I have an MD and a PhD (in neuroscience), along with adequate knowledge of statistical analysis and critical reasoning in general. I've done some studying up on the ways we humans delude ourselves (ref: Gilovich - How We Know What Isn't So... a must read for any skeptic). I am reasonably good at writing and presenting information in ways that are accessible to a lay audience. How can I help? Where do I sign up? Do I start a blog? Try to get on TV? What sorts of credentials are required to go to media outlets and offer oneself up as a source of "expert opinion"?

Funny, my old boss was turning down interview requests regularly (and doing occasional Morning Show etc appearances) and I don't have any advice for you to get to that level. She was at the top of her field, published regularly, sits on NIH panels and always looks good if that helps.

I think blogging can be valuable though. A couple good examples are Realclimate.org and http://scienceblogs.com/.

I'm a current graduate student in the Biomedical Sciences, so I understand the workload of a scientist. However, I still believe scientific scholars can "stand up" and talk with the public about science in person, which is probably more accessible and there's less chance for people to avoid the resources on the internet. Maybe similar to pre-med students more or less required to volunteer at a hospital in order to get into med school, why not require first or second year grad students to volunteer in the community, and act as PR to talk about current scientific issues? The grad students should at least have the basic knowledge and analytical skills to discuss the scientific thinking and how to interpret available information. It would only take 1 or 2 advisors to hold the program together, which can be "rotated" every year. Not only would it "educate" the community, it could train future scientists to be more engaged with people outside of their academic circle, and gain better communication skills in discussing their expertise with less knowledgeable individuals.

Interesting idea... making PR something like the requirement to TA some courses. Unfortunately, not everyone is cut out for that. Some people who have good minds for science don't have minds that are good at presenting information in a way that is easily digestible by the broader public. I have to agree, with you, though. Requiring scientists to practice these communications skills would be a great idea.

The other problem is that you can have people willing to do the work, but not the opportunity. As I asked in my original post, HOW does a scientist go about participating in this process? If the answer, as blueshift suggests, is that you have to be the head of some institute, then we're doomed. Administrators are way too busy administrating (with exceptions, of course) to even get real science done, much less go forth and fight in the public sphere against the forces of willful ignorance. How can a scientist who has the time and the inclination get to have his/her say against the "other side" in any sphere where it will matter? Arguing with people on the internet... well, you know what they say about that: like competing in the Special Olympics and all that. In the "real media", no one asks our opinion about anything most of the time.

Asking a scientist to do PR work is like asking a game show host to work in a lab ;- ).

I've always felt that any degree program in any field ought to include getting some skills at writing and speaking persuasively in the field. That is, everybody who gets a degree in physics or math or singing or animal husbandry ought to be able to inform non-experts in the field in an understandable way.

Of course, skills will necessarily vary a lot, and education is (or ought to be) a special skill in itself. bsharp's point is a good one. But still, scientists need to get better at explaining themselves. And they need to point it out when "science" journalism gets so far off base -- as it does more often than not. Actually, I blame most of America's confusing on "science" issues on the terribly shoddy job done by "science" reporting on TV and papers.

I'm not sold on the PR idea, but it does have an extra benefit. As mentioned, science usually gets mangled as it goes to press. Scientists could use practice to learn when their words may be misinterpreted or spun.