Since that Communicating Science workshop we did, I’ve been wondering if the reason why we’re so terrible at it is similar to the reasons why promoting open access is difficult right now: certain venues for presenting your research are considered more prestigious than others. For example, presenting your research at a conference in your field or publishing at a journal (even open access) in your field is generally considered “better” than giving a public talk about your research. The reason for it is that you can communicate your ideas directly to the scientific community that will be immediately affected by the new research. However, this does perpetuate a situation where we aren’t talking to other scientists in different fields, let alone laypeople. Thus, we get no practice at doing it, and many don’t see the point in trying. After all, if you can describe your research to the people who care about it most, why do you NEED to be able to describe it to anyone else?

The reason that we should be able to communicate our ideas outside our fields are all the reasons you stated and then some. We need to be able to connect with each other and scientists and researchers. In so doing, we can form unique collaborations and do some really cool research. We also need to be able to explain to people why our research matters so that they understand what it is we do and how it affects them. I think this matters to the general public even beyond their taxpayer dollars.