I will be part of a panel discussion called “Making fun of science?” this Wednesday, June 29, at the World Conference of Science Journalists, in Doha, Qatar. Reto Schneider, Jennifer Ouellette and I — and the audience will discuss more or less the following:
Humor can be as powerful a tool as twitter. But some scientists (and some editors) fear that humor is too dangerous to be used in communicating science.
What exactly are the dangers of using humor to communicate science, and what are the dangers of not using it?
The more eccentric a study, the greater its chance of appearing in news headlines or on TV. Are there too many stories about strange and possibly unimportant experiments?
Too many discoveries are covered as if the scientists’ interpretation is obviously correct and the discovery’s importance is clear. Might a bit of humor help express the uncertainty?
Discoveries on unfamiliar topics can appear ridiculous simply because most people have never thought about the topic (recall Dr. Semmelweis’s discovery that doctors should wash their hands before delivering a child). Can skillful humor help readers think about these stories more seriously?
What roles can and should humor play in science journalism?
The Ig Nobel Prizes might figure into the discussion.