Top 10 Bartacus Posts for 2010

If it’s good enough for Dar, it’s good enough for me…

10. Images and Commentary: ISDC 2008

Not sure how this one came up so often, unless people were looking me up in connection with ISDC 2011.

9. Space Day at SciQuest

This was my reportage on an all-day STEM education event at the local interactive science attraction.

8. Myers-Briggs, Culture Wars, and the Avant-Garde

I was playing with ideas one day, and it occurred to me that introversion and extroversion had a strong influence on the science/technology culture in which I work.

7. In Defense of Cheerleaders

This was a reaction to a couple of negative posts re: the Science Cheerleaders. It baffles me that there were any, but these things happen.

6. What HAVE You Been Up to, Young Man?!??

A brief summary of some of my adventures with the Science Cheerleaders up to that point.

5. Saturn V Redecorating, Part II

Some folks here in Huntsville have been contemplating covering the full-size Saturn V replica in a quilt made of children's art. This was my second of several editorials on this topic.

4. First Meeting of Huntsville Space Professionals

Reportage on the aforementioned subject.

3. Wayhomer Reviews

A review of all (at the time) 17 "Wayhomer" movie reviews by Widge over at NeedCoffee.com.

2. Live on the Road with the Science Cheerleaders

Reportage on the Science Cheerleaders at the Science & Engineering Festival. Surprisingly, this was NOT my number one posting. Instead, it's...

1. Science Cheerleaders, Etc.

This post features pictures of all of the Science Cheerleaders who appeared at the S&E Fest, with light commentary by Your Humble Narrator. Hey, whatever gets the attention.

Enjoy your holidays!

Potpourri CLV

It's been awhile since I've done one of these, but I thought I'd take a few free minutes to clear out the blog pile, as Sunday Night Football isn't wowing me this evening.

First off: the 50 fattiest foods in America. And for dessert, cupcakes.

On the more serious side, Lin sent the following speech on the state of free speech in Europe.

With the tools of CGI becoming more and more widespread, it is possible for amateurs to create some pretty decent Star Trek movies. I can't vouch for all of the acting.

I need to investigate/discuss this further, but here's a blog in defense of a liberal arts education. This is worth considering, even when everyone in my circle of fellow bloggers is spun up about the state of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education. There IS still a place for English majors, after all...

From Stefanie, a little programming humor(?): Prolog haiku.

This is old (2002), but still worth reading: Penn Gillette on getting groped by the TSA. Along the same lines, here's a worthwhile editorial by Salon Magazine on airport security.

I never get tired of these: random moments of opera staged in public areas. This one is in Palermo, Italy.

Economic news so disheartening you'll want to be sitting down to read it.

Randy Olson, our fearless filmmaker, holds forth on the Science Cheerleaders.

Nothing against the U-2, it's a marvelous airplane. But really, if we retired the SR-71, shouldn't we be moving forward with the next generation of spy plane, not going back to stuff our grandparents built?

Video talk by the Air Force One pilot who was flying on September 11.

My buddy Erika appeared recently on the "Faces of Marshall" feature on NASA.gov. When she starts talking about a certain friend who was very passionate about space, that'd be Your Humble Narrator.

From the Down Under Defense Expert (DUDE), a collection of peer-reviewed papers on anthropomorphic global warming.

From Doc: a recommended "not stupid" site on football analysis.

Interesting article on why the Singularity won't happen.

I just loved this blog by Allie Brosh. Her humor is wickedly funny and her drawing manages to convey emotion if not exactly Michelangelo.

A guide on how to taste wine.

The MaybeLogic Academy...

I still like this: a force field for IDF tanks. Now we need one!

And I guess that'll do for now. I'm rather busy, so if I'm not posting as often, please know that it's for a good cause: promoting Science Cheerleader.com or the International Space Development Conference.

Salud.

Book Review: Don't Be SUCH a Scientist!

Full Disclosure: I met Randy Olson during my Science Cheerleader event in Washington, DC and consider him, if not a friend, at least a friendly acquaintance with a shared appreciation for SciCheer and engaging means of talking to the public about science and technology.

Having gotten that out of the way, I'll now talk about Randy's book, Don't Be SUCH a Scientist! which I read in less than a day. It's what a book club member I knew once called "a cracking good read." But then Randy's book is directed at people trying to communicate science to the public, which more or less includes me, so of course he had my attention.



As I said, Randy produced the Science Cheerleader video from the Science & Engineering Festival, and it's a fun piece of work (now over 37,000 viewers as of this writing). Randy himself turns out to have had quite an interesting career path: an oceanographic scientist and professor, he shifted careers at age 38 to enroll in film school at USC, which is not an easy transition, as he illustrates throughout this book. In fact, he opens the book with a scene from an acting class from USC, where a rather abusive acting prof was yelling at him from always being cerebral ("You think too much! You mother f***ing think too much!"), which he notes is one of the first failings of scientists trying to communicate with the public.

The other sins he accuses scientists of include "Don't Be So Literal-Minded," "Don't Be Such a Poor Storyteller," and "Don't Be So Unlikeable," which represent the first four parts of the book. And if you consider that a spoiler alert so egregious that you feel you don't now need to read the rest of the book, brother (or sister), buy the book, pull up a chair, and prepare to be educated and entertained. What makes Randy's arguments telling and selling is that he has been on both ends of things: he has been a scientist and he is now in the business of telling stories on film. He provides concrete, wince-inducing examples of blatantly bad communication. What makes the writing less like a lecture and more like a standup routine is that a lot of the time he turns the magnifying glass on himself and points out where he has exhibited the very behaviors he is now trying to stop. Nothing teaches like experience.

As an English major among rocket scientists, I like to think that I'm immune from some of the pomposity or literal-mindedness of the science-minded, but alas, no. Spend enough time around scientists or engineers, and you will end up thinking, writing, or even speaking like them. One piece of advice in the book I'd heard before, though I cannot remember where, is when Randy talks about reaching not just the head in communications, but also the heart (emotions), gut (humor, intuition), and gonads (sex appeal). It's very easy to write good, logical arguments for space flight or this or that vehicle configuration, but sometimes a little more is required. I notice this when a piece of writing that people at work (rocket scientists, remember) think is great but my non-space friends or family members "just don't get." I've left out some of that emotional stuff that grabs a larger audience. I notice this tendency most when I generate content for our mutual friend Darlene the Science Cheerleader. I can do intellectual/logical very well, and depending on the person or subject, I can reach down and touch the heart or make people laugh. But I'm not very sharp on creating "sexy" on the page. The Science Cheerleaders do that, and I'm duly grateful. Perhaps that's why Randy and I both respond to Dar's Science Cheerleader concept--she's got a message that covers all the bases.

I didn't agree with everything Randy wrote. He dislikes the defensive, control-the-interview approach many scientists take toward the media. This happens to be the approach I learned at a media training course offered through NASA. The logic is simple, really: while scientists have a story to tell, so do members of the professional media. The scientists want their stories told and try to keep the discussion focused on those messages. Reporters don't just want a story, they want a story that will grab ratings. And if that means asking off-topic questions that get a headline-grabbing quotation from an eminent scientist or cause said eminent scientist to get angry and have a flash of temper on camera, so be it. That is a good reason of why scientists are distrustful of new media or the "gotcha" mainstream press. That said, there are ways of telling a good story and giving the interviewer an engaging interviewer without getting hauled into the Administrator's office the next day for comments made in the heat of the moment.

One of the chapter headings reads, "Choose: Accurate but Not Popular or Popular but Not Accurate." In this instance, he was discussing the differences in public reaction between a fact-based HBO documentary on global warming and Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," which won both an Oscar and a Nobel Prize. The documentary disappeared from public awareness despite having noted scientific flaws and inaccuracies. The point, in Randy's mind and in that of many of the scientists who noted the faults but endorsed the film anyway, is that "the message is too important!" To which I would say, rather impolitely, BS. If the outcomes of a scientifically inaccurate piece of propaganda (the one word Randy doesn't use in his book) result in bad law or harmful policies, then a so-called documentary has crossed the line from inaccurate to fraud or blatant harm. To his credit, the very first sentence after this heading is "I will never, ever endorse the idea of striving for anything less than 100 percent accuracy in the making of any film realted to real issues in the world of science." However I'm not certain he completely resolves the matter of public "engagement" (propaganda) vs. informing the public about a scientific issue.

Don't Be Such a Scientist challenges scientific communicators with the simple fact that the facts no longer "speak for themselves," if they ever did. Film, video, or new media are good ways to engage or enrage the public, but not particularly good at educating them--a point Randy makes several times in the book. However, before the education can happen, there must come the motivation; and those motivations must come from the head, heart, gut, and groin or the education will never happen. The public will tune out, as they have for many years now.

I recommend this book for scientific communicators of all stripes, from those generating the content or doing the science to technical communicators like me, who are not scientists but nevertheless must communicate technical information to an often-uninformed public. Don't Be Such a Scientist is a good companion book for followers of ScienceCheerleader.com, ScienceforCitizens.net, and ECAST. Professional scientists need to communicate their discoveries and ideas clearly and compellingly. The public needs to be interested enough in science to get educated about it or even do it. After the engagement and education, it is possible to have informed debates about the scientific and technical issues of the day, resulting in good decisions being made. And ideally, that's the whole point of the exercise.

Potpourri LXXXIV

What's next? How about a bill to investigate behavioral modifcation to change the way your kids consume energy?

Ridley Scott is going to direct a prequel to his visceral (literally) movie Alien. Can someone explain what consumer need this meets?

Here's a summary of recommendations made to the Augustine Panel by Robert Lightfoot, Acting Director of Marshall Space Flight Center:

First, we need to extend the ISS. We continue to use this magnificent platform to learn how to live and work in space. Whether it is studying the effects of long-term exposure on the human body or whether it is simply learning how to do maintenance of critical systems that have issues, we are building a ton of “scar tissue” which will help us make those next steps in longer duration and longer distance space travel.
Second, we need to get out of low earth orbit. I believe the Constellation architecture is one of the possibilities to do this, and we’re making progress every day but – however you frame it – we need a heavy lift capability. However, no matter what recommendations you provide, I would hope you set an expectation that there will be bumps along the way and that should not distract us from our goal.
Third, as has been stated in just about every one of these Commissions and reports, I would hope you would state again that any policy has to come with the resources.
Fourth, I believe there is more room for collaboration with the international partners, commercial operators, and other government agencies. I think if we can get past the tyranny of “or” – “commercial or NASA” – and recognize the power of “and” – "commercial and NASA” – we will go a long way toward taking advantage of the space economy.
Finally, I would hope each of you would think about what got you interested in human spaceflight and for a brief moment move away from the architectures, the scenarios and budget and ask yourselves “Why human spaceflight?” I believe a section in your report dedicated to “Why human spaceflight?” and presented to the President from such a highly respected group would be a powerful message indeed. A lot of us “grounded” explorers lived the experience of human spaceflight through those that got to travel like Dr. Chiao and Dr. Ride, and while we cannot share the same feelings, we can share the sense of accomplishment of turning the impossible into the possible. It will inspire the next generation, as you heard from our students. It provides us a place of leadership as a country – something we have given away in so many areas – and it will provide technical and economic benefits that we can’t even begin to predict.

Speaking of the Augustine Panel (yet again), the Space Frontier Foundation put out a press release hailing the Panel's belief that "the underlying reason why we do human spaceflight is the extension of human civilization beyond Earth." Great! That's more or less the vision and mission statements of the National Space Society. One wonders what shape our human spaceflight program will take to achieve that end.

NASA and the CAFE standards people announced an efficiency contest today to spur development of fuel-efficient aircraft. This program might actually work.

From Frank at MarsDrive, a pretty good blog on some of the ugly facts facing the government-run space program. Ugly fact #1: THE PUBLIC AREN’T INTERESTED IN SENDING PEOPLE TO MARS.

And that'll do for now. Happy Friday.

Book Review: I Am Legend

Richard Matheson's I Am Legend has been a classic of the horror genre since its release in 1954. It is about to be released as a new motion picture starring Will Smith. Being a fan of Mr. Smith and having heard good things about Matheson's book, I thought I'd give it a try.

This will actually be the second attempt to bring Legend the big screen. The first was The Omega Man, starring Charlton Heston. I will be most interested to see how Hollyweird will change the book. The most obvious changes are a shift in location from Los Angeles to New York and the race of the protagonist.

So, what about the book? Legend is a stark tale about one man's struggle to survive in a world that has been nearly emptied of people; those people who do survive have become vampires. Thus, the early part of the 160-page story starts with the hero, Robert Neville, living a one-man-survivalist existence in a near-gothic world of garlic, wooden stakes, and crosses in order to keep the evil at bay. His home is festooned with garlic, boarded and locked up, and stocked with food, fuel, and a generator to keep life in at least one place safe and sane. He also keeps himself stocked up on garlic thanks to a greenhouse. In many ways, Legend can be seen as an analogy for being a single survivor in a post-nuclear world. Neville himself is a sometimes-flawed protagonist, often temperamental and self-destructively drunk. His morality, such as it is, centers around keeping himself alive and looking for ways to kill the vampires, at which he is sometimes successful. The driving action of the book is Neville's various successful and unsuccessful attempts to learn about and defeat his enemies. There is also some--not much--grim humor in Legend.

What's interesting about Matheson's treatment of vampires is his manner of providing a scientific explanation for their existence. DNA was a recent discovery at the time the book was written, but Matheson is able to use then-current biology and germ theory and chemistry to offer explanations for, and methods for fighting against, a population composed of vampires.

I refuse to play spoiler on the ending, mostly because I am curious about how today's writers will handle it, but Matheson and his protagonist remain scientific to the end. This might be seen as one of the many dark visions offered up by the 1950s, a time when we were all supposed to be so innocent and naive. However, Matheson's writing, while nearly profanity-free by today's standards, leaves little doubt about the brutality that human beings can resort to and the moral codes they will accept in the name of survival. What sort of fate will 2007 Hollywood prescribe for Matheson's deeply flawed, yet engaging vampire killer? I am not a huge fan of horror films, but I found this book absolutely fascinating, and I respect Will Smith enough to give the movie a try. Besides, how bad could it be with a PG-13 rating, anyway?

Matheson's best-known work, besides Legend, might be the Twilight Zone Episode "To Serve Man," where a group of benevolent aliens come to Earth bearing a single, fair-sounding text to bring peace: "To Serve Man." The punchline ending of that episode, of course, is that it's really a cookbook. Matheson's "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" had the distinction of appearing in the Twilight Zone TV series (starring William Shatner) and the Twilight Zone Movie (starring John Lithgow).

Matheson's story The Incredible Shrinking Man became one of the classics of '50s schlock sci-fi moviemaking, but it also served as an analogy for man's increasing loss of power. Another amazing book of his is What Dreams May Come, which also has been made into a visually stunning movie starring Robin Williams. One of the great things about the special effects of the 21st century is that some of the serious classics of science fiction and fantasy can now be portrayed realistically on the big screen. I hope to see some of the other classics in the genre filmed in the future. For better or worse, we are now living in the future that many of the Golden Age SF authors wrote about, once upon a time. Even in this high-tech world of ours, those geniuses of the Industrial Age still have lessons to teach us. Richard Matheson is one of the best teachers.