Where do people come from?

Journalists from print publications and websites have a much easier life than television journalists: they can interview anyone, anywhere. In order to do this, it is not necessary to even meet in person. If something goes wrong, you can always make changes to the interview over the phone or by email.

When it comes to a television interview, it is known in advance that there will be no second attempt. A television studio with all its cameras, spotlights, microphones and control panels is so expensive that renting it twice for the same program is an unaffordable luxury. Because of this, TV producers are always very nervous: if it turns out that the guest does not behave well in front of the camera, they will either have to re-shoot the program, losing time and money, or air an unsuccessful version, losing viewers. That is why any producer prefers, at the slightest opportunity to choose, to call into the studio those people who have already taken part in television programs: talking to a person in advance is not enough, you also need to watch video recordings with his participation in advance, because the manner of speaking without a camera and in its presence may differ strikingly.

As a result, permanent experts appear in any field. Every TV journalist knows from the cradle that on a program about transport you should call Blinkin, on evolution - Markov, and on the flu - Kaverin. It’s worth looking for someone else only if top experts refuse, because they will obviously be better: not only can they talk, but there is also a chance that the viewer will recognize them.

There are significantly more television experts in neurophysiology: five people. You can already choose a speaker for a specific task. For example, if you need a bilious and sarcastic person, ready to scientifically substantiate the impenetrable stupidity of humanity and its inevitable rapid degradation, then Sergei Savelyev is ideal. He speaks brightly, figuratively, maliciously and enthusiastically - a pleasure.

During one of the filmings, Savelyev gave my colleague his new book - the monograph “The Emergence of the Human Brain.” I immediately bought the same one for myself, because I have long been interested in the question of how oral and written speech relate to different people. It happens that a person writes well, but speaks poorly; sometimes it’s the other way around. In this case, the two methods of presentation have similar characteristics (an abundance of factual material and a tendency to make provocative statements), but are very different in style.

Savelyev's book is extremely fascinating, but requires the reader to be willing to wade through the cytoarchitectonics of the parietal fields, the gyrified medial surface of the brain and all the other special terminology. The last few pages are devoted to the human brain itself, and the history of the development of the nervous system, which is logical, begins with archaic chordates. Savelyev has his own view on the origin of each group of animals: the exit of vertebrates to land took place through three-dimensional underground labyrinths, the first reptiles lived in the rubble of club mosses, and mammals separated from the group of reptiles that switched to living in trees. It's difficult for me to assess how these ideas fit with conventional wisdom because I'm more of a journalist than a biologist; Many of Savelyev’s colleagues view these evolutionary hypotheses with a great deal of skepticism.

But as a journalist, I see that on the basis of the material in Savelyev’s monograph it would be possible to make an excellent scientific work. In general, it is written in heavy language, but sometimes lively and extremely fascinating lyrical digressions emerge from under it - for example, a completely televised fiery three-page speech about the fact that people are striving to reduce the energy load on their brain, and therefore there is no hope for humanity to become smarter in the future have no reason. And if the book were translated into human language, it could be an excellent bestseller - just think that our entire wonderful brain developed only because ancient reptiles had to involve new association centers in the search for a sexual partner. If it were presented in accessible language and put on the cover, then it would be possible to present the reader with the entire evolution of the nervous system only under the sauce “the brain developed for the sake of sex.”

In the process of thinking about how unfortunate it is that fascinating reviews of the evolution of the nervous system are printed in 1000 copies, cost a lot of money and are difficult to understand because of the terminology, I accidentally came up with a way to save domestic popularization. More precisely, I read that a monograph, in accordance with GOST for publishing, can be both a scientific and a popular science work. That is, it turned out that no one forbids a person to write a monograph in simple language. It's simply not accepted.

Maybe this tradition can be broken? Previously, this did not make sense because there were no publishers or potential buyers for popular science books, and it was natural to write a book with scientists in related fields in mind and publish it in a small print run. But now it is quite possible to publish a book dedicated to your field of knowledge, focusing not only on colleagues, but also on all interested readers - this is even more convenient, because in this case the publishing house will not only not ask for money from the author, but will pay it to him, and will also provide the book with competent editing, reviews in the press and sales; If you write a book well, you can also receive the “Enlightener” award.

Tens of thousands of monographs are published in Russia. If a third of the authors who are planning to work on a book anyway chose the popular science style, then every year humanity would receive several dozen good books.

Still, the permanent experts can’t take the rap.

Anastasia Kazantseva