The theoretical physicist Edward Teller said: ‘The science of today is the technology of tomorrow’, but sometimes this is taken too literally when it comes to showing everyone what science is all about. People are exposed to the finished goods technology brings us – and rightly so. After all, turning a scientific finding into a tangible, marketable product is no mean feat. But the incredible discoveries and how science is applied to create game-changing technology never seems to make the news.

The iPhone fingerprint scanner is an example of what I mean. The functionality of this neat piece of tech has been widely reported – it is amazing that a fingerprint scanner has been incorporated into a smartphone; it is incredible that radio signals are transmitted into the skin to determine if the finger is actually attached to a living body; and it is useful that you can scan your finger to authorise payments in the app store. All these accomplishments in technology make for a great product and I’m so glad that using the touch of your finger to unlock your phone has not just been seen as a geeky gimick.

But what I think is truly remarkable is the science behind this technology. Did you know that the scanner is made up of lots of tiny little cells, all smaller than the width of one of your fingerprint ridges (look at your finger right now – that’s pretty damn small) and when you put your finger on the circle, certain cells come into contact with your finger (the ones touching the tops of the ridges), whilst the rest stay inactive? The active cells complete a circuit (so there are lots of possible circuits that could be completed with the number of cells on the scanner), but if the correct finger is touching the scanner, the particular circuit that matches your personal fingerprint is activated and the phone is unlocked. 

And do you know why every fingerprint is unique and no other single human being on this planet has the same one as you? (Not one single person!) It’s because DNA dictates generally how skin forms (which, of course, is the same for most people), but the particular ridges of your fingerprints are determined by your position in the womb and the exact composition and density of the amniotic fluid that surrounded you when each ridge was formed. The chances of this happening twice, even with identical twins, are so low that it’s deemed impossible.
Am I the only one who finds this totally astounding?!

There’s the argument that people don’t want to know the inner workings, the ‘science-behind’ and the raison d’être of technology when they’re simply reading their newspaper on Sunday or using their smartphone on their commute. There’s the argument that people just want to play with their new toy, or push the limits of their new sound system, or put their feet up while their new robot hooverss their flat – they’re not bothered about what is going on inside. Well I say that’s rubbish.

Why do the DVDs of block-buster movies include the director’s commentary and the deleted scenes?

Why do we make documentaries on the life and times of serial killers?

Why are programs like ‘Grand Designs’ and ‘Megastructures’ such hits?

Why do conspiracy theories gain such traction with the media?

We humans love finding out what goes on behind closed doors. We humans love hearing stories, and telling stories for that matter. We humans love dreaming and being inspired and knowing things and wondering ‘what if?’

We need to stop assuming people don’t want to know; we need to stop fencing in inspiring science communication, limiting it to schools and young people.  We need our strongest communicators, along with our cleverest scientists, to be given more freedom to talk on the matter. And we need to find the humour and humanity that truly does exist in this secotr.  In short, when we talk about science, we need to be inspired ourselves and use good old-fashioned enthusiasm and its contagious nature to fuel passion and wonder in everyone.

I’m not suggesting universities and science labs and newspapers and broadcasters all hire advertising agencies.  It’s not like there’s a particular product to be sold here. But everyone can learn from the consumer-centric nature of the communications successfully produced by the best agencies. It’s not a case of dumbing down; it’s framing messages in a way that will make people want to listen, become empowered, and enter the discussion without feeling like they are not qualified to talk about it.

Science is incredible. And it is truly such a shame that not everyone gets to experience that wonder. Yes, we want to get into schools and ‘get them while they’re young’, but wouldn’t it be remarkable if we could, not just once but all the time, get people excited and simply inspire awe for the world around them?

It’s what they did with technology after all…