SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A genomics professor has devised a tongue-in-cheek measure of scientific work vs. scientific recognition.
Neil Hall, a genomics professor with the University of Liverpool, has kicked up a bit of an Internet storm. He's written a paper and has had it published in the journal Genome Biology, suggesting (with tongue firmly in cheek) that some scientists are getting more attention than they deserve, due to their heightened social standing. He's even come up with a way to measure it, his so-called "Kardashian-index" or more simply, K-index-it's derived by noting how many people are following the scientist on Twitter and then dividing that number by followers the scientist probably should have due to papers written and associated citations for it, i.e. proof of actual work done.
The index is named after Kim Kardashian (and her family) of course, who have become famous for being famous -- they don't actually do anything. And that's the point of Hall's paper-is the scientific community in danger of being overrun by scientists who make a lot of noise in the social media world, but do very little actual scientific work? Hall notes that there seems to be times when scientists are asked to give talks at conferences based more on their social standing than on work they have actually done. This begs the question, are scientists (regardless of field) just as susceptible to the cult of celebrity as everyone else and if so, is it harming science?
Full text: http://genomebiology.com/2014/15/7/424
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DrMag on Wednesday August 06 2014, @09:55PM
Perhaps the better way to phrase the statement in the summary would be "This makes one consider, are scientists (regardless of field) just as susceptible to the cult of celebrity as everyone else and if so, is it harming science?"
The answer to those questions are, emphatically, yes, and yes. I say that as a scientist.
But it's not quite the same thing. Often times a scientist achieves celebrity status because of the reputation she or he has built among her/his peers. It's very important that we examine the credentials and the reason for their fame--Neil Tyson is the poster child of American celebrity scientists, but he's also very trustworthy as a scientist, and not one to toss in fallacious ideas (or toss out good ones) with no thought. When he does make a mistake, he's one who owns up to that and corrects it.
The problem isn't that some scientists become celebrities, it's that people tend to give celebrities a deified status; every scientific statement should be subject to scrutiny, no matter from what mind it originates.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:50PM
I find myself in agreement with your comment.
I don't consider myself a scientist even though I have two STEM degrees(in Veterinary Medicine and Biochemistry).
So, from a layman's POV, I love the Neil Tyson youtube vids(and many others!) as astrophysics/cosmology is a huge interest/hobby with me. I don't take their talks as 'gospel', but use them to fill in gaps, or to point me in directions to fill those gaps.(same way I use Wikipedia...a doorway leading to knowledge-not an authority)
My opinion is that these scientist-celebrities[1] do a wonderful service to the masses, bringing science and discovery to light.
The youtube vid's of panels of scientist get together to discuss and debate a subject are particularly informative: you get to see and hear about the knowledge gained, the uncertainties, and the disagreement, all in one! I really like that.
I realise that here I am highjacking the context, but I would ammend that by removing the word scientific, or by something like this:
"...every statement should be subject to scrutiny(especially scientific statements), no matter from what mind it originates."
I feel the need to do so because of the availability of data(not facts) provided by media nowadays. The internet is a wonderful tool, but two-edged..we need to keep that in mind. :-)
About the 'begging the question' issue, I quit worrying about that some years back...it's been highjacked and twisted by the masses, along with 'hacker', and many others.
To argue about it now is just pedantic dithering; like arguing about what the precise shade of color the bus is that is bearing down on you. It's no longer useful, and just a distraction.
[1]provided they conduct themselves as 'true scientists', as you point out with regards to Neil Tyson.