tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27601830.post1378721156988452171..comments2023-07-08T07:33:24.470-07:00Comments on Hope for Pandora: Sasquatch Rears His Headthomas robeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10507272466209300062noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27601830.post-69540839106164149222007-02-20T10:11:00.000-08:002007-02-20T10:11:00.000-08:00So, the question is, why can't the scientific arti...So, the question is, why can't the scientific article be as interesting as the Sasquatch article? Obviously forensic science is nothing to sniff at, and what with the popularity of Bones and the CSI's, there's ample opportunity to grab the public interest and do some educating at the same time.<BR/><BR/>Why do scientists feel the need to hide behind the unaccessible? Why do we (well, okay, them - <A HREF="http://www.kellyhills.com/blog/index.php?cat=42" REL="nofollow">my writing tends towards accessible</A>, and with enough pop culture to send any staid scientists into fits) have to make it so boring and uninteresting to the layman?<BR/><BR/>A lot of people don't have the privilege of kickin' it in the Ivory Tower - they do their four years time in higher education (if that), then move on to the "real" working world. What science they get and retain is going to have to be easy and accessible - and study after study has shown that we remember things that are fun.<BR/><BR/>We science-y types tend to be bright folk; why can't we cash in on this trend, write fun and interesting stories that accurately talk about science, and increase the public knowledge at large, all at the same time?Kelly Hillshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15027400439081662699noreply@blogger.com