Talk
William Carey Lecture
     AAAS
April 17, 1996

BEHIND THE ENDLESS FRONTIER

Vannever Bush's 50 year old paradigm for the organization of

scientific research and training is now being debated. Is it still
pertinent? Will it survive? In a rapidly evolving world, it is always
important to examine standing policies and ask whether they are
optimal for the new and corning times. But whatever the outcome of
those policy debates, we should recognize that Bush provided an
enduring metaphor for science itself: The Endless Frontier.

Implied by that metaphor is a frontier space, and a border that

separates the frontier from the space behind. That place behind the
endless frontier, like the regions behind geographical frontiers, is
filled with people whose perspectives are vastly different from those
prevailing within the frontier community.

A lot of scientists like to ignore the place behind the frontier.

Some, perhaps a diminishing group, ignore it through arrogance.
Others are too busy with the latest findings, the newest methods,
meetings, grant applications, and teaching to take the time to look;
there is a sense in which working scientists use all these activities as

2

a haven to insulate themselves not only from issues outside the
scientific community, but even from some of the troubles within it,
much as the vast western spaces provided a haven forl9th century
frontier people. Of course, dark threatening clouds moving in
science's direction from behind the frontier attract attention, as is
currently the case. So, perhaps this is a propitious time to try to
understand the relation between the frontier and the complex
currents moving behind it.

c

some

  There is9&m, a long list of such currents, and many of
them are the subject of presentations and discussions during this
Colloquium on Science and Technology Policy. From
you will realize that I place the science policy community, so fully
represented on your program by distinguished and thoughtful
people, in the space behind the frontier; to be sure, closer to the
border than many other important constituencies, but behind
nevertheless. The palpable border between science itself and the
policy and politics of science is evident in the preliminary program
for this meeting. No time was scheduled for presentations on the
latest scientific news from especially fast moving research areas.
Are the actual scientific advances not relevant to the making of

h&a+ I&

is, observation

- -&(L/yzy aboup h4 dcfccfrofii GFrhw

policy? Shouldn't working scientists be heard in this foru?? In this

A# I b?

meeting on Science and Technology Policy, only one speaker is wen *
scheduled to talk about "A Researcher's View of the Issues"., let alone

the science itself. Moreover, as late as the distribution of a
preliminary program 10 days ago, this M the only slot on the

LL'e=

program that ha$ a phantom speaker: tihe-wzxhn-af the program I

3

jhC fWOgfQtM Sa f

$0

xeceivedsays 'speaker to be announced'. The unfortunate habit of
ignoring the other side of the frontier is apparently not unique to wGea r Ch
scientists.

I.

This observation is a good starting place for what it is I want to

talk about: the way science is communicated to those further back
behind the frontier ... communicated by working scientists and
teachers and by your own science policy community.

There is a major discontinuity between scientists' views of the

natural world and those held even by relatively well-educated
segments of the nonscientific public. Vocpabulary is part of the
problem; the words of science increase geometrically with new
discoveries. But even putting vocabulary problems aside, there are
basic conceptual diffferences that plague scientists' efforts to share
the implications of their exciting new findings with the public in a
constructive manner. Recognizing this discontinuity, many scientists
are becoming involved in K-12 science education. By engaging in
science teaching at the level of the classroom, scientists are beginning
to learn why communication with the childrens' parents and thus the
rest of the community behind the frontier is so difficult. To give you
a well-known example, many people don't know the difference
between astrology and astronomy, or even that there is a difference.

L

.e doCah0~~~

  At the same time, scientists hope that by these efforts the
general public of the future will have an improved understanding of
science and the nature of its findings, and thus be better able to

1~

4

confront future scientific issues as they affect personal, social, and
political decisions. Less altruistic, but no less important or
defensible, is the hope that with better understanding of science,
public commitment to the support of science will be sustained, if not

increased.

&rm

  As7uny of you know, I am an enthusiastic advocate for the
engagement of scientists in K-12 science education and am myself
seriously involved in such efforts here in the District of Columbia.
But today, I want to stress a different aspect of scientists' efforts to
share their enterprise with the public, the one that becomes so
evident in talking to school children's parents, or even rather well-

educated friends and associates. William Carey, the man we are
here to honor, taught us that it is only by constantly raising new,
even difficult questions about scientific activities, that we can hope
to contribute to the welfare of our nation and the world. I shall try
to follow his example.

  Even if we were to succeed beyond our wildest dreams in
improving K-12 science education and were to make significant
advances in developing fruitful programs for undergraduate liberal
education, there would still be a lag of several decades before the
newly educated public reached maturity and a degree of influence on
public life. During that period, a long array of scientific issues will

arise from the frontier and reverberate behind.

5

The recent past is full of examples in which the disparity

between our end-of-century scientific knowledge and the public
reception and perception of that information yielded ill-informed
and regrettable public policy decisions. Often the final, critical
debates left the actual science out of serious consideration. In such a

I ssLgs

situation, and it is obvious that such sitw&ens will arise with
increasing frequency, it is not unfair for the public to question its
investment in frontier research. If it intends to ignore scientific
knowledge in trying to deal with important national issues, it could
save a lot of money by cutting the frontier off.

  It is essential then to ask why the public ignores the scientific
findings. Many scientists would answer this question by demeaning
remarks about the ignorance of the public, and arrogant assertions
about popular and honestly held views that are inconsistent with
scientific knowledge. Others, more sympathetic and engaged, are
truly frustrated upon learning that many people actually believe in
the predictive powers of astrology or are unwilling to recognize the
fact of biological evolution. Such resistance to scientific findings and
ignorance of scientific knowledge is not confined to any particular
segment of society. Remember that a few years ago a video made at
a Hmard commencement showed us that many of the graduates had
no idea why spring and summer on Earth are followed by fall and

winter.

6

  Some scientists conclude from such observations that the public
is not only poorly informed, but is uninterested in changing, and then
wash their hands of responsibility. Other scientists-&e beginning to
realize that scientists themselves bear a large part of the blame for
these circumstances. And many scientists are now quite willing to
talk with the press, to appear on TV, to write for general periodicals,
and publish books for the nonscientific public. In spite of all this
activity, however, we are not doing very well. The books for laymen
get excellent reviews and a reasonable amount of publicity; but they
don't sell many copies. And the blockbusters, like Stephen Hawking's

                                              i
bes&e%er~sell a lot of copies but remain unread on coffee tables

around the world. More often than not scientists fail to

communicate, and not for want of trying.  The temptation is to
blame the general scientific ignorance. But that really won't do,
because it is equivalent to giving up. What scientists need to do is to
change -_ the way they talk to the public. In the lab, if one
experimental approach doesn't work, we try others. We need then to
experiment with new ways for communicating.

We can identify some experiments that have already been

carried out.

     One example is the very recent situation in Great Britain
regarding the consumption of beef from cattle that may be diseased
by bovine spongiform encephalopathy. There is very circumstantial
evidence connecting the eating of meat, that is, muscle, from diseased
animals and the incidence of the fatal neurodegenerative Creutzfeldt-

7

Jakob disease. According to reports in Nature and Science, this
relation was offered as the best available explanation for the recent
occurrence of 10 cases of an unusual form of C-J in relatively young
people in Britain. No data were made available with the

government's announcement and none of the new observations had
been published in scientific journals. About six years ago, related
findings had led to a ban on the use of cattle and sheep offal, tissue
such as brain and other enervated parts, even as feed for animals
intended for human use, because more compelling data indica&
that C-J %2t- c

be spread by consumption of such animal parts. To a

r\

large extent the concerns about meat stem from its possible

contamination with nerve tissue.

   The British situation demonstrates the difficulties inherent in

making public policy in the face of uncertainty. That government's
initial reactions were aimed at reassuring the public and restoring
confidence, essentially by telling people not to worry. Needless to

say, fear and panic followed. Britain's top veterinarian called the
actions "Hasty, ill-prepared, disproportionate and unscientific" (The
Economist, March 30, 1996, page 25). Data were available from a
British scientific review cornmittee charged with evaluating the
situation, but the data were held back, even at a scheduled Buropean
meeting, this adding to the suspicions. As it turned out, none of the
available data suggested an epidemic.

r *-

  The Economist (March 30, 1996, page 17) correctly pointed out:
"If the government is to restore its credibility, it must seek chiefly to

8

inform, not to reassure by whatever means. The reluctance to do
so was presumably based on 'the darnage to confidence' that would
result from acknowledging, exploring and discussing the risk". As a
consequence of the mishandling, millions of people all over the world
believe that there is a proven cause and effect relation between
eating beef products and dreadful neurological disease. That view
was strengthened when, on March 27th, the European Commission
confirmed a ban on the international sale of all meat and other
products of British cattle, including even milk. Now, it is proposed to
slaughter even dairy cows in Britain although there has never been
any evidence that milk could be dangerous. Rather than reassuing
anyone by its failure to discuss the situation straight-forwardly, the
British government fostered panic.  But why did the British
government ignore its own scientific advisory What could the
scientists have done that would have been more compelling?

ctrl~n~ LCCCk t-o MUHC hk,

hl dc A uroyk'

The attitudes of some people toward the 'ozone hole' present

another example of failed scientific communication, although there is
much less uncertainty about the scientific findings than in the so-
called 'mad cow' situation. The role of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in
the creation of the atmospheric ozone hole is quite well established.
The information is public and widely reported. The influence of
dissipated small molecules on sthility of the atmospheric ozone
layer was first inferred for nitrogen oxides by Paul Crutzen in 1970.
In 1974, Molina and Roland showed that chlorine atoms, which can
be released from CFC's upon exposure to ultraviolet light , cause the
rapid destruction of ozone. They warned of the pssible long term

4-4
A

0

fi

9

effects well before the ozone hole was even discovered. These data,
and the correlation of accumulating atmospheric CFC's with Antarctic
ozone disappearance were sufficient to convince 70 nations to agree
to eliminate CFC production by 2000. One US Congress actually
shortened our national elimination timetable by 5 years. Last year,
Crutzen, Molina, and Rowland shared the Nobel Prize for chemistry.
Yet, in the same week the prize was announced, another US Congress
held hearings to consider delaying the ban on CFC production. Of
course, the conclusions reached even by Nobel Laureates may turn
out to be wrong, but that was not why Congressional discussion

denied the scientific consensus. The scientific conclusion was

contrary to the political ends desired by some members of Congress.
One reaction to this is to throw up our hands in disgust, and rail
against 'politics'. But another would to be ask why the scientific
community was less convincing than the political considerations.
Was there another way to present the case, one that would have
been more successful? Did we start too late? Were we confusing?
Were we not persistent enough? The challenge is to find new ways
to convey the science so that it is not so easy to ignore.

We've known for a long time that excessive use of antibiotics in

clinical medicine and animal husbandry would lead to wide-spread
resistance to these drugs. Here, the scientific conclusions were
unassailable. Scientists have been in agreement on the dangers, and
they spoke out. But they did not have the impact they should have
had on policy decisions. Now, many very useful antibiotics are
ineffective because of the spread of genes that make bacteria

10

resistant to the drugs. No longer can any of us be confident that
simple and inexpensive treatment will cure us or our children of a
range of deadly infectious diseases.

The high-energy physics community made an all-out effort to

save the super conducting supercollider from the trash bin. They
tried everything from a hard-sell, to sharing with the public their
vision of the fundamental knowledge to be acquired. Steven
Weinberg's marvelous book, Dreams of a Find Theory, is a good
example. If you have read it, you know that it is probably the best
available description for laymen of what twentieth century physics is
all about. And ke is inspiring about the opportunitites in particye
physics. But as an argument for the expenditure of billions of dollars
of public funds, it fads (and it failed). There is, for one thing, a
dissonant resonance in the term "Final Theory"; physicists should
have recognized that "Final" enterprises, with a capital F, have had a
bad ring since World War 11. For another, there is an arrogance of
tone that could hardly appeal to the public, or even scientists in
other fields, who generally believe that all scientific theories must be
provisional.

WbHbW5

A

Then, there is a problem with vocabulary, as in this sentence:

  Any symmetry principle is at the same time a principle of
simplicity (page 13 8). This occurs shortly after Weinberg introduces
the idea of the symmetry of the laws of nature, as opposed to the
symmetry of things. Careful reading of Weinberg's explanation

11

indeed clarifies why he considers this to be 'simplicity'. But anyone
reading casually or without an ingrained scientific perspective, will
surely have been sweating through the preceding pages. They would
like to be congratulated for making it through some tough stuff;
simplicity will be the last thing they have in mind.

Tbe pdLd . According to Weinberg, 'simplicity' is

an attribute of beauty and the beauty of a physical theory is, for him
(and for many scientists), a major criterion for its evaluation. For
instance, he judges Einstein's theory of gravitation as more beautiful
than Newton's, and thus more valid, because of its simplicities. As a
scientist, I understand this argument. In my own field, I think the
double helix is surely beautiful. But I am not the point; will my
taxpaying neighbors understand or even think relevant, a beauty
they cannot fathom? And how can we expect that the Congress will
be able to factor 'beauty' into the political considerations that lead to

Some of the experiments in communicating science to the

public have been more successful, for example the efforts of the
biomedical community in the past year's budget debates. That
success had very little to do with the beauty of modern biology, of
which there is plenty, and everything to do with a well-organized
lobbying effort and the public's interest in health problems.
Scientists worked in many congressional districts with individual
Representatives and Senators, to make sure that members of
Congress knew about the biomedical research in local institutions,

12

and the jobs and money that federal grants provide to local
economies. One can argue, and I do, that the lobbying effort, which
concentrated on one field of science to the exclusion of others, was
not ideal. But as an example of something that works, and conveys
aspects of science to the public, the results speak for themselves.

Many scientists are uncomfortable confronting the

obvious fact that the amazing, 40-year long national support for
biological research which is embodied in the history of the NIH has
its roots in a national desire to improve health care. The essential
point, which has been successfully conveyed to the Congress and
Executive Branch, is that in order to improve health, it is necessary to
deepen our understanding of biological phenomena. Over the years,
the NIH's investment in basic research on bacteria, yeast, flies,
plants, and worms has been directly applicable to human problems
such as cancer, neurological disease, and now even behavior.

Astronomy provides a quite different example of what

succeeds in capturing interest and support for science. This is surely
a science with a minimum of obvious practical implications. But it
does capture people's imagination. There is an object lesson in
cosmologists' ability to explain their science in an inspiring way, a
lesson which has eluded high-energy physicists.  Discoveries in

astronomy, particularly when coupled with an adventure in space, as
provided by the Hubble Space Telescope, are avidly reported and
followed. Moreover, almost uniquely in the scientific community,
astronomers have been willing to debate and then state their

13

priorities. Remarkably, both public and private monies have
continued to flow. The funds are now secure for the Gemini project,
two national 8-meter telescopes, one each in the northern and
southern hemispheres. It is true that this is at the expense of
several smaller, older, national telescopes, but it is probablr that
these will be purchased by private and state institutions---at bargain
prices----and continue to operate. At the same time, privately
funded new telescopes are going up at an exciting pace: the two 10-
meter telescopes funded largely by the Keck Foundation for CalTech
and the University of Californiafiave a public component in the
investment by NASA on behalf of astronomers nationwide; the
Magellan Project for two 6.5-meter telescopes at the Carnegie
Institution's Las Campanas Observatory in Chile is proceeding as a
consortium of private and state institutions; the Sloan Foundation
has provided the wherewithal for a consortium to build a special
galaxy survey telescope. The cost of all of these together is small in
comparison to that of the now defunct superconducting supercollider,
but the difference in public interest has to be a component in the

different outcomes.

e

>

A few years ago, as a consequence of public pressure from the

community of breast cancer patients, substantial sums were set aside
for research in breast cancer. Outspoken and distinguished scientists
criticized this targeted expenditure as detracting resources from
more fundamental work likely to enhance, more efficiently
understanding of all cancer. But these negative reactions overlooked
the stimulus and support for science that a real human need can give

+hey bt\lC\,~~

r'

14

to fundamental work. In the last year, two genes which, when
mutated, are associated wikbreast cancer have been identified. One
of them, BRCA-1, has a role in both inherited and acquired breast
and ovarian cancer. It has turned out to be a new kind of oncogene

h

and thus has advanced fundamental understanding, and it provides
an important tool for determining risk and perhaps even therapeutic
approaches. There will be similar important scientific advances from
increasing biomedical research emphasis, demanded by the public,
on women's health problems.

  One final experiment. Tom Lovejoy, a biologist who is the
advisor on environmental issues to the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution has, for some years now,ghepherding any government
official who would go, including senators and representatives and
cabinet members, on trips to the Amazon. They return with a new
understanding and commitment to the preservation of tropical rain

bech

forests in particular, and the environment in general. -he.

\at; \y tJ tclpace


      CO~~C-Q~'~

~ &+ LoJt"juy~E. SU<lAL.Gq war,

yr\e,\acaq's. VipwC, Lfcp fl.c"&', 41*4-a !fJ$-L\

B~ '~+-u~e wQrJ*rsn ~~~rtgk-opbep WOW CQUV~~X ~~~~~r'~~~v~*~~~~\

cf wown nu +-,ana\ Se @ urtb \rs;ue ( * L(l1uE-h - Qeer! rnF0

+ \* da enJtranwekt->

Daniel Kevles, Professor of the History of Science at CalTech

says, in a recent paper, that too often, scientists fail to make the case
for science (Princeton Symposium reference). He offers some advice
about how to improve. Thus, he suggests that we eschew the hard
sell ~st&ern?m-t of visions, that we evangelize in the spirit of an
adventurous frontier that has always appealed to American

ws kad

h

15

independence of spirit and fundamental pragmatism. He says that
science has lost its nerve,.,

kw v 4 s ~cih

But I worry that there has been a national loss of nerve, and

that evangelizing, by itself, will today fall on deaf ears.

  Kevles, however, gives us some additional hints, which,
together with a strong vision, might help us to develop new ways to
communicate with the public. He reviews public support of science
beginning in about the middle of the 19th century, Importantly, he
points out that regardless of the spin put on it by scientists,
Americans have understood and supported science in the past, with
both public and private funds, primarily because they expected
practical benefits. His story also describes a fickle political process.
Apparent trends in funding and support for science were often
short-lived. And although there were dramatic changes from one
Congress to another, over the decades, American science flourished.

There are additional hints about what might work and what

might not, in the experiments I reviewed. Kevles' idea that the
promise of practical benefits is important is supported by the
experience with the NIH budget. Besides advances in disease
diagnosis and treatment, NIH research yielded up a completely new
major industry, biotechnology. But practical benefits can't be the
whole story. A direct relation to everyday experience is another
important element. Everyone has seen the stars, and the moon, and
probably even other planets, although they may not have realized

J

16

how easy it is to see Venus and Jupiter. Anyone who has looked at
the sky has wondered about the nature of the universe. Astronomy
may be a sophisticated science, but its subject is in everyone's
experience. Some things are of course not part of everyday
experience, but they could be. No book, and no talk can match the
experience a nonscientist gets if she or he is invited into a lab, to see
what's there, to ask questions, to see real people working at real
stuff. Why don't we invite the public in more often .... like Lovejoy
invites people to the Amazon.

Still, there are times when talk is the only way to communicate.

We need to learn to do it effectively. Many scientists have had the
experience of giving a lecture for a general audience. And some of

those scientists are brilliant to listen to. Members of the audience

congratulate the speaker at the end, and say how marvelous the talk
was. And then, they often add, 'of course, I didn't understand
anything you said, but it was wonderful'. Dazzling people is not the
same as communicating. It is helpful to start with something from
everyday experience to begin with. And it is helpful to convey the
context in which particular research falls and from which it gains
significance. Often we speak of what interests us, but not what
interests the listeners. Often we only begin speaking when a crisis
looms; our efforts at communicating should be continual. Often we
think that national exposure on television or major newspapers is
what matters most; but efforts in cities and towns all over the
country will bring science home to the people who count. We can
talk about how science has promoted local industry, and along the

17

way get the science across. We can talk about how science has
allowed modern communication, transportation, even the things that
are on the supermarket shelves. Very few people have any idea that
our whole modern life is based on scientific advances.

Another thing we could do is to stop speaking with certainty

about uncertain things. Scientists do not do that among themselves;
it is both disrespectful and dumb to do it when speaking to
nonscientists. True, the idea of probabilities is not broadly
understood. But it could be, if we spoke of it and made the effort to
explain. If the public does not understand probability and thus risk,
it is our job to teach, not to wring our hands over public ignorance.
This is especially pertinent when issues of health and safety and
environmental degradation are at issue- I LU kh hk 4 mu ccbM,

Too many people have experienced science only in classes that are
dogmatic about science, and present it as a body of unassailable facts.
We know better. Everyone should. When the pertinent available
scientific facts are insufficient to support a firm conclusion and policy
must nevertheless be made, we should stop presenting opposing
views as either/or options and stop waffling about holes in scientific
knowledge. We should point out that substantial scientific
disagreements indicate uncertainty and that in the end, neither view
may be correct, or perhaps even both will be. We should not permit
political pressures to back us into scientifically indefensible corners.

18

yeally

A

  Still, there are some challenges that seem impossible. We have
very difficult problems when a scientific conclusion is relatively firm,
but is contrary to desired political ends. What can we do to make the
scientific conclusion the desired political end? Rather than slinking
off disgruntled, that should become the challenge. Otherwise, we are
acquiesing in the continuation of a process that leads to irrational
public policy. We have to begin to think that it is our fault, not
theirs, whoever they may be. In politics, there is always a
spectrum of views. We should work with those who oppose a
scientifically bad policy. Rather than worrying about the effects of
such opposition on our own funding, we should speak out whenever
wrongheaded ideas are headed for success. (A recent examples is
the funding of research on Alternative Medicine)

   Another issue that seems to have few solutions comes from the
perception that science is a challenge to religion. It is a testimony to
human curiosity, the driving force behind science, that from the
earliest recorded times, people wanted explanations for the amazing
natural phenomena they experienced. In the absence of real
understanding, they made up answers. Many of these depended on
supernatural elements and these, entwined with codifications of
approved behavior, and the lives of inspiring leaders, developed into
the great religions. Later, when scientific explanations began to
emerge and challenge the myths, trouble began. And trouble
continues as each major scientific advance challenges the
supernatural explanations and also diminishes the special position
assigned to humans by religious systems. So two centuries after

19

geologists like Hutton and Lyell recognized just how ancient our
planet might be, and more than a century after Darwin and Wallace
showed us how we could understand the history of life on Earth, we
are still arguing about teaching these facts to school children in the
U.S. And while this is fueled by loud but relatively small
fundamentalist religious groups, polls and personal experience tell us
that a lot of thoughtful and intelligent people are loathe to give up
the comforting religious creation myths for the chaos implied by
natural explanations. Can we learn how to respond tem&qwqk
constructively?

  Conflicts between religious ideas and modern science raise
profoundly difficult questions. Many scientists are tempted either to
ignore religious sensibilities or worse, dismiss themc aswganay. But
they will not go away readily. They must be taken seriously because
they are strongly felt by decent people. Respectful, informative
responses are needed, if science is to retain the public's support.
Denial is never constructive. There is some wisdom in the public
inclination to move cautiously when social assumptions that have
worked productively for millennia are being challenged. For
instance, modern genetics poses some tough societal issues. They
need to be thoroughly and widely discussed before we can find
reasonable and acceptable ways to apply the new science for the

benefit of all.

Events last year illustrate some of the problems. A coalition of

religious leaders, encouraged if not recruited by Jeremy Rifkin,

announced a campaign opposing the patenting of human genes, cells,
organs, and genetically modified organisms on the grounds that they
are creations of God and not inventions of man. It is true that genes,
cells and organs are not inventions of man---or of woman either; but
genes and organisms modified by modern techniques or classical
cross-breeding are, in at least some sense, inventions of humans.
There are of course legitimate questions about some of the DNA
sequence patenting that is going on, but the idea that DNA is holy
doesn't make sense to most scientists. Once you have synthesized a
gene in the lab, and have recognized that the genes of humans and
yeast cells can be interchangeable, it is impossible to think that DNA,
human or otherwise, has some special aura. Contrary to the frequent
headlines, scientists are not 'playing God" when they manipulate
DNA; they are being quintessentially human in their desire to
understand nature. Why can't we get this idea across? It would help
some if scientists stopped using the word "God" in the titles of their
books. How does it serve real communication about science to say, as
one astrophysicist did in describing the COBE satellite data on
perurbations in the microwave background radiation as 'traces from

the mind of God"?

If we are to improve the communication of science to those

behind the frontier, the scientific community probably needs to
recapture access to the public. Public information about science is
now, to a large extent, in the hands of institutional public relations
departments, the science policy establishment ... that is, yourselves,

and the media. We need a more direct line. We need to show that
we are real, actually quite ordinary people. Perhaps we could even
avoid the tendency, apparent even in the scientific press, to present
everything in an adversarial mode; the public is certainly engaged
by conflict., but people are also engaged by their self-interest, and
that is always served by straight-forward information.

If we can get a direct line, we will probably have to clean up

our act. Too often these days, when scientists are given an
opportunity to speak about their work, they are more interested in
advancing the cause of their next grant, or their company's financial
status, than in conveying information to the public in a meaningful
way. There is too much hype. Every gene that is discovered will
lead to a cure for some disease ....... maybe, but not for a long time.
Even the superconducting super collider was said to have important
implications for improving human health.

We have not used well our wits and talents to convey the

extraordinary scientific enterprise and the mazing things we have
learned about the world. The ignorance behind the frontier is our
responsibility as scientists; no one will know what we are doing if
we don't find ways to tell them, ways that can be heard because
they connect to the everyday world in which people live.

  Some months ago, the New York Times Magazine ran a photo
essay highlighting outstanding women in all the fields that contribute
importantly to our nation's welfare. There was not one scientist in

the group. The same thing often happens when men are listed for
similarly important contributions. Scientists are left out of the
reckoning. We can change that if we find new ways to talk about
science, ways to talk so we are heard, and listened to.