From Randy Olson
In his review of my book Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking substance in an age of style, Michael Brooks suggests that I am advocating inaccuracy in the communication of science (3 October, p 49). Brooks distorts the message of the book when he writes that I advise “bending the facts when they get in the way”. On page 111 of my book I write: “I will never, ever endorse the idea of striving for anything less than 100 per cent accuracy in the making of any film related to real issues in the world of science.”
The subtitle of the book points to the divide between substance and style. The substance of the book, its written text, was unambiguous. But the style – the use of funny stories and the occasionally flippant attitude – may well have led to Brooks’s misperception.
The bottom line is that it is indeed possible – and at times even advisable – to wrap a serious message in a silly package as a means of reaching a broader audience. Just because you opt to lighten the heaviness of science communication with a little humour, it does not mean you have anything less than the utmost respect and concern for the fundamental tenet of science, which is accuracy.
Los Angeles, California, US
