Sheril, 29, is an associate at Duke University and holds master's degrees in marine biology and marine policy from the University of Maine. She recently spoke with Under the Microscope about reconciling the public with science in times when technological breakthroughs occur with increasing frequency.

Under the Microscope: You have a fascinating career, and you have many interests. Can you begin by telling us how you came to study marine science?

Sheril Kirshenbaum: I was always interested in science. I was always in the backyard exploring when I was a kid, but when it came to science professionally it found me by accident. ... I had a really great professor who turned me on to ecology when I was an undergrad at Tufts University. Then I applied for one of the REUs [research experiences for undergrads] and I got one that happened to be in marine science. And I know at that point I was interested in conservation. 

UTM: You have also worked as congressional staffer. Where did you work and what came out of that?

SK: I got into a [graduate] program where I was getting a master's in marine science but also in marine policy. So I was thinking about conservation and economic factors as well as biology.

There are fellowships offered through NOAA [The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], and there was one for marine biologists. You'd do a fellowship for a year on Capitol Hill -- you work with congressional offices, committees, or throughout their agencies. The number [of students] they accept varies each year but I got one. So I spent a year working with Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) and I began working on these issues involved with the ocean and very soon became immersed in fields dealing with energy, conservation, animal rights and beyond, and it's really changed the scope of what I thought I wanted to do.

I became interested in communicating all I had learned to policymakers and the public, which led me to writing and working with science from another angle.

UTM: You also had a hand in creating the ScienceDebate 2008. How did that came about?

SK: I blog regularly, with Chris Mooney. Chris and I constantly write about science and policy and people who are in the spotlight with each. ... As the election was coming up, we started discussing how little science gets attention on the campaign trail, when other issues were prominently featured over and over.

We got together with a few other writers. ... We put out a call for the presidential candidates to engage in science issues -- in some medium. We didn't, in the end, get a public debate on television but we did get them to address issues in questions put together with people in academia, university presidents, Nobel laureates and normal citizens to ask about climate change, human health, stem cells or ocean acidification. Well, that last one I just throw in there because we don't hear nearly enough about that.

It got some attention during the debates, and hopefully it can continue on. It really set up a model of what we can do next time. 

UTM: Ocean acidification. Are you going to throw that into your new book?

SK: [Laughs] Well, my next book is going to be on the science of kissing. It's really neat because its a typical human behavior that almost everyone around the world engages in and yet it's never been discussed in a way where all these different fields are able to converge. [In the book] I'm able to look at it though anthropology and endocrinology and neuroscience. 

This book isn't exactly a topic that I had considered. I'd written about a lot of topics online and in articles that are really timely because I want to reach people who wouldn't normally think about science and how science is related to what they do every day. I'd [write about] the science of how alcohol affects the brain or why the leaves change during autumn and as it happens I did the science of kissing in a few paragraphs a few years ago on Valentine's Day and it got this huge response. It quickly became this thing that people were coming in and asking questions about so it allowed me to open to broader audiences how hormones work and how the structure of your brain is affected when you're engaged in real-world activities. It's really cool. 

UTM: I'm curious whether you've found that the public's ability to distinguish credibility and sound arguments is going out the window?

SK: I'm very concerned. We just saw this hack into e-mails of climate change. Most people made very quick judgments without fully understanding the context of what they were reading. [There is] a survey just released by George Mason University and Yale Center for Climate Change Communication. It's a dismal report, people more than ever don't "believe" in climate change.

The big point here is that pseudoscience is on the rise. ... It's dangerous and I'm not sure what it means for the future of science and it's a big red flag in terms of where we're going. Science needs a better platform. It's certainly not about PR in a traditional sense but we have to think about how we're represented when we're working against so many other forces that have a certain vested interest. We're trying to emphasize the best research and [research] is very dynamic. There's no black and white in the way that the pseudo-scientific [groups] want to represent things. 

UTM: Can you give us just a few examples of what ordinary people can do to benefit science literacy?

SK: I think just being engaged and being interested is a big part of it. Looking for sources that you should be able to trust like universities. More and more young scientists are creating their own websites in order to counter the rubbish that's out there. I'd love to see more young people engaged in their communities -- like those that have a [bachelor of science] but are unsure whether they want to go to graduate school -- writing op-eds or working with local politicians or schools.

UTM: Any tips for young people in science?

SK: Try everything you're interested in. Science is changing so fast, the way we do science is always changing. Pursuing whatever you're interested in to the furthest extent possible. ...There's a lot to be said for the traditional route [in science and academia] ... but I think don't discount other ways to be involved.

Politics is so important. There are hardly members of Congress who have a science background. I'd love to see people who have a science education run for office. There are so many ways to do it and don't let anyone tell you how to do what you're interested in. 

Photo courtesy of Gretchen Mathison of gretchenmathisonphotography.com.

TrackBack URI for this entry

1 Comments

Show/Hide comments

EL February 08, 2010 68.192.171.159	Sheril raises a lot of great points RE: the public's science literacy. Its admittedly kind of confusing that many people would accept the news/opinions from someone with a "certain vested interest." Its frustrating that people either don't realize or choose to ignore when research is reported or misreported from a clearly biased perspective. "Being engaged and being interested" is probably the easiest and clearest way for the public to stay connected. I feel like that bit of advice doesn't get said nearly enough. It was refreshing and encouraging to read.

Show/Hide comment form