Yesterday, I was involved in the Raise-A-Reader campaign at the university. I met some incredibly generous individuals that were willing to donate to literacy programs in Prince George.
But as a scientist - a chemist - the most frequent question I get asked soliciting donations is: "Why are you involved?"
It is a common misconception about scientists and science that good communication skills are not part of the equation. After all, science is about numbers and formulas and using your calculator. What has reading got to do with it?
The simple answer is: "A lot!"
The longer answer is that one of the hallmarks of the scientific process is open communication. Indeed, the idea of peer-reviewed grants and peer-reviewed literature is one of the defining characteristics of science.
We let our fellow scientists know what we would like to do, what are ideas are and then hope that they will agree with us so that our research project gets funding. Or that our results are worth publishing for the world to see. There is even a hierarchy in publishing with some journals being much more prestigious than others.
This hasn't always been the case. For thousands of years, technology was passed by word of mouth from master to apprentice. Glassblowing or metallurgical processes were secrets only to be revealed to the chosen few.
The untimely death of a master technician could mean the loss of valuable secrets and set an industry back years, if not kill it all together.
In western chemistry, the alchemists ruled for hundreds of years. Secret symbols were assigned to the elements. Compounds were given peculiar names. And when one alchemist determined how to carry out a reaction or extract a valuable compound, they told no one - not even their family - for fear that others would be able to steal their results.
An example of this is the discovery of phosphorus by Hennig Brand. His process involved allowing 40 hogheads of urine to rot in his basement. He then boiled the liquid down to a paste that he distilled into water. He had hoped to make gold.
What he got instead was a waxy white substance that glowed in the dark.
Still, he made a good living travelling the great houses of Europe showing off his unusual compound. Brand would allow people to handle it and would sometimes set small pieces of fire. He could get away with being a one-trick showman because he was the only person that knew his secret recipe. No one else could cash in.
He did eventually sell his secret for 200 Thaler to D. Krafft from Dresden. Krafft found his way to England where he demonstrated phosphorus to Robert Boyle and the secret was finally revealed for all to see.
With some careful digging, Boyle was able to discover that phosphorus was obtained from urine and was soon able to make his own. Boyle was one of the first scientists committed to open publishing of results and a founding member of the Royal Society. Soon, many other scientists were making their own supplies of phosphorus and improving on Brand's original method.
It is by publishing the results and throwing open the alchemist's secrets that a much larger audience of scientists became aware of the process which led to the rapid improvements in the separation of phosphorus. Many minds make for light work, to paraphrase a saying.
The likes of Priestley, Lavoisier, Dalton and Davies were deeply committed to ensuring that their research was made available to a wide audience. Perkins' publications on dyes led to the development of industry all over Europe. Michael Faraday gave annual Christmas lectures on science - including a famous series of six lectures on the subject of The Chemical History of a Candle.
All of these famous scientists wrote extensively about their work. They gave public lectures and talks. And they read what other scientists were doing.
That tradition continues today. Most of the scientists I know - both in academia and in industry - spend the majority of their time reading and writing. Scientific papers are their bread-and-butter. Indeed, one faculty member I knew when I was an undergraduate would take his research group out sailing for the day and then anchor the boat as their task was to get through the stack of unread texts looking for anything relevant to their research. No one could get off until their reading was done.
I am not sure that anyone needs to go to such great lengths but there is little doubt that good communication skills lie at the heart of good science.
And raising a reader lies at the heart of good communication skills.
