The role of scientists in informing the public about their field is addressed by Frank Gannon in this month’s (February) issue of EMBO Reports (9, 111; 2008 ). Dr Gannon writes about a perceived “creeping cynicism” among the public, and urges scientists to “instill a healthy dose of optimism about what science can do—albeit in a fair and balanced way. We have to do this for ourselves as well as society at large. We have to explain the complexities of the tasks that lie ahead and, at the same time, highlight the genuine successes that scientific research has achieved. We must counter the cheap shots directed against honest and determined scientists, and reign in those who overstate their work and its implications. But more than anything else, we have to stress time and again that rigorous research is the only way to discover the cures and solutions needed for the twenty-first century.”

At the same time, there is a variety of views on this topic being expressed by science writers on their Nature Network forum, in response to Brian Clegg’s question “Is balance the enemy of science writing?” In cases where “there is overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of one opinion”, writes Brian, “the media’s attempt to provide balance by giving equal weight to both sides of the argument is a mistake. It misleads the public, and does a disservice to science.

Is this true? If so, what should science writers be doing about it?” Or, as Frank Norman puts it, quoting Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne: “When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong.” A stimulating and very heated discussion follows about the role of the media in (mis)communicating science. To Michael Kenward it is relatively simple: “Look at examples, point out to the perpetrators that their idea of balance is actually no more than giving publicity to the lunatic fringe.” Other contributors discuss longer-term goals, such as changing the way science is taught in schools, and rewarding scientists for personal public-education initiatives. Elsewhere on Nature Network, senior Nature editor Henry Gee provides his own unique perspective at his blog End of the Pier Show, in a post entitled Plausible Unavoidability.