Some believe public engagement is “a scientific duty that benefits the public good by promoting informed debate.” In addition, there have been studies that show a correlation between visibility of research and research funding.

Many people believe “undermanagement” does not provide: 1. Clear performance requirements for the job 2. Clear and measurable goals with deadlines 3. Performance metrics or feedback on a timely basis 4. Enough atta-boys or atta-girls. And they would be correct; however, there is also under-management when a manager’s body language is “telling on” him or her.

In the new job landscape, I’m afraid we might be leaving hiring managers in the dust. After all, as the job market continues to evolve, those looking for work need as much direction as possible— and career experts know this.

The scientific community has historically taken a dim view of communications with nonscientific publics. No thanks, said scientists. What an imposition! Why bother? What good could possibly come from interrupting research, sticking our necks out and dumbing it down for non-scientific dunderheads, only to see them mismanage our findings?

A curious high school student conducts several chemistry experiments during a field trip and discovers an affinity for the sciences. Is this a fluke or could this student be on to something that may lead to a meaningful career and, more importantly, may aid in the healing process of an ailing profession?

“If we don't get the people thing right, we lose; it is the most important thing in all of business,” said Jack Welch, retired CEO of General Electric Company, who was named “Manager of the Century” in 1999 by Fortune Magazine.