I hate sounding cynical, but sometimes I wonder if the problem isn't so much scientists not getting the word out--I feel as though most scientists are thrilled with an opportunity to explain the innerworkings of whatever it is they study in much detail, say, the role of carbohydrates in biofilm formation--but moreso a problem with the general public ::not caring:: about the explanations to be given for natural phenomena.
Have you ever tried to explain to someone what trans fats are, and what effects they may be having on one's health? Few people care to know the difference between trans- and cis- conformations, enzyme specificity, etc., so as to actually be informed on the subject--in my experience, many people are already placated with the understanding they have of something, regardless of how close it is to the truth. I may tell someone that our fat metabolism enzymes are very slow to degrade trans-fats, and their response may be that they've been eating margarine all their life with no problem, and that they like it more than butter, so what? Or someone, enthralled with nature, simply won't shake the ideas that 'everything in nature works together symbiotically toward a common goal,' 'forest fires are all bad,' not considering, or willing to consider, that competition happens, and that fire happens, species have adapted to the conditions prevailing within their range on the planet. What a rant--I half-apologize for that...hardly--perhaps not one bit--constructive, but that's my two cents for now. Steve On 4/7/11, Laura S. <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all: > > I am interested in your thoughts. If needed, I can elaborate more on these > questions. > > Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general > public? > > What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information to > the general public? > > Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the > scientific method? > > Thank you, > Laura > > >
