I'd settle for a rough familiarity amongst science journalists and their editors, but I like the aspiration. Couple of questions, though: do we mean how scienc

I'd settle for a rough familiarity amongst science journalists and their editors, but I like the aspiration. Couple of questions, though: do we mean how science should work, or how it actually works in practice (and no, not just Kuhn: his conclusions were only surprising to other non-scientists, and primarily seem to have been valuable for Sociologists nursing a discipline-wide inferiority complex and 'scientists' like Andrew Wakefield who want to blame the establishment and not their own sociopathy.) We're coming up on two decades since Ionnidis, and Psychology still seems to be primarily a collection of unconfirmed small population studies of undergraduate psych students. Medical doctors can't explain or apply freshman statistics. Research directions (and, too often, results) are chosen by investors and donors. The modern west has more taboos about what assumptions and received truths it is permissible to question and investigate than the most repressive theocracies. Much of theoretical physics seems to be aimed at exploring untestable hypotheses and frameworks. And, my personal favourite: the phrase 'scientific consensus' is now used so often and without critique and introspection that it's actually become trite.