- #31
marlon
- 3,779
- 11
Four said:
Great site. Love it.
marlon
Last edited by a moderator:
Scientists: Is it Time to Sex Up the Image?
- Thread starter billiards
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Science
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers on the public perception of scientists and whether the traditional image, particularly the stereotypical lab coat, is detrimental to the profession. Participants explore the implications of this image on public understanding of scientific issues, as well as the representation of scientists in media and culture.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
- Meta-discussion
Main Points Raised
- Some participants suggest that the stereotypical image of scientists, such as the white lab coat, may hinder public understanding of scientific issues, like animal testing and stem cell research.
- Others argue that there is no significant negative perception of scientists, citing job market saturation as evidence of demand for scientific careers.
- A participant raises the issue of the low number of students pursuing higher-level science education in the UK, linking it to the image problem of scientists.
- Some express that the lack of social skills and poor dressing among scientists contributes to their public image, with anecdotes about scientists' appearances at conventions.
- There are mixed feelings about the effectiveness of changing the image of scientists, with some advocating for more relatable representations while others dismiss the importance of appearance.
- References to popular culture figures, like Danica McKellar and the Mythbusters, are made in the context of improving the image of science and scientists.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express multiple competing views regarding the existence and impact of an image problem for scientists. Some believe it is a significant issue affecting public perception, while others contend that it is overstated and not reflected in the job market.
Contextual Notes
Some arguments rely on anecdotal evidence and personal experiences, which may not represent broader trends. Discussions about the effectiveness of changing the image of scientists are not resolved, and various assumptions about public perception remain unexamined.
Great site. Love it.
marlon
- #32
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,207
- 25
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.gravenewworld said:
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.
- #33
Mk
- 2,039
- 4
Yeah, I think we need more girls in math.Math Is Hard said:Yay, Danica! She's so awesome. (and a UCLA girl - w00t!)
http://www.wired.com/images/article/full/2007/08/danica_mckellar_580px.jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
- #34
zoobyshoe
- 6,506
- 1,254
Mk said:
Here's your personal math girl, MK:
http://hometown.aol.com/rufflife3628127/images/ugly%20girl.jpg
- #35
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 11,420
- 750
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.
- #36
arunma
- 924
- 4
Mk said:
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.
- #37
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 11,919
- 54
ShawnD said:
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.
- #38
arunma
- 924
- 4
Moonbear said:
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?
- #39
- 7,350
- 2,873
arunma said:
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.
)- #40
ShawnD
Science Advisor
- 715
- 2
robphy said:
Why is the sixth result a naked man?
link: http://www.scn.org/~yento/doctor.jpg
not work safe, obviously.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #41
- 7,350
- 2,873
I didn't see that...
my google preferences are the default: "Moderate SafeSearch is on"
my google preferences are the default: "Moderate SafeSearch is on"
- #42
ShawnD
Science Advisor
- 715
- 2
If you turn that filter off, it shows porn for pretty much every result. It makes every search a bit more interesting.
Last edited:
- #43
ranger
Gold Member
- 1,685
- 2
You can't even search google for muffin without some interesting sites popping up.
- #44
cronxeh
Gold Member
- 1,004
- 11
Lets get a PF Sisterhood in Bikinis calendar going.
- #45
Pythagorean
Science Advisor
- 4,426
- 327
robphy said:
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).
- #46
cronxeh
Gold Member
- 1,004
- 11
Pythagorean said:
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
- #47
Pythagorean
Science Advisor
- 4,426
- 327
cronxeh said: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.
- #48
zoobyshoe
- 6,506
- 1,254
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.
- #49
Pythagorean
Science Advisor
- 4,426
- 327
zoobyshoe said:
Everybody's hot on TV?
- #50
zoobyshoe
- 6,506
- 1,254
Pythagorean said:
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.
- #51
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 11,919
- 54
zoobyshoe said:
That's certainly true in some fields. It hasn't necessarily helped portray a realistic image of the limitations of science and technology, but shows like CSI have really boosted kids' interest in sciences, at least from my limited interactions.
- #52
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 11,919
- 54
Pythagorean said:
One of the grad students I work with uses this trick. Since our department is in the medical school, when people ask what he does, he says he's a student at the School of Medicine.
He has no problem getting dates, that's for sure (he has more problems fending them off some days I think ).- #53
arunma
- 924
- 4
cronxeh said:
Actually, I have been slowly compiling a list of attractive, well-known female physicists. Perhaps I could be of some use here.
- #54
ranger
Gold Member
- 1,685
- 2
I don't know what's wrong with you people. Bill Nye has done more than enough for our image.
- #55
zoobyshoe
- 6,506
- 1,254
It's my understanding NASA is now peopled by those whose interest in space exploration was prompted by watching Star Trek. Which explains quite a bit.Moonbear said:
- #56
Kurdt
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 4,859
- 6
zoobyshoe said:
Like why they haven't done much since the moon landings because they've secretly been building a full size replica of the Enterprise?
- #57
zoobyshoe
- 6,506
- 1,254
(SHHHHHHH! It's not a replica. They're trying to build the first working starship.)Kurdt said:
- #58
arunma
- 924
- 4
zoobyshoe said:
The Enterprise rumor is not quite correct. I heard that the government secretly has something called the "Stargate," an ancient alien device capable of sending people to other planets. I would say that this pwns the Enterprise, but I risk starting an all out war on PF. And I'm not sure I believe it myself (the pwnage, not the existence of the Stargate).
- #59
Kurdt
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 4,859
- 6
It might well be an easier way to visit other worlds but its certainly not as cool and totally unscientific unlike the rigorous concepts behind the Enterprise. 
- #60
arunma
- 924
- 4
Kurdt said:It might well be an easier way to visit other worlds but its certainly not as cool and totally unscientific unlike the rigorous concepts behind the Enterprise.
Yeah, I have to admit that Star Trek does a much better job of giving itself a semblance of scientific accuracy. In Stargate, the usual logic is "this technology works because it was invented by an ancient and advanced civilization...and then we stole it from the Goa'uld." Star Trek goes so far as to explain how and when humans invented their variosu technologies, and it at least tries to provide scientifically accurate explanations. I think Star Trek could have better technospeak, but all around it's a great show.
Really the reason I like Stargate is because it features an attractive female physicist, and she can even fire a gun. Hence the sexing up of science.