Scroll to read the story

from science communication
by Megan Berg
There is a difference between communicating science and marketing science. To market science is dangerous, as it removes objectivity— the very ingredient that keeps science from reaching an apex.
Photo: Dry Valleys, Antarctica. Photo by Megan Berg.


People aren’t interested in being told what to think; if they are, they aren’t truly understanding what they’re being told.

Photo: Mt. Carbone, Antarctica. Photo by Megan Berg.

Fear and shame can be used to deliver a message in a way that is certain to get people’s attention. But in the end, these messages are short-lived and divisive.
Photo: The Polar Earth Observing Network (POLENET).


To truly communicate a message, the idea must be allowed to grow within a person, not merely be implanted.

Photo: Storm at Byrd Surface Camp, West Antarctica. Photo by Galit Sorokin.



In the world of exploration and discovery, there is a great deal of noise. Truly independent, revolutionary ideas sparkle with uncertainty. Only those who are willing to risk all will follow them to the end, unconcerned with whether the end is right or wrong. If the idea is eventually proven correct, all uncertainty, all unambiguity is lost, and the idea thus becomes a sound byte.

Photo: Time Parker, Antarctica. Photo by Megan Berg.



Some of the best scientists I’ve met are those who openly and consistently acknowledge the gaps, the questions, the paradoxes. Those who are convinced they are right, that they have defined the answer, are engaged more with the concept of being correct, than with the subject of their studies.

Photo: Crevasse training, Antarctica. Photo by Megan Berg.