Scientists see (Rock) stars
There seems to be a bunch of blog postings and twitterings about GQ magazine’s Rock Stars of Science campaign, so rather than have a rant as well, I will just give you the links to what has been said. For the record, I agree with Andrew Maynard (2020 Science), though the Cultural Cargo Cult stuff is way too deep for me. My shallow thoughts didn’t get past thinking, why, when there are loads of young, cool PhD and post-docs wearing shorts, holey (but still cool) T-shirts and Dunlop Volleys, all doing fantastically interesting science that would grab the attention of even my “most-uninterested-in-science sister”, would you use middle age blokes wearing Harry High-pant slacks and ties as your poster children for science in a magazine such as GQ.
The apparent context behind why GQ did this
A recent Harris Interactive survey for Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry showed that Britney Spears is more influential than Stephen Hawking among most Americans. So GQ wanted to bridge this recognition divide
(In Australia, Britney could be replaced by…insert sporting hero here…)
OK, these guys are world-renowned in their field and doubtless they deserve recognition by all. But I still maintain there are loads of well-deserving scientists that fit the above-mentioned mold that would have better served this purpose. Alright, that was a bit of a rant. Here are the links to some of the postings and the GQ site:
2020 science: Other blog links here also
Nature blog: http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/05/post_26.html
Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry survey
Final thought: an interesting idea, but possibly an opportunity wasted. But then I am a science communicator and am the first to admit I know nothing about marketing.
Jason Major
Manager
Gene and NanoTechnology Information Service