 |
 |
 |
At the Weather Association, where I started working in 1969, my job was doing research, revising the Meteorological Agency's forecasts in layman's terms for corporations, and doing commentary for TV and radio programs.
Actually, at the beginning of my career, I had very little knowledge of weather, and I think that's why I was good at weather commentary, since the audience also knew very little. For example, I didn't know what "trough" meant. It's such a basic term for specialists, but not for ordinary people. So, I started asking myself how I could explain things so that everyone would understand. But the thing is, I found that the more commentary I did, the harder it was to keep it simple all the time. And interestingly, the audience seems to learn as they watch, and little by little they begin to understand. I think it often works this way.
|
|
 |
|
Scientists tend to talk only about their own specialty. I think they should speak more intelligibly, so that people can understand. Besides, if they don't do a better job of explaining what they're doing to the public, this might eventually lead to reduced funding for their research. Scientists and ordinary people tend to see things differently; it's the same with commentators and ordinary people. Ordinary people often have something that specialists lack - a sense of innocent excitement. Like, they wonder, "Wow, is this really how it works?" or, "No way, this can't be true!" It is not so important that people understand all the details of the internal-organs thing, for example. But I think people's interest and curiosity grow on such simple feelings.
|
|
 |
|
As you become a specialist, somehow you tend to lose your perspective. I must admit I sometimes find this in myself, too. They say, "Don't forget the sprit in which you started out," and I think that's good advice. Your first surprise turns into knowledge. And then, once you gain that knowledge, you speak as if it were an absolute fact that you've known all your life. But it is important, even when you're delivering the same kind of information over and over, to keep in mind your original sense of awe and surprise. As far as space or satellites are concerned, there must be more fun images available that would have a greater impact and be more surprising.
At the same time, scientists obviously need to have a much deeper level of interest and understanding than ordinary people. So I would like to see more specialists who are able maintain their original enthusiasm.
It is also important to teach the public to think scientifically; for instance, not to confuse urban climates with global warming. This is something that requires training from childhood, as it gets harder after growing up. I believe that it is our job to work on such educational activities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
