Beautiful scientists may draw a crowd but are seen as less academically able than their less attractive colleagues, researchers in Cambridge have found.
It is thought the good looks of former musician and TV physicist Brian Cox and anatomy expert Alice Roberts may have played a big part in their roles as science communicators.
But, if the results of a study by psychologists at Cambridge University are to be believed, neither are rated as highly competent scientists by members of the public.
Lead researcher Dr Will Skylark, from the Department of Psychology, said he wanted to find out what impact good looks had on the perception of scientists.
"Given the importance of science to issues that could have a major impact on society, such as climate change, food sustainability and vaccinations, scientists are increasingly required to engage with the public.
In the first of a series of trials, volunteers were shown photos of more than300 British and American scientists and asked to rate them for intelligence and attractiveness.
Other groups of participants then indicated how keen they would be to know more about what each scientist did, and whether they thought the academics were likely to be carrying out accurate and important research.
People were more interested in learning about the work of scientists who were seen as physically attractive and who appeared "competent and moral".
But when it came to judging scientific ability, having an attractive face counted against the researchers. The better looking and more sociable they were perceived to be, the less they were expected to be conducting high-quality research.
The study has been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"It seems that people use facial appearance as a source of information when selecting and evaluating science news.