In modern society, science and technology have been integrated into daily life to a greater extent than ever before; as a result, it is no longer possible to consider science and society as two separate entities that rarely converge (Meyer 240, LaFollette 7). This mutual inclusiveness fosters dependency, however, due to the large amount of scientific data now available, it is increasingly difficult for individuals to have personal knowledge and understanding of the sciences and technologies that play such a significant role in their lives. However, it is not customary for scientists to communicate research findings directly to the public. Instead, this substantive responsibility is placed in the hands of the journalism community, but unfortunately there are many obstacles that impede good science journalism (Murcott and Williams 152). Indeed, researcher Davida Charney postulates that “[t]he very concepts of accuracy and newsworthiness are at the heart of the conflict between scientists and journalists” (216). So what really are the roles and responsibilities of science journalists, and what are some of the incompatible values ​​that divide the two communities? In my article I will argue that public science communication is more challenging than other forms of journalism due to the underlying conflict inherent in the relationship between scientists and journalists. I will examine two specific issues that hinder the proper communication of scientific information; the sensationalism and commercialization of science promoted by science journalists and the inaccessibility of the scientific community. Finally, I will consider some implications of poor science communication, and conc...... half of the article ......y (Riesch 771). This influence manifests itself in many different aspects of public life, from influencing which medical treatments individuals choose to trying to influence their position on controversial political topics such as climate change or nuclear energy; thus science journalism is an activity that entails considerable ethical responsibilities, the most significant of which is the pursuit of accuracy and appropriate contextualization. Furthermore, by having a negative impact on public opinion of science, bad science journalism has the potential to discourage private and government funding of research; It is for these reasons that science journalists are forced to bear the burden not only of the effect that their writings will have on the public, but also of the effect that the resulting public opinion of science will have on the scientific community (LaFollette 13).