Having finally read this book (despite low expectations), I can confirm that per the poor reviews it offers very little that's new. When it does forward a unique point of view, such as this suggestion that public communicator become part of the job of 'the scientist' (as in just about every scientist), it's absolutely ridiculous. Scientists usually have enough on their plates with little things like research, grant writing, internal politics, etc., without some science writers who completely lack data to back up their thesis telling them to start up and maintain a blog, column, or attend even more conventions. Those who do maintain such things tend to be either 1) incredibly busy, busier than I'd like to be, or 2) have a lighter research load than is desired by many. I'm not badmouthing option 2), it includes scientists who do try to focus more on public outreach and teaching, which is very admirable and valuable. Just don't expect every person interested in scientific research to want to devote their time to it.
All of this is a little beside the point, too. Sheril and Chris make a large part of their thesis into blaming the scientists for a lack of communication. It's why this recommendation quoted in this article is one of their only unique ones, unique in how extreme it is. While you can blame scientists for misrepresenting the importance of their research (not all research has a direct practical benefit, even if it's fantastic), blaming them for not being in the public sphere is difficult when we already have so many teaching scientists and public scientists who would love to come on television or radio and do attend conventions. The thing is, when they can even get on a show relevant to their expertise, they get a 2 minute blurb at best to dumb down their subject and try not to mess things up. They get paired with a creationist or 'holistic doctor' or just general ignoramus and have to spend their time (again, just a few minutes) attempting to debunk the inanity. That is not an environment conducive to educating the general public nor for raising appreciation for the sciences. The (partial) exception is public radio, where scientists can speak about their research for twenty minutes to an hour on something like Science Friday.
By focusing on scientists, they avoid the larger problems with the public's appreciation of science. Everyone here at slashdot knows about the fantastic solar cells that are 'just around the corner' and other tech predictions which never come to market and the same applies to science articles in general: there's a glut of misrepresented research which has been illegitimately hyped up for sensationalism, especially in medicine. Such irresponsible journalism, supported by low-level science journalists as well as their editors (either one can make a piece way too hyped), leads to a mistrust of news about scientific breakthroughs. Now, I don't have data for that (just like Sheril and Chris!), but I know that I ignore every article about a scientific breakthrough just around the corner unless I have to 1) debunk it or 2) it's related to my major and I know that other people do the same. Furthermore, journalists often simply don't understand the science they're reporting and make serious errors. Chris knows this, he's criticized shoddy science journalism in the past on his blog and made it into a theme. He knows that it hurts the reputations of scientists and the general undestanding of science. Apparently, however, rather than promoting good science reporting directly or finding a market solution to avoiding too much hype, it's time to blame the scientists for not reaching out enough.
Sorry, got on a bit of a rant there. Aside from poor journalism and a generally inhospitable media, there's also the problem of science education in school (mine was atrocious, in retrospect) and the elephant in the room: anti-intellectualism in all its forms, including a number of religious and political movements. Despite all of these forces working against the public's acceptance of science, scientists are still held in very high regard and science in general is still acceptable - at least in the minds of of the public. That's something for which there is real polling data and very recent data, too. Despite this, when it comes down to specific things like global warming, evolution, or basic science literacy, those same people will more often hold to the unscientific option. That's a problem which requires a multi-pronged approach due to the multiple forces shaping science illiteracy and acceptance, a more nuanced solution which somehow manages to be more specific than these expert communicators. Let's try some basics: teach the sciences using scientifically-proven teaching methods and have them taught by people who are scientifically literate (within reason, 1st grade teachers don't need to understand evolution). That doesn't seem like much to ask, does it? Yet even in my home state, Montana, where we get extremely high testing scores, I had a handful of teachers who outright didn't understand the basics of their subject, the research behind it, the scientific method, and how to teach it. This is absolutely unacceptable, particularly considering the high demand for teaching jobs in my locale. The underlying problem is surely due to administrative incompetence, hiring practices which are inadequate, keeping the incompetent employed for whatever reason, and a lack of funds to properly hire enough teachers. I often had history teachers trying to teach physics... I had to correct them as a 12-year-old and again in retrospect I knew very little about science. Before we blame scientists for a problem largely outside their control (there's plenty of good science communicators who simply get ignored), let's overhaul education. Let's fire the science journalists who do a terrible job - in fact, dropping the science section from your local newspaper might not be a bad idea if all it offers is boredom intermixed with misrepresentation. Let's do what we can to lobby politicians so that they'll at least stop fighting science when it's convenient, or do it less. Let's fight religious groups who oppose science and scientific literacy through lies and misrepresentation. Let's fight nonreligious groups who oppose science and scientific literacy through lies and misrepresentation.
That was a good place to end it, but I don't want to miss anything in my rant. A lot of people here have been saying that science is already political enough, keep scientists out of the public sphere. I disagree. I think that we need more scientific experts (we can quibble about whether we want to call them scientists) involved in education and public outreach as their main activity. People with PhDs and MScs in a relevant field who can make open commentary and actually, you know, want to do that. I know people (again from my hometown) who have Master's degrees and PhDs in a scientific field but work as grocery managers, business owners, civil serveants, etc., and would love to write articles - if there were an incentive. Combine that with a competent editor and it would be better than most science journalism today. Put someone like that into teaching and then - *gasp* - pay them a competitive rate. I would focus all of my efforts on teaching if I could make $60K/year within 5 years, but it's just no reasonable and I'm not willing to sacrifice my children's future financial security due to a love of teaching. I doubt I'm alone. We need all these things and more to change science literacy and acceptance (rather than claims of acceptance) in this country. We need it so it is no longer wonkish to talk about basic genetics, but interesting. We need it to stay competitive. We need it for crafting policy.
