IMO this usually happens because the scientist doesn't understand the material enough to explain it properly!

Indeed, why should I have to be a jack of all trades? I may be, but it's not in my job description and probably not in yours. I am not a science writer.

Each of these jobs is equally important.

I agree, but that's not the consensus opinion, or at least isn't when scientists are being honest with themselves and others. There is some way to go before we can break through the cultural barrier that places research scientists as the high priests of the secular age, and have them truly value the role played by fellow scientists working in other professions. This is somewhat different to CP Snow's "Two Cultures", as it concerns a divide within the scientific community, and not that which exists between the arts/humanities and the sciences.

Personally, I wish I could do both research and science communication. However, the difficulty in securing a post-postdoctoral job forced me out of academe and full-time into science writing. In this respect I'm far from alone, and while I cannot speak for others, I thoroughly enjoy what I'm doing now.

My experience as a freelance science journalist is somewhat mixed. I mostly do B2B newsletters and online magazines, as the commissions are regular and pay reasonably well. A lot of the work involves précising research papers for professional but non-expert audiences, and it can be a tough challenge when one has to keep to the 300-word limit of a typical news piece.

A small majority of the scientists I deal with appreciate what I'm doing, are very cooperative, and careful with the wording of their quotes. A significant minority are either indifferent or uncooperative, and that saddens me. I've found it helpful to use my "Dr" title in initial email correspondence, and point to my website where a CV detailing an research background can be found. That makes me "one of the boys", so to speak, and not some untutored hack. I do wish this wasn't necessary.

Maybe I should offer training services to research scientists wishing to improve their public outreach skills and understand the minds of media professionals.

As soon as I see a sentence from a scientist, or even a science communicator start with the word 'interestingly' - I know it won't be

Thanks for the article. In the UK rather than relying on every scientist to become a good communicator the main funding body (EPSRC) asks us to team up with media people and other good communicators. It can make for some interesting projects!

Dave

Belg4mit,

You're right it's not the eggheads sole responsibility, it's a two-way street. But you seem to demonstrate that very thing that most other scientists feel when they think about sharing scientist with lay people (Joe sixpac & Congressman Slick) IMPATIENCE. I understand the impatience. But being impatient and saying they need to act better doesn't get things going in the right direction.

Yes, people must make an effort to learn more about science.
Q1: And why don't people want to put effort into learning about science?
Q2: Why do they feel they can just ignore or gloss it over?
Q3: And more importantly, why do Scientists need people to understand science better?

A1: Too many reasons to name, but includes, disdain for science, think it's boring, seems unimportant or irrelevant. If the average person doesn't understand the relevance of something important in his/her life then that's a big problem. Those who know better have an obligation to help people. (I'm an altruist, so I'm hard-wired to be a little patient with hard-head self-destructive people. It's in my contract.)
Too many scientists and science teachers have presented science as a boring subject. Why would someone want to make an effort to learn more about something you dreaded in school? If someone hated science (and math) in school, they won't look at it again if they can help it. And what's worse, they'll turn their kids off of it, too.
But, if more people are introduced to a fun, relevant science lesson, they just may be more interested in learning more or at least they'll hate it less.

A2: Ignorance is bliss. We have a culture that makes it okay for people to accept almost any dang thing a so-called expert says. Many people feel as if it doesn't bother them, then they won't worry about it. Scientists (and others - eggheads and bleeding hearts) can make efforts to help people wake up and become more connected and involved with decisions, life, etc.

A3: Well, these average people have the power of the purse (and media). There's nothing more frightening than a ignorant mob with power. They can cut off our grants, ruin our public reputations, etc., all of this because they have no idea what the nature/essence of science truly is.
Plus, for completely selfish reasons, Scientists need a better informed/educated public because it is in our self-interest to do so.

The Urban Scientist
www.SciEdSociety.blogspot.com

That's all fine and good, but not all the burden should lie upon the eggheads. Joe Sixpack didn't just learn all the ins and outs of competitive spitball or what have you, they had to make an effort too. And why you should get a pass for being ignorant if you're part of the House Committee on Science and Technology? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

interesting article, good points...yes indeed, I think it's important that people gain critical 'people' skills in the world of science, especially in our ever expanding world that is becoming smaller and smaller, people must know how to communicate!