Interview by Oleg Kusov exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza
Andrey Vaganov, deputy editor-in-chief of Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the executive editor of the Science section, is the guest of Take My Word today.
- Greetings, Andrey! In post-Soviet times, journalism has certainly changed greatly, just like our whole life. Political journalism, the tabloid and entertainment press have been brought to the fore, we can see this on the television. What state is science journalism in today?
- Good afternoon! I still think that it is on the rise, regardless of how posh it sounds. In what sense? Many people are trying to work in that sector. It certainly does not mean that they will do everything well immediately. Surprising as it may seem, they prefer not to call themselves science journalists, a more common terminology has appeared – the communication of science and society. Communicators between the science community and the ordinary reading public.
- But are they journalists, to begin with?
- It is hard to say. My first editor-in-chief was Vitaly Anatolyevich Tretyakov, there is a book, an excellent textbook “How to Become a Famous Journalist.” Such an informal, very curious textbook. I remember a quote from the book. It says that if you gather some 10 aircraft designers, they will order about for some time, but they will manage to make some kind of newspaper, start its publication and so on. But if you gather 10 journalists, no matter how much they order about, they will not build a plane. This difference is essential. I think that science journalism certainly has a peculiarity: people with special education can achieve more in it. It is not journalist [education], it is basic: psychologists, economists, physicists, chemists, biologists. And we see that even in the example of television journalists. There are many, for example, with the education of a biologist: Constantine Ernst, Pavel Lobkov…
- Vladimir Pozner.
- Pozner, yes, he graduated from the Biological Faculty of MSU. It seems that natural science education simply builds the brain, as they say, in the right direction, then they can be filled with anything, because the right matrix was made. I am not a journalist by education. I graduated from the Moscow Energy Institute, I am a thermal physicist by education.
- It is a very interesting dilemma, especially for starting journalists, where to study. Disputes around that topic have been going on for a long time, I remember, since Soviet times. So how should you get into journalism? Through what faculty?
- I will tell you about science journalism. In this regard, I like the system in American, German, some French universities. A person there gets a bachelor’s degree, four years in some specialization, and understands that he makes a rather average physicist. Then, he starts master’s studies for 3-4 semesters, science journalism. It is like a cap for his education. But education there is very specific, there is fairly little theory, unlike, let’s say, in Russian [education], you are thrown directly into the water, as they say.
- Practice.
- Yes, practice. You need to make, let’s say, 2-4 stories in one semester, if you are in television journalism. Of course, it should be noted that the material basis of American universities allows that: a personal TV studio is a must, own radio studio, newspaper. Sometimes, university papers in America are the most popular in some area. Germany has something similar: people feeling that a purely scientific career is so-so, something average, enter advanced courses or master’s studies, where they are certainly given an impression about journalism as it is, but the most important thing is that they specialize in science texts. They are sometimes called a "science writer” there. A science writer is a very common thing there.
- I heard a phrase once that science journalism should simplify science to a level understandable for non-scientists. What audience do you focus on? Who is your reader?
- It is an old dilemma and maybe an unsolvable one. For example, the famous great Michael Faraday said that popular science books could never teach anyone anything. We can trust Faraday.
- But they can provoke interest.
- That is where I am pointing. I like a lot in this sense, I found a Latin phase from Tacitus: “Omne ignotum pro magnifico est” (“everything unknown appears magnificent”). I think that the most important thing in science journalism is that its works should intrigue the reader, viewer, listener. In this regard, again it seems to me that a science journalist has the right to make a mistake. He doesn't have the right to make a deliberate one, of course, distorting the facts, but for some personal allusions in other sectors. Scientists who talk with journalists certainly do not like that. Because a scientist primarily wants to deliver the scientific truth without spin. A scientist always delivers a lecture, even when giving an interview, he still delivers a lecture subconsciously. It is first of all an intrigue and exciting news and so on for a journalist. The two communities – science journalists and scientists – I read researches of psychologists, are people on different poles of the psychological scale.
- And the readers are somewhere between them.
- Of course, if we completely simplify everything, we write for the ordinary man, waking in the morning and going to the metro, I suddenly went into my pocket and took out my last 10 rubles and bought a popular science magazine. When will this reflect form… But there is another topic, it is big, but I will simply touch upon it, that the popular science genre is heterogeneous itself. It is multi-layered, dynamic, develops in time, genres of science popularization are changing. Let’s say, if you prefer Luigi Galvani, the description of his famous experiment with a frog, when frog legs move, when a battery is moved towards them, to put it roughly. If you read it now, you will wonder what experiment it is, it is some Frankenstein, it is romantics. Italian schools, for instance, still study the works of Galileo as examples of Italian philology, not science. The genre of popular science literature, periodicals, is very dynamic. And now, we see that it has become part of the entertainment business, if we put it really roughly. Not to mention that it is bad, maybe it should be that way.
- Andrey, I have an amateurish question bothering me personally for a long time. Does science deny the existence of God?
- Yes, of course. That said, I do not want to offend believers. I have full respect for them. But it seems to me that there is such a tendency, especially in Russian science, where scientists get little money for science but want to solve some global problems. I just feel in publications that even scientists of academic institutions suddenly start publishing some articles, books where they are trying to prove that religion denies science, and science does not deny religion, that they should live in a symbiosis and help each other and so on. My personal positions: I want purity in the genre. There is religion – work with religion, and there is science, no need to fuse them. As Kuprin said in “Yama”, the relation of a highly-cultured man with a fallen woman will never bring her to the level of the highly-cultured man, it will most likely bring him down. And so, if we adapt the situation to the relations between science and religion, I cannot speak for religion, but the level of science will drop, it is a fact. One Englishman said in the 1960s that satellites are not launched by fasting and prayers. That is my credo. There are satellites and there is the faith sector. Mixing them… It does not mean a scientist cannot believe in God. Please. They say I.P. Pavlov believed in God. Although, if we read his laboratory diaries about his persecution of dogs, and his general talk about natural science, psychology, there is no place for God. So, I want purity of the genre. There is science, and there is religion. Benefit will be gained from their free development, not their synthesis.
By the way, religion may be an object of scientific research. There are theologians. Archeology works with religious artifacts. But that is scientific work. When they are being mixed, I think it gives no benefit to either of them.
- I have your book “Children of Paracelsus.” What is it about?
- It is about famous literature and life stories that may seem unrelated to science, engineering and technology, but this science, engineering and technology is patched on. For example, what was the speed of the train under which Anna Karenina jumped? It appears that it can be searched for and found. Or what wood was Pinocchio carved from?
- Is there a scientific explanation?
- Actually, it is not complicated. Pinocchio is in the original. “Pinos” is the genus name of coniferous trees in Italian. And why was father Gepetto the parent? Why was it not, let’s say, mother Julia? It turns out because men were the best obstetricians in Europe until a certain period. Hence we can figure when the story of Pinocchio was happening. There are several stories about that.
assures Andrey VaganovInterview by Oleg KusovAndrey Vaganov, deputy editor-in-chief of Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the executive editor of the Science section, is the guest of Take My Word today.- Greetings, Andrey! In post-Soviet times, journalism has certainly changed greatly, just like our whole life. Political journalism, the tabloid and entertainment press have been brought to the fore, we can see this on the television. What state is science journalism in today?- Good afternoon! I still think that it is on the rise, regardless of how posh it sounds. In what sense? Many people are trying to work in that sector. It certainly does not mean that they will do everything well immediately. Surprising as it may seem, they prefer not to call themselves science journalists, a more common terminology has appeared – the communication of science and society. Communicators between the science community and the ordinary reading public.- But are they journalists, to begin with?- It is hard to say. My first editor-in-chief was Vitaly Anatolyevich Tretyakov, there is a book, an excellent textbook “How to Become a Famous Journalist.” Such an informal, very curious textbook. I remember a quote from the book. It says that if you gather some 10 aircraft designers, they will order about for some time, but they will manage to make some kind of newspaper, start its publication and so on. But if you gather 10 journalists, no matter how much they order about, they will not build a plane. This difference is essential. I think that science journalism certainly has a peculiarity: people with special education can achieve more in it. It is not journalist [education], it is basic: psychologists, economists, physicists, chemists, biologists. And we see that even in the example of television journalists. There are many, for example, with the education of a biologist: Constantine Ernst, Pavel Lobkov…- Vladimir Pozner.- Pozner, yes, he graduated from the Biological Faculty of MSU. It seems that natural science education simply builds the brain, as they say, in the right direction, then they can be filled with anything, because the right matrix was made. I am not a journalist by education. I graduated from the Moscow Energy Institute, I am a thermal physicist by education.- It is a very interesting dilemma, especially for starting journalists, where to study. Disputes around that topic have been going on for a long time, I remember, since Soviet times. So how should you get into journalism? Through what faculty?- I will tell you about science journalism. In this regard, I like the system in American, German, some French universities. A person there gets a bachelor’s degree, four years in some specialization, and understands that he makes a rather average physicist. Then, he starts master’s studies for 3-4 semesters, science journalism. It is like a cap for his education. But education there is very specific, there is fairly little theory, unlike, let’s say, in Russian [education], you are thrown directly into the water, as they say.- Practice.- Yes, practice. You need to make, let’s say, 2-4 stories in one semester, if you are in television journalism. Of course, it should be noted that the material basis of American universities allows that: a personal TV studio is a must, own radio studio, newspaper. Sometimes, university papers in America are the most popular in some area. Germany has something similar: people feeling that a purely scientific career is so-so, something average, enter advanced courses or master’s studies, where they are certainly given an impression about journalism as it is, but the most important thing is that they specialize in science texts. They are sometimes called a "science writer” there. A science writer is a very common thing there.- I heard a phrase once that science journalism should simplify science to a level understandable for non-scientists. What audience do you focus on? Who is your reader?- It is an old dilemma and maybe an unsolvable one. For example, the famous great Michael Faraday said that popular science books could never teach anyone anything. We can trust Faraday.- But they can provoke interest.- That is where I am pointing. I like a lot in this sense, I found a Latin phase from Tacitus: “Omne ignotum pro magnifico est” (“everything unknown appears magnificent”). I think that the most important thing in science journalism is that its works should intrigue the reader, viewer, listener. In this regard, again it seems to me that a science journalist has the right to make a mistake. He doesn't have the right to make a deliberate one, of course, distorting the facts, but for some personal allusions in other sectors. Scientists who talk with journalists certainly do not like that. Because a scientist primarily wants to deliver the scientific truth without spin. A scientist always delivers a lecture, even when giving an interview, he still delivers a lecture subconsciously. It is first of all an intrigue and exciting news and so on for a journalist. The two communities – science journalists and scientists – I read researches of psychologists, are people on different poles of the psychological scale.- And the readers are somewhere between them.- Of course, if we completely simplify everything, we write for the ordinary man, waking in the morning and going to the metro, I suddenly went into my pocket and took out my last 10 rubles and bought a popular science magazine. When will this reflect form… But there is another topic, it is big, but I will simply touch upon it, that the popular science genre is heterogeneous itself. It is multi-layered, dynamic, develops in time, genres of science popularization are changing. Let’s say, if you prefer Luigi Galvani, the description of his famous experiment with a frog, when frog legs move, when a battery is moved towards them, to put it roughly. If you read it now, you will wonder what experiment it is, it is some Frankenstein, it is romantics. Italian schools, for instance, still study the works of Galileo as examples of Italian philology, not science. The genre of popular science literature, periodicals, is very dynamic. And now, we see that it has become part of the entertainment business, if we put it really roughly. Not to mention that it is bad, maybe it should be that way.- Andrey, I have an amateurish question bothering me personally for a long time. Does science deny the existence of God?- Yes, of course. That said, I do not want to offend believers. I have full respect for them. But it seems to me that there is such a tendency, especially in Russian science, where scientists get little money for science but want to solve some global problems. I just feel in publications that even scientists of academic institutions suddenly start publishing some articles, books where they are trying to prove that religion denies science, and science does not deny religion, that they should live in a symbiosis and help each other and so on. My personal positions: I want purity in the genre. There is religion – work with religion, and there is science, no need to fuse them. As Kuprin said in “Yama”, the relation of a highly-cultured man with a fallen woman will never bring her to the level of the highly-cultured man, it will most likely bring him down. And so, if we adapt the situation to the relations between science and religion, I cannot speak for religion, but the level of science will drop, it is a fact. One Englishman said in the 1960s that satellites are not launched by fasting and prayers. That is my credo. There are satellites and there is the faith sector. Mixing them… It does not mean a scientist cannot believe in God. Please. They say I.P. Pavlov believed in God. Although, if we read his laboratory diaries about his persecution of dogs, and his general talk about natural science, psychology, there is no place for God. So, I want purity of the genre. There is science, and there is religion. Benefit will be gained from their free development, not their synthesis.By the way, religion may be an object of scientific research. There are theologians. Archeology works with religious artifacts. But that is scientific work. When they are being mixed, I think it gives no benefit to either of them.- I have your book “Children of Paracelsus.” What is it about?- It is about famous literature and life stories that may seem unrelated to science, engineering and technology, but this science, engineering and technology is patched on. For example, what was the speed of the train under which Anna Karenina jumped? It appears that it can be searched for and found. Or what wood was Pinocchio carved from?- Is there a scientific explanation?- Actually, it is not complicated. Pinocchio is in the original. “Pinos” is the genus name of coniferous trees in Italian. And why was father Gepetto the parent? Why was it not, let’s say, mother Julia? It turns out because men were the best obstetricians in Europe until a certain period. Hence we can figure when the story of Pinocchio was happening. There are several stories about
