Tv Scientist vs. Researcher

I read the first line of an article debating this in Eureka and decided to have a go at it before my head is full of their ideas.

On the one hand practising scientists are more important. Without their work the scientist super stars would having nothing to report. Actually in many ways without the previous work of practising scientists in the development of printing techniques, radio communications as well as televisions and the various camera and computer technologies connected to this, the TV scientists job would literally be impossible. But maybe that's taking it all a little too far... Scientists make cutting edge research that can advance the human race, how can you possible fault the work of genius that will save lives or revolutionise them.

On the other hand scientists in the media are more important. This is because by showing people really cool really useful work, the work can get attention and then comes funding so that the work can progress and get even better. It is also important to show people how wonderful science is and encourage them to want to contribute to this. Without science programmes and other forms of media, a lot of people would not be exposed to the wonders of science other than inside a classroom which is not the ideal learning environment for some people. Why should science only be for official scientists? Sharing knowledge is an important job.

Actually the article raised many of the same points as me. However there was a really good example in support of the TV science stars. Dr Evan Harris argued that Andrew Wiles proof of Fermat's Theorem is only well known due to Simon Singhs book about it and this is a very good point since that is the way that I learnt about it. Dame Athene Donald just gave examples of TV scientists that I had never heard of which proved her point that their lifetime is short. But it would have had more impact if I recognised any of the practising scientists names... I really have so much to learn!