Both of these pieces are directly concerned with the relationship between individuals who “practice science” and those who do not. In my belief, a practitioner of science – a scientist – is someone who makes their living by utilizing the scientific method and whatever applicable technology necessary to advance the common body of knowledge about the natural world. Those who do not practice science, therefore, are all others in the population who are not concerned with this effort. To say that a person practices science for a living does not necessarily mean that they are paid to engage in the practice of science. Instead, a practitioner of science is anyone whose life is directly impacted by his or her own relationship with science and who, in turn, impacts the world of science as well. Given these definitions, there are three different types of people: professional scientists, citizen scientists, and everyone else (the laypeople).

The article by Thomas and Durant differs from Tim Folger’s in a number of ways, perhaps most strikingly in its apparent purpose. It plainly offers a set of nine reasons why scientists themselves should be concerned with advancing the scientific literacy of the overall population. It reads like a manual, like it was written by someone who wants to be as objective as possible about his or her observations of this scientist-layperson relationship. Like a manual, it is useful in its own ways and it seems to neglect the inherent emotion or passion felt by any human being who has ever been in any kind of relationship. Folger’s piece, on the other hand, is an article