D. Spires wrote:
It is not the scientists job to shake the pockets of supporters. That's not what they came in for.

Alex writes:
Dan, would were it though ;-) The idealized version of the modern day scientist is one who spends equal amounts of time in the lab, in the field, teaching, and writing elegant papers for journals. Unfortunately, most scientists spend a VERY considerable fraction of their time writing proposals, applying for grants, etc., in other words, shaking the bushes for funding.

I do not necessarily agree with Gary's feeling that pseudoscientists, frauds, hucksters, etc. (at least in planetary sciences) are in danger of siphoning off funds from the legitimate community because their presentations are slicker or they can bamboozle a largely illiterate media. Real money (i.e. millions of dollars needed for interplanetary exploration) is not released by Congress, or even donated by private benefactors, unless ideas pass peer-review. Despite the flowering of Hoaglandism on the Internet and fringe lunatic groups, how much government (or even private) funding has he or his ilk received? Selling tabloid-style books may help put groceries on the table for these types, but its an infinitesimal amount compared to what real scientists need, or in fact receive.

D. Spires wrote:
An excellent example is the PR you find associated with NASA. They say "Space sells itself," and this may even be true, but until NASA starts showing 3D space to the 2D public, space will sell nothing.

Alex writes:
Space sells in the short term. Remember Mars Pathfinder? However, it quickly fades, not the least of which because the public finds real science imcomprehensible, or less glamourous (i.e. simpler) than the Hollywood version. This is nothing new.

Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii