'Rockstars of Science' should be 'Scientists of Rock'

[n2doc]

By Martin Robbins

So here we are again, witnessing the isochronal cavalcade of embarrassment that is GQ's annual 'Rock Stars of Science' feature. Like a puppy trying to hump a leg, the idea is simple, and probably a bit wrong.

The concept arises from the tedious modern worship of even the most minor celebrities, paired with the idea that standing next to somebody cool can make you cool - a hypothesis comprehensively debunked by Tony Blair in 1997. From that, GQ extrapolate that making scientists pose awkwardly in the background of photos of rock stars, like morons in the background of a news report, is a great way to promote science and scientists.

Before I start ranting (and you lose interest), let me just show you this picture that I stumbled across the other day, to set the scene:


"Pete Conrad inspects Surveyor 3. Conrad's own spaceship, the Intrepid, can be seen 200 yards away in the background." (NASA)

This is a picture of two spacecraft on the moon at the same time, taken by astronauts who have walked from one to the other. If you don't understand why this is one of the coolest things you will ever see, then you really aren't cool, in fact you're the opposite of cool. You are to cool what Dan Brown is to literature.

more

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/20/1

I love this:


But I still can't help but feel that if you have to resort to rockstars make science cool, you're really not very good at communicating science. Because science is way cooler than rock stars. And if you still don't believe me, here's a picture of the Sun. Taken at night. Through the Earth (explanation here).


The Sun at night, imaged by detecting neutrinos passing through the Earth.