[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Look no further than the likes of William Jennings Bryan.
There is a belief that academics are somehow disconnected with reality and thus their findings are not relevant to daily life, which most people care about. People fear and despise what they can't understand and are convinced that the academics will use concepts and language to confuse and mislead them. When you introduce theories that strongly conflict with current belief, such as evolution, you get a lot of friction. Heck, evolution is still disputed

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point about academics talking over the public's head. It is pretty tough for experts to put their results in layman's terms because they don't like to simplify complex situations. They definitely need to do a better job of this.

[ QUOTE ]

There's the thing with funding. People may be suspicious that researchers may compromise their research to get funding. Whether this is true or not, it still still creates problems as the few stories of unethical researches get passed around. Now since the government plays a significant role in academia, (who funds and manages all those great public universities) we have this whole big brother fear going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the second something becomes a consensus in a community, it seems like you'd get more funding if you could prove it wrong. I'm talking about established theories and facts that people are skeptical of. But, I take your point though.

[ QUOTE ]

And don't forget how the public uses receives findings for research-- not through research journals typically, but through popular media which typically has to break it down into some soundbites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also a good point. Especially since a lot of news these days comes in the form of panels who disagree. So even if there is a 90% chance that something is true, you hear both sides equally so the viewer will think that both sides are equally reputable and probable.