In college I was keenly aware of the jealousy felt toward Sagan by two professors of planetary geology at my undergraduate alma mater. One noted with ample pride how they
(they being the two scientists and professors of engineering at my alma mater) had upstaged Sagan when they created the cameras and imaging system for the Viking Lander.
I think Sagan did indulge in some of that “shameless self promotion” and so, might I add, other prominent scientists, such as, for example, Stephen Jay Gould. But being a “celebrity” doesn’t mean that one is effective with regards to communicating science to the general public. One could make a most persuasive case that Gould (via his criticism of racially biased IQ testing), E. O. Wilson (conservation biology) and Ken Miller (via his ample work on behalf of emphasizing the teaching of evolution, not creationism, in American high school science classrooms) have been far more effective in influencing public opinion than Sagan ever did.

Again, this raises my concern that Chris may be more interested in the superficiality of scientific communication – as indicated by his emphasis on Colbert Report-styled interviewing – than on whether professional scientists are affecting public opinion when they note that there is no “debate” between evolution and creationism or explain why the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming is both substantial and conclusive.

Hopefully Chris will address some of the criticisms I stated earlier, such as the importance of having truly effective writing teachers (of which Frank McCourt may be among the most famous recent examples) and a commitment to report scientific research accurately without resorting to shameless self promotion or other superficial activities which do not convey anything about the wonder and importance and relevance of modern science to contemporary world civilization.

John,
I think you hit an important point, circling back to Commenter #1. I believe s/he is probably still in the prevalent school of thought amongst scientists that ANY discussion of science outside of the peer-reviewed literature and annual professional society meetings falls into your category of “shameless self-promotion.” See, Carl Sagan communicated the wonder of science really well to the public – Cosmos isstillone of my all-time favorite PBS shows, and I gave the book to my oldest daughter when she turned 13. He just didn’t confine his communication to the narrowest slice possible of the scientific realm – and that’s what makes our scientist colleague at #1 so unfcomfortable.

Thanks for the link to Abbie’s latest. I thought she had something profound to say, but then her thread deteriorated into a rather lengthy digression on the Pluto affair. As for Chris’s desire to have more Carl Sagans of science, I think they exist already in the form of
Bronx Science alumni Lawrence Krauss and Neil de Grasse Tyson, and Stuyvesant High School alumni Brian Greene, Lisa Randall and Adam Summer. Then of course you have AMNH paleobiologists Niles Eldredge, Mark Norell and Michael Novacek. And I am just merely scratching the surface.

Hopefully Chris will address some of the criticisms I stated earlier, such as the importance of having truly effective writing teachers (of which Frank McCourt may be among the most famous recent examples) and a commitment to report scientific research accurately without resorting to shameless self promotion or other superficial activities which do not convey anything about the wonder and importance and relevance of modern science to contemporary world civilization.

Here’s another commentary on Mr. Mooneys’ communication skills from one of his non-admirers,.

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/05/attn_mit_kids_how_to_communica.php

I think he’s fine with communicating the science, what he’s probably choking on is what scientists would call the ‘intrinsic angular momentum’.

For a lot of people, it’s the fact that certain scientists look and act like they’ve attended a media course that damages trust in them. Releasing scientific results at press conferences instead of journals or conferences, so the details needed to check/challenge it are unavailable until after the story has passed through the news cycle, that sort of thing.