One of the major shortcomings of science supposedly is a lack of communication between scientists and the general public. Many argue that too often, science is only presented in written academic journals that are not so easily obtained by the general public. This is discussed on a daily basis and was argued in the aftermath of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, as well as in on-going debate about other scientific theories and ideas. However, people fail to realize a few things. One of the major things is that, in terms of an earthquake or tsunami, you simply cannot predict anything like that. You cannot blame scientists for not being able to predict an earthquake like a meteorologist can predict weather events. Scientists can study things like seismic activity and they can make assumptions as to what may happen should an earthquake of a high magnitude hit and cause something catastrophic like a tsunami. Yet, some fail to realize that some safety measures were taken, and even inspectors that visited the Fukushima Nuclear power plant asked Japanese authorities to increase safety measures further. According to a France24 news article written three months after the catastrophe,
“A three-page summary was issued at the end of the 18-member team’s May 24-June 2 inspector mission to Japan. It said the country underestimated the threat from tsunamis to the Fukushima plant and urged sweeping changes to its regulatory system. Japanese authorities have been criticised for failing to plan for a tsunami that would surge over the 5.7 metre (19-ft) wall at the nuclear power station in the country’s northeast, despite warnings that such a risk was looming.”
If this information were provided to the public earlier, it could have caused some kind of a dispute between the government and the people and it could have changed the way officials handled upping the safety measures on the plant. In this instance, scientists and inspectors are not to be blamed; you should blame the press because they released this information AFTER the fact. In general terms, the press is to blame for what kind of information is released to the public and what kind of content is shown. According to an article written by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences:
“Unfortunately, jobs for full-time science writers at major print and electronic outlets are declining, while the number of important science and science-policy developments to cover is increasing. The news hole is shrinking, and the stories that do appear may be confusing, misleading, or downright wrong. Many important topics are left unreported in favor of soft “news you can use” consumer health and medical features on everything from fad diets to the latest exercise machines.”
The press and the media control the information that is released to the public. If they have reporters who only report on current news that involves, in all seriousness, someone dying, a catastrophe, or some kind of consumer products, where’s the reporting on new scientific findings? Sure they can release things what new medications are on the market and what kind of cures are found for certain diseases, but they won’t release a report of seismic activity or how greenhouse gases and global warming are connected. The American Academy article states one important point that sums this all up: Most Americans that they surveyed are scientifically illiterate. They don’t understand the basic concepts of science that scientists try to explain and if they saw news stations reporting on geology or on other scientific topics, they simply will switch the channel and the news station loses viewers. In reality, you can’t blame scientists for not releasing information to the public, because they have tried countless times to, and it is shown in the GSA example article and the countless Japan tsunami articles presented in the other files given. The reason why the public doesn’t know about scientific matters is because they are either illiterate to the subjects or the media and the press can’t afford to present this information they may deem “boring and uninteresting” and lose viewers and readers. You should really be blaming the press, not the scientists.

Works Cited
Russell, Christine. "Chapter 3: Covering Controversial Science: Improving Reporting on Science and Public Policy." American Academy of Arts & Sciences. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.
<https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1092>.

"UN Slams Fukushima Safety Measures before Tsunami." France24. N.p., 19 June 2011. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1092>.