I found an interesting post on 'Cocktail Party Physics' bout the Top Ten Things the public should know about physics / science.

http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/2007/01/physics_is_fund.html

My response was not acceptable to their comments format.

I pared it down - still not acceptable. (The phrase was literally, "We cannot accept this data.")

So I present for your viewing pleasure, both the pared-down and the original version.

You are welcome to comment and all your data will be acceptable, I promise.

(And BTW, no, we didn't get the boat after all. Too many HIN numbers, not enough evidence of actual ownership paperwork.)

ABRIDGED:
I enjoyed reading your suggestions about topics for science literacy - as a former art/physics major, I'm not sure whether I fall into the scientist or non-scientist category.

What about a comparable list of things about the public that scientists should know?

It took me a while to come up with ten, and it appears I've exceeded my word limit or something - so I'll put the rest of it on journalscape.com/ecca.

1) Language: Big words don't help.
State your point clearly, in plain English. Restrict Latinate radicals to absolutely necessary clarifications.

2) Life is messy. Pocket technology, and warranties, should allow for normal life-supporting conditions e.g. moisture and electrolytes.

3) People are monkeys.
We evolved to toss banana peels in the bushes. We pry things open. We throw things. Any product requiring 'proper disposal' will be a public menace unless it can break down safely in a ditch, or be exchanged for something shiny. Please consider carefully before incorporating heavy metals or biologically sensitive materials in products available to the public.

4) Thinking is a choice (or a hobby). Mostly, we run on guts and habit.

5) Most experts live outside of academia.
Decades or generations of experience in any field create a special reserve of knowledge, calibrated by experience and cultural evolution. Lifelong learning takes a good sense of humor.

6) Share the wonder: ''I don't know" is an important truth.
Uncertainty is real. Get used to it. And break it to us gently.

7) Great power = great responsibility.
If we don't grasp the implications of your research, and there's a potential for mis-use, maybe you'd better keep it to yourself awhile yet.

8) The Prisoners and Guards Experiment (70's Berkely, I believe? paraphrased by Terry Pratchett) -
There is no excess of the worst psychopath that cannot be duplicated by an ordinary, decent person doing a job. The public may rightly be wary of culturally disruptive influences that challenge our moral conventions ... but usually, it just paddles alongside and barters for the latest WMD.

9) Maslow's Pyramid of Needs:
No sane person will allow their child to starve, or risk social ostracism, in order to fund basic research.

10) We like to be liked.
Save logical arguments for the lab notebook - try "Yes, and..." techniques to communicate with live people.


ORIGINAL: (Long comment)

I enjoyed reading your suggestions about topics for science literacy - as a former art/physics major, I'm not sure whether I fall into the scientist or non-scientist category.

What about a comparable list of things about the public that scientists should know?

It took me a while to come up with ten, so please forgive if they aren't well developed.

1) Language: Big words don't help.
Working in a science museum, I met kids who literally only read the first word of the instructions, and tried to guess the rest.
Popular media coverage of science should be a wake-up call to researchers: these editors know their audience. If best-selling magazines flatter the 5th-grade reader, maybe your instruction manual (or abstract) can too.

Big words can make a smart person sound like a smartass: like ego matters more than the person we're trying to reach. State your point clearly, in plain English. Utilize Latin radicals, jargon, or acronyms only when absolutely necessary for clarification.

Language skills can create sound-bites for the press: Obscure your answers to irrelevant questions with fragmented and technically complex sentences, then bust out the clear-ringing phrases to propel your core content to prime time.

2) Life is messy. The outside world contains weather, sweat, breath, and sometimes even toilets. Hand-held or pocket technology, and the warranties on such, should withstand normal life-supporting conditions e.g. moisture and electrolytes.

3) A permanent solution to a temporary problem is a permanent problem.
We evolved to toss banana peels in the bushes. Any product requiring 'proper disposal' will be a public menace unless it can break down safely in a ditch, or be exchanged for something shiny. Please consider carefully before incorporating heavy metals or biologically sensitive materials in products available to the public.

4) Thinking is a choice. We run on guts and habit.
People (including scientists) operate on emotional and biochemical signals much more often than logic. When you argue a point, you are probably also responding on this level - so cultivate a restful heart and calibrate the gut. Use, but do not abuse, social tools like courtesy, food, scent, skin contact, care for family, or eye contact, to advance your goals; save argument for those who actually enjoy it.
Likewise, design any public-release products for a trial-and-error learning curve. If you find yourself surprised or appalled by public sentiments, it may be time to do a little field research and re-calibrate your expectations of normal/local human behavior.

5) Most experts live outside of academia.
Fishermen, farmers, foresters, matriarchs, K-9 trainers, Vedic singers - decades of experience in any field create a special reserve of knowledge. Where training begins young within a family tradition, we're talking orders of magnitude more accumulated lifetime knowledge than most prime-of-life PhD's; backed up with relevant experience and ground-truthed, finely calibrated intuitions.
University-sponsored education projects, where young grad students promote unproven technologies, have overturned and eroded much of the traditional knowledge base that the rural population depends on. The surviving 'great families' have long memories, and the capacity to ignore impressive-sounding babble. So don't be surprised if a deep mistrust pervades your initial contact, or the people who talk to you most readily are idiots.
One of the signatures of a lifelong learner is a good sense of humor.

6) Share the wonder: ''I don't know" is an important truth.
Again in the museum, we had to convert a lot of young proto-scientists from fact-spouting know-it-alls to useful mentors, modeling "Let's find out together" rather than deflecting questions with dazzling technical supposition.
As a college student, my big take-home from quantum mechanics was that there is arguably a third logical state: positive, negative, or uncertain. Uncertainty is real. Both the public and scientists need to recognize the limits of the known, and knowable, and strengthen our ability to tolerate ambiguity and plan for chaos.

7) Great power = great responsibility.
Many global threats are the result of large-scale implementation of a new technology by people who are mostly ignorant of its consequences. Researchers are ignorant of the public's habits, and the public is ignorant of the scientific implications.
Should people who give up shoe-tying in favor of Velcro be entrusted with gasoline, microwaves, antibiotic hand soap, or GMO wind-pollinated crops?
Should people who have technically never left school be entrusted with the well-being and future of everybody else who couldn't wait to leave?
If we don't grasp the implications of your research, maybe you'd better keep it to yourself awhile yet.

8) The Prisoners and Guards Experiment (70's Berkely, I believe? paraphrased by Terry Pratchett) -
There is no excess of the worst psychopath - or Nazi - that cannot be duplicated by an ordinary, decent person with a job to do. How to maintain ethical, mutually tolerable behavior is a real, divergent problem (there are many solutions, not a single right answer) and each culture has systems in place that help stabilize it.
Scientific detachment does not make us immune, and may even increase our capacity to contribute to horrible deeds while doing our best.
The public is wise to be wary of abstract power and innovation, as they can disrupt cultural protections and unleash unintended consequences. Usually, though, the public just paddles alongside and barters for the latest WMD.

9) Maslow's Pyramid of Needs:
Basic needs (food, shelter, fire, water; security, affection, procreation, social status) trump higher-level values (identity, the search for meaning). A person lacking these basics, or struggling to maintain them, will not likely be moved by arguments about global warming or the search for the origins of the universe. Often, apparently self-destructive behavior turns out to be connected with a more primal need, or with biological controls that to ensure those basic needs are met.
School lunch programs do more for public education than juried science fairs, and promises of jobs carry more political weight than promises of knowledge.
No sane person will allow their child to starve in order to fund basic research.

10) We like to be liked.
Tell someone they're right, or they're smart, or they're important, and they'll do their best to prove you correct. Dismiss them as ignorant, stupid, or trivial, and you've made an enemy. Good scientists get used to being proven wrong, and some even appreciate healthy criticism (though don't try it on your boss too often). But caveats and corrections put most people on the defensive (does that mean they're offensive techniques?), triggering old traumatic math anxiety and replacing clear thoughts with emotional stress and panic.

Read Plato. Practice theatrical improv. Study aikido. Learn to use "Yes, and..." techniques to communicate effectively, drawing a conversation forward instead of pushing back into old misunderstandings.