Communicating scientific research is vital for its correct application in today’s modern world. If scientific research is misunderstood by those dealing with policy (lawmakers and voters), the wrong decisions will be made. A precedent we have seen for this can be learned from the way forensic science was treated in its early development (learned in my Bioethics course): When forensic science first came into the picture, prosecutors thought they had found the unbeatable method of catching criminals. They would use the DNA of the crime scene and match it with any DNA they had found in the data base assuming that they had caught the criminal. The science was still developing and yet the courts thought it was a perfect system. Long story short, many mistakes were made and many were falsely convicted despite the scientists’ warnings against only using these methods. Instead, DNA should be used to support already existing evidence, and not as the only evidence. This example of failure of communication between scientists and those that utilize the product of the science has caused many problems in individuals’ lives.

In relation to Alan Leshner’s “Capably Communicating Science,” I agree with the idea of utilizing a “translator” to explain what scientists are doing. Scientists often do not have time to write in ways for the masses to understand because what a scientist can say in one sentence would possibly need an entire book for the layman to understand. A personal example: when a friend of mine lost his grandmother, the doctor spent fifteen minutes explaining to the family what had happened while he only needed 30 seconds to explain it to a doctor of another field entirely. However, problems with this “translator” might come up when dealing with law making since the translator might present the facts in a biased way. And it is difficult for a scientist to keep tabs on whatever a translator says to his audience.