I'm surprised you don't mention the series The New York Times has been running over the past several days about science and so-called intelligent design. It seems to me to have completely legitimated the anti-science brigade. This isn't a debate between two scientific theories. It's an attempt by the neo-creationists to pretend they deserve an equal hearing with true science. The Times has greatly aided that cause.

I'd also be cautious about blanketly endorsing your view on the growing divide between science and the public. The public is enthusiastic to take advantage of every advance of biomedical science. In the UK, certainly, scientists (although not government scientists) are among the most respected and trusted authorities when the public is surveyed. I suspect the result wouldn't be far different in the US.

But by all means bang your drum -- and the drum of your profession -- to help communicate what science is and what it can do.

Richard, I applaud your stand regarding the role of public relations and science fact vs. science fiction. As a PR professional, I have long noticed the growing divide between science education taught in our schools and science's progression. It's a pitty that as Amercians, we so devalue public education as it make it plausible to include such a concept as 'intelligent design'. My mother, a science advocate and middle-school science teacher, would roll over in her grave if this requirement passes Congress. She told me that our public education system was devised to create a common understanding of basic skills in reading, math, science, history, government and society. I agree that when we emphasize psudeo science, we degrade our American educational system.

Roberta,
Thanks for writing
I would add to my wish list on education a goal that each child is fluent in a foreign language We are now living in a completely global work world Without fluency in Mandarin or Spanish We are dooming our kids to a lesser career On the science front I met with the president of Stony Brook Univ Shirley Kenny Told her that the Brookhaven facility needs a better upfront explanation of purpose of the accelerator And that the scientists must be key part of making this bridging effort

Hi there Lance
Are you in SF or London??
I don't want to exaggerate this divide of scientists versus general public But this seeming inability of science to communicate worries me greatly It is partly education system partly the triumph of ideology of religious right partly the sense that people have of very fast progress leaving them behind on so many scores
I will continue to bang away on this you know I don't give up
After all I am still a Cubs fan!

Hi Richard,

I'm in SF (actually Berkeley) all the time now.

I agree with you, but I was trying to avoid the counsel of despair. I also thought it was timely to note that appalling series in the Times.

Do bang away and fight the good fight. I'm a Cubs fan, too.

Lance

Mr. Edelman--
Certainly, I was reared in a "bible-thumping" family marked with more than frequent trips to the church house. Equally, however, my grandmother implored me to seek the hard sciences as diligently as she pressed me to gain a solid command of language. We were "black, small and indifferent" children,existing on the margins in East St. Louis. Auntie Alice, as we affectionately called her, saw a more expansive road ahead for us-- even when we could not imagine it for ourselves.

It is said that "fence-sitting" is for sissies. Very well then, here I am. To badly misquote Einstein... "the more I learn from science, the more I believe in the hand of God." I do not believe one must be superbly unintelligent to trust God. However,the Intelligent Design movement is just another ruse from one of the radical corners of public discourse. What they want is not nearly as suspect as why they want it. Auntie Alice would not have approved.

I leave you with a few more bits from Einstein:

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

And you are quite right about foreign languages. My teenaged children are studying Spanish, French, and if I have my way-- Mandarin Chinese. Auntie Alice would be happy about that.

Goldie,
Thanks for writing ...and reading my blog We cannot allow separation of the science community from the general public It is important that we act as bridge between them

One of the problem is the way the Bush administration has been "twisting" science (for instance about Climate change) to suit its own ideology. As for corporations how many are twisting the truth and how many rely on PR to do the twisting? I do agree with you that scientists sometimes have a difficulty to explain what they think for the laypersons, especially if that means a 30 seconds segment. Back to climate change: I remember attending a conference that was interesting but challenging to understand (graphs, etc). Then the climatologist showed pictures of receding glaciers and explained the concern of ski resorts. Everybody got it or at least got a glimpse of it.
As for the government promoting public education: I doubt a goverment that relies heavily on lies and manipulation of the truth wants the populace to be better educated. Of course in the longer run society as a whole is losing because the general educational level is falling (despite injections from foreign students who remain in the US). Those trends were very well explained by French/US socio-historian Emmanuel Todd.
Take care :)

Philippe,

Thanks for writing...as usual
No question that PR industry is being implicated by US media as helping the Administration in "spinning"
This goes back to the Armstrong Williams case of December When major US PR firm acknowledged paying a journalist $250,000 to put on positive stories about Dept of Education's No Child Left Behind program
Then the video news release scandal where no mention is made of company or govt. agency behind the VNR
We have to establish a policy of total transparency on funding source and motive

What is science? It notes our understanding of the Universe and eploys what we know to our benefit as measured by our morals, laws and statistics ;). Often benefits (heaven) that people are after transcend our understanding of universe. They are of spiritual nature and do condradict science. It is civilization's choice if science is allowed to affect our lifes enough to change our morals or laws. What PR can do is bridge the language barier as both sides of the fense speak in different terms, have different motivations and backgrounds.

There's so much ado about it - it is unfortunate that the Universe does not care ;)

Mat

As the world becomes increasingly complex--more cross border ownership of companies, more sophisticated products, less certainty on environment (note Hurricane Katrina and tsunami), people need to understand how science can benefit them as individuals. This is role of PR-as you say--the bridge between science and people. Thanks for writing.

You wrote-

Add to this the jury decision in Texas to award $250 million to the family based on the death of a man from arrhythmia allegedly due to continued use of Merck's VIOXX anti-inflammatory drug. One of the jurors was quoted to the effect that Merck knew that the drug was dangerous and did not respect the public enough to let us know. Yet there is no scientific link between arrhythmia and VIOXX.

Are you kidding? VIOXX increases the CV risk there is no doubt about this. In fact all COX-2 inhibitors do. most of them should be taken off the market.Where did you get this idea that the link has not been shown?

James,

I am certainly not a scientist and probably overstated the case on VIOXX and MI risk. But I was trying to make a larger point here. The perception of the jurors was that marketing was triumphing over science-that Merck was not being honest about the research findings of side effects as and when discovered.
Science must do a better job of explaining the risk benefit calculus.
So I take your point and hope you understand mine. Thanks for writing.