Actually, there are existing efforts to better train members of the media in the sciences, and there’s a growing emerging field of data journalism.
However, Mark’s analogy makes the assumption that somehow scientists’ are busier doing science stuff than journalists are doing journalism stuff.
Rather than requiring everyone in either profession to learn the rigors and disciplines of the other, how about simply supporting professionals and students who are actually interested in the intesection?
There are established interdisciplinary fields called science communications and science education (or health communications and health education in the health sciences).
Believe it or not, there are people who are actually interested in science communications, and — more importantly, there are professionals already trained and experienced in science communications!!
We tend not to think about them because they tend to have multiple undergraduate and master’s degrees and/or fellowships and certificates because — like Mark said, the PhDs are busy making important discoveries 😉
We must remember that communication is actual step in the project life cycle otherwise known in the sciences as the “scientific method.”
We must remember that science communication involves communicating (and translating) science to a wide varierty of stakeholders — including the general public rather than merely amongst ourselves.
But Mark makes a good point — why are we still expecting individuals (in all fields) to do the jobs of multiple professions and people? R&D projects (including basic and translational sciences) that are staffed appropriately tend to have a dedicated team for public relations and publishing — not just the PIs and their favorite student minions (as is all too common in academia).
But that gets us into human resources and management — and like media and public relations, most scientists and academics aren’t trained in that either 🤦🏾♀️