Actually there is at least one more, which is the classical but passive path of getting stuff published and hope people will somehow pick up the ideas. The two more active techniques I am talking about here are more active and in line with the two influentials models I talked about in this early post. Traditional model says highly influential people shape the world. Following this model scientists should talk to key players in decision making processes, and that is how many of us do by sitting on advisory board for instance. Once upon a time in a LTER meeting back in the US I heard something called "Elevator story". Basically every scientist was advised to equipped with a 30-seconds statement of what he/she is doing, and how that can make our world different, just in case, a fine day, we bump into Bill Gates or Al Gore in an elevator.
An alternative model claims what matters most is how receptive the general public is. One Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation cannot stop global poverty and health issues until the general public starts to pay attention, and equally one Al Gore cannot stop global warming for us either (just today Gore started a campaign by playing advertisements between the most watched US TV shows and the goal is to create public awareness).
Which technique to use is more of a matter of personal choice I suppose. I am more leaning against the latter because that fits my ideal picture: in a truly democratic society the well-informed public should have the final say for decisions on public goods. But, I know we're not there yet, and not everybody can donate $300 millions to motivate the public as Gore did. So, back to work on my elevator story for now...
No comments:
Post a Comment