Guest contribution by Isaac Schumann.
In his blog entry Steve Eastbrook does a very good job at explaining the public's misunderstandings of the scientific process and of peer review in general. It is an unusually honest description of the way many scientists feel and, I think, would be good for non-scientists to read. However, I would see this as a counter argument to Werner's Easterposting; that dialogue with the public is a two way street, both sides should learn something about the other. Professor Eastbrook calls this “naive” and “irresponsible”, science will always be incomprehensible to the layman. He concludes that the media, politicians and business leaders must be more "responsible" when communicating science to the public.
In any event, the candor of the essay is in the spirit of a more honest and open dialogue, and Professor Eastrook should be commended for putting these views out for the public to discuss.
Thank you for your consideration.