W
hen Carl Sagan died
in 1996, we lost
one
of
the
world’s
greatest
science
communicators,
leaving a vacancy
that
has
yet
to
be
filled
by
any
modern
scientist.
He
wrote
essays
to
advocate
for
science
education,
published books and
created one of the
most popular science television
programs,
“Cosmos.”
When
I was a kid, my grandmother
would
record
television
programs so I would have
something to do when my
family visited. Between the
episodes
of
Adam
West’s
“Batman,” I would watch the
recorded reruns of “Cosmos”
while sitting on her floor
eating my Cheerios. I may not
have understood all the topics
and concepts at the time,
but I found it intriguing and
exciting.
Sagan was able to make
science enjoyable for everyone.
He
presented
information
so that someone who didn’t
know anything about the topic
could understand it. He really
stood out in the way he never
talked down to his audience.
He made science approachable.
In an interview with Rolling
Stone magazine, Sagan said,
“a lot of my motivation is that
understanding science is fun.
It’s communicable fun.” He
wanted to share his enjoyment
of science with the public,
and if you watch any episode
of “Cosmos,” you can see him
having fun sharing scientific
knowledge with his audience.
We need more people like Carl
Sagan, those who can bridge
the gap between the technical
academic research and the
public, who should be informed
on the newest discoveries in
the world of science.
In the United States today,
many aspects of science have
become politicized. Those who
reject that climate change is
happening, or deny that humans
cause it, do so not necessarily
because they don’t believe in
science, but because they are
told by politicians and the
media that it is not happening.
They are fed the story by these
non-scientific sources so much
that they believe that this is
the new truth. This is when
people start questioning the
authority of scientific experts
on the subject. They have
been told one story regularly,
so when someone comes out
to
claim
otherwise,
they
immediately believe whatever
is being said—even if they
are the ones conducting the
studies.
These
people have become
brainwashed
by
the
24/7
news
culture
that
now
plagues our society.
However,
this
is
not the majority of
people. While some
people can fall into
the false narrative,
many
people
can
smell the B.S but
there remain few places people
can go where they feel they are
being told the truth.
In
a
survey
conducted
during the summer of 2017 by
the Pew Research Center, 57
percent of people responded
that the media does a good job
at covering science. This was
interesting to me because if
the majority of people think
the media does a good job at
covering science, why are so
many people misinformed? It
is not that the media ignores
scientific research, but the
issue is in the way that the media
presents these discoveries. In
the same survey, 73 percent
of responders said the biggest
problem
with
news
about
scientific findings is the way in
which news reporters cover it,
while only 24 percent believed
it was the way the scientists
published it. I believe that if
people were able to receive the
information on discoveries and
new developments in research
from
scientists
themselves,
more people would be able to
trust what they were being
told. We have become so
accustomed
to
the
media
filtering this information for
us. Scientists need to be more
aware of how to present their
findings to the public and build
a larger public profile.
I don’t want to say there
are no longer any scientists
attempting to connect with the
public. There are examples of
researchers actively engaging
with people outside of research.
On Feb. 25, 2016, just weeks
after the official announcement
of the detection of gravitational
waves, Brian Greene, a professor
of mathematics and physics at
Columbia University, appeared
on The Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
to
promote
this
discovery to the audience. He
was excited and explained the
discovery in terms that everyone
could understand. This is the
kind of interaction that scientists
need to be making with the
public about every important
discovery.
Another public scientist is
Neil deGrasse Tyson. In 2014, he
brought back Sagan’s “Cosmos,”
with great success. Rebooting
“Cosmos” was well timed with
the new discoveries being made
in the field of astrophysics and
cosmology. It reached a large
audience
and
was
popular
enough to be renewed for another
season. Tyson did a great job
with the show, however, he often
acts in ways outside the show
that could discourage people
from being interested in science.
Tyson’s tweets are where he
is the most condescending. In
a tweet concerning last year’s
solar eclipse, Tyson wrote “Total
Solar Eclipses occur somewhere
on Earth every two years, or
so. So just calm yourself when
people tell you they’re rare”.
Tyson took a cosmological event
many people were excited about
and told them they should “calm”
themselves. This is the kind
of interaction with the public
that leaves a bad impression
on people. It perpetuates the
image of a pompous scientist
and restricts the number of
people willing to listen to what
scientists have to say.
In the interview with Rolling
Stone mentioned earlier, Sagan
said, “Science, as communicated
in some places, sounds as if it
were the last thing in the world
that
any
reasonable
person
would want to know about. It’s
portrayed as impossibly difficult
to get into and a thing that sort
of rots your brain for any good
social interaction.”
This stigma is continued when
scientists tweet like Tyson and
talk down to those who are not
as scientifically knowledgeable
as them. Those of us in the
scientific community need to
work towards reversing this
stereotype.
I understand that not every
scientist can be Carl Sagan. If
every person doing scientific
research was treated like a
movie star, they would never
be able to perform the research
in the first place. What every
researcher can do is be open to
the people they interact with
every day, share their excitement
about their work and explain
why it is important. Those
with the ability to reach a large
audience need to be responsible
and thoughtful with how they
share their knowledge. The
conjunction of these approaches
will lead to a scientifically
literate public confident in the
information they receive. This
will create a culture in which
we will be able to think critically
about complex issues and be
able to push our knowledge of
the world even further.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, February 7, 2018
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Tara Jayaram
Ashley Zhang
Ellery Rosenzweig
Elena Hubbell
S
unday
night
at
6:30
p.m., the nation came
together
to
watch
a
beloved
American
tradition: the Super
Bowl.
I,
however,
was buried in my
English
homework
deep
within
the
Stacks. I consider ed
this to be my own
method of protest. It
served as my mini-
boycott
against
what I believe is a
capitalistic,
violent
and deadly sport.
Not that my protest made
any difference. Over 111 million
people tuned in to the Super
Bowl last year, and this year
viewership peaked around 103
million. It is a key element of
American society: People eat,
sleep and breathe football.
The NFL receives a massive
viewership—even
more,
it
makes a lot of money. Franchise
values
have
increased
30
percent over the last seven
years to $1.2 billion. Annual
revenue is at $9.2 billion. They
have immeasurable sponsors
and partnerships. Additionally,
the NFL dominates television
— out of the top 10 most
watched TV programs in 2012,
the NFL held the first eight
spots. It is watched and loved
by all demographics of society,
regardless of race, gender or
class. If you’re American, you
most likely enjoy football.
Despite its successes, new
and
disturbing
studies
on
brain degeneration in football
players have shaken the nation.
But these findings are only
new in their exposure, not in
their discovery. Although it
seems obvious that repeated,
aggressive
pounding
of
200-pound bodies will lead
to health concerns, it was
only in 2009 when the NFL
officially acknowledged the
effects
of
long-term
and
repeated concussions. More
than that, it was only in
2016
when
the
connection
between football and chronic
traumatic encephalopathy, a
degenerative
brain
disease,
was admitted by the NFL’s
senior adviser for health and
safety. During the dillydallying
of this information’s release,
countless former and current
players have died due to the
sport they love. These are
players who were talented,
dedicated to and passionate for
a game whose consequences
were not fully revealed. They
accepted
football’s
outward
roughness and injury, but were
unaware of its inward and
long-term consequences.
The
players
cannot
be
entirely
blamed
for
joining
a
sport
that
is
so
obviously harmful.
The NFL lied for
years,
omitting
information
about its dangers
and
placing
all
responsibility
on
the
medical
community.
But
researchers
have
been suggesting the relation
between football and brain
damage
since
1994.
The
connection has just always
been disputed by the League.
The problem lies in the slow
but painful development of
disease; many of the players
don’t
experience
symptoms
until years after they have
retired.
In
the
meantime,
more players get injured, and
medical arguments lose steam
and credibility.
For example, when former
Pittsburgh
Steelers
player
Terry Long committed suicide,
brain analysis demonstrated
that he had CTE; however,
the NFL’s Mild Traumatic
Brain
Injury
Committee
claimed that the connection
between
his
suicide,
CTE
and
football
was
“purely
speculative.” But it’s not just
the medical experts, such as
the MTBI committee, that
undermine the significance
of these findings. Coaches are
guilty of encouraging players
to continue to play despite
presenting obvious concussion
symptoms. For example, New
England Patriots linebacker
Ted Johnson was sent back
on the field, against medical
caution, just four days after
his concussion.
We cannot expect players
to create cautionary measures
for themselves. Football is
their job; they must perform
well for financial reasons,
to maintain celebrity status
and to follow the passion that
made them successful in the
first place. It is the duty of
the league to protect them;
a simple acknowledgment of
the danger of concussions is
different and less assertive
than exposing the long-term
effects that come with the
sport. The NFL needs to be
clear to budding and seasoned
players alike: If you play, and
if you play long and hard, you
have a high risk of developing
CTE.
Committees like the MTBI
cannot serve effectively if
they are clouded by bias;
many of the members were
simultaneously
physicians
for professional teams. Their
denial was justified by what
they claim is confusing and
unfamiliar research. Andrew
Tucker, MBTI member and
Baltimore Ravens physician,
once stated, “the picture is
not really complete until we
have the opportunity to look
at the same group of people
over time.” This mentality
is outrageous, as it basically
claims a willingness to let
people die before constructive
measures can be taken.
With growing knowledge
and confession by the NFL,
a certain responsibility also
falls into the hands of the
fans. As a person who enjoys
watching
soccer,
I
know
how difficult it can be to
turn your back on something
that not only brings you
entertainment, but memories
and a sense of community.
NFL fans will not just be
giving up football if they
stop watching: They will lose
the atmosphere and culture
that comes along with it. I
believe that this is a minor
price to pay. Otherwise, they
are simply accomplices in
a greater crime. The NFL
cannot continue neglecting
the truth if they start to lose
viewers over it, so we must
demand for them to change.
Show your outrage and skip
the Super Bowl next year.
Delete your fantasy football
account. Do not be complicit
in what is an obvious and
glorified
death
sentence
for many young, unaware
and devoted men. Despite
the overwhelming presence
of the NFL in American
society, we are in control of
its success. If we display our
distaste, we won’t destroy an
old tradition: We will create a
new and important standard
The price of the Super Bowl
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA | COLUMN
I
n light of a powerful
feminist movement that
has
reinvigorated
the
fight for equality and brought
together millions in an effort
to
fundamentally
change
the way women are seen and
treated in American culture,
it is important to begin a
dialogue
from
a
different
perspective. One that is just
as important but is quite often
not given a voice.
Let’s talk about men, our
struggles with vulnerability,
insecurity and our relationship
with each other as well as with
the women around us.
There is an expectation in
our culture that we as men must
always be powerful, strong
and composed. Any display of
emotion is considered to be a
show of weakness and sharing
struggles and insecurities is
socially unacceptable. We are
always fine, never hurting,
riding tall on a high horse
through thick and thin. But
what happens if we fall? Are
we allowed to be human, show
emotion without being judged
or seen as less of a man?
The truth is, we as men
often
feel
insecure,
suffer
from heartaches and struggle
with our identity, but we keep
quiet because of the immense
pressure
to
maintain
our
masculinity. We are expected
to sustain a “manly facade” by
participating in competitive
sports,
going
to
the
gym
to
build
our
bodies
and
achieving financial success.
This
pressure
from
both
men and women in our lives
has created a culture that is
slowly destroying our ability
to have deep and meaningful
relationships
with
those
around us.
I know that in my own
life, I have often put up a
brick wall to hide my pain,
even from people who have
shown
me
unconditional
love and support. I did not
feel comfortable sharing my
emotions with others because
I was terrified of being seen
as less of a man. I stood strong
when I was weak and acted
confident when I felt insecure,
all in an effort to protect my
image. Our culture taught me
that vulnerability is weakness
and it was only until recently
through self-reflection and
meditation that I began to
understand vulnerability is
the purest form of courage.
We all have flaws, but also
the ability to acknowledge
and share them with the
world. The world is what
connects us and helps us
realize that deep down we
all want the same things. We
want to be loved, understood,
make a difference and believe
that we are enough. The
absence of honest and open
connection between men has
created a culture that does
not fulfill these basic human
needs
and
has
negatively
affected our community for
generations.
We must start an honest
dialogue to question why
men are always expected to
be strong and why emotion,
pain and struggle are seen
as weakness. These are not
male or female issues, these
are human issues and they
can only be solved through
joint collaboration as well
as a fundamental change in
culture.
So as men, let’s do our part:
Join the feminist movement,
question
cultural
norms
and fight for equality. Let’s
talk to each other about our
struggle with body image,
heartbreak and insecurity.
Let’s talk about how we treat
women and let’s talk about
the pressure to be strong even
when our lives are falling
apart.
I challenge us to fully
and
honestly
acknowledge
when we are hurting and to
develop real and vulnerable
relationships with the people
around us.
I challenge us to work
together with women to start
a movement that redefines
what it means to be a man.
Redefining the man
DAVID FIANOVSKY | OP-ED
The void in science communication
ROBERT DALKA | COLUMN
Robert Dalka can be reached at
rpdalka@umich.edu.
Magdalena Mihaylova can be
reached at mmihaylo@umich.edu.
David Fianovsky is an LSA
sophomore.
MAGDALENA
MIHAYLOVA
Show your
outrage and skip
the Super Bowl
next year.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our Editorial Board meets Mondays and Wednesdays 7:15-8:45 PM at
our newsroom at 420 Maynard Street. All are welcome to come discuss
national, state and campus affairs.
ROBERT
DALKA