Monday 11 April 2011

Sell it to me















Hmmm, I'd like a coffee please! (Image by Marshall Astor)


Having worked in molecular biology research for 9 years and still counting, I can conclude that being in science is very much like running a business: the Principle Investigator (the P.I., the boss) is like a sole trader; their laboratories are their work premises; they employ students, technicians and post-doctoral researchers who are all paid with monies obtained through research grants; their heavy-duty equipment (also obtained through grants) is their capital; stock consists of glassware, disposal containers, pipettes, bins, chemicals, growth media and the like. There are bills to pay, health and safety regulations to adhere to and obligations to fulfill, such as teaching and lecturing. The major object of trade is data.

To be successful in academic science one has to be successful in the business of generating data. And not just any old data - positive data, exciting data, data that tells a story. Data that gets everyone in your field of work talking. Data that scoops anyone else working on your topic. With funds becoming scarce and more complex to obtain (see blog entry: Fat cats and dead rats), it is now necessary for scientists to have not just good communications skills but good selling skills too. Depending on the interest of the charity/trust who acts as the bank, a research proposal needs to be written in a way that it can fulfill that interest - even if it may never happen. This seems dishonest, however as mentioned in my last blog a lot of science is developmental. Like the initial design sketchings before a form takes place, the nature of scientific research is full of uncertainty. But it does allow questions to be answered, more questions to be asked and doors to be opened to many different possibilities.

There are various ways a scientist can sell his wares. Most communications in academic science occur not only through relevant scientific journals but through conferences and meetings held by the relevant societies. The more popular the topic (i.e. those of public interest such as the environment, food, health and energy) the more a scientist has access to popular medium, such as newspapers, science magazines, radio and TV. It is here in the bright lights that the information being conveyed gets confusing. With many seemingly expert opinions, it is hard to make sense of it all.

A good example of this is the ongoing claims about the health benefits and risks of coffee . In 1999 it was claimed that coffee drinkers are less likely to suffer heart disease compared to those drinking tea (BBC News Health). But then in the same year it was reported that too much coffee leads to elevated stress levels and increased blood pressure (BBC News Health). In 2004, the story changed again with an Italian dietian stating that coffee has a whole host of health benefits - "the stronger the better" (BBC News - again). But don't drink it cold - in 2009 it was reported that iced coffees bought from the high street may increase the likelihood of obesity and cancer (Sky News). Not for Prince Charles though - he was reported to back a controversial therapy involving coffee that could cure cancer (The Guardian). The coffee, however, will not be for drinking purposes.

Some communications in popular medium appear more like hard sell tactics, arising from situations in current events. A recent article in The Guardian pulls out all the stops to confirm that nuclear power has greater benefits than the risks perceived. Another article in the The Telegraph states that even small amounts of alcohol can lead to the risk of developing certain types of cancers. Here, one is more likely to question the reasons behind this: a face-saving tactic by the representatives of the nuclear power industry perhaps? A way to reduce National Health Service bills of treating alcohol related incidents/diseases?

Only those in the know can truly say how the science is being sold. In any case, one has to be quizzical of the information being conveyed, even if it is being backed by scientists and experts.


Enjoy your coffee.

No comments:

Post a Comment