Why can’t we write like other people write? Why can’t we tell our science in interesting, dynamic stories? Why must we write dryly? (Or, to rephrase that last sentence in the passive voice, as seems to be the scientific fashion, why must dryness be written by us?)

“The big thing is to be responsible, to tell the story,” said former CNN journalist Frank Sesno, who moderated the discussion. “We need to convey the information, to help people learn so they can be more active, more informed, and more engaged citizens.”

Analysis of the US AAAS/Pew survey shows that scientists are equally split between those who view the media’s tendency to oversimplify as a “major” or “minor” problem but are in near unanimity in their negative opinion of science coverage.

Lots to go throughout here. Very comprehensive.

When asked about climate and extreme weather, for example, many scientists will start off with a disclaimer, such as "We cannot blame any particular event on climate change." But following Somerville and Hassol's advice, a scientist could start the conversation emphasizing the well-understood connections between climate change and the increasing likelihood of extreme weather. There's no need to exaggerate, and no point in fear mongering -- stick to what's solid and defensible.

Another useful article by Bob Grant at The Scientist

How to sharpen your writing and make your manuscripts more engaging.

Here's your new mantra: walk, talk, and engage. Pay attention to the way [Steve] Jobs and [Al] Gore walk across the stage as they address the crowd. They're dynamic. They use hand gestures. They stop, make a point, deliver a slide, and move on. They're constantly engaging the audience.

Keep text to an absolute minimum. Write what you think is the absolute minimum, then force yourself to cut it in half. Continually remind yourself “There is ALWAYS too much text in a poster.”

one of the many gems on this web site, run by The Oceanography Society