Scientists

[Mr Sensible]

Has anyone else thought that the term 'scientist', as used in the media, might be helpfully replaced with another word?

"Scientists have discovered.. ", "Scientists say.. " - these phrases seem to conjur up the idea that there is a white-coated army of (generally) men doing rarified things that cost lots of money.

It lumps all such people together as a uniform society, such that if discussion occurs between its members, this can be seen as some sort of problem by 'outsiders' who have spotted a flaw in what is thought to be the 'scientific view'.

Thing is - scientists are people too, engaged in all kinds of exploration..

So just to see what happens, how about alternative suggestions for what to call these people ? (please - no profanities  )

"Researchers have discovered.. ", "A team at wherever has found.. " ..

Over to you


(PS: It seems the word 'scientist' was first coined in 1833 at the Lunar Society)

 

[Its_grim_up_north]

The terms are there - the media are just lazy. e.g.

"A team of geneticists"

"A team of electrical engineers"

"A molecular biologist at..."

Would make such a difference for students picking potential careers if the press was a bit clearer.

[Brosville]

"A rose by any other name........."  I don't think the problem is the word, but the public perception of "scientists". Back in the 60's, they were seen as the glowing hope for all humanity, nowadays, thanks to the imbalance of funding, their image is greatly tarnished. They are seen (rightly or wrongly) as the instruments of change for the worse.
   If you contemplate that in the UK that nearly all research funding is from the major multinationals, most of which appear to have a total morals bypass, it is hardly surprising.
    I think an excellent example would be the present problems with bees - a few independent researchers are exploring all avenues (like the Penn State team), and a chap working at Sussex University, they are investigating every possible cause, including the highly likely possibility that "icides" are at least part of the problem.
However, if you carefully read all the articles on the BBKA website, who are supposedly an independent charity for all beekeepers,  there has been no mention whatsoever of agrochemicals as an area deserving exploration, same with DEFRA (who have long had an all-too-close relationship with the chemical companies). (BBKA accepts funding from the agrochemical companies in return for labelling their toxins "bee friendly")
 Who advises government? - DEFRA and the BBKA - to my knowledge, although they've made noise about funding research, NONE has been into pesticides due to "undue influence" by the rich and powerful vested interests.
  "Scientists" are the ones who'll get the blame for this gross bias, but they are but pawns in the game played by politicians and multinationals. I cannot see this change until we realise that we need as a nation to pay for truly independent research in our universities, free and untainted by commercial pressures.
   I'm not suggesting scientists are being dishonest, they're just not being told to look in the right places, or answer the right questions.......

[RPengelly]

On a small aside, at what point would you say one can refer to one's self as a 'scientist'? Do you need a PhD, or merely the ability to hold a worthwhile, prolonged debate on something of scientific content?

One problem with the idea of specificity in the media, is that the sciences have a tendency to bleed into one another, even at specific levels. For example a genetecist needs to be a chemist and molecular biologist also.