The public doesn’t understand science. You scientists need to put more effort into communicating your work.
Today’s kids leave school not knowing enough science. You teachers should teach them better.
University graduates don’t even know how to write a concise scientific paper. You tutors should give them more practice before they come to work for us.
Journalists don’t understand even the basics. You editors should employ someone who knows what they are talking about to write about science.
Note the familiar pattern here. A shortcoming is found and it’s someone else’s fault. We don’t like it when we are in the firing line but we unwittingly do the same to others. In this article I argue that the type of ‘deficit thinking’ that underlies the above sentiments is an inappropriate way to respond to the complex issue of engaging the wider public with science. It benefits neither the people being judged nor the community that does the judging. For example, when the science community is on the receiving end, as in the first of the sentiments above, no matter how seriously they take the challenge of trying to communicate more effectively, there is a very good chance nothing much will really change if, with the best will in the world, that effort was misdirected. The challenge here is that topping up a deficit is no guarantee of a cure for whatever caused it in the first place.