So many ways we don't want to understand each other

In Nine ways scientists demonstrate they don’t understand journalism chief online editor of Nature Ananyo Bhattacharya explains why science communication benefits from being mediated by science journalists. The article makes some interesting and good points - however, much more interesting is the comments section where there is virtually a battle going on between scientists and non-scientists. Interestingly enough, all the scientists feel the need to start their comment with ‘As a scientist …’ after which they state in different ways how journalists (along with everybody else) don’t understand them. On the other side of the line are the non-scientists, or the general public if you will. They tend to blame scientists for not being able to communicate what they do. 

I think that the biggest misunderstanding in this whole discussion is grouping people in two stereotyped groups, with no common ground and no room for variety within these. All journalists simplify and get science wrong. No scientist is interesting and able to communicate in a way that everybody understands. The thing is though, that it is just not that simple! Scientists and journalists cannot be put into boxes (as in my picture) with clearly defined characteristics. Scientists are as varied a group as any other. Some of the smartest scientists out there are also brilliant communicators. Take a guy like Phil Plait. He manages to talk about physics without in any way diminishing it and at the same time make people laugh and enjoy the talk. Steve Jones is another example. Genetics have never been so interesting! Or you could take my lecturers which probably best show the variety of communication skills amongst scientists. Some lecture in the most boring way possible without getting anything across to the students whereas others lecture naturally and beautifully communicate their subject to the students. My point here being, that just because you are a scientist doesn’t necessarily make you a bad communicator - or a good one for that matter. It would be equally foolish to say great musicians are also great painters – there is no connection! I can understand why scientists in this way feel themselves misunderstood. However, they are wrong in disregarding journalists’ role in communicating science and generalise just as much when it comes to journalists. Journalists generally don’t set out with evil intents of twisting science. It is my impression that most science journalists want to communicate science in an interesting way because they themselves are interested in science. Many are experts with a scientific backgrounds, so they know about scientific methodology and data presentation. But science in the mass media are not there for science specific readers - it is there for everybody to consume. It is the science journalists’ responsibility to convey scientific findings in a readable and understandable way. Yes, I agree that there definitely are some journalists out there that twist science beyond recognition for their own gain - but I am naive enough to think that that is the minority. That said, I think science communication is something that should be discussed more, as both scientists and journalists are clearly not agreeing how this should be done and maybe they could find some common ground that would benefit science communication greatly.