How can you try to shpe something you do not take the time to understand?

John Kwok – “Scientists don’t have time to work closely with social scientists or with specialists in public opinion. Too much of their time is devoted to writing grant proposals, conducting research and teaching. ”

This sounds like you value social sciences less than physical sciences. Don’t you think sociologists are also doing the same things. They dont have tiime either. But if you want to start reaching the public you have to find the time to do more. If you don’t want to reach any one else but your students then by all means stay in your comfort zone making excuses.

What all religions have are a different and often conflicting hodgepodge of blind faith beliefs that are unique unto them. That’s how religions and religious people differ, in their particular beliefs. All religions are the same in that they promote belief in things without evidence or in spite of the evidence. That less trivial matter is how they are the same and how they are in conflict with science.

If the same points need to be made it’s because they are answers to the same old new atheist lines that you guys regurgitate more fluently than some of the more bizarre novelty artists in the lower ranges of Vaudeville.

If you get paid for doing it, you’re a professional.

Science is not a profession, how many times do I have to explain that?

This is a typical distortion and also confirmation of a big part of the problem with the culture of some scientists and the fan boys of science. It’s the same kind of arrogance documented in the paper and which is on full display at many science related blogs, oddly enough, not so much on the ones that deal strictly with science, which seem to get fewer hits and many fewer comments, on the ones that are primarily political.

While it’s true that science isn’t dependent on the opinions of those who aren’t engaged in it, as a profession, at the levels of complexity that it exists in today, it is dependent on the support of the society, either directly through government or indirectly through the subsidies of industries and corporations which also are dependent on the public patronage. It’s inescapable that the professional existence of science is directly dependent on the public, unless you are ignorant in the way that aristocratic elites can manage to be, denying that they are the beneficiaries of laws and customs that allow them to obtain the results of other peoples’ work for their own use and benefit.

Modern science is a lot like a symphony orchestra, it’s very expensive, too expensive to be self sustaining, too expensive to be the product of individual scientists own income. It’s also dependent on propagation, not through the development of a closed caste of scientists, but through the education of large numbers of children whose parents are or are not scientists themselves.

There’s nothing more idiotic than arrogant people who are made foolish by their arrogance. I’ve known a lot of classical musicians and a lot of people working in science, there are a lot of them who aren’t made stupid by arrogance but there are too many who are. Generally, they don’t do anything to help the effort of outreach to the public, they’re more likely to hurt those efforts necessary to sustain both professions. Both music and science require there to be an audience, both, unfortunately, have developed snob fans who are, if anything, even worse than the snobs in the profession, driving away other potential audience members who don’t want to be associated with people who are such unpleasant jerks.

Just finished your linked article. While I found it very interesting, it did not seem to me it was about what the public wants or expects, but rather what the policy makers, PR people, congressional members desire to tell everyone about how the way they are spending money means good things to everyone – and even University presidents and advocates desire to justify ever increasing funding, and their questionable economic models and research to indicate the ROI from such spending.

As a result of using an economic improvement\importance argument to justify spending, the public ends up expecting such to be the case rather than the public demanding such to be the case.

They have been sold a load of goods. They shouldn’t be blamed for being mad if it doesn’t turn out to be the load they thought and were told was being bought.

I do agree it is a really bad way to drum up support for research, especially general or fundamental types of research…