Sagan Effects 2.0: The Celebritization of Science in a Social Media Age

8/12/2019 Sagan Effects 2.0: The Celebritization of Science in a Social Media Age

1/26

Sagan Effects 2.0: The Celebritization of Science in a Social Media Age1

Sagan Effects 2.0: The Celebritization of Science

in a Social Media Age

Dan MichalskiMay 6, 2014

JMS 715 Final

Abstract

The television show Cosmos is experiencing its second incarnation as a popularizer of

science. But will this also foretell a second coming of the Sagan Effect? This term refers

to a perception bias that incorrectly presumed the quantity and quality of a scientists work

related inversely with a sudden rise in media attention. As a new generation of popular

scientists emerges in the 21st century, social media may have muted the Sagan Effect, but

underlying mechanisms may still be in play. This paper attempts to measure comparatively

the potential influence of various celebrities from science and elsewhere, and also

introduces the Dawkins Corollary, which considers the role of multiple voices and

personality types within the collective fabric of science communications in smiting any

lingering Sagan Effect in academia.

Keywords: Celebrity, Science, Pop culture, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard

Dawkins, Cosmos, Bill Nye, will.i.am

1


2/26


Introduction

Carl Sagan was arguably the biggest name in astrophysics for the entire 20th

century. He made major and significant discoveries -- successfully predicting surface

conditions on Venus, for example, and showing how common elements found in space

could produce amino acids, the building blocks of life, with exposure to radiation. But it was

his TV show Cosmos: A Personal Voyage in 1980 that made him a real star. Cosmos

would be seen by nearly a half billion people in 60 countries, making it the most watched

series in the history of public television. His book of the same name would become the

best-selling science tome ever published in English -- on the New York Times bestseller

list for 70 weeks. Hed receive dozens of awards throughout his career, including the

Pulitzer Prize, a Peabody (for Cosmos ), three Hugo awards, and two NASA medals -- one

for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, the other for Distinguished Public Service

(Giberson & Artigas, 2006).

With humans making their way into space in the 1960s, and sending more detailed

pictures back to Earth in the 1970s, Sagan was the one who could explain it all. And with

his hit show, not only did he make science entertaining, but with the ability to reach virtually

every school teacher in America, he shaped the way an entire nation, an entire people, an

entire planet, saw itself. The long-term effect of Sagans vision of the universe has yet to be

fully realized, as it was Sagan who played the most critical role in crafting the first and thus

far only human messages from Earth sent outward beyond our solar system (Jensen, et al.,

2008).

Sagan was arguably the biggest inspiration for science since Neil Armstrong. Yet

he was not so beloved by his academic contemporaries, who essentially considered him a

2


3/26


sellout. It was more than just envious disdain: Sagan would be denied tenure at Harvard

University, and the National Science Foundation would revoke his membership on the

premise this man on TV was no scientist -- he was at best an entertainer, and he wore

turtlenecks no less!

The backlash from the science community directed at Sagan as his success would

come to be known as The Sagan Effect -- which explains a presumption that increased

media exposure leads to a decrease in quantity and quality of scientific research. But in

fact this perceived inverse relationship turned out to be the apex of scientific irony, as later

looks revealed no facts to back up this perception (Jones, 2013).

Jensen et al. (2008) looked most closely at the science perception phenomenon

among science communicators, and found in fact, that when taking into account general

trends for slight deceleration of research to be in line with other professions. Sagan and

3


4/26


other researchers engaged in science communications were continuing to churn out work

of high quality, at only a slightly decelerated pace, and an accelerated pace when

accounting for general slowdowns due to age and a career path that has them spending

more time guiding other peoples work. The unfortunate thing even after Sagan had

recuperated his scientific reputation on his death at age 62, other scientists were hesitant

to direct their efforts toward improving their media game, and treating it like an essential

step in the scientific process (Russo, 2010). And therein was the ultimate irony -- proof

positive that the science community, in the face of overwhelming, seemingly

insurmountable success, would try to eat its own.

Party Like a Geological Supernova

Science seems to be hot again. While some say it might have to do with

technological innovations, climate change, and major recent discoveries (such as proof of

the Big Bang Theory), others contend any perceived increase in science popularity

probably has more to do with cultural exposure from a top-rated TV sitcom such as The

Big Bang Theory . Other plausible contributors include shows such as Mythbusters , and

the general popularity of science-based niche cable networks (The Learning Channel,

Discovery Channel, National Geographic). NASA seems to contribute to the overall

popularization of Sagan-style cosmology through an active social media presence for its

personified Mars-roving bots. But whatever the cause, there is a wave of newly popularized

science -- and a celebrity contingent that goes with it that includes scientists and longtime

Hollywood types intermingling. At a minimum science celebrity is keeping pace with the

4


5/26


growth of celebrity presences overall (Peters, et al., 2008), and scientists finding the most

fame are getting support from famous people finding science.

Figure 1. Celebrity brotherhood: Sciencecommunicator Bill Nye shows an affinity for the world heshares with rapper Kanye West.

Scientists are now geostellar humanoids --.or rock stars, as they are known to the

lesser educated masses. Not just figuratively, either. A new subcultural hot spot has

evolved at the convergence of Hollywood entertainment and theoretical physics. And for

some its not just lip service. Rapper Will.i.am, for example, is trying to get kids, primarily

students in the urban poor areas he grew up in, into STEM and is launching school

programs to facilitate students buying in to the concept of sciences being cool. In a display

to kids of whats possible, he was able to partner with government agencies to broadcast

music from Mars. Other celebrities jumping on the science train include Matt Damon, Penn

Jillette, Don Cheadle. Stephen Colbert regularly has scientists on as guests helping them

5


6/26


spread their message. Alan Alda has opened a namesake school at the State University of

New York, Stony Brook, where they are focussing on science communication -- running

media savvy boot camps to develop relationships with media that take seriously their role

in serving as the bridge between the scientists and the public (Shure, 2012). The media

have changed in the 21st century, and science communications have evolved into

something more complex than simply a deficit model (Casini & Neresini, 2012).

With this sort of attention and these signs growth taking place in science, on its face

it seems the Sagan Effect has fully waned. (Jones, 2013; Plait, 2013). Indeed, Sagans

protege Tyson may not be facing the same ostracization from science elites, but a deeperexamination suggests quite convincingly that contemporary non-linear modes of

communication that helped release the ivory tower stranglehold on science communicators

also gave birth to a new generation of science antagonists -- a group consisting of

credentialed purveyors of pseudoscience as well as celebrities with no scientific street

cred simply spreading their misinterpretation of someone elses bad science (DAddario

2013). And this matters because we know their impact on policy (and attached funding) is

consequential. (Street, 2012).

6


7/26


Figure 2. Pass the Mic: Carl Sagan (top left) sent his vision ofhumanity out into the cosmos. Entertainer Will.i.am is trying tosend word back. But his name is too generic to consider resultsfrom his celebrity measurement significant.

Cause Clbre

There is some literature providing a frame for how we might look at the Sagan

Effect and related phenomenon in a contemporary setting. Anderson, Allan, Petersen, &

Wilkinson (2005) show how celebrities add news value to any story to which they attachthemselves. The direct media impact is often overstated it turns out, as celebrities do not

automatically get coverage of everything they do. However, the strategic impact of

something well-timed can last far beyond any one celebrity appearance. To explain this

7


8/26


they studied the results of Prince Charless voicing support for nanotechnology Charles had

no particular expertise in nanotechnology, but he was able to ingratiate himself enough to

convince the public that he was trustworthy on this matter. And while he was hardly

instrumental in future coverage that would lead to policy change, his celebrity kickstart got

the press coverage that began 15 months of news coverage. That helped sway public

opinion enough to eventually impact policy. Because public perception can indeed shape

policy, and to that extent the scientists and celebrities alike, when viewed from media,

stand to be used as high-value pieces in political strategy (Anderson et al., 2005; Street,

2012; Woolery, 1998).Once science enters the celebrity realm, it automatically becomes equally (or more)

about style than substance (Thrall, 2008). A study of attitudes about stem cell research

noted, however, that any perceived advances of scientific message are mitigated by

inevitable negative forces that emerge, which amount to, essentially, collectively, for every

two steps forward one step back (conceptually; the math has not yet been tested). But what

was clear was that scientific knowledge played only a minor role in influencing collective

attitude, with religiosity, ideology, and deference to scientific authority moderating the

effects. (Ho, 2008)

Why does celebrity even matter in science? The research says that at a certain

point the perceived celebrity of a celebrity mattered more than the purity of the science --

and to that extent, scientists have to ask what is the goal. Does it matter if inexact scienceleads to money and programs that help save the environment, for example? Northfield and

McMahon (2010), in their study of the Crocodile Hunters impact on Australian

environmentalism, say the impact is not always direct, and not always built on good

8


9/26


science. Truth is the public does not want to have to evaluate the science, so they would

rather evaluate the scientist, and once someone establishes credibility, for better or for

worse it is hard to lose, which is why young scientists confident in their work should seek to

establish themselves early to see their credibility grow, even if it is not fully deserved. While

this makes some things easier for the science side of any communications equation, it of

course is also what makes quality science vulnerable to assault (Kruvand, 2012; Otto,

2011).

Figure 3. Close Encounters: Scientists may be closer tohalls of power than ever before, but does a selfie constitutean audience? (And what does it say about their friends?)

Methodology

Though publicly accessible algorithms and celebrity ranking systems do currently

exist online, there is a surprising dearth of science-related personalities included in these

9


10/26


databases (which, of course, justifies the need for further study). To make better sense of

media popularity for scientists, I whipped up a mixed methods study -- starting with

qualitative sample selection ( N=62) based on several months of JMS 715 students

observing the appearance of science in popular media, and sundry Internet searches

around the topics of science, celebrities, and popular media. This moderated convenience

sample is by no means comprehensive, but does cover a respectable bulk of scientists

who also are public personalities. For a control group, i included politicians, athletes,

musicians. And also poker players. The data set can be expanded vertically by adding

more names, and horizontally by updating the quantitative measures to see how they moveover time.

From this sample, I assigned them to one of five categories (Celebrity scientist,

friend of science, opponent of science, science media, control group), noted age, level of

academic degree, and the background from which they came to science. Then I did some

additional research to determine the religion (if stated) using primarily Hollowverse.com, a

website that attempts to track religious affiliation among other measures. From the

quantitative components I attempted to measure message exposure, reach, and influence.

Here is a brief rundown of selected online media measurement tools, and why they were

selected:

YouTube Search Returns. Measures how often celebrity appears in shared videos. Accommodates appearances on multiple shows, and other people referencing said

appearances. Provides measure of exposure and reach.

10


11/26


Facebook Likes. Similar measure of reach, but this one also provides a means for

spreading the message, with fans who are more ready to engage because of the

opt-in nature of liking.

Twitter Followers . A metric for measuring reach and potential influence, as it

represents people who have opted in to identify themselves as someone who is

following.

Google Search Results. How often does this celebritys name appear on theInternet. Reveals what Google robots have attached to these names, too, making no

judgment of good or bad intent, as this algorith then determines influence.

Google Pagerank. Virtually all science celebrities have a web page (even the dead

ones) serving as their personal public home. Expressed as a number from 0 to 10

over 10 this number is a google-controlled factor that calculates the value of

incoming links, and thus reflects not just the quality of their website programing

teams, but also how in control they are of their own message.

All nominal searches were conducted in quotes to better filter results, and were targeting

official, or most legitimate sites, and looked at the most official sources to quantify reachand recognition. Then, to come up with a singular comparative number that accounts for

different possible media strategies, devised a calculation. While I am no mathematical

theorist, future would likely benefit from more advanced statistical crunching, but for now the

11


12/26


formula used simply adds up the different social media metrics, and for google search

results, multiplies that by the page rank.

YT searches + FB likes +TW followers + (G searches * Gpagerank /10) = CV

This gave us an overall celebrity value -- expressed in US$ but can be seen as virtually any

unit. While specifics of this formula could be debatable, the strength is in its comparative

values. And the process helped identify other areas to look at for correlations.

12


13/26


14/26


suggesting estates and family members see definitive value in their names, even if none of

them ever lived long enough to Google themselves.

Scientists still, are nowhere near as big as some of the stars who support them and

have a greater celebrity value, which provides a reality check on any scientist who may be

thinking he or she is more famous than they actually are. Note, however, heir celebrity value

isnt all spent on science, and therefore deserves to be factored based on how much of

their public life is for that cause.

Two outliers were Will.i.am and Pope Francis, with the rapper producing results that

were statistically too large, presumably based on the commonality of his name, and thepontiffs were too small, based on a diffusion of world wide influences limiting his results to

mostly North American numbers.

One thing I noticed while doing the various nominal and ordinal research was that no

celebrity got to where they are without significant accomplishment. And even those who

can somehow fake their way to a certain level of success, there seemed to be no examples

of any sustaining it -- unless they had built up their celebrity prior to becoming involved in

science.

Also, atheism seemed to be the dominant religious affiliation among scientists and

their Hollywood friends, while pantheism used to be the preferred religious designation for

scientists who had to engage with the public.

14


15/26


Figure 4: Revenge of the Nerds? An appearance onThe Simpsons for Stephen Hawking shows the placethey have found in culture.

And one other curious and presumably significant accidental finding was that

teams proved to be stronger than the individuals -- in all cases the whole was greater than

the sum of its parts. While both Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman have good numbers

(CV=1.75 million, 700.6K), they are neither as big as Mythbusters (CV=9.4 million). We

found that similarly, the Rolling Stones (CV=30.1 million) were much bigger than Mick

Jagger (CV=5.6 million).

Though we would want to devise additional tests, the notion is that how powerful are

some of these high-end celebrities when working together, as there appears to be strength

in numbers. And herein lies the real power benefit for the scientist (Ho, 2008). Someone

can attempt to discredit Neil deGrasse Tyson, but if that is not enough to get other trusted

scientific sources to call him out for his errors, the accuser ends up seeing his claims

summarily dismissed.

Tartaric Prolate Spheroids of Vitis Genus?

15


16/26


One new phenomenon on display is the rise of microcelebrities. They are key in

that they did not exist in Sagans day, as they build their fame much on social media and

live events (Tufecki, 2013). Each has their own smaller following, and are an instrumental

part of the reason why the current wave of celebrities can not only establish a community

and culture, but give it the strength that has it resembling a movement (Thrall et al., 2008).

Horst (2013) tried to define how people present themselves, and the 22 Danish

scientists they spoke to for their qualitative study, they all acknowledged they fluctuated.

Horst (2013) suggests there are three roles that science communicators can adopt -- Field

Expert, Research Manager, and Guardian of Science. Id like to recode those a bit, andadd one more. A field expert is exactly that, one who is an expert in their field and speaks

with authority about these topics; what she calls research manager is one who represents

an organization (like an astronaut representing NASA); and the third, Guardian of Science,

is exactly that and all it implies, so we will keep that designation. Each of these come with

their own strengths and weaknesses, and contribute and subtract from credibility. This

study joins Casini and Neresini (2012) in acknowledging that they still do not see it as

integral to the research. However, Id like to add one more -- the Fanboy/girl. Fanboy is

the person who buys what the scientist is selling -- whether that be a theory, a belief

system, or a T-shirt -- and therein lies the culture that gives them so much more impact

because of the way the different personality types on the science landscape.

16


17/26


Figure 5. Not all haters come from outside of science.

But that emergence of power goes both ways. Even with the ivory tower elites fully

evirated, a reactionary vacuum has given rise to haters, posers, and trolls. These

personality types are worthy of a psychological study in and of themselves. These people

have virtually no power, other than to annoy. But be persistent enough, and they can crack

through, and set the celebrity off track. Posers are the pseudo scientist using scientific

methods and papers to promote junk science. These are the ones who can be seen if not

causing harm, contributing to it. Jenny McCarthy and her ability to spread autism myths is a

perfect example.

Haters can come from the outside, like Jose Canseco and Bill Nye, or from the

inside -- people who are scientists that complain about imperfections in the presentation of

the science. But before we hate on the haters, we should not forget that they are not

automatically a weight slowing down the progress of science. It can seem that way, but

17


18/26


there is also reason to see them as an inevitable counterweight to the fanboys, and some

might contend they provide a raison detre, that it not only sucks the energy and wastes the

time, but fuels it, as it provides a raison de etre for scientists and their fans.

Similarly, without them, would we have a belief in science blossom into a full blown

culture and potential movement? In fact one thing that has not been looked at are the fans,

the culture, the people who are willing to do your bidding. They buy T-shirts, they rebuke the

trolls, but also they are establishing a culture. This is the culture that builds on itself, and it

arguably has something to do with attracting the other celebrities to it, which fuels more. It

fuels an industry, and more people not doing pure science sure, but there is a place for allof them.

Using Horsts (2008) typology, and adding one more -- the Fan -- you can

conceptualize in a general sense how these subsets might feed off each other.

Their flipside are posers, haters, prophets. and trolls. Trolls have the least amount of power

and are simply a nuisance, but they give the haters something, and provide a buffer for the

posers, and ultimately it is the prophets. the case, id like to contend there is a flipside to

that, comprising their opponents, whether coming from pseudoscience (posers), science

(haters), religion or simply celebrities spreading bad science (prophets). These are the

forces, diffused along a mathematical trajectory that has yet to be defined, from the every

acton having an equal and opposite reaction.

Based on these numbers, you get a sense where people lie, and how differentdynamics might work. Horst says they can go from one to the other. You can see how the

fanboy/girls are on the front lines to neutralize the trolls; but the haters and posers are more

18


19/26


devious, and only sometimes predictable. It shows the tension and balance that exist with

any meaningful science communications in the 21st century:

Guardians

Organizers

Experts

Fans

TrollsHaters

Posers

Prophets

Causality is not clear, but these are the types we see emerging, and they have

different roles and different power. They also have different authorities. Now to be fair, this

reveals some of my own bias, as this could be twisted around, literally flipped, for a

theology paper. And to that extent, nothing in this study determines unequivocally if the

negative forces are indeed negative, subtracting from the efforts of positive forces, or if

actually this tension could be feeding both sides for each others benefit.

The Dawkins Corollary

Meanwhile, the next in line is Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist who made

a name for himself in 1976, but only in recent years has he become truly famous. The

19


20/26


Dawkins Corrolary says that a fabric allows for other personalities to arise. And like the

Sagan effect, there is great irony. And while it drives an atheist agenda, he too is bringing

what he detests. They post-sagan patchwork allows him to be someone not just in terms of

popularity but indirect credibility.

A pocket of protection science celebrities currently get to enjoy, and reveals

something about the patchwork of protection the new wave of science celebrities. It is a

classic debate, nothing new. This split is seen so clearly with the two approaches of Nye

and Dawkins over the debate with Ken Ham. Dawkins believes you are holding science

back. Nye believes you have to go to where the non-believers are, and learn to speak tothem in their language. He wanted to reach more of them, by literally coming on to their turf.

Figure 6.

20


21/26


The irony is however, and maybe Dawkins is aware, that he could not be in the

position he is in without them, and without their approach to science communications.

without the openness that lets in those he doesnt agree with. Dawkins could only get big in

the current environment. Dawkins is able to thrive only because this, an he is able to suck

the credibility off of them. Barack Obama never wouldve taken a selfie with such an

evangelical atheist (at least not without facing tremendous political fallout), but he can with

Tyson and Nye, and because of their science similarities, are dismissed for tolerating the

vitriol that Dawkins professes. This becomes part of the fabric of science, and if anything,

this patchwork allows for multiple voices in science to emerge and allow many to stick totheir principles. This broader network allows people to stick to their principles. (Tufecki,

2013). And that has allowed Atheist scientists, empowered by their non-science celebrity

connections, to have gotten downright evangelical. The ways in which they are advancing

their agenda with science communications is rife with possibility for further study.

Limitations

There are of course limitations to this research. The celebrity algorithm employed

could always benefit from heuristic tweaking. Specifically wed be interested in

incorporating additional social media metrics, differentiating between fan support sites and

oppositional sites, as this study does not calculate the difference between love and hate

and relies on the assumption, to some extent, that all press is good press. Future studies

would benefit from a statistical further operationalize the data set by overseeing proper

chi-square and t-test analyses; other research possibilities this opens up would benefit

from additional study of literature on organizational psychology as well as someone with an

21


22/26


historians eye for proper narrative. Also, much of the research looks at European

scientists, while there could easily be a unique dynamic for American science, and

particularly American science communicators. But for now, this look at the Sagan Effect

revisited provides a solid foundation on which future research could build for further study of

the social, political, economic, and cultural dynamics of science celebrities in the 21st

century.

Figure 7. A New Hope? While this concept may or may notbe realistic or desirable, it suggests a small army is formingaround wanting to follow,support, and defend them in battle

Conclusion

As things currently stand, very few people on this planet got into the intense study of

science for the popularity it bestowed upon them. For many, it was the opposite -- a refuge

from a more mainstream society that for whatever reasons could not, did not, or would not

22


23/26


keep up with the needs of the scientists intellect. But celebrities -- those who experience

their own form of Big Bang explosion upon reaching a critical popular mass -- do have a

role in policy, business, and even entertainment -- whether we like it or not.

And hey, in the end, that is how science is supposed to work. With the passage of

time, few people of any credibility deny the validity and strength of Sagans science. With

the passage of more time, humankind will see where the science has him holding up in the

annals of all recorded time. The ill effects for Sagan waned posthumously, as indeed the

facts, and his science won out, even if he was not around to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

So while people may no longer cast doubt on the credibility of his science, scientistswill debate for centuries moving forward on the necessity of having a good media game.

Some will suggest it is as important to the scientific process as cleaning the laboratory.

And while thats not to say that scholarly papers need to give co-author credit to publicists

and janitors, this step will have an impact in how the public remembers ones science. To

believe that science will always win out, to maintain a commitment to science under all

circumstances you have to have faith.

23


24/26


REFERENCES

Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A., & Wilkinson, C. (2005). The framing of

nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Science Communication, 27 (2),

200-219.

Casini, S., & Neresini, F. (2012.) Behind closed doors: Scientists and science

communicators discourses on science in society. Italian Journal of Science &

Technology Studies, 3 (2), 37-62.

DAddario, D. (2013). Suzanne Somers, Jenny McCarthy and Americas love of celebrity

pseudoscience. Retrieved from Salon.com,

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/29/suzanne_somers_jenny_mccarthy_and_americas

_love_of_pseudoscientific_celebrities/

Giberson, K., & Artigas, M. (2006). Oracles of Science: Celebrity Scientists versus God

and Religion. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ho, S., Broussard, D., & Scheufele, D. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass

media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research.

International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20 (2), 171-192

24
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2F2013%2F10%2F29%2Fsuzanne_somers_jenny_mccarthy_and_americas_love_of_pseudoscientific_celebrities%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEYFzciWdQSlZZGtvNZgxJxOvZeXQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2F2013%2F10%2F29%2Fsuzanne_somers_jenny_mccarthy_and_americas_love_of_pseudoscientific_celebrities%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEYFzciWdQSlZZGtvNZgxJxOvZeXQ


25/26


Horst, M. (2013). A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself? Scientists

perception of representing research in public communication. Science

Communication, 35 (6), 758-779.

Jensen, P., Rouquier, J., Kremer, P., Croissant, Y. (2008). Scientists who engage with

society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35 (7), 527-541.

Jones, C. (2013). Retrieved from

http://www.thecollapsedwavefunction.com/2013/06/the-modern-sagan-effect.html

Kruvand, M. (2012). Dr. Soundbite: The making of an expert source in science and

medical stories. Science Communication, 34 (5), 566-591.

Northfield, J., & McMahon, C. (2010). Crikey! Overstating the conservation influence of

the Crocodile Hunter. Science Communication, 32 (3), 412-417.

Otto, S. (2011). Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America (Google

eBook). New York, NY: Rodale.

Peters, H., et al. (2008). Interactions with mass media. Science, 321 (5886), 204-205.

25
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thecollapsedwavefunction.com%2F2013%2F06%2Fthe-modern-sagan-effect.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHsuYQnZAnHcg-T1M8sgaF6A8OQhA


26/26


Plait, P. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/

Russo, G. (2010). Outreach: Meet the Press. Nature, 468 (7322), 465-467.

Shure, C. (2012). Celebrity Science #4: will.i.am. Retrieved from

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/secretlife/blogposts/celebrity-science-4-will-i-a

m/

Street, J. (2012). Do Celebrity Politics and Celebrity Politicians Matter? British Journal of

Politics and International Relations, 14 , 346356

Thrall, A., et al..(2008). Star power: Celebrity advocacy and the evolution of the public

sphere. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13 (4), 362-385 .

Tufekci, Z. (2013). Not this one: Social movements, the attention economy, and

microcelebrity networked activism. American Behavioral Scientist , 57 (7), 848-870.

Wooley, M. (1998). Populism and scientific decision making. Science Communication,

20 (2), 52-55.

26
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fwgbh%2Fnova%2Fblogs%2Fsecretlife%2Fblogposts%2Fcelebrity-science-4-will-i-am%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFPz55-JpAiWiASXoOxEr2CgkIlyQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbs.org%2Fwgbh%2Fnova%2Fblogs%2Fsecretlife%2Fblogposts%2Fcelebrity-science-4-will-i-am%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFPz55-JpAiWiASXoOxEr2CgkIlyQ

Sagan Effects 2.0: The Celebritization of Science in a Social Media Age

Documents

Transcript of Sagan Effects 2.0: The Celebritization of Science in a Social Media Age