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: 2, Interesting) by rcamera on Thursday August 07 2014, @12:09PM
I don't have a problem with the Michio Kakus, Neil deGrasse Tysons, and Brian Cox' of the world. Though at some level they become more celerity than scientist, there's nothing wrong with that. Their new role in the scientific community can be seen as making science fun/cool, and therefore getting more people interested in STEM.
The point of shows on Discovery Science / NatGeo isn't to teach these topics with any level of depth, but merely to get folks to dip their toe into the water. The same holds true for "Cosmos(Sagan/1980)", and that was the STATED purpose of "Cosmos(Tyson/2014)". If enough people become "somewhat interested" in STEM topics, then a fraction of these will become "very interested" in the topic, and go on to study in greater depth.
How many of today's scientists credit Sagan with getting them started? The more of that there is, the better off we all are in the long run.
/* no comment */
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:27PM
Listen to Brian Cox on TIMC (The infinite monkey cage). He's a geek (particle) physicist all the way through.
He also still publishes original research...
Sure, being in the "media" requires some polish. But I think he got his the natural way....he was in a band!!
Dara O'Brian is an example of someone who loves science, but his real "job" is comedian. His involvement in science shows really helps engagement...
I agree with the central point, that STEM needs much greater uptake...