Since there's no requirement to get it out as public knowledge in a factual yet digestable manner (and I'd argue it would be counter-productive to require that), it doesn't move public support all that far unless people were already ok with it to begin with.
Well it depends. If the science is public-health based, then it needs to be in the public. I don't think a physicist really needs to publish his findings in an elementary format to joe schmoe farmer.. but, for example, even though we don't know what causes SIDS, the fact that we were noticing certain things kept it from happening was enough to say, "Hey, this needs to get out into the public." And unfortunately, a lot of stuff that really benefits the public does not. I can't imagine how many lives we saved because the scientists studying this said "Hey, lets try this" instead of keeping it to themselves until they knew more. I was surprised how many pediatric lives are really saved because there is so much more experimentation with pediatric patients than adult patients. You'd think it'd be the other way around. But turns out, surprise, adults are desperate to save the lives of their children and consent to things that turn out to work. Adults are less likely to do that with their own lives.
While I don't think it should be REQUIRED.. I do think there should be more access to scientific information. Even the abstracts, and conclusions written about studies are foreign to anyone who's never read a study. They're very complex and complicated and honestly you CAN summarize at least 80-90% of health-based and society-based studies in more laymen terms WITHOUT throwing bias in there. I think something that would benefit people that they could do is a very scholarly version of .. Oh .. Vines? Reddit? Something where you upvote things? Where you say "On the subject of vaccines being poison" you give studies a rating of A-F for their validation, the credentials of the people studying it, bias, the type of study, etc. and you show how many studies say Nay and Yay and both by overall conclusions, and you can see the list of EVERY study in each of those categories.. with some in laymen terms, and some with the whole format. I don't think the scientists themselves have to do this.. but it should be public information. People should be able to educate themselves.. and similar to how we don't say "Take this drug, trust us" and give them drug information to read on their terms instead of doctor terms.. we shouldn't just tell people "Eat My Plate and Stfu." We should show them the evidence we use to back that up. Let them read it themselves. Include third party studies, hospital studies, world studies, etc. etc. Many studies you don't even have access to.. and it's a shame, they're good studies.
This is why I'm bad with dealing with anti-vaccine individuals. I absolutely can not bring myself to discuss things in such a way that would sway them, or get some common ground. It's very frustrating.
Well the problem is there isn't a 'side' for this subject. There are for many subjects.. but not this one. Unfortunately, the science is far too strong. People can say the Earth is flat all day long, but science says they're just plain wrong. There is no 'flat-earth side' even though it seemed like there was. There were right people and a loooott of wrong people. Vaccines are one of the strongest sciences we have today in public health at least .. besides maybe wash your hands and germs exist.. there is no 'anti-vaccine' side. People sort of created it out of nothing. There are legitimate people that cannot get vaccines which is still covered under the umbrella of supporting vaccines. There just isn't a two-way street. Just people driving on the wrong side of the road for unfounded reasons.
Change is very, very difficult, and I am no stranger to it. I knee jerk react to almost every change I face.
I think most people do. Even when I CAUSED the change and I made it happen I STILL get frowny-faced about it.
"No, I'm getting out of the military and getting a civilian career. I liked my time, but its time to move on now."
'But now I totally want to still act like a Sgt and yell at people and complain that civilian life isn't army life. like i knew it wasn't...
'
This is an extremely astute observation, and it really shows the importance of this. It's been shown that science alone can only go so far to inform and sway the public at large as needed. We needed others with different skill sets that apply to communication to the public to help, and it's becoming very increasingly important.
Can you imagine if Food Babe was spreading the same truths rawfoodsos and sciencebasedmedicine were? If Forks over Knives was showing alternatives to government policies, to include raw food diets, on food vs unfounded and bad data to drive an emotional goal? We'd have an army of people spreading a wealth of truth instead of wasted passion and time.
The unfortunate thing about needing government/law/politics playing a roll in this is two fold: 1. usually those involved with the political side aren't properly informed, or lack the skills to be informed. 2. It's very, very slow to do anything. Otherwise, it's a needed force. Without something to make things work and be followed (because as pointed out, this stuff isn't readily believeable despite being true and provable), it won't be to the level required.
I prefer sticking with the optimistic "We can do this!" outlook for both of those reasons. Politicians, if the internet fiasco recently was any indication, have no clue wtf is going on in the world around them or how things truly work. I wish, more than anything, a panel of REAL experts NOT paid by the government would be allowed to volunteer for educating politicians about things they have to vote about. I wish politicians were required to go to seminars about subjects they have to make votes on. People need to be truly informed with decision making.. and politicians fall sadly short much of the time. And don't get me started on the media. ugh.
Not an easy thing to do my friend. 
