To Make Science Engaging, We Need a Sesame Street for Adults
A new kind of television series could establish the baseline narratives for novel science like gene editing, quantum computing, or artificial intelligence.
This article is part of the magazine, "The Future of Science In America: The Election Issue," co-published by LeapsMag, the Aspen Institute Science & Society Program, and GOOD.
In the mid-1960s, a documentary producer in New York City wondered if the addictive jingles, clever visuals, slogans, and repetition of television ads—the ones that were captivating young children of the time—could be harnessed for good. Over the course of three months, she interviewed educators, psychologists, and artists, and the result was a bonanza of ideas.
Perhaps a new TV show could teach children letters and numbers in short animated sequences? Perhaps adults and children could read together with puppets providing comic relief and prompting interaction from the audience? And because it would be broadcast through a device already in almost every home, perhaps this show could reach across socioeconomic divides and close an early education gap?
Soon after Joan Ganz Cooney shared her landmark report, "The Potential Uses of Television in Preschool Education," in 1966, she was prototyping show ideas, attracting funding from The Carnegie Corporation, The Ford Foundation, and The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and co-founding the Children's Television Workshop with psychologist Lloyd Morrisett. And then, on November 10, 1969, informal learning was transformed forever with the premiere of Sesame Street on public television.
For its first season, Sesame Street won three Emmy Awards and a Peabody Award. Its star, Big Bird, landed on the cover of Time Magazine, which called the show "TV's gift to children." Fifty years later, it's hard to imagine an approach to informal preschool learning that isn't Sesame Street.
And that approach can be boiled down to one word: Entertainment.
Despite decades of evidence from Sesame Street—one of the most studied television shows of all time—and more research from social science, psychology, and media communications, we haven't yet taken Ganz Cooney's concepts to heart in educating adults. Adults have news programs and documentaries and educational YouTube channels, but no Sesame Street. So why don't we? Here's how we can design a new kind of television to make science engaging and accessible for a public that is all too often intimidated by it.
We have to start from the realization that America is a nation of high-school graduates. By the end of high school, students have decided to abandon science because they think it's too difficult, and as a nation, we've made it acceptable for any one of us to say "I'm not good at science" and offload thinking to the ones who might be. So, is it surprising that a large number of Americans are likely to believe in conspiracy theories like the 25% that believe the release of COVID-19 was planned, the one in ten who believe the Moon landing was a hoax, or the 30–40% that think the condensation trails of planes are actually nefarious chemtrails? If we're meeting people where they are, the aim can't be to get the audience from an A to an A+, but from an F to a D, and without judgment of where they are starting from.
There's also a natural compulsion for a well-meaning educator to fill a literacy gap with a barrage of information, but this is what I call "factsplaining," and we know it doesn't work. And worse, it can backfire. In one study from 2014, parents were provided with factual information about vaccine safety, and it was the group that was already the most averse to vaccines that uniquely became even more averse.
Why? Our social identities and cognitive biases are stubborn gatekeepers when it comes to processing new information. We filter ideas through pre-existing beliefs—our values, our religions, our political ideologies. Incongruent ideas are rejected. Congruent ideas, no matter how absurd, are allowed through. We hear what we want to hear, and then our brains justify the input by creating narratives that preserve our identities. Even when we have all the facts, we can use them to support any worldview.
But social science has revealed many mechanisms for hijacking these processes through narrative storytelling, and this can form the foundation of a new kind of educational television.
Could new television series establish the baseline narratives for novel science like gene editing, quantum computing, or artificial intelligence?
As media creators, we can reject factsplaining and instead construct entertaining narratives that disrupt cognitive processes. Two-decade-old research tells us when people are immersed in entertaining fiction narratives, they loosen their defenses, opening a path for new information, editing attitudes, and inspiring new behavior. Where news about hot-button issues like climate change or vaccination might trigger resistance or a backfire effect, fiction can be crafted to be absorbing and, as a result, persuasive.
But the narratives can't be stuffed with information. They must be simplified. If this feels like the opposite of what an educator should be doing, it is possible to reduce the complexity of information, without oversimplification, through "exemplification," a framing device to tell the stories of individuals in specific circumstances that can speak to the greater issue without needing to explain it all. It's a technique you've seen used in biopics. The Discovery Channel true-crime miniseries Manhunt: Unabomber does many things well from a science storytelling perspective, including exemplifying the virtues of the scientific method through a character who argues for a new field of science, forensic linguistics, to catch one of the most notorious domestic terrorists in U.S. history.
We must also appeal to the audience's curiosity. We know curiosity is such a strong driver of human behavior that it can even counteract the biases put up by one's political ideology around subjects like climate change. If we treat science information like a product—and we should—advertising research tells us we can maximize curiosity though a Goldilocks effect. If the information is too complex, your show might as well be a PowerPoint presentation. If it's too simple, it's Sesame Street. There's a sweet spot for creating intrigue about new information when there's a moderate cognitive gap.
The science of "identification" tells us that the more the main character is endearing to a viewer, the more likely the viewer will adopt the character's worldview and journey of change. This insight further provides incentives to craft characters reflective of our audiences. If we accept our biases for what they are, we can understand why the messenger becomes more important than the message, because, without an appropriate messenger, the message becomes faint and ineffective. And research confirms that the stereotype-busting doctor-skeptic Dana Scully of The X-Files, a popular science-fiction series, was an inspiration for a generation of women who pursued science careers.
With these directions, we can start making a new kind of television. But is television itself still the right delivery medium? Americans do spend six hours per day—a quarter of their lives—watching video. And even with the rise of social media and apps, science-themed television shows remain popular, with four out of five adults reporting that they watch shows about science at least sometimes. CBS's The Big Bang Theory was the most-watched show on television in the 2017–2018 season, and Cartoon Network's Rick & Morty is the most popular comedy series among millennials. And medical and forensic dramas continue to be broadcast staples. So yes, it's as true today as it was in the 1980s when George Gerbner, the "cultivation theory" researcher who studied the long-term impacts of television images, wrote, "a single episode on primetime television can reach more people than all science and technology promotional efforts put together."
We know from cultivation theory that media images can shape our views of scientists. Quick, picture a scientist! Was it an old, white man with wild hair in a lab coat? If most Americans don't encounter research science firsthand, it's media that dictates how we perceive science and scientists. Characters like Sheldon Cooper and Rick Sanchez become the model. But we can correct that by representing professionals more accurately on-screen and writing characters more like Dana Scully.
Could new television series establish the baseline narratives for novel science like gene editing, quantum computing, or artificial intelligence? Or could new series counter the misinfodemics surrounding COVID-19 and vaccines through more compelling, corrective narratives? Social science has given us a blueprint suggesting they could. Binge-watching a show like the surreal NBC sitcom The Good Place doesn't replace a Ph.D. in philosophy, but its use of humor plants the seed of continued interest in a new subject. The goal of persuasive entertainment isn't to replace formal education, but it can inspire, shift attitudes, increase confidence in the knowledge of complex issues, and otherwise prime viewers for continued learning.
[Editor's Note: To read other articles in this special magazine issue, visit the beautifully designed e-reader version.]
Edible Silverware Is the Next Big Thing in Sustainable Eating
A new edible spoon is durable enough for mass market assembly and is already alleviating consumer waste.
Sure, you may bring a reusable straw when you go out to eat. But what about digesting your silverware at the restaurant? The future is already here.
Edible cutlery feels like a natural progression post-reusable straw.
Air New Zealand just added the new edible coffee cup Twiice into their in-flight service. Made from vanilla, wheat flower, sugar, egg and vanilla essence, the Twiice cups will be standard issue for the international airline.
On the ground, the new, award-winning startup IncrEDIBLESpoon has shipped more than a quarter million edible scoopers. The spoons are all-natural, vegan, and made from wheat, oat, corn, chickpea and barley.
The technological breakthrough is in creating tasty, mass-market material durable enough for delivery in an assembly line environment like airplane service, as well as stable enough to hold a hot cup of coffee or a freezing scoop of ice cream. Twiice cups can last several hours after hot coffee is added, while IncrEDIBLESpoon cutlery holds up to 45 minutes.
"We already caught the interest of a couple major ice cream chains," says Dinesh Tadepalli, co-founder of the IncrEDIBLESpoon parent company Planeteer. "If all goes well, one of them will test out our spoons at their scoop shop early this year."
Next Up
Edible cutlery feels like a natural progression post-reusable straw. And more is already on the menu.
The coffee cup company Twiice is already planning on expanding. Co-founder Jamie Cashmore says other serving items are coming later this year.
IncrEDIBLESpoon is also getting into more utensils. "We plan to mass produce the complete set by year's end: Edible straws, edible forks and edible coffee stirrers," Tadepalli says.
Most notably, Twiice's partner Air New Zealand sees the coffee cup as just a start to other sustainable solutions. The airline estimates it currently serves eight million cups of coffee annually. It's even suggesting customers bring their own reusable cup to the plane – though that isn't as ergonomic nor as attractive as eating everything you are served.
Open Questions
Making everything edible has a few challenges. First is cultural acceptance: With respect to current success, changing eating habits will require going beyond eco-focused and curious eaters.
Second, it's unclear if the short-term economics will add up in favor of airline carriers and other companies. Like alternative fuel, organizations will be more likely to adopt new science when it doesn't require a retrofitting or expensive change to their current business model – even if it does create long-term benefits.
The changes will likely be lopsided, influencing cultures at different times. Airplanes are a great start, as passengers are a captive audience interested in removing waste as soon as possible.
"Imagine eating a black pepper spoon after your soup or a chocolate spoon after your ice cream?"
We can expect edible cutlery to make an easier impact with certain cultures or foods. For instance, injera, the spongy Ethiopian bread, has served as an African plate of sorts for years. It makes sense that IncrEDIBLESpoon's four flavors, Salt, Masala, Spinach and Root, all fit in another bread-as-plate friendly culture: Indian.
Coffee and desserts sound like a good bet for now, though, especially for foodies. "People are curious to try edible spoons as they never heard or experienced them before," Tadepalli says. "Imagine eating a black pepper spoon after your soup or a chocolate spoon after your ice cream?"
The Secrets of a Long Life from the U.S.’s Top Longevity Hot Spot
Summit County resident Gloria Breigenzer, 75, does a yoga headstand in the Rocky Mountains while her horse looks on.
People are living longer in the world's richest countries, according to a recent Pew Report. Certain areas, in particular, have drawn the attention of researchers who study longevity because in those places, living to 100 is not unusual.
"If you want to live longer, shape your environment."
At 8000 feet up, Summit County, Colorado is a longevity hotspot. Surrounded by mountains that soar to more than 14,000 feet, the population of nearly 31,000 brags the highest expected lifespan in the United States, at 86.83 years. For comparison, the average life expectancy in the U.S. is 78.6 years.
So, what is it about living in Summit County that has brought about this high honor?
Despite popular belief, it's not about genes. Only about "20-30 percent of longevity can be predicted by genetics," longevity researcher Howard S. Friedman wrote in an email exchange. Friedman, a professor at the University of California at Riverside, co-authored a book about a famous study that followed participants for eight decades to learn what traits and factors contribute to a long life.
"About half is behavioral (including environmental)," Friedman says. "The rest is random (chance)." His longevity research is based on work that began in 1921 by Stanford University psychologist Lewis Terman. To discern the keys to longevity, Friedman and colleagues spent 20 years looking back at the lives led by the 1500 "gifted" 11-year old boys and girls who were born in 1910 and participated in Terman's study.
"We found that ambition, perseverance, and high motivation … predicted not only success but also longevity: Stressful job and hard work, long life!" Friedman says.
Longevity expert Dan Buettner agrees that an individual's environment is key. Buettner studies what he calls Blue Zones, where people "naturally live longer." But, unlike the five Blue Zones in the world -- Okinawa, Japan; Sardinia, Italy; Nicoya, Costa Rica; Ikaria, Greece; and Loma Linda, California — the majority of the Summit County population chose to move to the mountain towns that make up the region. Because Buettner believes that people can be taught to live longer, he sees Summit County as an instructive locale.
Like the Blue Zones, people in Summit County "do not pursue healthy lifestyles; [rather] it ensues," he says. "Blue Zones have the benefit of traditional patterns of eating and traditional rhythms of life. So they tend to be places where people walk to work, to a friend's house … [and] Blue Zone people eat the right food -- not because they have better individual responsibility or discipline; they simply live in an environment where beans, greens, nuts and grains are cheapest and most accessible."
"If you want to live longer," Buettner says, "shape your environment."
But an individual's environment can be affected by a number of factors, including socioeconomics, race, quality of and access to health care, as well as behavioral and metabolic risks. While the residents of Summit County smoke less and exercise more than those in regions with shorter life spans, they also have higher incomes and levels of education and lower unemployment.
"The healthiest individuals in The Longevity Project…lived meaningful, committed lives. They worked hard and played hard."
Gloria Breigenzer moved to Summit County 20 years ago with her husband. "We wanted to ski and ride horses up in the mountains," says Breigenzer. The 75-year-old still works part time as a hair dresser, goes to the gym every day, lifts weights and does yoga.
"I don't know why people don't want to get up and go out and work out and do stuff. I do," says the grandmother, who also exercises her rescue horse five days a week and for the past 15 years has done swing, country two step, and jazz dance in a group with her 77-year-old husband. She's also taking kiteboarding lessons and for the past two years has spent every afternoon studying Spanish.
Pete and Judy Rubin, both 65, retired to Summit County nearly two years ago from Cleveland. In Colorado, "socializing doesn't revolve around food," says Pete. "In Cleveland it always did…[Being outside] in summer or in winter is just easy. Skiing, on a bike, taking a hike, mowing the lawn, looking at a mountain instead of having someone else do it."
The Summit County approach resonates for researcher Friedman, who says that it's the "constellations of habits and patterns of living," that stood out most to him in his study. "Throw away your lists...The healthiest individuals in The Longevity Project…lived meaningful, committed lives. They worked hard and played hard. They were very persistent and responsible, and they were dedicated to things and people beyond themselves."
The following are some of the common denominators found in populations that live longer, including those who live in Summit County:
Plant-based diet: "Eat meat, no more than 5 times a month … [and] 95 percent of all the calories you take in should be whole plant-based foods," says Buettner.
Know your purpose: Buettner found that having and understanding your sense of purpose is worth up to seven years of extra life expectancy.
Have friendships: "You should have three to five friends who are healthy themselves who you can call on a bad day and they'll care," says Buettner.
Be on the move: Populations in zones where there is higher longevity "move naturally" as part of their day. It's not about diets. "No diet in the history of the world has worked for more than 5 percent of people after two years," says Buettner.
Relieve stress: "You should have some daily practices that help you downshift," says Buettner. It "could be taking naps, or meditation practice, or a habit of praying or a habit of doing happy hours."
Employ a family first rule: "Successful centenarians put their families first," explains Buettner. "And that means keeping your aging parents nearby, being seriously invested in your partner and if you have kids, you make them a priority."
It's these "key patterns of living [that] tend to make you both healthier and happier," says Friedman. "And health and happiness often then mutually reinforce each other."