Most scientists will get serious media exposure about twice in their entire career. And they'll get that because they've actually done an experiment that was interesting.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Many think of the sciences as merely a fund of knowledge. Journalists never ask scientists anything other than what the applications are of scientific breakthroughs. Interestingly, I doubt they ever ask a musician, writer, or actor the same question. I wonder why.
The fact is all of the most highly successful scientists I know work practically all the time.
Scientists generally are really chicken about getting involved in some kind of dispute. As a broadcaster, I find it very difficult to urge them, if it is a controversial subject. They don't want to have science being portrayed badly.
I have friends who are science journalists, and I'm seeing stories of theirs or talking with them about ideas that they're pitching. Certain kinds of science are around me all the time, like climate change and biology.
One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Scientists tend to be unappreciated in the world at large, but you can hardly overstate the importance of the work they do.
Society understands the architecture of academia and knows there are relevant qualifications in different fields, and the media accepts the idea of specialisations and accords greater respect to those with greater expertise. With one exception: climate science.
Scientists are not movie stars or politicians who will feel insulted if they are not showered with accolades. Scientists are not interested in accolades.
Science shouldn't be just for scientists, and there are encouraging signs that it is becoming more pervasive in culture and the media.
If they don't depend on true evidence, scientists are no better than gossips.
No opposing quotes found.