How countries can manufacture a famous science communicator, or how to make a celebrity.

How countries can manufacture a famous science communicator, or how to make a celebrity.

How easy is it to manufacture a celebrity? It seems that some countries feel that a science communicator as a celebrity will make their country have more scientists... So what do they do?
1. They look at academics at only prestigious universities.
2. Do you want to represent any social geographics? Select one scientist.
3. Send them to stylist so they know what they can wear.
4. Send them on presenter training course.
5. Get good documentary maker and never fix the camera in 1 spot on them for more then 3 seconds to add pace to the documentary.
6. Get them to write a book. (If they cannot get ghost writer to write book for, or with them)>
7. Publishing company pushes book and use connections to get interviews.
8. If pushing book does not work you can send people to buy 200 copies of book in important bookshops: the ones used to produce the new york best sellers list.)
9, Success

So say we want to produce another professor Stephen Hawking.
Well great marketing a man with a disabled body and great brain (great to god for thinking outside of the box)
We cannot use this, and any other disabled person we choose probably less disabled.
maybe a dwarf people don't relate to dwarfs (but good if linked to geneticist or biologist or bioethicist), I know oriental people always think they are clever people.

Well Prof Stephen is old, We can get an old guy: and if America good choics because all lecturers are called Profs.

Someone who looks photogenic.

So then proceed as above.
Send to stylist, then to presenters course, then to good documentary makers(good director), then send tell to write book (Advantage of academics they write all the time unlike boybands
Release book and use connections ton get reviews and interviews
If needed get people to buy own books in important bookshops used to produce bestseller list.

Hooray.

How countries manufacture science communicators like boybands

I question the logic of this post.

Perhaps it is just late for me, but right now you make no sense.

Well you have left out the most important part. They have to be good at communicating science. Which means they have to be brilliant in their field and also be a good communicator. There are far more scientist that you have never heard of than there are on tv. The one thing all of these "celebrity scientists" have in common is not only did they all wrote books, but they are outstanding in their respective fields of study. In fact, they have all written articles that were published before anyone outside the scientific community even knew who they were. Stephen hawking was a brilliant mathematician long before you saw his body give way to his illness. Michio kaku built a particle accelerator in his folks garage in highschool. Neil degrasse tyson gave lectures on the stars when he was fifteen. None of these guys were chosen to be celebrities, their discipline, determination, personalities as lecturers and innovative thinkers stood them apart from the rest. I think i see where your getting at, but it's obvious that english isn't your primary language. So i apologise if i am misrepresenting your points.

To compare any one of these guys to a boy band shows your lack of knowledge of their pasts and is very disrespectful of their work and contributions to modern science. a reply to: werewolf99

a reply to: werewolf99

Objects are "oriental" people are "Asian" just an FYI.

a reply to: werewolf99

The human race really is dividing up into two species, isn't it?

a reply to: Woodcarver
They make them good at communicating by sending them on a presenters course. It isn't that difficult. Also all academics write papers and as for books universities have their own university vanity publishers: all universities have one.

a reply to: werewolf99

Yea? Public speaking is a thing. You can take courses for it. How is this a conspiracy? How would this disprove the science they are communicating?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Well you have left out the most important part. They have to be good at communicating science. Which means they have to be brilliant in their field and also be a good communicator. There are far more scientist that you have never heard of than there are on tv. The one thing all of these "celebrity scientists" have in common is not only did they all wrote books, but they are outstanding in their respective fields of study. In fact, they have all written articles that were published before anyone outside the scientific community even knew who they were. Stephen hawking was a brilliant mathematician long before you saw his body give way to his illness. Michio kaku built a particle accelerator in his folks garage in highschool. Neil degrasse tyson gave lectures on the stars when he was fifteen. None of these guys were chosen to be celebrities, their discipline, determination, personalities as lecturers and innovative thinkers stood them apart from the rest. I think i see where your getting at, but it's obvious that english isn't your primary language. So i apologise if i am misrepresenting your points.

To compare any one of these guys to a boy band shows your lack of knowledge of their pasts and is very disrespectful of their work and contributions to modern science. a reply to: werewolf99

Funny you should mention Boy Bands

Here n the UK we have a fantastic Science Communicator, Professor Brian Cox. Who used to be in a band.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: alldaylong

Brian cox is a great communicator. I didn't know he was in a band. But it seems to me that musicians and actors are public speakers. It's what they are speaking about that makes all the dif.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Many science communicators profile is created: such as Michio Kaku. In the UK we are lucky to have some that naturally had a high profile, but countries do create them.

a reply to: alldaylong
Stephen Hawking became famous through a book that he wrote. If he had still been a brilliant physicist but an awful author he would have still been obscure. Also the statement I made about his health was meant as ironic and the way that some people seem to portray it as a gimmick. Being good at science does not fame make. If you want to be worldwide famous I doubt any of the people mentioned would say: first study to PHd level....

a reply to: werewolf99

Thats just it, you can't be a brilliant physisist without knowing how to write and be coherent with your data. They are all professors in their respective fields. You never master your field until you start teaching it. Now im sure they have some one who serves in the capacity of an agent or marketing, because they are all selling their books, tickets to lectures, documentaries, and such. But anyone with as big a profile as them needs a support team. My point being that these guys stand apart because they have the knowledge, the personality, and the forsight to create a product, and market themselves as such.

They went to school, earned their degrees, and worked for their "celebrity". They were not "chosen" to be communicators. Bill gates and steve jobs were not chosen to be innovators. They worked for it and forged their own paths.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: werewolf99

Thats just it, you can't be a brilliant physisist without knowing how to write and be coherent with your data.


They went to school, earned their degrees, and worked for their "celebrity". They were not "chosen" to be communicators. Bill gates and steve jobs were not chosen to be innovators. They worked for it and forged their own paths.

The first point is absolutely wrong being a good writer is a completely seperate skill, this is the reason why universities have their own publishers, so that really awful books written by academics can still get published when Real publishers wouldn't. They exist as the universities own vanity publishers. There are many academics of subjects like physics that can barely string together an interesting sentence. Your statement about automatically being good writers is completely wrong. Have you not realised you only hear from those that can write well enough.

They did not earn their celebrity status, because celebrity status isnt earned by degrees: many famous people have no qualifications at all, some do: but they arent famous because of them. Of course they were chosen to be celebrities, do you not think that TV companies, documentary makers choose who they want to take part? Do you really think that countries don't choose some celebrity science communicators? How about Richard Dawkins who was made into a famous celerity because of him holding a chair in Oxfords public understanding of science and even more proof: his fame dropped like a stone when they put another person in that chair.