What do you think?
Rate this book
Don't Be Such a Scientist 1st (first) edition Text Only
"You think too much! You mother F@$#%&* think too much! You're nothing but an arrogant, pointy-headed intellectual — I want you out of my classroom and off the premises in five minutes or I'm calling the police and having you arrested for trespassing." — Hollywood acting teacher to Randy Olson, former scientistAfter nearly a decade on the defensive, the world of science is about to be restored to its rightful place. But is the American public really ready for science? And is the world of science ready for the American public?Scientists wear ragged clothes, forget to comb their hair, and speak in a language that even they don't understand. Or so people think. Most scientists don't care how they are perceived, but in our media-dominated age, style points count.Enter Randy Olson. Fifteen years ago, Olson bid farewell to the science world and shipped off to Hollywood ready to change the world. With films like Flock of The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus (Tribeca '06, Showtime) and A Global Warming Comedy (Outfest '08), he has tried to bridge the cultural divide that has too often left science on the outside looking in.Now, in his first book, Olson, with a Harvard Ph.D. and formerly a tenured professor of marine biology at the University of New Hampshire, recounts the lessons from his own hilarious-and at times humiliating-evolution from science professor to Hollywood filmmaker. In Don't Be Such a Scientist , he shares the secrets of talking substance in an age of style. The key, he argues, is to stay true to the facts while tapping into something more primordial, more irrational, and ultimately more human.In a book enlivened by a profane acting teacher who made Olson realize that "nobody wants to watch you think," he offers up serious insights and poignant stories. You'll laugh, you may cry, and as a communicator you'll certainly learn the importance of not only knowing how to fulfill, but also how to arouse.
Paperback
First published August 28, 2009
90 people are currently reading
1551 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 119 reviews
May 21, 2011
I have mixed feelings about this book. I am very glad exists. I believe it is enormously important for scientists to be able to communicate their ideas to the general public. However, within the scientific community there is little concern about science communication or knowledge about how to do it well. This book definitely fills a void and I respect it for that. I'm not convinced it does it well, though.
Olson give a series of suggestions along the lines of "tell a story" and "be likable" and advocates for their importance. In general, I agree with each of his suggestions. He highlighted a number of problems that scientists have when talking with the public are argued convincingly against them. I really wish he had given more advise on how to implement his suggestions, though. As a person who knows a bit about science communication, believes in its importance, and is working hard to be better at it, I found it frustrating to read a book telling me what to do but not how to do it. For instance, I agree that turning a scientific idea into a story is a compelling technique. However, it is undeniably hard and he could have given more advise on how to structure a story and examples of ways people had done it well.
My second problem with this book is that even though Olson tells us to "Be likable" he doesn't do a very good job of it himself. Don't get me wrong; it is an easy and entertaining book to read but also frequently annoying. For all the embarrassing stories he tells of his past, he comes across as somebody who has Figured It Out and ends up talking down to the reader and dropping a fair number of names in the process. Perhaps worse, he divides people into scientists (negative, precise, boring, arrogant, concerned with Truth) and non-scientists (gullible and easily distracted by shinny things). I wish that he had talked instead about experts (who are concerned with detail and accuracy) and non-experts (who would like an exciting and broad introduction to an idea). His division does a disservice to the many enthusiastic and passionate scientists and the curious public that probably includes wonks in other fields. Or perhaps I am just being too much of a scientist in hoping for nuance rather than stereotypes.
Olson give a series of suggestions along the lines of "tell a story" and "be likable" and advocates for their importance. In general, I agree with each of his suggestions. He highlighted a number of problems that scientists have when talking with the public are argued convincingly against them. I really wish he had given more advise on how to implement his suggestions, though. As a person who knows a bit about science communication, believes in its importance, and is working hard to be better at it, I found it frustrating to read a book telling me what to do but not how to do it. For instance, I agree that turning a scientific idea into a story is a compelling technique. However, it is undeniably hard and he could have given more advise on how to structure a story and examples of ways people had done it well.
My second problem with this book is that even though Olson tells us to "Be likable" he doesn't do a very good job of it himself. Don't get me wrong; it is an easy and entertaining book to read but also frequently annoying. For all the embarrassing stories he tells of his past, he comes across as somebody who has Figured It Out and ends up talking down to the reader and dropping a fair number of names in the process. Perhaps worse, he divides people into scientists (negative, precise, boring, arrogant, concerned with Truth) and non-scientists (gullible and easily distracted by shinny things). I wish that he had talked instead about experts (who are concerned with detail and accuracy) and non-experts (who would like an exciting and broad introduction to an idea). His division does a disservice to the many enthusiastic and passionate scientists and the curious public that probably includes wonks in other fields. Or perhaps I am just being too much of a scientist in hoping for nuance rather than stereotypes.
April 16, 2013
OK, here's the deal, while reading this book I realized that all too often I am SUCH a scientist!
This hit me like a ton of bricks the other night when my 13-year old daughter came in with a piece of cinnamon-roll cake that she'd made (she's actually quite the little cook). My wife was also in the room and said (strongly hinting to me) "Isn't this FANTASTIC!" A good dad, a good communicator, wouldn't have had to think things over and chimed right in, but I took a bite and my dumb old scientific brain mulled things over, weighed the evidence and spat out the words, "It's good" then after receiving a nonplussed response from my wife and daughter I added, "It's really good." Not, "It's fantastic" or "This is amazing" or "You are a great chef!"...just "It's really good." Doh! Idiot!
My objective, analyitcal, scientific brain was so conditioned to be that way after after nearly a decade of graduate school and two more decades of teaching science at the college level that it couldn't come up with anything more supporting and encouraging than this "objective" response. Yikes! When this happened I scared myself a little.
Luckily...Randy Olson's book was written just for me, and I had just started to read it shortly before the cake incident happened. I realized that I had become so entrenched in my profession and scientific thinking that I was failing to communicate. Was my response reasonable? Clinically, yes. Was my response objective? Yes. Was the message I sent and the message that was received the one I wanted to send and the one I hoped would be received? Doubtful. Luckily my daughter was not offended, but why couldn't I just be a regular dad? I was busy being SUCH a scientist!
Randy Olson is IMO a fantastic spokesman for challenges scientists face when trying to communicate with non-scientists (i.e., normal people). Randy Olson does a good job explaining how scientists get to be the way they are - it's a product of their graduate school experience...how it changes your brain. He's been there and done that, and now as a film-maker he has also become a specialist at communicating.
The main messages of this book have given me perspective and drive to work deliberately to do more than convey information (a talking head...lecture...lecture...discussion...discussion...bore, bore, bore) when I teach - often to non-science majors.
Olson shares lessons learned in how to be a scientist without being SUCH as scientist, and this is what I needed. Though this book reads like it's about principles of communicating during film-making, it's actually a book about thinking, learning, and most importantly - teaching. It's a book about communicating with people by using a complete set of tools, and at a range of levels: head, heart, gut, and sex appeal.
I plan to recommend this book to all of my colleagues.
Maybe the reason this book has such personal appeal to me is that my background is very similar to Randy's (except for the second career in film-making). I also earned a PhD in biology, and my field is marine invertebrate zoology. Also. I'm all too often "The Randy" of the group (again, read the book and you'll "get" the reference.)
The message and impact of this book on me so far is a clear 5 stars (that's my scientific brain talking). As for heart and gut, etc., it's still 5 stars!
And, lastly, I just have to say that I hope that every college professor in the world would read this book, especially all of the scientists out there. Thanks for the book, Randy!
This hit me like a ton of bricks the other night when my 13-year old daughter came in with a piece of cinnamon-roll cake that she'd made (she's actually quite the little cook). My wife was also in the room and said (strongly hinting to me) "Isn't this FANTASTIC!" A good dad, a good communicator, wouldn't have had to think things over and chimed right in, but I took a bite and my dumb old scientific brain mulled things over, weighed the evidence and spat out the words, "It's good" then after receiving a nonplussed response from my wife and daughter I added, "It's really good." Not, "It's fantastic" or "This is amazing" or "You are a great chef!"...just "It's really good." Doh! Idiot!
My objective, analyitcal, scientific brain was so conditioned to be that way after after nearly a decade of graduate school and two more decades of teaching science at the college level that it couldn't come up with anything more supporting and encouraging than this "objective" response. Yikes! When this happened I scared myself a little.
Luckily...Randy Olson's book was written just for me, and I had just started to read it shortly before the cake incident happened. I realized that I had become so entrenched in my profession and scientific thinking that I was failing to communicate. Was my response reasonable? Clinically, yes. Was my response objective? Yes. Was the message I sent and the message that was received the one I wanted to send and the one I hoped would be received? Doubtful. Luckily my daughter was not offended, but why couldn't I just be a regular dad? I was busy being SUCH a scientist!
Randy Olson is IMO a fantastic spokesman for challenges scientists face when trying to communicate with non-scientists (i.e., normal people). Randy Olson does a good job explaining how scientists get to be the way they are - it's a product of their graduate school experience...how it changes your brain. He's been there and done that, and now as a film-maker he has also become a specialist at communicating.
The main messages of this book have given me perspective and drive to work deliberately to do more than convey information (a talking head...lecture...lecture...discussion...discussion...bore, bore, bore) when I teach - often to non-science majors.
Olson shares lessons learned in how to be a scientist without being SUCH as scientist, and this is what I needed. Though this book reads like it's about principles of communicating during film-making, it's actually a book about thinking, learning, and most importantly - teaching. It's a book about communicating with people by using a complete set of tools, and at a range of levels: head, heart, gut, and sex appeal.
I plan to recommend this book to all of my colleagues.
Maybe the reason this book has such personal appeal to me is that my background is very similar to Randy's (except for the second career in film-making). I also earned a PhD in biology, and my field is marine invertebrate zoology. Also. I'm all too often "The Randy" of the group (again, read the book and you'll "get" the reference.)
The message and impact of this book on me so far is a clear 5 stars (that's my scientific brain talking). As for heart and gut, etc., it's still 5 stars!
And, lastly, I just have to say that I hope that every college professor in the world would read this book, especially all of the scientists out there. Thanks for the book, Randy!
May 4, 2019
This entire book can be summed up in one quote: "So what's worse, to communicate inaccurately or not to communicate at all?".
Unfortunately, that sentence does not appear until page 105 - and the book doesn't end there.
Even if I were inclined to take communication advice from someone who uses the sentence "The audience no likey," without a trace of irony, this book was repetitive and self-aggrandizing to such an extent that I'm still not entirely sure it wasn't just an extended advertisement for one of the author's old movies (which he namechecks constantly).
Unfortunately, that sentence does not appear until page 105 - and the book doesn't end there.
Even if I were inclined to take communication advice from someone who uses the sentence "The audience no likey," without a trace of irony, this book was repetitive and self-aggrandizing to such an extent that I'm still not entirely sure it wasn't just an extended advertisement for one of the author's old movies (which he namechecks constantly).
January 31, 2022
I was extremely disappointed by this book.
The main example the author uses as a "case study" is Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." To him this was a good example because the producer kicked the scientists out of the room! Then the non-scientist could talk and not worry about factual inaccuracies.
This is a suboptimal example on multiple levels. First of all, it's a celebrity talking--not a scientist--so it's not an example of how scientists can communicate better. Kicking yourself out of the room is not a helpful tip. Second, science is about truth: inaccuracies are not OK. There's no point to science communication if it's knowingly based on lies that are used to make the story better. Third, some huge portion of the population still denies global warming, and a major store of ammunition for the deniers' side is the list of real (albeit minor) inaccuracies in Gore's movie.
I am not disagreeing with the importance of style or critiquing "An Inconvenient Truth" but I am pointing out that this is not an example of good science communication by scientists.
Scientists are in classrooms and in the paper and on TV everyday. Are there no good living examples of science speakers? I'm not asking for a public speaking manual; I already have those. But I do think a book like this really needed to include more stories about good scientist-communicators and how they do what they do. Anyway, if that is what you are looking for, this isn't it.
The author mentions people like Carl Sagan, but does not get into how they managed to combine scientific substance and style. From the subtitle and the cover blurbs, it seemed to me that that is exactly what this book was promising. Maybe it was my mistake to expect that but I would imagine many other potential readers would be thinking that too.
It does have a bunch of somewhat entertaining personal anecdotes about a guy who quit teaching biology to go to film school. It does have some good info about how Hollywood people tell stories. Substance with no style is bad and I agree with the author on that. I agree with the premise that scientific jargon does not make for good communication. As a scientist who talks to non-scientists, I would like to learn how to do a better job conveying substance with style. Unfortunately the author sets up an either/or choice of substance vs. style, and then on top of that he votes for style. This is veering away from science and very close to what satirist Stephen Colbert calls truthiness. The author may just be exaggerating the importance of style to make a point about zero-style substance-only people, but he never gets to an illustration of the scientist-storyteller in action making accurate info interesting to the public.
The main example the author uses as a "case study" is Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." To him this was a good example because the producer kicked the scientists out of the room! Then the non-scientist could talk and not worry about factual inaccuracies.
This is a suboptimal example on multiple levels. First of all, it's a celebrity talking--not a scientist--so it's not an example of how scientists can communicate better. Kicking yourself out of the room is not a helpful tip. Second, science is about truth: inaccuracies are not OK. There's no point to science communication if it's knowingly based on lies that are used to make the story better. Third, some huge portion of the population still denies global warming, and a major store of ammunition for the deniers' side is the list of real (albeit minor) inaccuracies in Gore's movie.
I am not disagreeing with the importance of style or critiquing "An Inconvenient Truth" but I am pointing out that this is not an example of good science communication by scientists.
Scientists are in classrooms and in the paper and on TV everyday. Are there no good living examples of science speakers? I'm not asking for a public speaking manual; I already have those. But I do think a book like this really needed to include more stories about good scientist-communicators and how they do what they do. Anyway, if that is what you are looking for, this isn't it.
The author mentions people like Carl Sagan, but does not get into how they managed to combine scientific substance and style. From the subtitle and the cover blurbs, it seemed to me that that is exactly what this book was promising. Maybe it was my mistake to expect that but I would imagine many other potential readers would be thinking that too.
It does have a bunch of somewhat entertaining personal anecdotes about a guy who quit teaching biology to go to film school. It does have some good info about how Hollywood people tell stories. Substance with no style is bad and I agree with the author on that. I agree with the premise that scientific jargon does not make for good communication. As a scientist who talks to non-scientists, I would like to learn how to do a better job conveying substance with style. Unfortunately the author sets up an either/or choice of substance vs. style, and then on top of that he votes for style. This is veering away from science and very close to what satirist Stephen Colbert calls truthiness. The author may just be exaggerating the importance of style to make a point about zero-style substance-only people, but he never gets to an illustration of the scientist-storyteller in action making accurate info interesting to the public.
August 2, 2010
Taking a title from his ex wife’s admonishment Randy Olsen produces a book that is a must read (but likely to miss 1/3) by all scientists.
This book is a must read as it addresses a serious concern: that the general public is getting further and further away from accepting the information presented to them from scientists and academics, and as a result the political powers that be are responding less and less to science and more to populist input.
Certainly scientists are always going to be the nerds of the group – or as Randy describes the ‘designated drivers’ of society. But the disconnect between the everyday person and the ivory tower geeks can only spell trouble for the world.
Olsen tackles this problem from an uncommon direction – rather than joining his scientist colleagues in furious and often offensive attacks on anti-intellectuals, he observes scientists’ inability to communicate their knowledge and offers advice and direction on how to improve this. Mostly coming from his learnings in Hollywood acting classes, and directing comedic films – a somewhat different source of advice than you normally expect from professorial types.
Perhaps the most significant advice is to not ‘rise above’ or in other words talk down to your audience. Something easier said than done when one has been engaging in academic speak for most of their professional career and then attempts to debate a laymen about a highly charged controversial topic, such as intelligent design or global warming.
Speaking of controversy, while it is fairly clear what Orsen’s opinions are on such topics, Don’t be such a scientist is written in an unbiased (well as much as anyone can be) and open minded manner, free from the polemic baiting many non-fiction books are based on nowdays.
I wonder if my book based on my wife’s criticism will be so good – it’s called don’t be such an idiot.
Maybe not.
This book is a must read as it addresses a serious concern: that the general public is getting further and further away from accepting the information presented to them from scientists and academics, and as a result the political powers that be are responding less and less to science and more to populist input.
Certainly scientists are always going to be the nerds of the group – or as Randy describes the ‘designated drivers’ of society. But the disconnect between the everyday person and the ivory tower geeks can only spell trouble for the world.
Olsen tackles this problem from an uncommon direction – rather than joining his scientist colleagues in furious and often offensive attacks on anti-intellectuals, he observes scientists’ inability to communicate their knowledge and offers advice and direction on how to improve this. Mostly coming from his learnings in Hollywood acting classes, and directing comedic films – a somewhat different source of advice than you normally expect from professorial types.
Perhaps the most significant advice is to not ‘rise above’ or in other words talk down to your audience. Something easier said than done when one has been engaging in academic speak for most of their professional career and then attempts to debate a laymen about a highly charged controversial topic, such as intelligent design or global warming.
Speaking of controversy, while it is fairly clear what Orsen’s opinions are on such topics, Don’t be such a scientist is written in an unbiased (well as much as anyone can be) and open minded manner, free from the polemic baiting many non-fiction books are based on nowdays.
I wonder if my book based on my wife’s criticism will be so good – it’s called don’t be such an idiot.
Maybe not.
February 1, 2012
Sigh.
This book is annoyingly correct. Unfortunately there are many among us who enjoy being so cerebral, so literal minded, have resigned ourselves to being poor storytellers, and are not bothered by being classified as "unlikeable" by non-scientists. (Yes, I am talking about myself.) Why can't everyone just BE LOGICAL?
Since the general public has a problem being logical (there I go with the typical condescending tone of the scientist), the author offers some good tips on how to generalize a message. I liked how his recommendation is to become "bilingual" and stick with facts and a robotic voice when communicating with scientists, but use humor and a "human" voice for the rest of the world.
The only point in the book that I totally disagreed with was when he suggested that scientists view red marks and edits on their manuscripts with a detached, objective, appreciative view. In contrast I feel that reading criticism of one's scientific writing is very emotional, gut-wrenching, and rage-inducing.
What is admired within the cloisters of academia can be horrifying when unleashed on the general public. ...the masses thrive not on negativity and negation... [They enjoy] stories of hope and joy, uplifting, inspirational, fulfilling... the kind of stuff that makes scientists want to vomit.
Yes.
This book is annoyingly correct. Unfortunately there are many among us who enjoy being so cerebral, so literal minded, have resigned ourselves to being poor storytellers, and are not bothered by being classified as "unlikeable" by non-scientists. (Yes, I am talking about myself.) Why can't everyone just BE LOGICAL?
Since the general public has a problem being logical (there I go with the typical condescending tone of the scientist), the author offers some good tips on how to generalize a message. I liked how his recommendation is to become "bilingual" and stick with facts and a robotic voice when communicating with scientists, but use humor and a "human" voice for the rest of the world.
The only point in the book that I totally disagreed with was when he suggested that scientists view red marks and edits on their manuscripts with a detached, objective, appreciative view. In contrast I feel that reading criticism of one's scientific writing is very emotional, gut-wrenching, and rage-inducing.
What is admired within the cloisters of academia can be horrifying when unleashed on the general public. ...the masses thrive not on negativity and negation... [They enjoy] stories of hope and joy, uplifting, inspirational, fulfilling... the kind of stuff that makes scientists want to vomit.
Yes.
September 27, 2010
An enjoyable, quick read with some unique insight to offer. Olson seems to have a pretty good handle on what scientists are like. I'm not entirely sure that his personal journey from academia to Hollywood is the absolutely best vehicle for making the point he wants to make, but it works okay. Among the 170 pages, there are about 5 that are really valuable. Maybe it's worth reading the whole thing to get them, but I kind of wonder if it couldn't have been a shorter essay. I would have rated the book higher overall if it seemed a little less self-aggrandizing.
October 7, 2024
“People are always coming up with new theories of the novel. But the main one is: hold my attention” - Margaret Atwood
What I think Olson manages to do with “Don’t be such a scientist” is demonstrate how Atwood’s edict is just as relevant for the world of science communication as it is for literature- yet somehow also ignored by large swathes of the scientific community. When it comes to urgent, weighty matters like public health and climate change, the consequences of not being able to capture society’s attention are profound.
If you are a scientist, the message that “communication matters, and how you communicate is vital” is either going to be completely obvious or a much-needed wake-up-call. If you’re expecting to find guidance on *how* to actually speak science in a way that can get audiences to listen, there is not much of it here. Most of the 200 pages are a treatise about what Olson sees as the fundamental tension between substance style: rigorous and detailed messaging that bores the audience to sleep against emotionally and sensually appealing entertainment that loses its objectivity.
I would argue that this is a false dichotomy, borne of the author’s background in Hollywood and a self-professed artistic voice “characterized by bright colors, upbeat music, silly and even campy humor, high-key lighting, simple but well-structured stories, sincerity, irreverence bordering on offensiveness, and a tendency towards provocation”. There are plenty of scientists, several of which who are even referenced in the book (Sagan and Tyson), that have mastered the art of translating science to the general public. Most of them do so without resorting to cynical and cheap tactics of pathos, or even worse, sex appeal. Bleh.
Science deals in truths, sometimes inconvenient ones, sometimes ones that necessitate urgent action. The stakes for factual inaccuracy or misrepresentation are much higher than they are for a filmmaker unfaithfully adapting a novel or skewing details of a serial killer’s life. A lack of scientific rigor or misleading framing can tarnish the credibility of scientists or of entire scientific fields in the public eye. Remember the ammunition that the mistakes of the Al Gore film provided to climate change denialists? Or the tsunami of vitriol that the scientists interviewed for Seaspiracy faced? There are often real, tangible consequences to going too far in bartering the facts for the entertainment factor. Suggesting that one absolutely has to drop part of one’s objectivity to hold attention is not only poor advice, it is potentially dangerous.
What I think Olson manages to do with “Don’t be such a scientist” is demonstrate how Atwood’s edict is just as relevant for the world of science communication as it is for literature- yet somehow also ignored by large swathes of the scientific community. When it comes to urgent, weighty matters like public health and climate change, the consequences of not being able to capture society’s attention are profound.
If you are a scientist, the message that “communication matters, and how you communicate is vital” is either going to be completely obvious or a much-needed wake-up-call. If you’re expecting to find guidance on *how* to actually speak science in a way that can get audiences to listen, there is not much of it here. Most of the 200 pages are a treatise about what Olson sees as the fundamental tension between substance style: rigorous and detailed messaging that bores the audience to sleep against emotionally and sensually appealing entertainment that loses its objectivity.
I would argue that this is a false dichotomy, borne of the author’s background in Hollywood and a self-professed artistic voice “characterized by bright colors, upbeat music, silly and even campy humor, high-key lighting, simple but well-structured stories, sincerity, irreverence bordering on offensiveness, and a tendency towards provocation”. There are plenty of scientists, several of which who are even referenced in the book (Sagan and Tyson), that have mastered the art of translating science to the general public. Most of them do so without resorting to cynical and cheap tactics of pathos, or even worse, sex appeal. Bleh.
Science deals in truths, sometimes inconvenient ones, sometimes ones that necessitate urgent action. The stakes for factual inaccuracy or misrepresentation are much higher than they are for a filmmaker unfaithfully adapting a novel or skewing details of a serial killer’s life. A lack of scientific rigor or misleading framing can tarnish the credibility of scientists or of entire scientific fields in the public eye. Remember the ammunition that the mistakes of the Al Gore film provided to climate change denialists? Or the tsunami of vitriol that the scientists interviewed for Seaspiracy faced? There are often real, tangible consequences to going too far in bartering the facts for the entertainment factor. Suggesting that one absolutely has to drop part of one’s objectivity to hold attention is not only poor advice, it is potentially dangerous.
January 31, 2021
I am *that* scientist, and felt very attacked reading this book...
Definitely recommend!
Definitely recommend!
July 28, 2009
Over the course of the last half century, the teaching ability of professors at Universities has declined to a point that when a student actually gets a good teacher as a professor, it is an unexpected surprise. Those of us that have worked in the university research environment know the focus of most professors is their research, while the education of the student is an unfortunate but necessary requirement that allows one to continue his/her research. Scientists have forgotten that they actually are at universities for two reasons: 1. Teach students (and public), 2. Perform research. It is sad reality of the current university system that the first reason is often forgotten.
This book is a long overdue shock to the complacent college educational environment, and a must read for young scientists studying any curriculum. Randy Olson has combined his experience as a PhD professor of biology, training from USC Film School, and experience as a movie/mockumentary director to write a book that outlines a list of guidelines (not steps or rules) for scientists to use in order to make their work better understood to the masses. As Mr. Olson intimates and this reviewer would agree, what is the purpose of studying science to further the knowledge of man, if the scientist is the only one that understands the usefulness of their work?
It is the opinion of this reviewer that scientists have a moral obligation to become good communicators. Randy does a great job of outlining guidelines to better ones self as a communicator. These guidelines (chapters) include: Don’t be so cerebral, Don’t be so literal minded, Don’t be such a poor story teller, Don’t be so unlikeable, Be the voice of science. I would also add “Don’t be afraid”. Though not a chapter, Randy addresses this idea throughout. After all, how does one gain wisdom? Through experience and failure. I believe it was Homer Simpson that suggested “You will never fail if you never try, so don’t try!”
This is not a step by step manual on how to do this, then do this, then do this, and you will be a great orator of science. As Randy states, if this type of list is what you are looking for, look elsewhere. It is a guide on what to consider when communicating science to the masses, with suggestions on training to become a better communicator. His suggestions range from something as simple as always practice and prepare your talks (which so many scientists forget to do), to take a course in improve theater! The book encourages each person to reflect on their own strengths, embrace them, and become a good communicator in their own way, not to copy others and try to fake it. Not everyone can be a great teacher, but we can all be better.
When first reading this book I was interested, and as I moved forward, I became enthralled about the contents, lecturing my wife on a daily basis about the contents within. I began using a highlighter and taking notes, many, many pages worth of notes that I can use to improve my skills as a teacher/communicator (and for what it’s worth, I believe I am already a very good communicator of science to the public). Randy’s use of personal experience to get points across will make you think about experiences in education in your own life, from great, to good, to bad and to horrible. It will help you to use your experiences to become a better communicator. In writing a book about his experiences, he pushes you to learn about you. The book is about your betterment after all.
I would suggest the reader not gorge themselves, but read the book slowly over the course of a few weeks. There is a lot of meat in the text that needs some time to digest, and sometimes, requires a reread. In a dream scenario, a weekly study group would be a fantastic way to discuss many of the books critical ideas. If young scientists in all disciplines could all read this book in their undergraduate or graduate work, I have no doubt it would make each one reflect on themselves, their abilities and become a better teacher. It also might not be a bad idea for some of the young scientists to give this book as a gift to some of the older ones. It’s never too late to learn!
This book is a long overdue shock to the complacent college educational environment, and a must read for young scientists studying any curriculum. Randy Olson has combined his experience as a PhD professor of biology, training from USC Film School, and experience as a movie/mockumentary director to write a book that outlines a list of guidelines (not steps or rules) for scientists to use in order to make their work better understood to the masses. As Mr. Olson intimates and this reviewer would agree, what is the purpose of studying science to further the knowledge of man, if the scientist is the only one that understands the usefulness of their work?
It is the opinion of this reviewer that scientists have a moral obligation to become good communicators. Randy does a great job of outlining guidelines to better ones self as a communicator. These guidelines (chapters) include: Don’t be so cerebral, Don’t be so literal minded, Don’t be such a poor story teller, Don’t be so unlikeable, Be the voice of science. I would also add “Don’t be afraid”. Though not a chapter, Randy addresses this idea throughout. After all, how does one gain wisdom? Through experience and failure. I believe it was Homer Simpson that suggested “You will never fail if you never try, so don’t try!”
This is not a step by step manual on how to do this, then do this, then do this, and you will be a great orator of science. As Randy states, if this type of list is what you are looking for, look elsewhere. It is a guide on what to consider when communicating science to the masses, with suggestions on training to become a better communicator. His suggestions range from something as simple as always practice and prepare your talks (which so many scientists forget to do), to take a course in improve theater! The book encourages each person to reflect on their own strengths, embrace them, and become a good communicator in their own way, not to copy others and try to fake it. Not everyone can be a great teacher, but we can all be better.
When first reading this book I was interested, and as I moved forward, I became enthralled about the contents, lecturing my wife on a daily basis about the contents within. I began using a highlighter and taking notes, many, many pages worth of notes that I can use to improve my skills as a teacher/communicator (and for what it’s worth, I believe I am already a very good communicator of science to the public). Randy’s use of personal experience to get points across will make you think about experiences in education in your own life, from great, to good, to bad and to horrible. It will help you to use your experiences to become a better communicator. In writing a book about his experiences, he pushes you to learn about you. The book is about your betterment after all.
I would suggest the reader not gorge themselves, but read the book slowly over the course of a few weeks. There is a lot of meat in the text that needs some time to digest, and sometimes, requires a reread. In a dream scenario, a weekly study group would be a fantastic way to discuss many of the books critical ideas. If young scientists in all disciplines could all read this book in their undergraduate or graduate work, I have no doubt it would make each one reflect on themselves, their abilities and become a better teacher. It also might not be a bad idea for some of the young scientists to give this book as a gift to some of the older ones. It’s never too late to learn!
March 20, 2014
This has been on my to-read list for ages, and now that it's semi-relevant to grad school goals, finally took it off my amazon wishlist. I watched Flock of Dodos during Darwin Week 2010; my review of that is here. Curiously, my opinions of his other work reflect what I got four years later in his book.
Dr. Olson argues that since we live in a world of short-attention spans, scientists need to learn to let go of some of the jargon and embrace subjective emotional/sexual/whatever appeal. Arouse the audience, pique their interest, and they'll follow you to your message. It's important for science communication, and here, nearly five years later there's a proliferation of science communication workshops, courses, etc. (I wonder if Randy ever goes to ScienceOnline in Raleigh?)
While his ideas are good, I'm not going to give it a full 4-5 stars because a good portion seemed to be writing out his disappointment in the blogger community on rejecting Sizzle (which I have yet to see). Science blogs are what drew me towards the world of SciComm, and while there are those who are considerably abrasive (PZ Myers, for example), there are many excellent writers out there (Carl Zimmer, Brian Switek, the Deep Sea News team, etc.) who talk about cool things in the science world without getting condescending (I would definitely have a beer with any of them).
Still, readers should take away from this that it's not just what you say, but how you say it that matters. One of Randy's points from Flock of Dodos is that the Intelligent Design movement is full of buzzwords and as I put it at the time, "shiny wrappers" that make it seem like a palatable product. When Bill Nye debated the legitimacy of Intelligent Design with Ken Ham last month, a sizable number in the science community felt it would be validating a worthless idea by even showing up. However, it was watched by millions, and brought Bill's joy in the scientific method to households that would otherwise never be exposed to critical thinking. Sure, Bill's an engineer and didn't have all the technical details right, but he's insanely relatable and easily communicates these big ideas. The reboot of Cosmos by Neil deGrasse Tyson also shares this enthusiasm over science without talking down to the audience. Get rid of the Ivory Tower, and share what you love!
Dr. Olson argues that since we live in a world of short-attention spans, scientists need to learn to let go of some of the jargon and embrace subjective emotional/sexual/whatever appeal. Arouse the audience, pique their interest, and they'll follow you to your message. It's important for science communication, and here, nearly five years later there's a proliferation of science communication workshops, courses, etc. (I wonder if Randy ever goes to ScienceOnline in Raleigh?)
While his ideas are good, I'm not going to give it a full 4-5 stars because a good portion seemed to be writing out his disappointment in the blogger community on rejecting Sizzle (which I have yet to see). Science blogs are what drew me towards the world of SciComm, and while there are those who are considerably abrasive (PZ Myers, for example), there are many excellent writers out there (Carl Zimmer, Brian Switek, the Deep Sea News team, etc.) who talk about cool things in the science world without getting condescending (I would definitely have a beer with any of them).
Still, readers should take away from this that it's not just what you say, but how you say it that matters. One of Randy's points from Flock of Dodos is that the Intelligent Design movement is full of buzzwords and as I put it at the time, "shiny wrappers" that make it seem like a palatable product. When Bill Nye debated the legitimacy of Intelligent Design with Ken Ham last month, a sizable number in the science community felt it would be validating a worthless idea by even showing up. However, it was watched by millions, and brought Bill's joy in the scientific method to households that would otherwise never be exposed to critical thinking. Sure, Bill's an engineer and didn't have all the technical details right, but he's insanely relatable and easily communicates these big ideas. The reboot of Cosmos by Neil deGrasse Tyson also shares this enthusiasm over science without talking down to the audience. Get rid of the Ivory Tower, and share what you love!
September 7, 2009
Although ostensibly aimed at scientists, “Don’t Be Such A Scientist” offers specific advice to anyone on communicating a message, particularly a complicated rational one, while at the same time chronicling Randy Olson’s transformation from tenured professor of Oceanography at the University of New Hampshire to struggling filmmaker on the mean and venal streets of Hollywood. High-minded and serious at times, hilarious and filled with pathos at others, Olson’s book is an inspiring, entertaining, and edifying read for anyone… except maybe the acting teacher that told him to get the f**k out of her classroom.
Olson wrote this book in response to the rise of an “anti-science” movement “that truly does threaten our quality of life.” He sounds a call to arms for the rational world: “Large groups of people are fighting against hard, cold, rational data-based science and clinical medicine, simply saying they don’t care what the science says.” For Olson, the problem is not in the quality of the science itself but in the manner in which it is communicated. Too many scientists rely on the work to speak for itself, and, according to Olson, therein lies the problem.
In “Don’t Be Such A Scientist”, Olson lays out specific steps to make scientists better story-tellers, especially through the visual media. He starts with encouraging the reader to be less cerebral and “to move the process down out of your head, into your heart with sincerity, into your gut with humor, and, ideally… into your lower organs with sex appeal.” Classical story structure, character, humor, and, God forbid, likeability are topics Olson covers while drawing from his personal experience with icons of the science community like Stephen Jay Gould and Jeremy Jackson and Hollywood players like Spike Lee, Quentin Tarantino, and Jack Black. Olson’s wide-ranging experience and knowledge, his keen intelligence, irreverant wit, and rebellious spirit make “Don’t Be Such A Scientist” a provocative and compelling challenge to all of us to be better communicators.
Olson wrote this book in response to the rise of an “anti-science” movement “that truly does threaten our quality of life.” He sounds a call to arms for the rational world: “Large groups of people are fighting against hard, cold, rational data-based science and clinical medicine, simply saying they don’t care what the science says.” For Olson, the problem is not in the quality of the science itself but in the manner in which it is communicated. Too many scientists rely on the work to speak for itself, and, according to Olson, therein lies the problem.
In “Don’t Be Such A Scientist”, Olson lays out specific steps to make scientists better story-tellers, especially through the visual media. He starts with encouraging the reader to be less cerebral and “to move the process down out of your head, into your heart with sincerity, into your gut with humor, and, ideally… into your lower organs with sex appeal.” Classical story structure, character, humor, and, God forbid, likeability are topics Olson covers while drawing from his personal experience with icons of the science community like Stephen Jay Gould and Jeremy Jackson and Hollywood players like Spike Lee, Quentin Tarantino, and Jack Black. Olson’s wide-ranging experience and knowledge, his keen intelligence, irreverant wit, and rebellious spirit make “Don’t Be Such A Scientist” a provocative and compelling challenge to all of us to be better communicators.
July 27, 2009
This book should be a paradigm shift for anyone who's interested in the fate of our little blue planet. Funnily written, with cute little anecdotal stories about the author's life dealing with scientists (including himself, the author points fun at his own mistakes as "such a scientist" including an hilarious story about making a fool of himself in front of Spike Lee). Yet the book doesn't simply poke fun, it also hammers home on some very interesting and timely messages about what everyone can do to communicate more efficiently and persuasively. But the most powerful messages hit home when the author is talking about the importance of communicating global warming science better, because that's where we can screw up our entire livelihood. For instance the author points out we can't do much about global warming when well over half of America feels that global warming either isn't happening or isn't an immediate concern. The author explains why the American audience isn't buying global warming, and what scientists need to do to grab the attention of the public. This book is a very timely and important thesis on the dumbing-down of America, and why science needs to learn a few lessons from Hollywood to reach a mass audience in today's media-saturated environment, yet it is packed in such a quick, fun read, that you can tell the author has taken his own advice.
June 10, 2021
کتاب به مسئلهٔ مهم ارتباط بین دانشمندان و مردم میپردازه و نکات خیلی جالبی رو گوشزد میکنه. برای مثال شناخت مخاطب یا داشتن روایت. ولی کتاب مثل یه پست وبلاگی خیلی طولانیه و واقعا به اون صورت در قامت کتاب نیست.
ولی خوندنش رو توصیه میکنم.
ولی خوندنش رو توصیه میکنم.
April 16, 2012
The basic ideas of this book are great, but I don't think the author needed a full book to explain himself. The author spent too much time talking about himself, instead of exploring interesting issues with science communication and film as an art-form. He also seemed pretty obsessed with making himself out to be so "cool" which really wasn't necessary. However, that said, I agree with his main premise, that scientists really need to re-think how they communicate to each other and to the general public.
October 12, 2009
A clear and well told examination of the cultural gap between scientists and the entertainment industry.
February 14, 2013
"Excellent! A fun easy read, and good advice/ideas for scientists trying to communicate with regular people."
March 30, 2018
It was not too long ago while I was struggling to understand a very basic journal written on stem cell culture. The language was so complex and non-friendly that I had to find some alternative materials for learning about it. And guess what! There are very few articles which are user friendly and easy to understand.
Now. there might be some reasons behind this. I can say I am a bad learner and reader. That has the higher probability as I hardly read any journals. But if I say, scientists are very bad communicator; I think this one is also true. People like you and me doesn't know profoundly about critical scientific issues, but one thing for sure, they love science. Who doesn't? Literally it is explaining every mystery from the beginning of the first fire-work in the deep ancient forest by two unknown man and a pair of pebbles. So my point of writing is, due to lack of interesting and good communicator, science has turned itself into a taboo from the general people. And in no way, this is appreciated.
We need more Carl Sagan or current world terrific speaker Neil deGrasse Tyson. People love to listen to them. And you know for sure, they are the voice of science. No matter how more you know, it all goes to trash if you don't have a way to tell people about it.
Dr. Randy Olson in his non-fiction book, tried to explain all these issues and managed to come up with some excellent advises which can benefit scientists from every field just to leave their selfish world and enter into the world of general people. And the best part of this book is, you get a whole lot of new movies and books' name from it. You also get acquainted with this modern communication based scientific world.
There is a minor flaw to this edition. The writer quite often went on too explaining about his own movies and books. I was bored reading about 'Flock of Dodos' again and again. It seemed like an advertising billboard. Other than this, this is a must read book for everyone.
Now. there might be some reasons behind this. I can say I am a bad learner and reader. That has the higher probability as I hardly read any journals. But if I say, scientists are very bad communicator; I think this one is also true. People like you and me doesn't know profoundly about critical scientific issues, but one thing for sure, they love science. Who doesn't? Literally it is explaining every mystery from the beginning of the first fire-work in the deep ancient forest by two unknown man and a pair of pebbles. So my point of writing is, due to lack of interesting and good communicator, science has turned itself into a taboo from the general people. And in no way, this is appreciated.
We need more Carl Sagan or current world terrific speaker Neil deGrasse Tyson. People love to listen to them. And you know for sure, they are the voice of science. No matter how more you know, it all goes to trash if you don't have a way to tell people about it.
Dr. Randy Olson in his non-fiction book, tried to explain all these issues and managed to come up with some excellent advises which can benefit scientists from every field just to leave their selfish world and enter into the world of general people. And the best part of this book is, you get a whole lot of new movies and books' name from it. You also get acquainted with this modern communication based scientific world.
There is a minor flaw to this edition. The writer quite often went on too explaining about his own movies and books. I was bored reading about 'Flock of Dodos' again and again. It seemed like an advertising billboard. Other than this, this is a must read book for everyone.
February 10, 2019
Bringing science to the masses
Science has a problem: its chief advocates and interpreters are scientists. As smart, accurate and disciplined as they may be, they are generally ill-equipped to share their work in a compelling way with others unaccustomed to science-speak. That's the message of Randy Olson, scientist-turned-filmmaker, who draws off his experiences as a marine biologist and Hollywood filmmaker to illuminate the differences in the needs and expectations of scientific specialists and mass audiences.
Olson makes his case through a series of admonitions: don't be so cerebral, don't be so literal, don't be a poor storyteller, and don't be so unlikable. While these might sound basic or even obvious, in fact there is some nuance to Olson's argument, and he repeatedly returns to the theme of making tradeoffs between objectivity and subjectivity, science and art, story and information.
The book is more sweeping big ideas than detailed how-to, but there is plenty to make us think more intentionally about our choices when sharing scientific or technical findings with non-technical audiences. And given the urgency of dealing with climate change, it's easy to agree that we all need more, and more compelling, communication about science.
Science has a problem: its chief advocates and interpreters are scientists. As smart, accurate and disciplined as they may be, they are generally ill-equipped to share their work in a compelling way with others unaccustomed to science-speak. That's the message of Randy Olson, scientist-turned-filmmaker, who draws off his experiences as a marine biologist and Hollywood filmmaker to illuminate the differences in the needs and expectations of scientific specialists and mass audiences.
Olson makes his case through a series of admonitions: don't be so cerebral, don't be so literal, don't be a poor storyteller, and don't be so unlikable. While these might sound basic or even obvious, in fact there is some nuance to Olson's argument, and he repeatedly returns to the theme of making tradeoffs between objectivity and subjectivity, science and art, story and information.
The book is more sweeping big ideas than detailed how-to, but there is plenty to make us think more intentionally about our choices when sharing scientific or technical findings with non-technical audiences. And given the urgency of dealing with climate change, it's easy to agree that we all need more, and more compelling, communication about science.
October 10, 2019
In a nutshell: Be sexy and emotional and your problems will dwindle, as these are the least common denominators of communication. This is the exact type of subjective social construct that fosters conflict, anxeity and false validation while rewarding irrationality and a lack of introspective ability. Not surprising coming from the film industry mindset. The entire premise is "argumentum ad populum". Mankind's tangible progress is rooted completely in logic and reason, as logic and reason are mankinds only faculty to knowledge. Emotion is not a tool of reason it is a byproduct of cognition. We know sex sells, but you dont need to hypersexualize everything to compensate for a lack of comprehension. The objective substance of logic and reson do not change, while subjective "style" does. Clearly not all men are created equal. We laughed at Idiocracy when it came out, now the sobering reality is that we are well past its satirical "what if". Being sexy and emotional until there's a problem, then relying on logic and reason to bail you out, is not sustainable nor sound advise.
September 24, 2020
A useful text for writers and speakers about how to communicate science information in accessible and engaging ways to non-science readers and listeners. I found especially useful Olson's discussion about writing from the four zones of the body - the head (fact-based, cerebral, literal), the heart (draws on emotions, appreciates beauty), the gut (visceral, instinctive, humorous) and the sex organs (sensual, primal, expresses desire and pleasure). Using these four zones as touchstones, Olson then provides a masterclass on communication to include how to create an engaging narrative with substance and style and not just facts, and how to arouse and fulfil your audience, that is to motivate, then educate.
August 13, 2023
Highly recommend this book for scientists that are up for self help, change, and growth. We get so bogged down in our specificities, technical terminology, and specialized fields that this book helped me take a step back. It’s been over a year since reading this book, and I still apply tips and ideas suggested in this book. After implementing some of the things suggested in this book, I have actually become better at lecturing and my scientific talks. I think this book is a great perspective because it helps you become more self aware of our scientist habits that we may not recognize in ourselves but are hard to understand in the general public. So, this book helping communicate our work is important for the growth of science education of the public. Very useful book.
February 2, 2020
This was an interesting book about why scientists have a hard time connecting with audiences, but most of the information overlaps with Randy Olson's other book so it was sometimes hard to keep reading as it didn't really cover new territory for me. What I liked: when Olson brought up his years writing for South Park and his ABT (and, but, therefore) story structure and when Olson examined Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign for narrative drive. It made me immediately look at all the candidates in the 2020 race to see which has the best narrative drive in his/her campaign. I appreciate Randy Olson's books and I love his simple formula for story structure.
May 7, 2020
Don't take it too close to heart. Scientists have many remarkable characteristics that describe them, I as a biology undergrad identify with most of those characteristics, and yet, I found myself loving the fact of being called out on different attitudes that made me realise I take myself too seriously when it comes to science. I really recommend reading this book, not because it teaches one to not be too intense as a scientist but it teaches basic communication skills that we sometimes overlook. Plus, it ends on a high by encouraging to being the voice of science and understanding what your voice or style is when you create something to share to the world
August 9, 2021
If you want to be talked at by a guy who left a promising scientific career to buy a one-way ticket to Hollywood and ended up making some short films and a couple of movies that never had theatrical runs, then this is the book for you.
Alternatively, you could use this book as the basis for a drinking game. Take one drink every time he mentions his mean acting teacher, and if you're not dead before you finish the book then you're in serious need of rehab.
I gave 2 stars instead of 1 since he does make a few valid points, but since his solutions are for scientists to take storytelling classes, improv lessons, and (probably) do interpretive dance, 2 is all I'm giving.
Alternatively, you could use this book as the basis for a drinking game. Take one drink every time he mentions his mean acting teacher, and if you're not dead before you finish the book then you're in serious need of rehab.
I gave 2 stars instead of 1 since he does make a few valid points, but since his solutions are for scientists to take storytelling classes, improv lessons, and (probably) do interpretive dance, 2 is all I'm giving.
November 27, 2017
According to Goodreads, 2 stars means a book is "ok." That's what this book was. It wasn't awful, but I probably could have done without reading it.
Perhaps the problem is that I approached this book hoping to learn something about science communication in general, but instead I learned more about film-making. Also, the author makes some very broad generalizations and is unorganized in his writing. However, he does also make some worthwhile points. Unfortunately, they were points that I was already familiar with, so I didn't get a whole lot out of it.
Perhaps the problem is that I approached this book hoping to learn something about science communication in general, but instead I learned more about film-making. Also, the author makes some very broad generalizations and is unorganized in his writing. However, he does also make some worthwhile points. Unfortunately, they were points that I was already familiar with, so I didn't get a whole lot out of it.
January 2, 2018
I found this very helpful. I work give science and history programs for the public as a part of my job. While I am not educated as a scientist, I realized reading this book that I very much have a scientist's brain. The information in this book will help me give better presentations.
Considering that there is a segment of the population seems to have great disdain and disbelief of scientists, the topic of how scientists can better communicate is an important and current topic.
Considering that there is a segment of the population seems to have great disdain and disbelief of scientists, the topic of how scientists can better communicate is an important and current topic.
July 17, 2017
Ironically, I don't like Randy Olson's delivery (dare I say style), but the substance was invaluable. He presents excellent and easy-to-understand frameworks to assist in crafting science stories. A lot of self-promotion and repetition, but the message sticks and makes sense.
The elevator pitch I would give this book is "using Hollywood techniques to tell science stories".
The elevator pitch I would give this book is "using Hollywood techniques to tell science stories".
December 14, 2018
It’s a pretty quick read. Entertaining. I’ll send it as a former PhD scientist and tenured professor who changed careers and became a filmmaker. He brings a lot of insights from the filmmaking world. I thought his insights that film is a better tool for motivation and for instruction was useful. I wouldn’t call it a life-changing read but I did find it useful and recommend it.
May 15, 2020
Although passionate about his subject, Olson veers into annoying (ironic given one of the chapters is titled “Don’t Be So Unlikeable) while exhorting scientists to make science human. I would recommend starting with Houston, We Have A Narrative, part of the Chicago Guides series, for an introduction to Olson’s ABT (and, but, therefore) narrative template.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 119 reviews