I am a 31-year-old geek: an enthusiastic, unashamed fan of science. I own an antique voltmeter, proudly displayed among my collection of signed popular science books. I’d rather visit a famous scientist’s lab than go backstage at a Green Day concert.

I haven’t always been this way. In my early years of secondary school, the sciences, particularly physics, were the subjects I struggled with most. I remember hating biology and 'losing' my exercise book in an attempt to hide the fact that I hadn’t made notes in class for several weeks. I could never get my head around parallel and series circuits in physics, and my chemistry experiments never seemed to work the way the teacher said they should.

Luckily for me, everything changed with my GCSEs; I got two new teachers, Mr Clark and Mr York, who changed my attitude completely. They taught me that science was a way of thinking, not just a collection of facts and figures. They didn’t present me with 'truths' about the world but told me that they were teaching me about a working model. Most importantly, they taught me that science was an ongoing human endeavour, one that I could perhaps contribute to one day. My journey into geekdom began. I ended up doing a physics degree and became a physics teacher and then a professional 'science communicator' of sorts.

I came up with the idea of conducting this survey when I heard that 2005 would be World Year of Physics (Einstein Year in the UK) to mark the hundredth anniversary of what is probably the best known (but least understood) equation in history: E = mc². It was clear that there would be much singing and dancing in laboratories around the world to mark Einstein’s 'annus mirabilis' - but would the public join in? After all, in the UK we already have an annual 'science week' that seems to go unnoticed by anyone not in school. Science communicators like me started to think of ways to make sure that 'Einstein Year' would make some impact, as this was a huge opportunity to assimilate science into mainstream culture.

I knew that there would be numerous attempts to get the public to understand relativity. So far this year, there have been a number of attempts, from a series of short films on Channel 4 to magazine articles and public lectures. But I didn’t think that this was the best way to capitalise on the anniversary. People have been trying to get the public to understand relativity since it was first published and I’m not sure they’ve had a great deal of success. In any case, it’s such an esoteric piece of knowledge with little relevance to our everyday lives.

I wanted to use Einstein’s anniversary as an opportunity to get the public to appreciate some of the other important ideas in science. At a time when many TV producers and magazine editors would attempt to teach the world about Einstein and relativity, I wanted to ask scientists themselves: if they could teach the world one thing about science, what would it be? That is, if they could get the world to understand one concept or principle in science, what would they choose?

After leaving school, most people get their information about science from TV executives, journalists and publishers, many of whom have no real interest in science. Indeed, some of these people hold positively anti-science views and produce work that, in my opinion, is detrimental to the public perception of science. I have encountered senior figures on numerous TV science programmes who seemed to take a perverse pride in their ignorance of science.

Sure, there are examples of great science TV programmes and I’ve worked with many people whose work demonstrates that good science does not have to be sacrificed at the altar of entertainment. But science often seems to be an afterthought tacked on to 'human interest' stories. When I question why someone with little science education has been chosen to direct a high-profile science project, I often get the answer that if a non-scientist explains science to the public, they’ll do a better job because they have had to understand the material themselves. The trouble often is that they don’t; so the result ranges from being poorly researched to blatant misinformation. At a time when science education is facing a crisis, I wanted to find out what scientists thought the agenda for science communication should be.

I was delighted that spiked and NESTA (the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) thought that the survey was a good idea and agreed to help. But not everyone had been so positive. One high-profile science publication insisted that 'the scientists' answers might follow the somewhat discredited notion of science communication that the public is ignorant and need educating in order to understand science properly…. [M]any scientists are still quite patronising when it comes to science communication'. But I’d already had several responses to the survey and this did not seem to be the case.

A recent public poll showed that only 40 per cent of UK adults consider themselves 'well informed' about science. The recent MMR scandal would suggest that many people could do with more science education. If journalists reporting the story and the public both had had a better understanding of how science works, perhaps the whole sorry affair could have been avoided. Scientists are not being patronising when they say that the public needs educating about science. It is those 'science communicators' who deprecate scientists’ contribution to the public understanding of science who are being patronising.

Our society relies heavily on science and technology to maintain its way of life. We are regularly faced with choices that involve science, such as deciding on the best health treatment or the best environmental policy. Yet can we honestly say that science communication is working when the Kabbalah Centre sells overpriced water claiming that 'Quantum Resonance Technology' has imbued it with special powers, or when people like the prime minister’s wife Cherie Blair are apparently convinced of the healing powers of crystals?

'Popular' science often seems to be about instilling a sense of wonder about the natural world. From stunning films about the mysteries of space to getting children to make a film canister explode using baking powder and vinegar, this can generate enthusiasm for science. But it mustn’t stop there, because, as the great Carl Sagan wrote: 'if we teach only the findings and products of science – no matter how useful and even inspiring they may be – without communicating its critical method, how can the average person distinguish science from pseudoscience?'

In one of my films accompanying the survey, Mark Lythgoe says: 'I look at the world differently because of science.' For me, that’s the true wonder of science; it is a unique way of looking at the world that allows us to draw reliable conclusions about how things work. Science is a human cultural achievement as wonderful as the best music or the most beautiful art.

Einstein was one of the best things to happen to science - not just because he was responsible for a major paradigm shift, but because he is probably the only truly iconic figure to emerge from twentieth century science. When he was alive his company was sought by everyone from movie stars to politicians. The anniversary celebrations are a fantastic opportunity to carry on Einstein's legacy and bring science to a wider audience - not just so they can appreciate its achievements but also to properly equip them to question its findings. I hope that this project will go some way towards achieving this.