Can we teach them?  And if we can, should we?

A recent poll said that over half of Americans reject evolution.  The cause of this dismal state of scientific ignorance is, as we all know, complicated.  But where in this muddled mess of confusion do science writers fit in?  Is an attempt to educate futile?  According to Michael Lemonick, “we’re kidding ourselves if we think we can convince that 50% of the population.”

Of the rapture, Larry Gonick wondered if they believed that their bodies will physically ascend to the heavens.  And if so, he’s been “wondering how to make a bet on that.  The problem is that I won’t be able to collect when I win.”

Money-making schemes aside, what, if any, is our duty as science writers in education?  As people chimed in around the room with their take on this, I sensed an old argument re-surfacing.  “We are not educators,” Tom Siegfried said. 

Someone else mentioned that we can’t be burdened by being the “explainers,” and trying to change the culture is hopeless.  It is simply too hard.

The fact remains that the science stories in newspapers, on-line, and on the radio do educate the public, regardless of what we’d like our role to be.  So how much (if at all) does this impact the day-to-day work of a science writer?  Have you successful science writers learned to ignore this educational burden?  Or do you simply do the best you can?