Week 3- Science In Communication

This week, we discussed why effective communication in science is so important.

Charles Darwin, as we all know, was the famous scientist/naturalist who came up with the theory of natural selection, which changed the world of biology. But while Darwin was on the HMS Beagle exploring the world and solidifying his theories, another person- Alfred Russell Wallace– was also working on a similar theory. Darwin and Wallace were co-authors of the paper: “On the Tendency of species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection.”

Were long beards selected for in academia? Left- Darwin. Right- Wallace. Source: The Independent

So why is Darwin so well known today compared to Wallace? We were told that it was because Darwin was a better communicator, and I decided to do some research. I found that Darwin’s big break was not the scientific paper mentioned earlier, but his book On the Origin of Species. Although Darwin was already well-known in the scientific community before the publishing of the book, he became a household name after the publication. His theories were both based on evidence and against the common assumptions of how organisms came to be. A prevailing assumption was creationism– that life originated from specific acts of divine creation. Darwin’s (and Wallace’s) theory opposed the beliefs of Creationists, and this created some controversy (although less than Darwin had imagined).

Darwin was frequently ill and unable to participate in public debates, which was an important form of communication, but some of his colleagues and supporters were fierce protectors of his theory.

After seeing the evidence, I am unable to say for sure why Darwin is so much more famous now, but my guess would be a combination of factors, including Wallace respecting Darwin, Darwin’s book and the controversy surrounding it, and Darwin’s colleagues and followers sticking up for him, not just because Darwin was a better communicator.

A more recent case

If Darwin was clearly a better communicator, I could’ve easily said “and that’s why communication is so important!”. This was not the case, and I am even going to argue that communication for scientists is much more important now than in the 19th century. This is because information can spread all over the world in one day, and if you say something that is not well-received, there is nowhere to hide.

Tim Hunt, nobel laureate, said this during the World Conference of Journalists in Seoul, June 2015:


Tim Hunt, Biochemist, Nobel Laureate. Taken from The Guardian, 2015.

He received massive criticism from this comment, losing many positions, including his Honorary professor role at University College London (UCL). And he has probably received many death threats because of his statement. This all goes to show how one single statement can change the perception of the world on one person, just like a great speech can change the lives of many.

It is difficult, because although you want to be careful what you say to the media, you also want to speak your thoughts and crack some jokes from time to time- and even then, what you perceive as something that will be well-received may not be, and vice versa. Although I can type, I don’t think of myself as a good communicator (for example, I have to work on my confidence, body language, etc.), but I think with practice I can avoid being a bad communicator.

Below are some of my thoughts on what Tim Hunt said and the responses he got- this may be controversial, so feel free to skip this part.

What he said was likely an exaggeration of a snippet of real life for him- if he has worked in labs in his whole life, then he will have personal experiences of him falling in love with girls and girls falling in love with him. A girl may have cried when criticised by him too- these statements are not factually incorrect. What I think he did wrong was he took perhaps the most notable three parts of his years of experience working with women in labs, and omitted the other parts. He defined them based on these parts of his experience, and this is stereotyping. I do not agree with stereotyping in this case, because it is not an accurate depiction of women in labs.

And what did many people do wrong? Many others read the statement, took it out of context, and used that one statement to define Tim as a person. Those people also stereotyped. Their view of Tim is based on their reaction to the statement, and it shouldn’t be. This would be judging Tim based on one of his worst comments in his 72 years alive, while disregarding the other good things he has done for others in all his life. For example, Tim has fought for years to get day nurseries established at some universities, and this has been successful in the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology. Does that balance out your views of him somewhat?

It seems like humans are very good at forming judgments based on the information we’ve been given, and once this first impression is formed, it is difficult to change. In this case, most of the public have been fed scarce information, only covering a small part of who Tim Hunt is, and it is easy to form a strong negative impression of this person in an instant.

In controversies like this, I think many people like to choose a side because they like certainty, but I also think it is a good idea to wait and consider both (or more) sides of a discussion before choosing a side. I choose to stay neutral in this case because this means I avoid any conflicts :D.

Thank you for reading!


4 thoughts on “Week 3- Science In Communication

  1. I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with you about Tim Hunt. You may be right that people did form too strong an impression about him as a person based on one comment. But I don’t think it matters. Because it is still true that, whatever else he is, he is sexist, and he was (is?) in a position of influence. The comment wasn’t just pulled out of some unusual context where it would have been okay, or a rash statement which didn’t reflect his real views, because when he had had time to think he gave a politician’s non-apology. That being the case, I think outrage is perfectly reasonable.

    Also, I don’t think you can be neutral in this case, because the sides aren’t ‘he was wrong’/’he was right’, they are ‘this is a big deal’/’this isn’t a big deal’. Choosing indecision places you in the ‘this isn’t a big deal’ camp.


    • First off, I want to thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts and leaving a comment!

      Is there a source to this non-apology? I happened to have read up on a source where he said it was a joke because he followed up the controversial statement with ‘Okay, Now seriously..’, then speaking about a different subject. (see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/20/sir-tim-hunt-gratitude-female-scientists-support-joke)

      The reason I wish to stay neutral is because I don’t know how credible the resources I have looked up are, and I don’t think it is enough for me to choose a side yet.
      I like your point about the sides being ‘this is a big deal’/’this isn’t a big deal’, but I also think that because the reaction to his statement was so strong, this created multiple groups: Those who support him, Those who oppose the reaction without supporting him (kind of like defending him without defending his point?), and Those who oppose both him and his statement. In that case, perhaps you are right that I am not truly neutral, but I say ‘this isn’t a big deal’ in order to calm down the reaction on the other side.

      I would be in the second group. What group would you be in?


      • The article you linked has it, in the radio 4 clip. “I’m really, really sorry that I caused any offence…I just meant to be honest actually”

        But I am really having trouble trying to understand the mind that could make that non-apology, and apparently subscribe to separate-but-equal doctrine, but also say and do some of the other things in the article. Maybe you’re right, the available information is insufficient to form a decent opinion.

        Prior to my new-found uncertainty, I would have been in the third group.


Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Google+ photo


Connecting to %s