We spoke with Jorge Mira
Hablamos con Jorge Mira
We spoke with Jorge Mira Pérez, a renowned scientist who combines his position as professor of electromagnetism at the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC) with a wide and diverse work of dissemination in the press, radio, television and various scientific communication actions (learn more)
First of all, we would like to congratulate you, Jorge, for such an outstanding and recognised career, to which we can add the recent Medal of Research of Galicia and the Prize of the Confederation of Scientific Societies of Spain. We would especially like to thank you for the contribution you make in Galicia, bringing science closer to the general public through multiple formats.
Marie Curie is said to have said that “a scientist in his laboratory is not just a technician: he is also a child faced with natural phenomena that impress him as if in a fairy tale.” Was this true for you? Are you still impressed today?
J.M.: Yes, of course. In fact, for me, this sensitivity to impression is fundamental for scientific work, because it is the energy that gives you the willpower to continue researching. I would say that in my case it is now greater than before because the range of areas that I am covering is much wider. A few years ago, I was only involved in materials science and nanotechnology; but now, apart from those, I work in línes of mathematics, staudy of population dynamics, time regulation, sociolinguistics, geography, inengierías civil, eléctrica y chemistry, sport science, politic science didáctica de las ciencias y ciencias de la salud (radiología, epidemiología, odontología y optometría).
One of our premises is that the aesthetic beauty of science is everywhere. Do you think this statement is too ambitious?
J.M. It may be ambitious, but it is a necessary ambition, because human intelligence has as one of its virtues the search for patterns, and those patterns are what define our idea of beauty. We see three stones in a line and we automatically think of a straight line. That line only exists in our mind, but that is because we work that way and our science can only do it that way: looking for patterns, intelligible to us, that allow us to describe reality.
“Human intelligence has as one of its virtues the search for patterns, and those patterns are what define our idea of beauty”
Both science and art require creativity and innovative thinking. With the progressive introduction of technology and the arrival of AI, will these characteristics continue to be valued to the same extent?
J.M. I think so, and even more so, if possible. AI is increasingly taking over the mundane tasks of research, and in this paradigm, the role that will remain for humans is that of being the driving force behind innovation. Oh, and let’s not forget that AI itself is a product of our creativity: both science and art require creativity and innovative thinking. With the progressive introduction of technology and the arrival of AI, will these characteristics continue to be valued to the same extent?
Nowadays, with the digital media available, it may seem easier to reach all kinds of audiences, even to segment them. But is it easier to disseminate today or does the immediacy of the digital world make it more difficult?
J.M. I am one of those people who sees the glass half full, and I think it is easier because there are more and better tools. When I started in the field of dissemination, 25 years ago, there was almost nothing (I am considered a pioneer in scientific dissemination in Galicia and I am not that old! (laughs)) and now the panorama is radically different, because resources have improved a lot at a dizzying pace. Now, if the content and tools have improved, society has also changed and has become more complex: over-information and the difficulty of separating good material from bad are becoming obstacles that, in fact, pose a problem in reaching the public. What will happen now is that the interested party will have everything they want, and there will be a stratification of audiences, with a kind of fully informed elite coexisting with large pockets of the population that are completely disconnected. This is one of the reasons for the proliferation of hoaxes and aberrant scientific ideas, on a scale that I never imagined.
Some scientific careers are in greater demand today than they were a few years ago (for example, Mathematics). Are we living in a good moment from that point of view? In particular, in the case of Physics?
J.M. Yes. I think this is due to a rebound effect of the degree of atomization that occurred a few years ago. The range of disciplines has skyrocketed to such an extent that people have lost their bearings and have returned to the classic disciplines in order to reorient themselves: mathematics, physics, biology… which provide general knowledge that goes beyond the partialities of excessively specific orientations.
“Society has also changed and become more complex: information overload and the difficulty of separating good material from bad are becoming obstacles that, in fact, pose a problem in reaching the public”
You recently mentioned that “science has to find a place in politics and in front of a mass audience.” How can this approach to science be achieved? How could interest be aroused, whether from citizens as a demand or from governments?
J.M. Vulgarizing the discourse, although the verb “vulgarize” initially generates some rejection. But it is not an ugly verb, let us remember that it comes from “divulgar”, which is to transmit scientific knowledge after sifting through the complicated details as much as possible. In my courses I always say that this work is governed by a principle similar to that of uncertainty in physics: “the less you complicate the discourse, the more audience you will have, and vice versa.” Certainly, the key to the success of a good scientific communicator lies precisely in his ability to prune the abstruse details and limit himself to a simple message. This also affects the political class, which is the subgroup of citizens on which the greatest effort should be concentrated, for obvious reasons. Look at the composition of the new Congress of Deputies: the great majority of their lordships have training in humanities or social and legal sciences, and they will never take the initiative. It is we scientists who have to lobby them, with a specific effort to disseminate information to give them the appropriate information so that they can then make their decisions.
In the digital age, the visualization of scientific data has become more important. How do you think this visualization can impact the public perception of science?
J.M. It is almost the determining factor, as it has a synthesis, a summary and a filter for the complexities that the average citizen does not assimilate. And, logically, the appeal of visualization is increasingly necessary to compete for the public’s attention, which is increasingly expensive.
At Designce we work to create an impact on society by fostering a love for STEM disciplines. Do you think science is in good health when it comes to the interest shown by younger generations?
J.M. As I said before, my feeling is that a kind of stratification or segregation of audiences is taking place, so that you find young people with an astonishing level and interest in science living alongside someone completely unfamiliar with it. And I fear that the divergence will become more and more pronounced. Now, unlike a few years ago, interested people have many resources to satisfy their appetite, so the gap that forms between them and laymen in science will become ever greater. When I was young there was more homogeneity.