The travails of science communication

There's an interesting phenomenon in the world of science communication, at least so far as I've noticed. Every once in a while, there comes along a concept that is gaining in research traction worldwide but is quite tricky to explain in simple terms to the layman.

Earlier this year, one such concept was the Higgs mechanism. Between December 13, 2011, when the first spotting of the Higgs boson was announced, and July 4, 2012, when the spotting was confirmed as being the piquingly-named "God particle", the use of the phrase "cosmic molasses" was prevalent enough to prompt an annoyed (and struggling-to-make-sense) Daniel Sarewitz to hit back on Nature. While the article had a lot to say, and a lot more waiting there to just to be rebutted, it did include this remark:

If you find the idea of a cosmic molasses that imparts mass to invisible elementary particles more convincing than a sea of milk that imparts immortality to the Hindu gods, then surely it’s not because one image is inherently more credible and more ‘scientific’ than the other. Both images sound a bit ridiculous. But people raised to believe that physicists are more reliable than Hindu priests will prefer molasses to milk. For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality.

Sarewitz is not wrong in remarking of the problem as such, but in attempting to use it to define the case of religion's existence. Anyway: In bridging the gap between advanced physics, which is well-poised to "unlock the future", and public understanding, which is well-poised to fund the future, there is good journalism. But does it have to come with the twisting and turning of complex theory, maintaining only a tenuous relationship between what the metaphor implies and what reality is?

The notion of a "cosmic molasses" isn't that bad; it does get close to the original idea of a pervading field of energy whose forces are encapsulated under certain circumstances to impart mass to trespassing particles in the form of the Higgs boson. Even this is a "corruption", I'm sure. But what I choose to include or leave out makes all the difference.

The significance of experimental physicists having probably found the Higgs boson is best conveyed in terms of what it means to the layman in terms of his daily life and such activities more so than trying continuously to get him interested in the Large Hadron Collider. Common, underlying curiosities will suffice to to get one thinking about the nature of God, or the origins of the universe, and where the mass came from that bounced off Sir Isaac's head. Shrouding it in a cloud of unrelated concepts is only bound to make the physicists themselves sound defensive, as if they're struggling to explain something that only they will ever understand.

In the process, if the communicator has left out things such as electroweak symmetry-breaking and Nambu-Goldstone bosons, it's OK. They're not part of what makes the find significant for the layman. If, however, you feel that you need to explain everything, then change the question that your post is answering, or merge it with your original idea, etc. Do not indulge in the subject, and make sure to explain your concepts as a proper fiction-story: Your knowledge of the plot shouldn't interfere with the reader's process of discovery.

Another complex theory that's doing the rounds these days is that of quantum entanglement. Those publications that cover news in the field regularly, such as R&D mag, don't even do as much justice as did SciAm to the Higgs mechanism (through the "cosmic molasses" metaphor). Consider, for instance, this explanation from a story that appeared on November 16.

Electrons have a property called "spin": Just as a bar magnet can point up or down, so too can the spin of an electron. When electrons become entangled, their spins mirror each other.

The causal link has been omitted! If the story has set out to explain an application of quantum entanglement, which I think it has, then it has done a fairly good job. But what about entanglement-the-concept itself? Yes, it does stand to lose a lot because many communicators seem to be divesting of its intricacies and spending more time explaining why it's increasing in relevance in modern electronics and computation. If relevance is to mean anything, then debate has to exist - even if it seems antithetical to the deployment of the technology as in the case of nuclear power.

Without understanding what entanglement means, there can be no informed recognition of its wonderful capabilities, there can be no public dialog as to its optimum use to further public interests. When when scientific research stops contributing to the latter, it will definitely face collapse, and that's the function, rather the purpose, that sensible science communication serves.

A fearless magician

Is Dr. Ron Fouchier’s forced mutation of the A(H5N1) bird flu virus inside a laboratory a dangerous experiment that shouldn’t have been conducted in the first place? The “new” virus can be transmitted via air from human to human, although the experiment used ferrets to demonstrate this, making it much more deadlier than its predecessor. This otherwise-fascinating property is lucrative to rogue states and terrorist organizations that may desire to exploit its pathogenic capacity for hubristic gains.

At the same time, Dr. Fouchier’s experiment finds important employ amongst his peers as well because it demonstrates the effects of specific mutations, how changes to the protein sequence affect the pathogenic capacity of the virus, and possible directions for future research. In the age of terrorism, thus, what bears more priority than the other: scientific research aimed at better understanding, recognizing and tackling pandemics before they occur? Or the possibility that such experiments could fall into the wrong hands and complicate an already precarious security situation?

[caption id="attachment_21062" align="aligncenter" width="250" caption="Dr. Ron Fouchier heads the virology lab at the Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam."][/caption]

Perhaps this is the only instance whereby precautionary measures can be disregarded in favour of going ahead with the experiment because, even though the conduction of the experiment in a dangerous environment can prove risky, it is not science’s obligation to back down in the face of threats posed by its findings. That terrorism raises such a question is as far as terrorism should be allowed to go, and upon consideration, it seems we must guard against terrorists by strengthening our armour, not halting the machinery that has made and still makes possible mankind’s progress.

However, the argument does not end there. One way or another, some responsibility does fall on the scientific community, especially the section that proposed to and did carry out this experiment, for the possibilities it has given rise to. In turn, this merits the question: was the experiment really necessary in the first place? When using experimental techniques to find newer solutions to old problems, solutions that are more progressive in terms of how many assumptions they make as part of the scientific method, researchers and those who fund them must be held accountable irrespective of a terrorist threat.

“It’s all about predicting what will hit you next. We want to predict earthquakes and tsunamis; we also want to predict what will happen with the bird flu virus,” Fouchier said about the killer-virus he’d created. “This work needed to be done.” For the moment, we must trust in the constructive tendencies of those who engineer our possibilities and not in the destructive tendencies of those who limit our choices. Terrorism is an integral aspect of the daily lives of men, women and children, and by stoppering scientific research, the best decision we will have taken is to secure our livelihoods for the present by persisting with caution and nothing else as defence.

Bill Brenner writes in CSO Online:

By mutating H5N1 into a more human threat, these scientists have given would-be bio terrorists something to salivate over. They say they did it because it could help them develop more effective vaccines in the future, but to me this falls into the category of things you just shouldn’t mess with, no matter how pure your intentions.

Why shouldn’t they mess with it? Yes, decisions cannot be made in a vacuum and scientists must pitch in with their bit to improve the situation around the globe, but to not do something just because it might fall into the wrong hands is the worst reason why it shouldn’t be done at all! If we don’t exercise our rights and also with it our powers to protect against risk, then we will have conceded defeat in a fight that, with each passing day, becomes a test of our resilience. The scientist may not be directly expected to pick up a gun and run to the front, but at the same time we must not expect that he will drop his tools and wait until the war is over.

[caption id="attachment_21063" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="The H5N1, or bird flu, virus has devastated poultry populations across Asia since the mid-1990s. Even though it kills quickly when it takes hold of a human, it rarely every infects our species. Dr. Fouchier has changed that, however, although the specimen strain lies locked in a lab in Europe."][/caption]

The H5N1, or bird flu, virus has devastated poultry populations across Asia since the mid-1990s. Even though it kills quickly when it takes hold of a human, it rarely every infects our species. Dr. Fouchier has changed that, however, although the specimen strain lies locked in a lab in Europe.

Such research is not pushing the ambit of scientific ethics; if so insular a definition could be afforded, then almost all scientific research in microbiology, pathology and virology will have to be abandoned. Instead, the state must not hoist the responsibility of factoring in terrorist possibilities on the scientific community – unfair as it is – but must work with it to construct an environment in which science can work its magic fearlessly.