Technology, Entertainment, and Design or T.E.D. The movement that started almost 25 years ago and has remained in a somewhat stealth mode – almost risking becoming irrelevant – has suddenly become the greatest stage on Earth. Not only that, but thanks to the genius of Chris Anderson’s – TED’s curator and a now a brand in himself – TED and its affiliate TEDx events are often the talk of the educated elite and intelligentia within the society.

This magical forum that truly epitomizes values such as creativity, conversation, and impact has done well to create an impact through the sharing of ‘ideas worth spreading’.  While the praise for Ted talks has surpassed many other similar platforms – such as the (in)famous World Economic Forum and its annual meetings in Davos – it has also attracted some criticism for sensationalizing (or glamourising) some of these ideas way beyond proportions. Whether one takes the TED Talk by Khan Academy’s founder Salman Khan (1), that attracted none other than Bill Gates’ attention or that of William Kamkwamba (2), whose talk about a Windmill he built in his native Africa caught the eye of investors, TED talks have raised profiles of many and propelled them (and their initiatives) to global recognition and stardom.

TED has also become a fashion statement and in doing so it has been able to attract considerable attention and participation of the youth. It is ‘fashionable’ to be part of a Ted gathering. But TED is far more serious a business than merely a fashion statement. Some have gone to the extent of stating that even though science journalism has declined over the years, new platforms like TED have sprung up to fill the void. (3)

TED is, and has always been, part substance and part showmanship. Both are part and parcel of and essential to telling a compelling story – the kind of ‘stuff’ that TED is often all about.  However, while most of the times these go together and support each other, this balance could go wrong – sometimes seriously wrong – thus subtracting from, rather than adding to the conversation.

Benjamin Bratton’s Ted Talk

All this is fine if the talk is about subjects such as art or design, that must be experienced to form an opinion or politics or a social phenomenon, where value judgments are tolerated and even encouraged. But science is an altogether different matter.

The enterprise of science is based on several immutable principles, that have stood the test of time for several decades, if not centuries. Collectively – the scientific method – these principles are responsible for ensuring the authenticity and rigor, as well as the continued progress and development of scientific thought. Another important aspect of the process of scientific debate and discovery, is the process of peer review that ensures, that not only is there a free flow and exchange of scientific knowledge, but also cross fertilization, discussion, debate, and validation of these ideas. It is also important – and necessary – that this conversation happens not in the public sphere, but in the community of peers, who are in a position to judge the merits and demerits of each idea. Only after an idea has stood the test of time and demonstrated some practical utility, does the discussion move to the public sphere. Together, the scientific method and the institution of peer review has served science well and made the last few centuries, the most productive and profoundly far-reaching of all.

This is precisely where the institution of TED may find itself somewhat at odds with science. While the TED ‘style’ of sharing the ‘ideas worth spreading’ does have elements of sharing and cross-fertilisation, there are significant differences. The most important of these differences, is that TED prefers to have this discourse in the domain of the lay public, rather than a select group of ‘knowledgeable’ scholars.

TED’s tremendous ability to put intense limelight on the protagonists, not only ensures this conversation happens in full public glare, but also that the conversation can quickly get out of control, even before it can be fully validated.

The second aspect of the TED process, that has not received as much attention, but could be equally detrimental to the conduct of quality science, is the lack of a proper and transparent peer review process in place, before or after the talk itself. While it is quite natural to assume, that TED speakers are evaluated by the organizers, TED has not published any guidelines of the informal peer review that it carries out, neither has it ever claimed to adhere to the standards of scientific peer review. Witt the many TED events and literally thousands of TEDx events that have happen around the world, it is possible that standards of peer review would be lax than scientific peer review and its quality could vary considerably.

Felisa Wolfe-Simon’s Ted talk

Take the example of Felisa Wolfe-Simon, for instance. Her infamous claim that bacteria could incorporate arsenic into their DNA led to a huge backlash from the scientific community, during which she refused to engage with her critics and said that: “Any discourse will have to be peer-reviewed in the same manner as our paper was, and go through a vetting process so that all discussion is properly moderated.” Not long afterwards, she signed up to do a distinctly un-peer-reviewed TED talk. So much for ‘Ideas worth spreading’, except in this instance the ideas didn’t survive peer-review. (4)

Clearly, while often what gets said on TED may stand the test of scientific rigor and may very well be derived from the latter, as a general rule ‘TED science’ can hardly be considered the equivalent of Science with the capital S.

Whether one believes, like Martin Robin (3), that for TED the content itself is less important than how the audience feels:

“Ultimately, the TED phenomenon only makes sense when you realise that it’s all about the audience. TED Talks are designed to make people feel good about themselves; to flatter them and make them feel clever and knowledgeable; to give them the impression that they’re part of an elite group making the world a better place.”

Or, like Nathan Jurgenson (5), one thinks that TED provides for self-promotion or over-glorification of individuals believing that “At TED, everyone is Steve Jobs and every idea is treated like an iPad,” there is considerable room for caution and  improvement what gets said and how at high profile and impact forums such as TED and whether or not it  serves or disrupts the purpose of science.

References:

1.            Salman Khan TED Talk (link)

2.            William Kamkwamba TED Talk (link)

3.            TED or Not to TED available at: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/10/18/to-ted-or-not-to-ted/

4.            http://scienceofblogging.com/can-we-trust-scientists-who-give-ted-talks/

5.            ‘Against TED’ By Nathan Jurgenson

6.            ‘We Need to Talk About TED’ by Benjamin Bratton