Unbiased Research and the Public's Perception

I found one interesting common thread that many of the articles touched upon was how science is portrayed to the public and media and how this creates both misrepresentations of what the data actually says and the pressure of scientists to live up to these misrepresentations.  Based on conversations I have had with family and friends who work outside of the world of science, I think that many of these people’s perceptions of biomedical research and the scientific process are far different from what actually happens.  Most picture that “eureka” moment where one mysterious, colorful liquid is dropped into another one and a miracle cure to a terrible disease is created.  As we all know, this is not what happens and very often not even the goal of a given project.  Media portrayals of exciting and important science that does emerge often use buzzwords like “miracle” and “breakthrough”, even when, as one the assigned articles stated, the effects of these drugs do not even have human data to back them up.  Marketing science this way puts pressure on researchers to produce results that can make headlines and inevitably introduces bias into what is supposed to be an objective process.  Would it be better, then, to give a more realistic portrayal to the lay public so that they have a better view of what good science really looks like?  Perhaps, but some of the public’s trust in science and the reason they see it as important comes from the idea that science provides grand, definitive solutions to serious medical problems.  Do you lose public trust and media interest from more accurately billing scientific discoveries as small, incremental steps that lead to a bigger picture? Can we trust the public to see that bigger picture (one that sometimes it is difficult even for the scientists to see)? I think it’s a tough, but important problem for the scientific community to address in the war for against biased research.