“…scientists must learn to ‘frame’ information to make it relevant to different audiences” (Nisbet & Mooney).

Here in “Framing Science”, as well as in Leshner’s “Capably Communicating Science”,  the authors talk about making science relevant and marketable to common readers unfamiliar with jargon.  Certain complicated terms or concepts may confuse the average reader, including policy makers who should know about the science behind the policies they are making (for example, as the article mentioned, stem cell research).

However,  one thing that worries me is this concept of “being marketable.”  While I understand making science information clear and accessible, should it be a commercial package?  Should scientists be so worried about an audience?  This concern could make science less objective.  Why should society need everything packaged for them?  Yes, science should be relevant, and it should be understood at different levels.  Yet to market science towards specific groups – framing science to “sell” – is a dangerous idea.  Selling science to people could have a negative effect if the science does not become relatable.

This brings to attention McNutt’s article, “Improving Scientific Communication” in which she discusses how the peer review process allows for scientific information to be viewed as credible by different readers, especially those who are not scientists.  However, she proposes the current peer review process be improved, including individuals paying for their reviews.   I agree that the peer review process should itself be reviewed to fit the digital age in which information is readily available, and to fit the age of “marketable” science.  I do not agree with having individuals pay for their own reviews, however, as it could cause a class gap in the people who have articles published.