Emanuela - since you did quote me directly within the text of your question, I feel a bit obliged to contribute a thought or two here. I hope it helps.

My sentiment is that only certain sectors of the population should be concerned about being 'popular' (1) : e.g., show-biz people (actors, pop singers, … who need to draw crowds); politicians (who need to be re-elected); sport champions (who need to draw sponsors). And let’s not forget adolescents, who enter the mating game: the more popular they are, the higher their standing among their peers and their choice of a suitable partner.

Researchers, for their part, need NOT be concerned about such silly games. Researchers must be judged solely on the basis of their contribution to the corpus of science. Which has nothing to do with the current ‘taste’ of the crowd. Fortunately.

In fact, outstanding researchers are often attracted to dark, unexplored corners of science. Not exactly the best place to win a beauty contest! Look at the Nobel Prize winners in physics: a high number of them were clearly ‘asocial’ caracters, having great difficulty in conversing or relating with others. Not frankly ‘popular’, if you see what I mean. In fact some of the most brilliant– Dirac and Gödel for sure– displayed symptoms of autism (see brief discussion on that, two days ago under the thead "RG Score inclusion in CV").

The case of Albert Einstein is exceptional: one of the rare scientists succeeding on both axes. Einstein was rapidly recognized as a genius by his peers, and became a hugely popular figure in the public, with something close to 'star status'. Why is that? I would guess that it has little to do with his brilliant theories of special and general relativity- understood by less than 1% of adults- a little to do with his pacifist stand (although not very popular then), and much to do with his eccentric looks as the gentle, ever ‘absent-minded’ professor.

Einstein had a talent for delivering light but profound quotes. The following is fitting here and will serve as my conclusion:

“What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.”

___________________

(1) sensu “fitting the taste of a large majority”

I congratulate Emanuela for this question and for mention about problems in such discussion.

Really, one scientist could be popular, but this is not proportional with its scientific output and efforts in scientific work.

To be intelligent, namely socially intelligent as scientist is not enough to become popular. There play role the community needs, case, character of this person etc.

Probably, every scientists more or less wish to be popular, accepting this as evaluating of his efforts, spent time and results. And as mention Emanuela-there are nothing wrong in popularity, but in my opinion if it come in a natural way. From my point of wiev some scientists, after it active work, become administrators and increases in own reputation due to position, forgeting for his real place in scientific comunity in active scientific life.

Decaying into triviality can happen at any time no matter it is realted to a popularity or not. Most scientists have less wish to be popular comparing to those movie stars, singers, or someones who have been raised in that way. In the RG platform, you have your own freedom to think , to ask, to answer, to follow, etc. with nothing related to money (or maybe just a little, I am not sure). Anyway, If you really need reputation, there are several ways and RG is one of those thousand ways.

The cynical reality is that you should say controversial things; then you'll appear on TV, Radio, magazines etc. It works for a time until they find another one. look in Holland, Pim Fortuyn -> Ayaan Hirsi Ali -> Rita Verdonk, ->Geert Wilders!

But, of course, I do not recommend it!

Popularity can be achieved in 3 ways

1-Scientific reputation/intellectual rigour

2-character, personality, charm,sense of humor and

3- a mixture of the above two.

There are many scientists that I could think of who are highly reputable in their field but are hardly popular. Likewise, there is the average scientist who may not necessarily be be an authority in his/er field but is very popular because of his/er character, sense of humor and charisma.

The way I see it popularity can't be achieved only by intellectual rigour, personality and sense of humor play an important role.

Back to your question Emanuela, how to become popular without decaying into triviality? I believe a scientist must exercise both of the 2 qualities above without one overcoming the other. One has to always strike a balance. In fact I have always found that scientists with good sense of humor can explain things better to their audience or students! and may be this is one way of becoming popular!

Emanuela - since you did quote me directly within the text of your question, I feel a bit obliged to contribute a thought or two here. I hope it helps.

My sentiment is that only certain sectors of the population should be concerned about being 'popular' (1) : e.g., show-biz people (actors, pop singers, … who need to draw crowds); politicians (who need to be re-elected); sport champions (who need to draw sponsors). And let’s not forget adolescents, who enter the mating game: the more popular they are, the higher their standing among their peers and their choice of a suitable partner.

Researchers, for their part, need NOT be concerned about such silly games. Researchers must be judged solely on the basis of their contribution to the corpus of science. Which has nothing to do with the current ‘taste’ of the crowd. Fortunately.

In fact, outstanding researchers are often attracted to dark, unexplored corners of science. Not exactly the best place to win a beauty contest! Look at the Nobel Prize winners in physics: a high number of them were clearly ‘asocial’ caracters, having great difficulty in conversing or relating with others. Not frankly ‘popular’, if you see what I mean. In fact some of the most brilliant– Dirac and Gödel for sure– displayed symptoms of autism (see brief discussion on that, two days ago under the thead "RG Score inclusion in CV").

The case of Albert Einstein is exceptional: one of the rare scientists succeeding on both axes. Einstein was rapidly recognized as a genius by his peers, and became a hugely popular figure in the public, with something close to 'star status'. Why is that? I would guess that it has little to do with his brilliant theories of special and general relativity- understood by less than 1% of adults- a little to do with his pacifist stand (although not very popular then), and much to do with his eccentric looks as the gentle, ever ‘absent-minded’ professor.

Einstein had a talent for delivering light but profound quotes. The following is fitting here and will serve as my conclusion:

“What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.”

___________________

(1) sensu “fitting the taste of a large majority”

Thank you for your comment Frederic. I want to give some examples of the phenomenon 'Scientists who rock the world of media, not only the world of science!'

Brian Greene (NOVA Fabric of the Cosmos- Multiverse Theory)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDHOLAACYv0&feature=relmfu

Stephen Hawking - Cosmologist and physicist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg

Brian Cox- Geneva Institute Experiments on Higgs Boson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fbUiNQ0Buk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efLeReifW0c

I can continue, but I stop here. In the meanwhile there are voices (more or less envious, I don't know) who claim that the popular ones are not the most significant for the field. Is this affirmation (even if only partially) valid in your view and in the frame of the question asked above?

Dear Emanuela,

it is certainly a relevant question, but for me without a clear answer. There seems to be no link between intellectual rigour and popularity, neither in one way nor the other. Intellectual brilliance may be related to some degree of autism, as has been argued, but there are certainly intellectual brilliant people who gained huge popularity. Unfortunately, we live in a mass-media, spectacle society (as assumed by Guy Debors many decades ago already) in which the accumulation of information leads to increasing superficiality and polarization between known and non-known people, singers, movies, books and brands... And, of course, scientists. Some make it through to stardom and become known by millions while most remain unknown except for their immediate short circle for the rest of their life. At the same time, the 'middle class' (those known beyond their immediate circle but not necessarily known by the crowds) is increasingly vanishing. And I would argue that intellectual rigour has nothing to do with it. It has to do more with communication and some random amplifying process whereby some enter the main spectacle circles and their message spreads, virus like, and thus becomes 'the one to be known'. Confronted to a lack of time, most jump to those who are 'the ones to be known' and get aquainted with their message, more in order to be 'up to date' within their circles and not necessarely because their theories are relevant or accurate. Unfortunately, those who embrace this new star seldom have time and criteria to judge his intellectual rigour. And this not only by the non-specialist, but I would argue including the specialist. The multiplication of information is such today that the increasing noise and lack of time/distance makes it increasingly hard to separate good inquiry from bad... The easiest and shortest way is just to know those who everyone knows...

My impulsive reaction to your brilliant contribution, Andri is: Yes, we live indeed times of Great Confusion and the End of this 'history' is not even close. Do you think that rigour is what we need or maybe something else? I share your opinion about time pressure and the frustration associated with it. The background noise is also part of my reality. Can/should we the intellectual 'class' do something about it or just observe all this from the ivory towel?

The attempt to become popular in the media might be seen as a first step towards obtaining increased attention for a certain science quest and towards gaining social capital. In most countries I know about scientific work is mainly financed by public money. Bringing the scientific debate to the public forum can be a method of marketing.

Political sphere has always been interconnected with the financial sphere. However the new predominant sources of wealth are information and social capital, which are basically inherently more related to politics. I see a future for this type of politics outside the classical sphere of politics.

I have just had a private exchange of thoughts with a researcher on RG whom I respect very much and the discussion as such will remain private. However this exchange determines me to specify one thing.

I have not intended in any way to refer (even less to accuse) the researchers on the RG of a dishonest attempt to become popular, the price being the lack of rigour. At least in my field, the real big names are not present at all on RG. The second aspect is that I am not judgemental about popularity, not at all. I intended to open for a new-thinking discussion, to avoid stepping again and again in the same footprints.

I want to provide a concrete example of the interaction between (uninformed political decision/health policy) and science: the swine flu vaccine used in 2009-10 and the narcolepsy cases. Already in 2009, many scientists have participated in several discussions on different media and social forums trying to warn the parents and all the other adults that the vaccine could bring harmful effects because it was not enough tested and that benefits were less significant than the risks. I have heard it again and again in the media. However since the state policy was mass-vaccination and the interest of the state was to pursue with the vaccination, many people didn't dare to take a decision based on science, but instead have relied on the bureaucratic reasoning.

The politicians with the help of mainstream media really succeed to distort the message. The few scientists with a different opinion have been invited to participate and give the impression of lack of consensus and all this tactic conducted the parents to vaccinate the child. Some of these children have the diagnosis narcolepsy today. Is science supposed to be a division of the politics or should it be independent and have an autonomous voice that actually has a say?