Should science knowledge be talked up or talked down?

I would have never thought that I would actually enjoy a lecture about looking at high pressure chemcials. Then again, I never thought that a lecture about chemistry could include improv actors acting out chemical bonds. This was the opening talk on Tuesday's second annual Public Engagement and Science Communication symposium. Following Nobelist Roald Hoffman's talk was a panel, moderated by our professor, which included Hoffmann, NSF director Jeff Nesbit, and SciBX executive editor Gaspar Taroncher. The bulk of their discussion was the necessity for public engangement because "mysteries that science introduced can cause alienation", "science knowledge is a basic need for the democratic process", "people need to see that science is not perfect, not black and white and full of uncertainity" and "we are on the verge of a learning explosion." These were just some of the reason that the panel said education of science to lay people is important.

While the discussion touched upon many subjects that we have discussed this semester-- in fact I wish I would have attended this before my last paper was due-- I would like to concentrate on one aspect that I had some qualms about which was how to present knowledge to different audiences. Hoffman made it a point to say that everything comes down to teaching and the difference is in the audience. This reiterates our classes discussion on different audiences produces different knowledge (ie. Bee Eaters example). He then went on to talk about the importance of metaphors and how they have a productive value for the scientist. Taroncer commented how when editing he tries to take out much of the jargon that is included because it needs to be an article that can be understood. The one comment I didn't agree with is when Nesbit said that he believes science should be more "talked up." He felt that science should not be dumbed or lessened down.

I feel that in order to effectively communicate to lay people that Nesbit is wrong and that concepts should be talked down -- there needs to be a certain degree of simplicity. When I was involved in journalism in my high school my teacher told us about the K.I.S.S concept, which stands for Keep It Simple, Stupid. The general public does want to know about complicated ideas however they need to presented in an appropriate level. Nesbit used the example of a morning medical teaching show intended for physicians and he commented that a large portion of the viewers were not doctors and they were lay people wanting to learn about these complex ideas. He used this as a justification that science should be presented in a "higher" context but I don't think his example necessarily supports that. It does shows that viewers, the lay people (which if they are watching Discovery Health is a specific demographic and not really representative of the gernal population) want to learn about higher science but the high numbers of viewers doesn't mean that what they saw they understood.

When it comes down to it, I think science communication should be presented in its simplest form to the general public. What do you think? Do you think people want to be challenged? Would they be turned off if the information is too lofty? In the end, will they truly understand science if it is talked down, talked up or is it relative to the individual?