Science and Universities

With more than 400 episodes under his belt, Jaume Vilalta has directed since 2006 Quèquicom, Televisió de Catalunya’s leading popular science programme, winner of numerous prizes and awards. Last April he gave a lecture at the Institut d’Estudis Catalans (IEC) addressed to the scientific community about his experience at the head of the programme and about the art of popularising science. We have a conversation following that talk about some of the keys to Quèquicom and successful popularisation.

Where does your interest in science come from?

I have no scientific formation, but I do have a great curiosity, which is what led me to become a journalist. In the summers of 2005 and 2006, together with the biologist Cristian Ruiz i Altaba, I made a series of forty five-minute episodes called Aprendre a mirar (Learning to Look), as part of the TV3 programme De vacances (On Holiday). At that time, I was already convinced that we had to explain things in the most human way possible and with everyday elements. By building a sand castle at Punta de la Banya, Cristian explained the formation of the Ebro delta, and so on and so forth. That was the seed of Quèquicom.

And why did you choose this title?

The name was the idea of the engineer Xavier Kirchner. He pointed out to me that in dissemination, the questions what, who and how are fundamental. The why can be misleading. Natural phenomena occur without an intentionality that can be interpreted from human logic. My contribution was to merge the three words into one word, without questions.

What was the state of science programming in Catalan at the time, and was there a gap of this type of content?

TV3 had not broadcasted anything about science for a long time, except for the short programme El Medi Ambient, by Xavier Duran, which was later removed from the screen, although it worked very well. The Corporation’s interest in promoting science tended to be zero. In short, it was a question of filling the file with the Generalitat, of making thirteen episodes and leaving it at that. I think that for many years, the directors of the TV channels did not understand the great communicative potential that science has, they think it is boring, but it is not at all. Most scientists are challenged to help someone who has a problem. Here we already have the basis for building a story.

What makes Quèquicom different?

I think the big difference between Quèquicom and most science programmes around the world was that we went from life to science and not from the subject to science. We did not ask ourselves “what do I want to explain?”, but “what is reality asking me to explain?” It is still a good human adventure that science will present itself, you just have to be aware. I was sure of this because throughout my career I have made or directed about a thousand reports or documentaries and hundreds of news stories. All it takes is an intelligent eye to see that dead ends, dilemmas, can be examined through the lens of knowledge. In most cases, we didn’t know exactly what science we were going to tell. When we watched the report, we decided what knowledge we needed to broaden in order to understand what was going on or what perspectives were opening up.

How did you plan your chapters?

Quèquicom has two basic structural elements: the reports, in which stories are told with the help of science and are treated in a journalistic style; and the more leisurely approach to the set, where the presenter explains science with the help of models, diagrams and experiments by telling stories. Quèquicom’s motto was “experience limits science”. We do not pretend to explain everything, only what is linked to the experience we share with the audience. It could be the reporter’s or a patient’s or a scientist’s, but in all cases there had to be a story with a beginning, a middle and, at the very least, the hope of an outcome of that shared experience.

How did you do it to explain complex things in a simple way?

A success of the programme, if I can say so, was finding the right language. People don’t know the language of science, do they? So, you have to know theirs. And it’s Sesame Street: in, out; balance, imbalance; chase, run away; etc. Concepts that all cultures share and that are at the basis of universal narrative. If you look at a few Quèquicom, you will notice that the appropriate use of comparisons, models and metaphors is based on creating a clear image that is easy to remember and that has a relationship with the complex phenomenon you have to explain. You may not remember the details, but the image that associated the hormone system with a mobile phone, one of those hanging ones where if you move one piece, the other pieces move up or down, gives you an idea forever. Expanding your knowledge will depend on your curiosity. And I have to say that we didn’t consider ourselves responsible for educating the country, we just wanted to awaken the curiosity of the citizens.

In the talk you gave at the IEC you compared successful communication to flirting.

Yes, indeed. Generally speaking, the key to communication lies in this question: “how do you go about flirting? The answer can be summarised in three phases: capturing attention, maintaining interest and meeting expectations. If we go into detail, in the first phase you have to spread your plumage so that they look at you and listen to you. This is a very short phase and more emotional than rational, as the first impression will be decisive. To maintain interest, it is necessary to be prepared, as you modulate the message according to the receiver’s reception, although, in the specific case of a message aimed at the public, you are going quite blind, as you have no other standard of measurement than your sensations, your own instinct; audience analysis is a posteriori. In the last phase is where you have to leave the flag very high. You will have succeeded if both parties are looking forward to a second date and you arouse new expectations for the next meeting. All three phases are important, without one there would be no next one, but the last one is extremely important. It is necessary to take good care of the endings.

Does something have to be newsworthy to capture attention?

Among the elements necessary for a topic to enter Quèquicom and any other programme, there are a couple that facilitate its selection: to have news or to have a character, or better, both. News is a change in the order of things that is of interest to a given community. The more unexpected the change, the more attractive it will be, and it is taken for granted that the more people it affects, the better.

And what about the character?

There are things that become news only because their protagonist is known, is a famous person. Here, neither science nor academia has a star system yet; in Catalonia there are four more or less well-known names, most of them doctors. Although science and technology are done as a team, it is necessary for them to develop characters. Maybe whoever is famous is not the best in their field, but the important thing is to be able to count on someone with notoriety who makes themselves heard.

At Quèquicom you didn’t always have newsworthy topics or celebrities. What did you do in these cases?

Having a news item is not the only way to get a space in the media. In reality, what we live by is telling stories. What are the elements of a story? Those of the Odyssey: a protagonist pursues an objective (usually to solve or cause a problem) and after certain hardships, caused by antagonists, achieves, or not, what he or she set out to do. Plot, crux and conclusion. In every conflict – understood as conflict in the dialectical sense of the term – is the seed of a good story which, however small, can be universal. Conflict is the motor of the story.

What other resources help to popularise science?

One is emotion. It is often necessary to enter through the heart to reach the brain. Emotion fixes the attention and gives way to reason. Thus, the characters must convey passion and the story must convey emotion. This is the ideal and you always have to find a way to achieve it.

What else?

In the case of audiovisual media, in addition to the emotional component, we are still missing another basic factor: action. Give me verbs (action), make things happen in front of the camera, and you will be laying the train tracks, the basis on which the audiovisual narrative circulates. It’s not enough with an interview, which in itself is a genre; I’m talking now mostly about reportage and documentaries. We need different situations with different people and at different times. It is much easier for us to follow people who do things than those who spend their lives in front of a computer. Television subjects “have the stage built into them”.

And any theme works?

Choosing the right theme is key. A good theme has action and emotion, and is perfect when it influences people’s thoughts and behaviour. You don’t have to go far to find interesting things. The academic curriculum is a source of predictable ideas, but there is a great source of inspiration, life: look around. What news or rumours are on the lips of young people that might deserve a scientific explanation? Wi-Fi; transgenic; diets, sports, sexuality, tattoos… these are open doors to curiosity, which is the first step towards knowledge. The function of reportage is to arouse curiosity and generate questions, doubts, which the audience will want to clear up. If there is no curiosity and doubt, there is no progress.

Do experiences help?

Yes, and in particular anecdotes. A demonstration can be impeccable, but it does not seduce too much from cold rationality. Let us remember that it is necessary to enter through the heart to reach the brain. The best way is to tell stories about people. The physics of the slingshot goes in better if it is fired by David on Goliath. Moreover, anecdotes are easy to retain. For example, phosphorus was discovered by distilling pee in an attempt to find gold, not by alchemy, but by using chemical methodology. In reportage, we tell stories with the help of science, and in set scenes we tell science with the help of stories.

What happens when a topic is abstract, not very tangible or difficult to relate to everyday life?

When you share concrete cases, the audience sees that science (and knowledge in general) is useful for a better life, and immediately pays attention. However, it is not so easy to intuit that a mathematician is solving your problems. They have to explain it to you and, if they tell you well, you might say the phrase that has made us most excited to hear in all these years of Quèquicom: “I didn’t know I was interested in this topic!” When this happens, it’s sensational!