What do you think of Neil degrasse Tyson?

[blueshift]

See, that's the sort of anecdote I'm talking about. Isn't it just as likely that you watched a lot of pop sci TV because you were already interested in science? Or that you just watched a lot of TV, and now recall the pop sci TV most fondly? Or that you didn't actually watch as much pop sci TV as you now recall, but it seems more significant with hindsight?
People of my generation generally seem to have the causal arrow pointing in the opposite direction when we recall science books and magazines. It's "I read a lot about science when I was a kid, because I found it interesting," rather than "I'm interested in science now because I read a lot about it when I was a kid."

There's surprisingly little research on this topic, but there's an interesting review of what there is here (300KB pdf). It seems that's what required to sustain a child's natural interest in science is a well-organized programme of science education, rather than exposure to random snippets of information.

Grant Hutchison

The problem with that pdf file is that it refers to motivation. Is motivation what Tyson is really after? Or, is it funding for science projects that pop scientists are after? Aren't there a lot of investors and voters in their audiences?

Even when I attend lectures at Fermilab or Argonne, I am quite aware that the lectures are watered down. It is a night out on the town for a lot in the science community. But for those who are just visitors or are looking for more details disappointment will be there. Physics Slam is very popular. The older members in our astronomy club like to attend these lectures while the younger ones are less interested in sitting on their butts and would rather be out observing, even in 25 below zero weather.