All four articles converge around a singular point. The articles stress the importance of scientists “framing” information in a way that makes it relevant to different audiences. In this day and age, with an amalgam of blogs and other sources of scientific information, scientists are competing with these outlets to be the source of scientific information.  The article entitled “Framing Science” by Matthew C. Nisbet and Chris Mooney notes how people tend to select news outlets and websites that match their own ideas and preconceived viewpoints.  Thus, rather than individuals looking to scientific journals as their sources of information, they select the outlets that mostly appeal to them. This can pose a major problem as these outlets can skew and distort the information, resulting in a general public with fallacious and misrepresented ideas about science. This can lead to faulty policy decisions, as Christopher points out in the article “Scientist Citizens.” Thereby, as the article goes on to note, is it vital that scientists become better trained in communicating their findings in an interesting and relevant way. This way, the facts being communicated are valid and undistorted. This overall breakdown between scientist and society communication has led to faulty notions pertaining to climate change and evolutionary concepts. Improvements therefore have to be made to rectify this disconnect, as “Even the most brilliant scientific discovery, if not communicated widely and accurately, is of little value,” as stated by Marcia McNutt in “Improving Scientific Communication.”

Upon reflecting over my own interaction with the communication of science, a particular point in “Framing Science” struck a nerve.  The article noted that the use of framing in science has led to increased support of antievolutionist theories. Rather than acknowledging the valid and proven facts pertaining to evolutionist theory, because of the use of “intelligent design” frames, the public is more interested in debunking these valid concepts. I remember that all throughout high school, in my science classes, evolution was viewed as a hot and controversial topic. Rather than simply laying out the ideas of the theory, the concepts were presented with a disbelieving bias. In fact, it was not until I entered college that I truly learned about what evolution truly entails. Overall, that memory allowed me to understand how important scientific concepts can go misinterpreted if correct scientific outlets are not provided. Thus, I understand the push for better communication of scientific concepts. Scientists must learn how to lure citizens to their outlets of information, rather than them going elsewhere. This would result in a much more “correctly” educated public, allowing science to move in only one direction: forward, rather than being funneled in various sub-argumentative pathways.