Evaluate Science, Not Celebrity

"Celebrity" comes from the Latin word celeber, meaning "to frequent, throng, crowd." Celebrities are called celebrities because they attract throngs of people---crowds---in droves---and not necessarily for any reason that they're famous or, in many a case, infamous. It's generally accepted that one doesn't have to have any special talents to be a celeb. Get the attention of the public, get written up by some gossip blog that's the digital equivalent of Liz Smith or Walter Winchell (in the days when writing a gossip column meant writing a column of print in a paper) and bingo, you're it (as in "it girl").

Those in the public cynosure do tend to be (and indeed have been since the days of the ancient Greeks and Romans) actors and actresses; entertainers. (The Romans didn't speak of spectacula---"spectacles," from the Latin word for "watch," spectare---for nothing.) And the power of association being what it is in our ad-financed world, it's pretty accepted that if you've got celebs, you're gonna have people wanting to ride on their fame (from the Latin fama, meaning "rumor") to get themselves noticed; to get their cause noticed.

What would UNESCO have been without Audrey Hepburn?

Aid to Africa without Bono?

The Jerry Lewis Telethon without Jerry Lewis?

Now wait a moment----what cause exactly where those entertainers associated with? We do remember the famous name and face, but what were they "advocating" for and what difference did they, are they, making?

The phenomenon continues today, when celebrities continue to step up to the plate and in the name of autism (for example) do PSAs and march in rallies and "advocate" on TV talk shows (some have even, 'tis heard tell, signed contracts for their own TV talk shows). Very good for the entertainment factor and to keep the buzz alive, so long as we remember, that it's celebrities spewing out their views (kind of like blogging......) about various topics, et c'est tout.

Topics from science will no doubt be brought up when autism is under discussion. The evaluation of research papers, studies, and reports isn't, let's face it, very sexy and more power to those who think they've a way to enliven the mundane operations of downloading PDF files and reading them (with frequent reference to dictionaries and such, in my case) slowly. Careful evaluation of science doesn't translate at all into sound bytes, it must be noted; indeed, much gets lost in the translation of science into articles and press releases and such for the general public.

And science is from scire, Latin for "to know," and knowledge comes when it will, and often slowly, after long-term study and careful application of principles, axioms, and information previously acquired and thoroughly absorbed and often in the quiet of a desk heaped in books and papers in the light of midnight oil.

And far, far from the madding crowd and the cult of celebrity.

Take action: Evaluate science, not celebrity.