Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Commentary

Has Contemporary Academia Outgrown the Carl Sagan Effect?

Susana Martinez-Conde
Journal of Neuroscience 17 February 2016, 36 (7) 2077-2082; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0086-16.2016
Susana Martinez-Conde
State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York 11203
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Susana Martinez-Conde
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Average hy (h-index divided by career length in years) of inactive, active, and very active scientists in different dissemination activities. Variance tests on the indicators indicated strong significance for popularization activities: F = 6.9, p value = 0.01. From Jensen et al. (2008).

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Perceived impact of media visibility of scientists on their scientific reputation. Scientists answered the question: “If the media report on scientists and their research, does this have a positive or negative impact on the scientific reputation among colleagues in your area of research?” From Peters (2013).

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 36 (7)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 36, Issue 7
17 Feb 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Has Contemporary Academia Outgrown the Carl Sagan Effect?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Has Contemporary Academia Outgrown the Carl Sagan Effect?
Susana Martinez-Conde
Journal of Neuroscience 17 February 2016, 36 (7) 2077-2082; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0086-16.2016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Has Contemporary Academia Outgrown the Carl Sagan Effect?
Susana Martinez-Conde
Journal of Neuroscience 17 February 2016, 36 (7) 2077-2082; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0086-16.2016
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

  • Thank you, and follow-up article in Scientific American
    Susana Martinez-Conde
    Published on: 27 October 2016
  • Public outreach needs to be more than a hobby
    Nathan K. Evanson
    Published on: 21 April 2016
  • Published on: (27 October 2016)
    Page navigation anchor for Thank you, and follow-up article in Scientific American
    Thank you, and follow-up article in Scientific American
    • Susana Martinez-Conde, Professor, State University of New York, Downstate Medical Center

    I am grateful for Dr. Evanson's kind comments and encouragement. Many other colleagues have expressed similar sentiments, and a few people have come forward, in addition, to discuss their (often mixed) personal experiences as active scientists who engage the public. This positive reaction from the scientific community led me to write a follow-up version of this work for Scientific American, intended for a general readership. A printed article and a related blog post can be found in the following links: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-should-speak-out-m...
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survey-how-scientists-can-eng...

    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (21 April 2016)
    Page navigation anchor for Public outreach needs to be more than a hobby
    Public outreach needs to be more than a hobby
    • Nathan K. Evanson, Assistant Professor

    As a new assistant professor, I am not unaware of the pressure to publish, and to be focused while I am beginning my independent research career. I have also heard disparaging remarks about "popularizers," with the implication that they are sub-standard scientists. Dr. Martinez- Conde's review of studies on the subject refutes this idea, for which I am grateful. To me, it would be a frightening scientific landscape if the...

    Show More

    As a new assistant professor, I am not unaware of the pressure to publish, and to be focused while I am beginning my independent research career. I have also heard disparaging remarks about "popularizers," with the implication that they are sub-standard scientists. Dr. Martinez- Conde's review of studies on the subject refutes this idea, for which I am grateful. To me, it would be a frightening scientific landscape if the task of teaching the public about the content and importance of science were to be relegated to only "sub-par" scientists.

    As scientists, we have an obligation to share our discoveries with the public. Most of us have had a significant investment of public funds in our professional development. This initial investment is followed by further funds to support our ongoing research programs. The public thus have a vested interest in, and a right to know about, the discoveries that are made using this public money. And we should feel an obligation to make the results of our work broadly accessible. Although doing this could be as straightforward as writing research articles in more accessible language, direct public outreach is also clearly desirable.

    We should not be spurred only by a feeling of duty to communicate with the public, however. Although it is true that we owe a debt to those who are paying for the research we do, scientists should also be thinking about the future of research funding. How many of us have bemoaned the fact that pay lines are going down, the size of grants is being cut back, and the number of applications one must submit in order to obtain funding is going up? It is a bleak picture. I see a cynicism that has led many of my colleagues to pursue non-research industry jobs or jobs outside of science altogether, rather than deal with the funding woes of an academic scientist.

    How do funding challenges relate to public outreach? I have frequently seen social media portrayals (often caricatures) of publically funded studies, given as justification for why research budgets should be reined in and funding of science curtailed. By a refusal to engage the public directly, we run the risk of losing control of the narrative about the importance of investing in science. All of us should be concerned about informing the public about what we do, why it is important, and how it fits in with their interests. In light of this, it is not only unfair to characterize those who have public visibility as less able researchers, it is inimical to the long-term survival of the scientific endeavor to do anything but encourage those who have a talent for and inclination toward public outreach. I applaud Dr. Martinez-Conde's effort to bring this important issue to our attention.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Toward an Anti-Racist Approach to Biomedical and Neuroscience Research
  • Black In Neuro, Beyond One Week
  • Reporting Grantee Demographics for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Neuroscience
Show more Commentary
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.