Communication let me down
If you’re at a party, and a non-chemist asks what your work involves, what do you say? Let’s assume that you get beyond the “I’m a research chemist” stage, and your friend actually wants to hear some details. How do you explain your project in terms that joe public will understand?
I ask this because, having just completed two years as a News & Views editor for Nature, I’ve found that seemingly simple chemical concepts can be misunderstood by scientists from other disciplines. Here’s an example: catalysts. All that most people understand about catalysts is that they speed up reactions. They don’t know – or they have forgotten – that a defining characteristic of catalysts is that they’re used in small quantities.
This lack of insight seems remarkable, especially in biologists, who clearly know a lot about enzymes. But I know from experience that my biologist colleagues don’t know what is meant by ‘a catalytic quantity’ of material. Much less do they understand why a catalytic reaction is preferable to a stoichiometric one (and let’s not get started on the word ‘stoichiometric’). You may think that they’re being remarkably obtuse – but try asking a friend from another discipline about catalysts, and you’ll be surprised at what they don't know.
Does any of this matter? Well, if we want chemistry to have the same respect and recognition as biology, physics and the geosciences (with their headline-grabbing genomes, exoplanets and predictions of climate change), then yes it does. When was the last time a breakthrough in chemistry made it to the front page of a national newspaper?
Frankly, it’s always going to be an uphill battle. We’re never going to see the headline “Catalyst distinguishes between enantiotopic protons” on the front page of the New York Times. In fact, we shouldn’t necessarily expect people to remember everything about chemistry that they were taught at high school - with catalysts being a prime example of this. But we shouldn't give up trying to explain our work. I know from experience that complex concepts, such as enantiotopicity, can be explained to non-chemists in terms they understand. It just takes a little more effort than you might expect.
Andy
Andy Mitchinson (Associate Editor, Nature)
Comments
At least you are trying to communicate with people who understand what evidence is and who have a taste for abstract concepts. Physicians have a much harder job, trying to communicate with everyone (as everyone eventually gets injured or sick). We have failed miserably. Consider the popularity of alternative medicine, chiropractic, 'natural vitamins', the success of the idea that vaccines cause autism etc. etc. Part of the reason is that medical knowledge is much less complete, the concepts less solid. Think about the shifts in dietary advice to the populace in the past 40 years. That's why it's so nice to be back reading chemistry and molecular biology after 38 years in the medical trenches. I don't have to try to do this any more.
Strange to say but not everyone likes, or is interested in, chemistry, but everyone is vitally interested in their own illness, yet scientific medicine has largely failed to communicate very much, and not just with the uneducated. The Wall Street Journal has long railed against the controlled clinical trial.
Posted by: Retread | April 2, 2008 09:01 AM
enantiotopicity can be explained to non-chemists in terms they understand.
A respected physics group demands optical rotation measures mass distribution chirality. It doesn't, not even in solution. Solid state is worse. Silver thiogallate, AgGaS_2 with non-polar *achiral* tetragonal space group I-42d (#122), has immense optical rotatory power: 522°/millimeter along [100] at 497.4 nm. ([alpha]_D is measured through a decimeter, 100X longer path.)
When two identical (superposable) right hands are clasped a perfectly *achiral* solid sphere can result - La Coupe du Roi (using an apple). Ditto left hands, of course.
If you cannot explain it with a cocktail napkin and a swizzle stick, don't. (Put an old 360K floppy onto a cocktail napkin).
Posted by: Uncle Al | April 2, 2008 01:00 PM
Ha! I have it easy there.
Between "I analyze groundwater!" and "I make new materials for solar cells and flat-screen displays!"...the basic explanations are simple. As an added bonus, my answers score cool points with most people who have an environmental or gadget-fiend bent.
Posted by: psi*psi | April 2, 2008 05:52 PM
Heh, I can just say "I'm studying chemistry". People tend to just look at me as though I'm insane. ;) They never ask for details unless I mention doing research, in which case there's a higher probability that they'll ask. However, that's in the Department of Materials Science & Engineering, meaning I first have to explain what the field even is...
Posted by: Materials Girl | April 3, 2008 10:53 AM
It's interesting to think about the depth of chemical knowledge out there, and ways to bring people up to speed. I've been trying to write about chemistry for the last few years at CultureOfChemistry, and the comments from both chemists and others are an interesting window into the knowledge base of both groups.
Try doing this as a mathematician! Even most other scientists' math ends where "real math" begins. If you say you do "analysis" at a cocktail party - and don't mean Jungian - does anyone have a clue? My better half is a math guy and enjoys trying to explain what he does...but it's a long way up.
Posted by: Michelle Francl | April 3, 2008 04:37 PM
This brings to mind a story which shall forever live in infamy as long as I have Richie as a friend. We were both graduate students at a small conference, and his advisor allowed him to give the talk, since it was entirely on his work. During the question and answer session, my advisor asked him whether the enzyme he had purified was catalytic. His response? That it was "somewhat catalytic". I never miss the opportunity to remind him of that...
Posted by: Angela | April 4, 2008 10:37 PM