"PopSci should be one of the cornerstones of the scientific enterprise."

In a perspective piece in Science magazine, Agustin Fuentes exhorts the scientific community to produce "better and more PopSci." PopSci, or popular science, is "science presented in a way that is interesting and understandable to people who are not experts." He lays the onus on scientists but I would say that the purveyors of PopSci do not have to be scientists. They can be any member of the scientific community, which includes those who are not professional scientists but engage in some aspect of science whether teaching, research, communication, or engineering.

Science has not fared well in at least certain segments of popular opinion over the last 10 years or so, which surprised me, although in retrospect I probably shouldn't have been surprised. According to Mr. Fuentes, we find ourselves in "a world shaped by a lot of misguided, and often erroneous, information about science." He identifies the problem as the "strong political movement to discredit science and scientists [which] is having a terrifying level of success." To put a name on it, the anti-science movement has been spearheaded by the GOP and other conservative groups. Examples abound from the anti-vaxxers to global warming denialism to the genetic racists. 

Let's be clear, the enemy of science is not the lack of understanding, it is the loss of objectivity. Too often people engage in motivated "reasoning" where the "reasoning" is secondary to supporting some motivated position. The ideal of science is objective reasoning and anyone can do this and be part of the scientific enterprise. Individual scientists are expert in a tiny, infinitesimal sliver of human knowledge, but they are trained to engage in objective reasoning based on factual evidence, and so too are numerous other professions.

I would like to see the scientific community broadened as much as possible and PopSci can contribute significantly to this accessibility.

Agustin closes with the following figurative call to arms:

"With political and legal actors increasingly downplaying and sidelining scientific knowledge, now is not the time for science to be quiet or compliant. It is the time for scientists to speak out, to communicate and participate with and among the public. The alternative is to let the anti-science organizations and movements warp reality and damage society and the planet by injecting more ignorance, antipathy, and malice into public perceptions and actions around issues of scientific relevance. Science must have a larger impact outside of labs, journal pages, and the research industry. For the future of science and society, we need better and more PopSci by scientists."

As mentioned above, I would just slightly modify the final sentence to read: "For the future of science and society, we need better and more PopSci by members of the scientific community which of course includes those who are not professional scientists."