So, in case you
haven't been following this particular story, in March of 2016, the National
Environmental Research Center in the UK launched an online poll to name a new
polar research vessel currently in development. It was meant to, in the words
of Britain's Science Minister Jo Johnson, to give the average Brit "the
opportunity to feel part of this exciting project and the untold discoveries it
will unearth." The vessel, costing $287 million, will study the effects of
climate change in Antarctica, and will launch around 2019.
This being the
internet, the most popular name voted ended up being "Boaty
McBoatface", as suggested by former BBC Radio Jockey James Hand (Hand
apparently now regrets the decision, and particularly the attention it got).
Despite it being the most popular name out of all suggested, NERC and the
British Science would have none of it. Very recently, they announced the vessel
would be named after Sir David Attenborough, famed naturalist and TV presenter
most famous for the "Life" series on the BBC. This was despite
Attenborough being only the fourth highest entry, behind Boaty,
"Poppy-Mai" after a dying, cancer stricken 16 month old girl, and "Henry
Worsley”, after a British Army officer who died attempting the first ever solo trek
through Antarctica. However, it's not all bad for the Boaty Camp. The name would be bestowed on a small remote operated submarine, which collects data for the research team.
So, why am I talking about this? Well this was all prompted by this comment on the NPR coverage of the story (Link in the sources), by a fellow named "No One":
It's not that they didn't want to use the results, it's just that the results have to be reasonable.
I'm sure people will participate in future polls in large numbers, despite this. The only ones who wouldn't are the same childish fools who voted for a ridiculous name; and I doubt those people know or care what the research vessel is for in the first place.
I'm sure people will participate in future polls in large numbers, despite this. The only ones who wouldn't are the same childish fools who voted for a ridiculous name; and I doubt those people know or care what the research vessel is for in the first place.
But would they? Even you weren't particularly inclined to vote for this name, (like I was),after the NERC decides to disregard what the public wanted for the name, would you choose to vote again, knowing that they could disregard whatever was most popular name, whether it be silly or dignified?That herein lies the main issue with the whole ordeal. Even if the name was absurd (and admittedly David Attenborough is a more appropriate name and tribute to a fantastic nature documentarian), it was the name that the public did chose, and if the NERC didn't like the name, and intended to use a different one, why even engage with the poll? It discourages people from taking part in scientific research, however small the role, and even people who don't like the name might not like the idea of voting. To address the second part of Mr. Nemo's comments up there, Yes, the people who voted for the name may not have known what the vessel was for, but bestowing upon it a name like that may help popularize the vessel, get people engaged in what research the ship is engaged with. Hell, the controversy increased the visibility of the ship. I probably wouldn't have heard of the vessel, unless it was mentioned in a National Geographic article. Yes, the people voting may not have known or cared, but having a popular name on the ship may have gotten them to care. And it has gotten people to care about this ship, because the common refrain on the ship is "It'll always be Boaty McBoatface to me."
I'm not upset about the name. I don't find the name particularly appealing, and like I said, "David Attenborough" is far more appropriate name. What does concern me is the fact that the public was invited to participate in very important research, and they were disregarded. This highlights a growing rift between the public and the scientific community. The average person regards most research as esoteric and incomprehensible, thus the rampancy of scientific illiteracy amongst the public. John Oliver did an excellent piece on his HBO program "Last Week Tonight", on the simplification of scientific research in popular media (and I suggest you look at that). And in recent years, the scientific community has begun outreaching to the general public, with popular science books being published and science documentaries becoming popular. However, when incidents like this occur, it tells the average layman that science is an incredibly closed process, and participation is cut off to them. This could not be further from the truth, but this perception opens up a whole litany of problems, from minority representation in science, to funding for the sciences to the aforementioned scientific illiteracy. Especially the latter. Remember, the ship was meant to survey Antarctica to study climate change. Since this controversy, perhaps people will be more invested in research, and they might realize that just because it snows in Minneapolis in December, that does not mean that climate change isn't real. If people have more participation in science, they could be more invested in it, and they could more easily understand how process of research works, and perhaps encourage them to be more invested in research.
Sources:
Boaty McBoatface, explained- Tara Goldshan| Vox
Boaty McBoatface to Bear David Attenborough's Name, and the
Web Puts - Hannah Olivennes|The New York Times
Entries- Most Loved| Name Our Ship
Boaty By Another Name: 'Sir David Attenborough' Is Chosen For British Research Ship, by Bill Chappell| NPR
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/06/477010650/boaty-by-another-name-sir-david-attenborough-is-chosen-for-british-research-ship
No comments:
Post a Comment