CONSTITUENCY OF IGNORANCE
Coastal geologists could do much to lighten this burden of ignorance. But in general they do not. There seem to be several reasons for this reticence. Coastal geologists have little desire to insert themselves into the high-stakes and often unpleasant arguments that erupt instantly when interest groups on the coast collide. Participation in such debates does not benefit coastal scientists. But coastal scientists should be major players in these debates. First, much of their work is financed by taxpayers. Second, they can see people adopting unwise and even dangerous courses of action at the coast; they should not keep silent.
News outlets like The New York Times can help scientists communicate their findings, and insights generally, to the public. But, as many scientists know only too well, many journalists have great difficulty dealing intelligently with complicated scienific topics. Even at a paper with a large science staff, like The Times, has difficulty staying on top of the news across a range of scientific topics. This problem is not one the journalists can solve. Only the scientists can address it. They can do so in several ways:
-- When journalists ask them about coastal questions or disputes, they should respond.
-- They should tune their responses to the knowledge level of the reporters they are dealing with. Or to put it another way, they should accept the fact that the journalists do not know as much as they might.
-- They should prepare for a news interview the way they would prepare for a presentation. They should know what important points they want to make, and they should figure out simple ways to convey them.
Too many people on the coast do not want to know what coastal scientists can tell them about their dynamic landscape and its hazards. But scientists can use the news media to help get the necessary messages across.