Translator: Dimitris Frangogiannis Reviewer: Chryssa Takahashi
I have a confession to make.
When I was invited to come and speak here,
I felt honored, I felt joy
and the next day I felt bewilderment.
And the reason I felt that bewilderment
was because when we agreed on the title of the speech,
I said to myself, how is it possible for me to talk
about something so self-evident to me.
Usually the hardest things are the self-evident ones, aren't they?
It's like someone told me, come and talk about the importance of oxygen in life.
Come and talk about the value of your mother's love for you.
Or freedom's. I considered it very self-evident.
And if I had just myself across from me,
this one slide would be enough.
I would say that science is an inner need,
a panhuman trip we all want to make,
we all have a thirst for knowledge anyway,
some more, some less, but we all have it.
And usually we're just looking for the right channel
and this event today is such a channel
and today's speakers are the guides.
So I would stop there, but I don't want to stop here, obviously.
I want to talk about more practical results
that we'll have if we put more science in our life.
And I have some points I want to elaborate on
and later I'll also talk about how I believe
the communication of science should take place.
I'll start with this nice gentleman, do you recognise him?
(Laughter)
He's the actor, I can't remember his name, from the movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding",
of the Greek-American Nia Vardalos
and the reason why I put him on the first slide is that whenever I think
of science and how much it defines our life
- we live in a scientific world -
I remember that this gentleman had this thing.
He was the typical Greek immigrant restaurant owner,
in ancient-Greek kitsch, he didn't want his daughter to marry a foreigner,
and he liked to tell Americans, "Give me a word"
«Give me a word, give me a word and I will show you the root of this word is Greek».
Ok, I sound like Borat now. You've heard him.
That's how I feel about science.
Show me an aspect of your life, one of your activities,
a time of your day that isn't flooded with science.
So since we live in a scientific world,
we have to make a lot of decisions together
about how, when, and for how long will this tool called science be used.
I think it is inconceivable to talk about nuclear energy, for example,
about a catastrophe that happened in Fukushima two years ago,
and journalists running to get a statement from Remos and Mazonakis.
We must all be informed about what nuclear energy means
and the scientists out there must be
the first to talk about it.
And this is a good example, nuclear energy.
Imagine if tomorrow or the next day we said
that for our energy needs we want to build a nuclear plant.
And the Turks, for example, have talked about it.
Our neighbours in Bulgaria already have one.
Can you imagine what would happen?
Just for a landfill all hell broke loose.
Imagine that we said we are beginning talks on nuclear energy.
Greenpeace, political parties, local communities, business interests.
It would be a madhouse.
I don't think there would even be a discussion.
So we he have to put more science into our lives,
because we have to be trained and to understand
that we can't base our decisions,
that we'll make tomorrow or the next day about our energy,
our environment, our food,
on emotional reflexes
or misinformation by journalists
who, ok, can't know everything to the maximum degree.
So more science to make more dialogues when we have to.
In fact, the gentleman in the movie believed that with glass cleaner
he could cure all skin conditions.
So that brings me to my second point.
To develop critical thought.
Kostas mentioned something earlier about chemtrails.
I'm sure that if I ask each one of you,
anyone who wants to can come and discuss with me during the break,
and I ask him "Are you a rational person?"
He will answer "Yes".
"Do you respect western science?"
He will answer "Yes".
"Do you respect the way western science works, do you trust it completely?"
He will answer, "Yes, of course. I'm a rationalist."
That's what everyone will tell me.
But if I make a list - ok, chemtrails is a bit more extreme -
zodiac signs, let's see, tarot cards, quantum-psycho...
We paste some scientific words and supposedly give...
If I give you a list of 10 things that
western science does not accept, considers arbitrary,
at least one - ok let's not hide -
you probably believe in at least one of them, don't you?
Out of courtesy I have to say that I do too.
(Laughter)
I'll give you a quiz. What's this in the middle.
What am I trying to show with the little glass in the middle.
Come during the break and tell me if you found it.
So at school they taught us that we had to develop critical thinking,
to doubt things,
and know how to tell apart the arbitrary from the reasonable.
The pointless, from what makes sense, right?
And that critical thinking, which was never developed at school,
the truth is that they cultivated memorization,
will protect us from other things, as well.
It will protect us from populists, from hypocrites.
And the reason we are all victims in this country of hypocrites
is because we never developed critical thinking in other things too.
So more communication of science,
more science in our lives.
Ok, it won't be a vaccine,
the results won't be visible the next day,
but it will be something like a long term cure.
Technology doesn't sprout. What do I mean by that.
The next time you have an ultrasound,
to see if your baby is alright in the womb,
that you put a pacemaker in your father,
that you have eye laser-surgery, so you can see,
and say "How nice science is, it gives quality of life,
it gives us so many things",
then ask yourselves what can you do, so that we can continue
to have this production of technology.
The next time you're sorry for young Greek scientists
leaving abroad, again, ask yourselves,
"Ok, I'm sorry, but what can I do?"
The most important thing you can do is to support politically.
Forget parties, forget ideas, ideologies, signs,
forget all that and say,
which one of the politicians will really talk about the protection
of researchers and scientists in this country.
Because we'll rely on them if we want to talk about development.
We can't talk about fires and ignore the firemen.
And no country ever advanced financially without technological development.
(Applause)
But for all this to happen, the new generation has to come as well.
In most scientific professions there is a decline in the young people that follow them.
And for good reason.
Because the scientist stereotype we have is the one you see.
Google the word "scientist".
You'll get a caricature.
You'll get that crazy 65-year old with fluffy hair
who has a glint in his eye and wants to destroy the world.
Not all scientists are like that, although I've met a few of them.
But they are also scientists, these girls.
And I'm not pointing at them because they're women,
and because we consider science to be dominated by men.
They are the winners of the 2012 L'Oreal awards.
Meaning they are at the top of their professions.
So let's also change the stereotypes.
And this brings me to the second part of my presentation.
What I want to tell you is this.
80% of Europeans state that they are interested in science.
That's what surveys say, I've got a link up there that shows it.
While 65% are interested in sports.
So why -and this is the large paradox-
so why since we all say "But yes, obviously I'm interested in science".
But why do we run to stadiums, theatres, movies, anywhere,
except science.
There is a large strugle to pull in people, to make science popular.
This is the paradox.
And that's the mistake that all educators make.
This is my message to the communicators of science,
and to the teachers and educators of universities and everywhere:
"Learn to tell apart the interesting from the attractive."
For people to come close to science they have to have a good time as well.
That's why they go elsewhere, because they have a good time.
They say, "You're doing a fine job, when you find the cure for cancer,
let us know. Until then PAOK-Aris is playing."
(Laughter)
So the reason that science isn't yet popular
is because that's where all of us, who call ourselves educators, fail.
And communicators. And we have to separate that.
We have to change our mentality
and with some of my own actions I have discovered that in the recent years.
for example I did science theatre with some of the young scientists here,
that I met through a contest.
And the response I had was amazing.
That was the first revelation for me.
I saw children of every class, and it'a very difficult
to hold the interest of a class of 100-200 people, children.
I saw adults, I saw families go crazy with what we showed them.
Why? Because they had a very good time and at the same time they learned.
Of course science must become open and democratic and accessible,
but efforts are being made there.
Where there isn't much effort being made yet is in this part.
To make science pleasant and fun.
There are a lot of ideas, and science theatre is something
that I have worked on.
In England, pubs fill up to hear maths.
Because people like Matt Parker do stand-up comedy with maths.
People have a good time and learn.
Mark Lewley next door plays the guitar and talks about string theory.
Let's learn to make it fun and attractive.
The fact that something is interesting and you have it in your mind as interesting
doesn't mean that everyone else will run to listen to you.
These are some of the ideas I show out there,
I do it more so that you get inspired.
Because I'm sure that you can bring many of your own ideas.
Apostolos Doxiadis, who is a writer,
wrote best-seller mathematics books.
How did he do that? Because he put in them elements from other things
which are fun, elements which are in a classical novel.
Like with the "Sophie's world".
It made philosophy popular for the first time.
Because we put in there heroes, mystery, humor.
So take something that's already popular and that people like
and use it as your vessel to communicate what you want.
Even the contest through which I started το intensively occupy myself with,
that's why it succeeded.
Scientific contests are abundant.
Especially in America, every school and university has its own contest.
But this one worked because it took on the format of other contests,
the well known talent shows, that focus on arts, artistic activities.
It took this format and miraculously, millions of people
started watching Fame Lab.
So this is what I hope for.
I hope that we find inspiration, that we find new motives,
that we find new reasons for more science in our lives,
it will protect us from a lot of things,
and things we haven't thought of, even political and social.
I hope for a time when Q is the charming hero, the gadget-man.
With the purpose of making society, our society but others too,
from a society of prejudice, to a society of information.
From a society of injustice and foolishness
to a society of remarkable.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)