The latest issue of the journal _Science_ includes a [policy forum piece](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/316/5821/56) written by Sciencebloggers Chris Mooney (The Intersection) and Matt Nisbet (Framing Science). In the article, they argue that scientists do not, for the most part, use effective communications strategies when trying to defend science. Both [Chris](http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/04/i_have_a_paper_in_science_no_t.php) and [Matt](http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/04/at_the_journal_science_a_nisbe.php) anticipate that this view is likely to be somewhat controversial, and that it is likely to spark a vigorous debate. I think that they are probably right about this, and not just because their article includes at least one paragraph that is likely to set PZ off faster than a lit match dropped into a five-gallon can of kerosene.
As Chris and Matt point out, we scientists tend to act under the assumption that the public will "get it" if we can just get them to understand the science. [Larry Moran agrees with that perspective](http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-to-communicate-scienc.html), and points out that people like Gould, Dawkins, and Sagan were pretty good at communicating science just that way. Larry does have a point there, but I think it misses the main point that Nisbet and Mooney were making: it's also important to communicate concepts to people who don't give a damn about the science. They also point out that the opponents of good science are very good at framing their views on stem cell research, the environment, teaching evolution, and other areas that fall at the intersection of science and politics.
I think Matt and Chris are right. We do need to spend more time (and thought) on communicating our views effectively, particularly to people who do not care about science.