why I'm in grad school.

Maybe we should make science look even more nerdy. That way it'll be easier for the next generation of scientists to actually find jobs.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There are way too many people in America with bachelor's degrees in science and engineering. I think people have finally caught on that psychology and English don't get you anywhere, and have flocked to the hard sciences. I know all to well the difficulty of getting a job in science, which is precisely why I'm in grad school.

I'm under the impression that part of the problem is that everyone is coming here from all over the world to both get educated in science and try to find work here. The average American high school kid probably finds science as un-sexy as ever.

 

[fourier jr]

Wait...physicists get labcoats? I obviously missed the memo, because I don't get to wear a labcoat to the lab. Man, I'm always the last one to find out...



Yes, I agree completely. There are way too many people in America with bachelor's degrees in science and engineering. I think people have finally caught on that psychology and English don't get you anywhere, and have flocked to the hard sciences. I know all to well the difficulty of getting a job in science, which is precisely why I'm in grad school.

Maybe we should make science look even more nerdy. That way it'll be easier for the next generation of scientists to actually find jobs.

I don't think that stats back that up. I've read that more people got massage therapy degrees last year in the US than degrees in engineering or science. That had never happened before.

 

[billiards]

Wait...physicists get labcoats? I obviously missed the memo, because I don't get to wear a labcoat to the lab. Man, I'm always the last one to find out...

Maybe we should make science look even more nerdy. That way it'll be easier for the next generation of scientists to actually find jobs.

Remember, it's the public perception, not necessarily the reality... field geologists don't wear white lab coats either. When I started secondary school, (which I guess is like high school for you Americans,) literally the first homework I got for science was to draw a picture of a scientist (not physicsist, just a "scientist") - nearly every kid in the class ended up drawing a guy with glasses, spikey hair and a white lab coat. (It probably didn't help that our teacher fitted the stereotype.)

As for getting jobs, certain fields are probably oversaturated, however with a maths and/or physics background you are very versatile, you can get all sorts of jobs that aren't directly related to your degree.

 

[gravenewworld]

Yes, I agree completely. There are way too many people in America with bachelor's degrees in science and engineering. I think people have finally caught on that psychology and English don't get you anywhere, and have flocked to the hard sciences. I know all to well the difficulty of getting a job in science, which is precisely why I'm in grad school.

Maybe we should make science look even more nerdy. That way it'll be easier for the next generation of scientists to actually find jobs.

And I happen to be one of those people in science "with only a bachelor's degree".

1.) companies don't want to pay lots of Phds anymore. They'd rather have 10-20 BS and MA and 1-2 Phds rather than having all the Phds doing the lab work.2.) I have come across MANY people with just a BS or MA who actually know more than fresh Phds from the 20+ years of experience that they have. Don't forget that the real world will school you, you don't have to go to a classroom at a school to learn science.

 

[robphy]

2.) I have come across MANY people with just a BS or MA who actually know more than fresh Phds from the 20+ years of experience that they have. Don't forget that the real world will school you, you don't have to go to a classroom at a school to learn science.

...there probably needs to be some qualification like "in the particular speciality of that position"... or something... just as I would expect that there are BS or MA who don't know as much as the PhD in 20+ years of experience in his or her shoes (e.g. specific research, university teaching, etc...).

I see I misread the comment I am responding to. I'll leave my original reply up there and correct it below.

...there probably needs to be some qualification like "in the particular speciality of that position"... or something... just as I would expect that there are BS or MA who don't know as much as the fresh PhD in the 6 years of experience in his or her shoes (e.g. specific research, teaching experience, etc...).

 

[marlon]

Yay, Danica! She's so awesome. (and a UCLA girl - w00t!)

http://www.wired.com/images/article/full/2007/08/danica_mckellar_580px.jpg

Great, i love her. She has lots of talents.

About "sexing up science", aside Britney's contribution there is also Salma's attempt to explain the equilibrium conditions imposed onto the acting forces and the torques:

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/4017/moviezz1.th.jpg

marlon

 

[Four]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1873635453969513506&q=calculus&total=1887&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

I wish though there were more in electrical engineering and computer science. I should have stuck to pure math noooo.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Don't forget that the real world will school you, you don't have to go to a classroom at a school to learn science.

werd
i lernt all the siens i need to no shootin hoops with my homies down the ally from my crib

 

[marlon]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1873635453969513506&q=calculus&total=1887&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

I wish though there were more in electrical engineering and computer science. I should have stuck to pure math noooo.

Great site. Love it.

marlon

 

[Gokul43201]

And I happen to be one of those people in science "with only a bachelor's degree".

1.) companies don't want to pay lots of Phds anymore. They'd rather have 10-20 BS and MA and 1-2 Phds rather than having all the Phds doing the lab work.

This is much less true in physics and biology than it is in chemistry. Chemical and pharma industries need tons of manpower that know enough to find their way around a lab and learn things as they go along.

2.) I have come across MANY people with just a BS or MA who actually know more than fresh Phds from the 20+ years of experience that they have. Don't forget that the real world will school you, you don't have to go to a classroom at a school to learn science.

If it takes 20+ years for a BS or MA to learn more than a fresh PhD student does in the 5 or so extra years spent in school, that speaks volumes about the efficiency of the "real world" in teaching science.

And yeah, werd.

 

[Mk]

Yay, Danica! She's so awesome. (and a UCLA girl - w00t!)

http://www.wired.com/images/article/full/2007/08/danica_mckellar_580px.jpg

Yeah, I think we need more girls in math.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yeah, I think we need more girls in math.

Here's your personal math girl, MK:

http://hometown.aol.com/rufflife3628127/images/ugly%20girl.jpg

 

[Chronos]

I love Carrie, she is cool! Unfortunately, I have no sexy photos to post. I do, however, know this blonde teacher who likes to toss flash cards at me.

 

[arunma]

Yeah, I think we need more girls in math.

In my personal experience as both physics and math majors, I've found that it's physics that needs more girls. In most of my math classes, there were actually a surprising number of girls (I'd say about 30%). In my physics classes, you'd be lucky to find 3 girls in a class of 40. So we physicists need the girls way more than the mathematicians.

 

[Moonbear]

This fear of bad image is being put forth by nerds who are looking for somebody (society?) to blame for their own social retardation.

Unfortunately, the link to the original article is no longer working, so I can't read that, but from the snippets I'm reading here, it seems like it might be criticizing scientists for the stereotype people have of them. If so, the problem is the stereotype, not the scientists. I very infrequently wear a white coat during the day. It's an item of protective equipment, just as are safety glasses. You wear them when you need to, not as a fashion statement that needs changing. To blame the labcoat for some image people have of scientists would be like telling construction workers they need to shed their hardhats because of negative stereotypes people associate with construction workers catcalling at women.

The reality is that the average person cannot pick scientists out of the crowd. They may see certain "geeky" looking people as Shawn describes and attribute them as the spokespeople for science because they're the only ones who would have the lack of social grace to talk about nothing but science when out with a group of people in public who may not share their interests, but that's not the reality of who scientists are. We don't head out to bars wearing our labcoats. We look just like other people around us.

As for the job shortage, however, that's not really so much that there are so many scientists as that there are just not a lot of jobs in science. That comes and goes with research funding and economic swings, like any other field, but we need far fewer scientists in the world than we need secretaries and receptionists and plumbers, so the market does become saturated even if it's not overly popular. But, that also gets to the point...do we need to make it more popular? Those who are interested will still be interested. The only thing we need to make more popular about it is public awareness of what we do and why it's a good thing. It's less important that every kid want to become a scientist when they grow up.

 

[arunma]

We don't head out to bars wearing our labcoats.

Well now that you mention it, I really want to try this. Think I'll get beat up by my fellow physicists for making us look bad?

 

[robphy]

Well now that you mention it, I really want to try this. Think I'll get beat up by my fellow physicists for making us look bad?

Try this:
Start with your labcoat.
Keep a stethoscope in your pocket.
After a while at a convenient time, wear your stethoscope like in http://images.google.com/images?q=doctor .
Any effect?
(If so, maybe you're the "wrong" type of doctor. )

 

[ShawnD]

http://images.google.com/images?q=doctor

Why is the sixth result a naked man?
link: http://www.scn.org/~yento/doctor.jpg

not work safe, obviously.

 

[robphy]

I didn't see that...
my google preferences are the default: "Moderate SafeSearch is on"

 

[ShawnD]

If you turn that filter off, it shows porn for pretty much every result. It makes every search a bit more interesting.

 

[ranger]

You can't even search google for muffin without some interesting sites popping up.

 

[cronxeh]

Lets get a PF Sisterhood in Bikinis calendar going.

 

[Pythagorean]

Scientists do have an image problem:

but why don't doctors?

Is it really about the coat?

Naw, doctors are seen as money-makers in the US, Scientists are seen as pious and humble. Women like money, and nice guys aren't sexy.












...kidding... I hope...

Truth be told (for my small sample size), out of all the physics majors in my class (about twenty), there's probably only about three of us who have an active social life. Admittedly, the other kids study like... general relativity and quantum electrodynamics in their spare time... so it's just trading one set of complications (women) for another (extracurricular academics).

 

[cronxeh]

Naw, doctors are seen as money-makers in the US, Scientists are seen as pious and humble. Women like money, and nice guys aren't sexy.












...kidding... I hope...

Truth be told (for my small sample size), out of all the physics majors in my class (about twenty), there's probably only about three of us who have an active social life. Admittedly, the other kids study like... general relativity and quantum electrodynamics in their spare time... so it's just trading one set of complications (women) for another (extracurricular academics).

Yea.. and just think how many of them won't amount to anything or accomplish anything, on the other hand somewhere down in the boondocks in Hicksville, USA Cletus has been planting the seeds into his cousins and propagating

Ah that movie comes to mind.. Idiocracy

 

[Pythagorean]

Yea.. and just think how many of them won't amount to anything or accomplish anything, on the other hand somewhere down in the boondocks in Hicksville, USA Cletus has been planting the seeds into his cousins and propagating

Ah that movie comes to mind.. Idiocracy

I have yet to see that one. People keep telling me I'd like it, maybe I should trust them.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Speaking of movies, it just occurred to me that most of the scientists depicted in popular films and TV shows are actually fairly attractive. Think of the scientists in Jurassic park (Laura Dern), or the lovely agent Scully, a forensics pathologist, on X-Files. The crew members of the CSI shows. The team members in Hollow Man. I can also think of a bunch of made for TV films I've seen on the Sci-Fi Channel whose scientists were not geeky.

 

[Pythagorean]

Speaking of movies, it just occurred to me that most of the scientists depicted in popular films and TV shows are actually fairly attractive. Think of the scientists in Jurassic park (Laura Dern), or the lovely agent Scully, a forensics pathologist, on X-Files. The crew members of the CSI shows. The team members in Hollow Man. I can also think of a bunch of made for TV films I've seen on the Sci-Fi Channel whose scientists were not geeky.

Everybody's hot on TV?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Everybody's hot on TV?

Almost. Any "geeky" scientists depicted stand out as "characters", and are not the main characters. They couldn't hold anyone's attention if the plots revolved around really geeky people. I think TV and Hollywood have already tackled any image problem science may have.