Feature
The new scientist
by Marilyn Head
How could you not warm to a man who knows his quantum cryptography from his Spielberg factoid?
Think David Attenborough on speed and you will have some idea of the impact of Quentin Cooper, one of Britain’s most popular media personalities. Tall, gangly and impossibly enthusiastic about everything from deep-sea sludge (“No, really, it has these fantastic bacteria that gobble up antibiotic-resistant superbugs!”) to film noir, he is one of that rare breed who is as knowledgeable and articulate about science as he is about the arts. As presenter of Discovery Channel’s New Scientist Reports, Cooper – here courtesy of the British Council – is also a respected film and theatre critic, an award-winning scriptwriter and producer and an expert commentator on digital technology.
So, what makes a good science communicator? Being able to tell a good story. I have a background in Artificial Intelligence, but it isn’t the science training that matters, it’s the interest in science. My friend Tim (Radford), science editor at the Guardian and a New Zealander, incidentally, says that the key to a good science story is about knowing which facts you can duck, because when you’ve only got a minute to do a story on, say, quantum cryptography, you haven’t got time to explain the whole of quantum physics first.
Quantum cryptography? Using quantum properties (the difficulty of determining the precise locations of particles) to encrypt data to crack currently uncrackable codes like the heavily factored primes that we use in our security devices online. The problem is that sometimes science fails to motivate people to know more because we tell them it’s all about equations and facts about black holes and things not connected to their lives, rather than say, “Hey, look, this is how science can help you make a decision about what car to buy that’s actually going to be better for yourself and the planet or help you choose a mobile phone that doesn’t deep-fry your brains.
I thought the jury was still out on mobile phone safety? Are they bad? I haven’t said they’re bad – just that there are potential dangers. But if you know enough about science, you can figure out that a mobile phone is a device that works on the same principle as a microwave oven. It might be that providing the radiation isn’t too cumulative over time, it does no harm at all. But also it might do you some damage. Certainly, no one has the evidence of what the effect is going to be after 40 years because the technology hasn’t been around that long, so I’d say it’s common sense to be cautious until you know better. I’m all for new technology and I have a mobile, but when I bought it, the salespeople told me that I was the only one who had ever asked about the level of emissions.
Would people know what it meant? Most people can understand that a 1000W microwave oven cooks faster than a 500W microwave. Substitute braincells for food and you can easily work out the difference between high- and low-emission phones and which is better for you. I’m trying to point out that a bit of scientific knowledge allows you to make informed choices.
Scientific evidence is often used to polarise support for one “choice” or the other? Yes, exactly. People want safe or not safe, not more safe. One of the hardest things to get across is that concept of risk – balancing the benefits of vaccination, for example, with the microscopic individual risk of a negative reaction. And the media tend to treat science stories as either “Miracle cure!” or “The greatest threat to mankind as we know it! I mean, there’s nothing sexy about “New crop may slowly increase food yield and probably benefit some farmers”, but that’s more how science works.
You are also a film critic. Which do you prefer interviewing, actors or scientists? If Steven Spielberg tells me that when he was six his parents got rid of all his toys and told him it was time to grow up (and he did tell), I think “Wow! Amazing factoid!” That’s it. You’re happy if you’ve got one fact after 30 minutes. But with scientists, often you’re talking to somebody who’s been working in the field for 20 years and there’s a huge story there that’s never been told. That’s what I love – you’re not fighting for the scrap at the table of celebrity, you’ve got this whole feast. Every scientist has got at least one great story.
