Verified by 
I was recently named to a list of Sexiest Scientists Alive. While this is quite flattering for my parents (since how we look is mostly genetically determined), is this good for science?
In a similar vein, The Geoffrey Beene Foundation has sponsored a "Rock stars of science" media campaign pairing scientists and clinicians with rock stars. Their stated goal is to raise awareness of scientific research.
This seems cool, but does science need promoting?
Scientists share the TED stage with famous politicians, entertainers, and billionaire technologists like Bill Gates, U2's Bono, and Al Gore. New York City has the World Science Festival. Top-rated TV shows like CSI: Crime Science Investigations, The Big Bang Theory, Myth Busters, and NCIS all show science, if not always scientists, in a positive light.
Yet, a reasonable critique is that making science sexy for the general public "dumbs down" findings, something I and other scientists who speak to the general public have been accused of. Scientific findings can be subtle and conclusions often change with additional research. Thus, pronouncements by science rock stars can not only confuse nonscientist audiences, but can make science look silly or useless.
My view is that science, which depends strongly on fiscal support from the public, needs to show its relevance. And it needs to do this every day. Making science entertaining is a conduit to sustaining support and producing a new generation of scientists. When I give public lectures, I can see the expressions of understanding on the faces of audience members showing that I've reached them. I can see that they love "getting it."
If they want to learn more, I encourage them to read books. Indeed, close to 11 million Americans have science degrees, and nearly 2 million are working scientists. While many Americans are scientifically literate, they are often only literate in the silo of their degrees. Public science lectures let them ignite that wonder for fields about which they know little. I find nearly every nonspecialist audience I speak to is filled with people asking me difficult and skeptical questions. Bravo!
Communicating scientific findings is difficult, and doing it in an entertaining way is even harder. But, I think this is necessary if science is going to continue being sexy. Here's a talk I did at TED Global as an example.
If the scientists engage with the public have some small genetic advantage in looks or communication, that is no reason to reject public outreach. At a minimum, sexy science shows that science is relevant people's daily lives. That itself is a win for society.
