I think the picture you paint is too idealistic. Not many can read a scientific paper and understand exactly what it is trying to say, since we are trained to a

I think the picture you paint is too idealistic. Not many can read a scientific paper and understand exactly what it is trying to say, since we are trained to avoid adjectives, adverbs, and half-formed speculations when writing papers. What is omitted from a paper is often as illuminating as what is in the paper. To know what is not said, you must have an anticipation of what must have been said. Often, that is quite important in peer review. Even when giving scientific talks, the advice I give my students and post-docs is to first have a clear idea of who the audience is: is it a) experts only from your area? [e.g. conference] b) people from the same department who may be generally aware of the area without knowing specifics? [e.g. job talk] c) General public [e.g. showing lab to school kids. This is the level at which you talk to the public. soundbites - so it is invariably misrepresented by the media] All three levels require different approaches for the same subject. (b) is especially tricky - you are talking to experts, but from a different field. So you have to simplify, while not being patronizing. As for (c), I think it is best to avoid it. Except in situations like the pandemic, it rarely is beneficial. Also, to do it right, it requires a lot of preparation.