Mr. Hannay doesn't allow comments, so I'm posting this here.

He talks a good talk, but he doesn't far enough. When he speaks of communicating with the general public it is in the old sense of "us speaking to them." You know, wisdom imparted from on high.

Doesn't work. You need to engage people in a conversation. Listen to their questions and concerns, admit to your errors and confusions as you listen to theirs. It's all about the interaction.

Deal not in the results of science, deal instead in the process of science. Show how science works in the real world. Show the mistakes and the failures as well as the successes. Show that scientists are human, with their failures, their harrying off down blind allies, and their obstinant adherence to disproved beliefs. Show how mistakes are corrected. Show how scientists describe the world and the phenomena therein.

Want people to learn science? Then let them in the world of science. For in the end it is not the documents that make one a scientist, but how one sees the world. How one understands the world and explains it. Science is not a destination, it is a journey, and anyone with the wit to undertake it should be allowed to try.

I think you're referring to Frank Burnet (http://blogs.nature.com/wp/nascent/2006/08/frank_burnet_visits_nature_1.html) not to Timo lest there be any confusion.

Brave words Alan. One part of me, as a complete non-scientist, has enormous respect for them - where would we be, literally, without them and the history of their discoveries ? But they complain about the arrogance of the blind faith of religious believers - yikes, what about theirs ? However, the greater the scientist the humbler (usually..); it is the lesser ones who think they know everything. The greater know they know little. That is particularly so with medical scientists. When we lived in Oxford, I knew - via the school gates - one of the most eminent medics of his day; Nobel and etc. He was at the end of his career, meeting grandchildren from school, a charming man and we used to talk a little until the bell rang. He had published papers which were the breakthrough in all sorts of medical research areas - and he once said to me 'We know so very little about the human body and its workings. It is very humbling.' That is real greatness.

Thanks, Richard. I was not only *hoping* to get on a plane, I actually *got* and a plane. And it took off and everything.

So here I am in San Francisco waiting for SciFoo to kick off this evening. More in due course on Nascent:
http://blogs.nature.com/wp/nascent/

Alan, thanks for your comments about Frank Burnet's talk. I didn't do justice to Frank's presentation in my very brief notes, and I'm sure he would agree with much of what you say.

BTW, we do allow comments on Nascent, but you need to be on the web page for that particular blog post. (So from the Nascent home page you have to click on the appropriate "Permalink" link.) We should defintely make that more user-friendly. That's the trouble with us scientists, no idea how normal people think. ;)

I thank you for the information. I shall take advantage of it as soon as I can.

As to the lack of cross talk between our respective communities. I don't see it as a matter of arrogance or resentment (depending on who you're talking to), but a matter of reticence. A case of, "They're scientists/ordinary people, they're not interested in what we have to say."

You'd be surprised at what people are interested in.

We are a nosy species, and we like a universe that makes sense. We do poorly when our universe doesn't seem to make sense. So we seek explanations. Creationism is an explanation, and an emotionally satisfying one. The fact it is wrong makes no never mind to many. The Theory of Evolution is a far better explanation, but nowhere near as emotionally satisfying. Going from an existential ivory tower down into the brambles calls for a serious adjustment. One a lot of people don't feel like making.

Explaining that we're all in this together, and that no one is exempt would be a great help. Giving people to understand what we are and how we got here, that is a good reason to engage with the general population.

In short, I think it a good idea for a course in effective communication to be made mandatory in secondary education. Get people to talking with each other; and teach them how to maintain the conversation, even into advanced age.

And for all you scientists reading this, I am approachable. I will listen to what you have to say, and I will converse with you. To the best of my ability that is. All I ask is that you make allowances for my ignorance, and that you answer my questions as concisely and succinctly as you possibly can. As I answer your questions as concisely and succinctly as I can.

Richard, thanks for the forum. :)