Q1. Sir, in your opinion, what are the major objectives of “science communication” and how does it help the common man?

Science communication itself is of several kinds. The one we are discussing here is science communication to the general public or the common man. The major objectives of science communication are: (i) popularization of science, and (ii) stimulation of scientific temper among people. One could elaborate on them by giving examples of the innumerable ways in which progress can be made towards achievement of these two objectives. One of the obvious ones is to spread awareness among people about scientific aspects of events, happenings, and natural phenomena around us -- and about scientific principles at work behind them, and around us in daily life. Keeping people informed about the latest developments taking place in different scientific fields all over the world, especially about ones which have a likelihood of immediate applications in our lives, is another way of popularizing science.

How will this help the general public or the common man? Scientific awareness among people, among other things, helps demystify myths and in tackling superstitions which are often used to fool people and to extract money or loyalty out of them. Science communication also helps promote science for development and for the greater good of the masses. Moreover, as science and technology progress at a very fast pace, the developments taking place, that would affect lives of people both in the short and long terms, can be better understood and harnessed with enhanced levels of scientific awareness. Also, it becomes easier to contend and feel comfortable with the (life-style and societal) changes that use of new technology brings in its wake.

(You will find more on stimulating scientific temper and how it can help the common man in Dr Sehgal’s answer to the following questions.)

Q2. What are the major functions of science communication? Should it include dissemination of scientific information, history of science, science news, and internalization of scientific concepts; and encouraging application of the method

of science by common people in daily life?

In my view, the major functions of science communication are derived from the major objectives of science communication. One of the major objectives is: popularization of science. One could do it in many ways. Each one of these would point to a possible function of science communication. Since, each one of the things listed in the first part of this question is a possible way of popularizing science, all of them could be taken up as part of science communication. Dissemination of scientific information and science news can help in bringing about scientific awareness – things which also help popularize science. Making people aware of the history of science in general and specifically in India can not only help popularize science but also help nail the myth that there was no science in India, before the benevolent British brought it to the country.

The latter part of the question relates to the second major objective of science communication, i.e. stimulation of scientific temper among people. This is a much tougher proposition than the first objective.

An individual who has internalized the method of science, i.e. has made it his/her second nature or an integral part of him/herself, can be said to possess a scientific temper. Thus, all things that can help people internalise the method of science would be considered as essential functions of science communication.

What do we mean by “internalization of the method of science”? The method of science involves: curiosity, habit of asking questions, seeking satisfactory and consistent answers to these questions, questioning of assumptions, experimentation, verification, willingness to revise inferences in light of new information/facts becoming available, and so on. Let me give a good example of internalization. Suppose you want to learn how to ride a bike, or drive a car. I am sure you realize that you can not hope to do so by merely listening to lectures by someone, or by watching movies or videos of other people doing so, i,e, riding bikes or driving cars. The only way to do it would be to actually try riding a bike yourself, perhaps fall a couple of times in the process, before you get a hang of it. But once you have learnt it, it becomes an integral part of you, and you get better and better at it by practicing it more and more. The same goes about learning to drive a car. You will have to get behind the steering wheel of a car, take driving lessons from a trainer and gradually learn how to drive on your own; and here too, you will get better and better by practicing it more and more often under normal traffic conditions. But after you have learnt driving, it will come naturally to you and become an integral, inseparable part of you. On the other hand, the glasses you may use for correcting near-sightedness never can become a part of you, in the sense that driving a car, or riding a bike, does.

Thus, internalization of the method of science can come to an individual only through learning by doing and through use of his/her head and hands together. And, also, with more and more practice, one gets better and better at applying the method of science in everyday life to real life situations.

Q3. During the last few decades there has been a sharp decrease in students wanting to enroll in basic science courses in colleges after completion of the ten plus two course. Is it because of better job opportunities and more money in other areas ( like computer sciences, engineering and medical sciences, financial services and management courses)? Can science communication reverse this process or is it outside the scope of science communication?

What you are saying has indeed been the case during the last few decades. Only up to class ten, science is compulsory. All over the country, at the entry-to-college level, there have been very few takers for basic sciences like physics, chemistry and biology. (But, fortunately, the trend seems to be reversing only this year.) Yes, in my view, this has happened partly because of market forces like much better job opportunities and more money in other areas ( like information technology, computer sciences, tele-communications, management services, medical sciences and even in commerce and financial services). But that can not be the only reason. There is something more important than money and market; it is the way children are taught science and examined in that subject. Our examination system is more often a test of how much children can memorise and reproduce and the speed with which they can do so, instead of being a test of what they have learnt and how much of it they can make use of, or apply, in real life-situations. There is no attempt at learning science for its own sake. I remember, when we were in school, many of us wanted to go into physics because we liked the subject. At that time, any suggestions to us to consider going into any other discipline after class ten or ten-plus-two looked like an insult to us. We loved the subject so much that whether it would give us more money or less money, or whether some other subject would give us more job opportunities, never crossed our minds. It was so partly because of challenges in these areas and because of the interest we had in this subject; all other things were secondary. In any case, there has never been money in basic sciences, in teaching or in research! Less and less of this seems to be happening now. But I have met students who despite pressures from parents and peers would like to study basic science subjects whether it is physics or chemistry and go in for research and teaching careers in spite of many uncertainties on the job front. The job opportunities do make a difference as there is lot of pressure on children to start earning immediately after completing their education. In case of subjects like physics or chemistry it delays the age at which they can start earning. In my view, one major reason for students not taking up basic sciences is failure or inability of teachers to generate enough interest in and love for the basic science subjects in students.

Q4. What are the differences in definitions of the various commonly used terms such as scientific attitude, scientific temper, and scientific outlook; or in definitions of science popularization, science communication, scientific literacy and scientific awareness?

I think, strictly speaking and in terms of what language specialists would say, individual terms in these two sets are very different from one another. Probably, what you want to ask is why, in common parlance, they are used almost inter-changeably? In the sense Jawahar Lal Nehru used the term “scientific temper”, it has nothing to do with science per se; it has to do with anything and everything we do in life. It would come into play as soon as you are confronted with a problem or a situation where you have to take a decision or to make a choice.

Scientific attitude is as applicable to science, as it is to all other things. That’s why Pundit Nehru’s view of what he wanted people to imbibe in terms of scientific temper is probably not understood by many and this term has only been mouthed and overused to the extent of devaluing it. Most people use it without knowing what they are talking about. The same reason why it was the Scientific Policy Resolution (and not a Science Policy Resolution) that was actually passed by the Parliament in 1958, to promote inculcation of scientific temper among people. The only reason why we try to promote stimulation of scientific temper by people through science is because it is most often used in the doing of science and is associated with the method of science.

All the three terms in the first set have different definitions, but there is a common thread running through all of them and that is the method of science of which we have already talked a great deal. Various terms in the second set are also very different. Science communication is a term with a much wider meaning, and science popularization is included in science communication of a particular kind. Spreading “scientific awareness” is a measure one uses on way to achieving the objective of science popularization. Science popularization is one of the objectives of science communication and scientific awareness is in aid of science popularisation. Scientific literacy can only be an objective or goal of science communication or of science popularization; and in terms of definition, it combines the goals of scientific awareness and of internalizing the method of science.

Q5. To be successful in life should one know all about science or is there some thing like minimum science for everyone?

Well, in my view, it is not necessary to know everything about science to be successful in life. In fact, I do not think any body can know every thing about science. Even an expert knows more and more about less and less. All we need is basically to be able to use the method of science well, learn a basic “minimum of science for every one” with a scientific approach to life, and imbibe a habit of wanting to learn all the time. So, once you have these things, you can be successful in life. There is some basic science everybody should know, some basic scientific principles we must all know how to apply, which can help us in dealing with, trying to come up with answers to, or arriving at decisions on, problems we face every day in life. (Some preliminary attempts have been made to define the basic “minimum of science for everyone”.)

Q6. Do you feel that common man in rural areas lacks scientific temper and knowledge of “minimum science” and needs education badly?

No, I do not think that common man in rural India lacks scientific temper any more than the common man in urban areas. On the contrary, since agriculture is the occupation of more than 50% of our people and may be even 80 to 90% of the rural population in the country, I believe, on any given day, the people in rural India practicing agriculture have more scientific temper than people in urban areas. Why only India, I think people living in New York may not have any better scientific temper than a farmer in rural India, because possession of scientific temper is totally different from possession of scientific information. Anybody may have more scientific information than any body else but scientific temper is a totally different cup of tea. Scientific temper comes from the environment in which you grow and especially our rural farmers who learn what they know through actually doing it with their own hands. The experience which has been handed over to them from earlier generations and gained by them in the field, their evolved practices and knowledge which is useful to them in practical ways in growing their crops and so on. Their knowledge is verified through practice over the years. In terms of education, if you talk about degrees and formal education, I do not think it will necessarily help them in any way in what they are doing, but yes it will open up more opportunities for them, give access to a lot of reading material to help them improve upon what ever they are doing now. But formal degrees, I don’t think will have much of an impact. To sum up, the common man in rural India has at least as good a scientific temper as a common man in urban areas. Both are equally worse off because of the way our education system works. Of course, education for rural people will make them better human beings and the need for literacy is still there.

Q7. The so-called miracles performed by god-men and the tricks performed by magicians for their livelihood are similar in nature and approach in terms of fooling the viewers or the observers. In doing so, the former tries to build confidence by a blind belief, to get somebody cured of some disease, or to instill a fear complex in them and the latter, that is the magician, is an entertainer. Should both be exposed and banned?

I think the two are different cases even though the effect on the viewers or observers is the same. In my view, the god-men who perform magic-like tricks or so-called miracles by claiming supernatural powers, need to be exposed because they claim to have powers which are really not there; they are performing only tricks like magicians making use of scientific principles, sleight of hand and other phenomena like optical illusion to fool people. When they fool people they either try to extract money or loyalty from them for their selfish purposes, whereas a magician is basically trying to make a living by telling people that he/she has practiced some thing for many years and he can do it so neatly that you can not recognize the tricks he/she is performing; he/she at least is not lying, and is only trying to keep the tricks away from you because once you know the trick behind a magic performance, then magic ceases to be magic. I do not think a person who knows the trick behind the magic will enjoy the magic show. Therefore, there is a great difference between the two even though the effect on the viewers is the same. If you expose both of them, it will be unfair to the magician. My view is that godmen should be exposed so that they can not claim any super-natural powers.

Q.10 Why do Indian science communicators feel that events, like a solar eclipse, are the right occasions for science popularization?

The reason is very simple. Even if we do not make any effort, such phenomena create a lot of interest among people, especially because lots of myths and superstitions are associated with them; and the same receive a great deal of coverage in the mass media. The curiosity is aroused in the general public and they become the subject of common talk for a considerable period of time before and during the event. So, it is the right time when people are eager and far more receptive to at least reading about, listening to, or watching scientific explanations of the impending event. Thus, if adequate, sustained and persistent efforts are made to disseminate the right and convincing scientific explanations, and to dispel associated myths, one could make a perceptible impact and gain converts to the scientific viewpoint. If science communicators do not make use of such readymade opportunities, it would only help reinforce existing myths and superstitions about such phenomena. That would be a pity!

Q11. What are the qualities required of a good science communicator?

A good science communicator, in my view, uses the language and the idiom which his/her audience can understand and feel comfortable with. Two: the communicator ought to understand well and thoroughly whatever he/she wants to communicate. Three: he/she should believe in two-way interactive communication, which means that he/she not only talks to the audience but also listens to it. Four: he/she should know his/her audience well and have a good feel of their sensitivities, needs and concerns. Five: a good science communicator should pay heed to the audience feedback and make use of it in designing his/her communication content. Six: he/she should always check for accuracy and correctness any facts or/and figures before making use of the same in their presentations. Seven: the occasion, the time and the place for communication ought to be chosen with care to suit the audience. There may be more such requirements in specific cases, but you get the general idea.

Q12. What is your advice to today’s science communicators?

My advice to science communicators of today is based on the good qualities that I mentioned in response to your previous question. Listen to your audience and pay attention to their feedback. Be prepared to learn from your audience and don’t try to communicate what you do not understand, or don’t have a feel for. Lastly, verify your facts, figures and numbers before you communicate the same to the people. You can also make use of anecdotes to drive home your point in everyday science communication.

Let me also say that better times for science communication are yet to come. And that is bound to happen sooner than later. Right now is not a good time for science communication or science communicators; actually, there has never been, yet, in my view; as a matter of fact, I think in the last several years, things have worsened. There was more science communication in newspapers and on television etc. than what is happening now. But it is only a matter of time before things take a turn for the better. But, with science and technology making advances at such a furious pace, there is bound to be more science communication in times to come necessitated by the need of people to know and become aware.

Q14. Why did you choose science communication as your profession? Do you feel that more and more scientists should come forward to take up “science communication” as a career?

When I started in science communication, I wasn’t going to make it a full-time profession. Along with my research work, I used to write on and about science as a hobby. Well, when I did, I was almost forced into it by circumstances prevailing at the institution where I was working as a post-graduate particle-physics researcher. I would have happily continued with my research career, but the environment wasn’t right and conducive to continuing research work there. But I am glad that I switched over to science communication full-time, when I did. Quite often, I feel that after you have contributed your bit to scientific research, you ought to have a hard look at the possible contributions you can still continue to make in your subject and only if they truly promise to be really substantial, should you remain in research. Otherwise, one should seriously consider going into science communication; science communication can make use of your expertise in field. Yes, therefore, more and more people should go into science communication because science communicators are required in large numbers, and it is easier for a scientist to become a good science communicator than for a common writer to become a good science communicator.

Q15. Do you think projects such as Vigyan Rail or technology tools like EduSat will help take science to the common people?

Of these two, tools like EduSat can be very helpful in taking science to the people because of the enormous reach it can give and many other possibilities it offers in terms of languages you can use simultaneously and the interactivity that this can make possible. But even with this tool, your success will depend on what you can communicate (in terms of quality and appropriateness) through EduSat.

I think projects like Vigyan Rail, or projects on similar lines involving mobile vans, to take science to the people look very attractive from a distance or on paper. But if you calculate effectiveness to cost ratio, they turn out to be disappointing. In the Rail or a van moving from place to place, the cost of transporting materials and personnel is far higher than the cost incurred on popularizing science itself. So, I do not think these are very cost effective or economically sound propositions. If you really want to take science to the people, the speed of moving from one place to another is not an issue; that being so, one could consider using a cycle rickshaw, or even a bullock cart, to transport materials and personnel in going from one place to another. In place of the Vigyan Rail, just think of fifty or one hundred thousand specially designed and equipped cycle rickshaws, or bullock carts, moving around in a much larger area reaching a much larger and varied small town and rural audience at their door-steps, instead of asking them to come to railway sidings near railway stations to see the exhibition. In my view, this will be a far more cost-effective way of taking science to the people. In Vigyan rail, or mobile van, you can not change the exhibits very often and what you can exhibit is also limited because of the space constraints. However, if cost is not an important consideration, and you can afford Vigyan Rail, or mobile vans, you can take science to all those people who will be able to pay visits to the places where the rail, or the van, will make halts.