As scientists, educators and parents, and especially as paleontologists, we can do lots of things. We should ask that the media present a fair representation of the process of science. I made these suggestions before (Lipps 1999), but here I repeat them with comments on what has been done. We still need lots of creative thinking and energy, and we need to present our criticisms constructively and in a way that will enhance the mass media corporations, at least monetarily. They need to know that real science sells well, that it is dramatic, funny and tragic, and that good stories can be written for showing in prime time, and that it makes excellent reading. We have much hope and, indeed, quite a future in selling literacy in science, if we so choose. We have so much good material in science. If the media can so effectively peddle trash science, it can capitalize on good science just as easily.

1. Join the battle, in spirit if not in action. For years, scientists did not want to be involved with the public, leaving the interpretation of their work to professional writers. They were afraid they might not get promoted, win awards, gain membership in prestigious organizations, and not get grants. These attitudes have changed somewhat in recent years, as more and more scientists speak out and get involved with writing or speaking about science. The best known scientist to do this was Carl Sagan. He was enormously successful in the publishing, television and movie industries, yet during most of his life as a popularizor he was disparaged by fellow scientists. Sagan is now admired by scientists and laypeople alike as a great scientist and an even greater popularizer of science, and some realized too late that he had not been treated well concerning his public efforts (Gould 1997). Not every scientist needs to be active, but some must and the rest should not criticize. Certainly paleontologists have many opportunities to do so because of the interest in our subject. Not only that, but few of us confirm the public's view that scientists are weird or nerds. Especially when we work in the field, where adventure and danger may lurk.

2. Scientists should work with television writers and producers to get good, exciting science on television and in the movies. They want to do this for the most part, but do not often know how. The late television celebrity Steve Allen enthusiastically embraced the idea of holding a workshop for screen-writers and scientists, but he passed away before it materialized. The idea was not to have one group lecture to the other authoritatively, but to somehow work together to develop exciting science-based plots for television. Paleontology is an obvious subject because it is a proven commodity. We might reinvigorate Allen's hopes for workshops with local and network television people and with the screenwriters and producers who develop programs. 

The process and activities of science and scientists are often dramatic and hilarious, and, since scientists are people, they get themselves into the same situations that most people do. In other words, this is the fodder of TV programs, as we know them anyway. Science could be incorporated into regular prime time programs, including situation comedies. If the polls showing 70% of Americans to be sincerely interested in science are correct, then the television writers, producers, directors, stations, and networks are missing a significant potential market, and one likely to have disposable income.

TV and the rest of the media need not present only factual programs about science. Entertainment has been a very important part of all cultures for much of human history, and television is merely the latest manifestation of that tradition, albeit much more powerful and influential. Television, in particular, specializes in junk of all sorts because people need junk to balance their high-paced, worrisome lives (Bagdikian 1997). Preaching about science would merely add to their burden, but the incorporation of science into entertaining programs might well enhance their comprehension of how to use it in their own lives. In any case, the media have a responsibility to identify junk and separate entertainment from factual documentaries. What is at stake is the well being of our culture and traditions, especially when it comes to what is and is not science, for our modern world's foundation is now manifestly scientific.

3. Scientists could connect with journalists. An easy way to do this is to rely on public relations officers that so many universities, scientific institutions and societies employ. The Geological Society of America has made efforts recently to provide news releases to the press, and they have proven successful. Other societies might consider similar strategies. News media appreciate such leads, and they trust them, so use them, when received from a trusted source. Some major societies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, commonly host science writers at their meetings and involve them and scientists in workshops or discussion groups. These also work well in breaking down the walls between science and the media. Remember, paleontology is always newsworthy!

4. Scientists can give good public lectures. Many paleontologists do this well, and it helps to explain how science works if alternative interpretations can be set as opposing hypotheses. This adds interest for the audience and keeps them intrigued to know the final outcome. Paleontology presents ample opportunities for this approach. Amateur paleontologists could also help here by giving their own accounts of collecting trips and showing fossils, especially in schools where direct contact with science is limited. This would expose the children to the excitement of discovery.

5. Write good science for TV, movies, magazines, and newspapers. Steve Gould did a masterly job of this, of course, but others can take part as well. We need more good stories at all levels of the science. Newspapers welcome a column or story from a scientist because it looks good, fills the newspaper, and costs them little. Paleontology ought to be very popular.

6. Tell your local TV, movie, book, or radio reviewer what is good and what is bad. Let them know what real science is and what pseudoscience is in programs, films, books, and the Internet.

7. I suggested that we ask the TV Academy of Arts and Sciences to institute a "best science" category in the Emmy Awards. After all, lighting and a number of different kinds of music each have an award category. Why not one for science? So I wrote to the President of the Academy with that suggestion. He replied that it was a good idea but that they already did it in the documentary or special-programs category. This also includes stories about rock stars, fashion designers, novelists, and a host of other special programs. But science is not a special category, because it is so pervasive in our culture and everyday lives. I'll try again.

8. Write letters and commentary to newspapers and magazines on pseudoscientific programs, events, books and articles. Write letters to sponsors of bad programs. The television industry pays attention to these kinds of objections, even if they do not act immediately.

9. Lastly, we must keep supporting science education. Many scientists and their organizations have taken this very seriously, in hands-on teachers training and especially in the development of web sites. The US National Science Foundation supports a variety of educational projects with sizeable grants. They usually require collaborations between teachers and scientists, as well as evaluators, but truly innovative programs are in short supply.