At the January American Meteorological Society meeting and the 
February Front Range meeting of the American Geophysical Union, I 
participated in panel discussions of science, ethics, and the media.  In 
each of these sessions, I argued that scientists have the responsibility to 
provide sound, useful scientific information to the public, largely 
through the media.  My position is based on the conviction that as 
environmental problems continue to threaten the health and welfare 
of society, public understanding of the social and scientific causes of 
environmental degradation becomes increasingly important.  I also 
believe that a public that is knowledgeable about science and the 
tradeoffs and risks associated with technologic advances is more apt to 
make wise decisions and to be willing to accept costs and other 
sacrifices likely to be associated with difficult political and economic 
choices.

A 1993 Harris poll provides evidence that the public is interested in 
and receptive to such communications from scientists.  For example, 
approximately four out of every ten adults actively pursue serious 
science news, and a majority of those surveyed consider science news 
to be as important as other major news topics, including crime, the 
economy, sports, politics, and entertainment.  In addition, the poll 
showed that interest in science cuts across all demographic groups, 
whether sorted by age, gender, education, or income level.

At the same time, another 1993 survey, by American Opinion 
Research, indicated that a majority of reporters and newsroom and 
television supervisors say it is difficult to find experts who speak plain 
English rather than jargon, or experts who are not biased toward either 
environmental activism or business.  About 50% of these media 
supervisors are able to define CFCs, compared to 39% of all adults.

What do these polls mean?  In my opinion, they indicate that the 
ground for further scientific education of the public is fertile.  People 
want science news, they are fully capable of appreciating it, and the 
deliverers of the news are eager and able to present it well.  So, what 
are the responsibilities of scientists?  I believe scientists have an ethical 
obligation to account to the public for research results achieved 
through public support, and, further, to do something ÒrightÓ about 
environmental problems as opposed to doing nothing wrong.  Unless 
reputable scientists supply accurate information to the media, and 
unless the media publish the information in a responsible manner, the 
public is at a disadvantage when it comes to making wise choices about 
matters related to the environment.