Why can’t academics write so nonacademics can understand? In this day of people turning away from science, we better figure it out. We do have our jargon and expectations for stating things with less than total certainty. It turns out this is important because uncertainty is the state of things and offering the impression that there are no questions yet to be asked is dishonest. Still, people have a right to complain.
Scientific writing is not going away and if what are being referenced by those who complain is to scholarly journals the existing approach to expression probably has much to recommend it. Journals are for communicating with peers doing similar work. What annoys me is that scientists are kind of discouraged from writing in other styles. I know that my interest in writing textbooks was not given the same attention among colleagues as the frequency of my journal articles.
I think scientists have been shaped by the reward structure that is the basis for our reputations and pay. Grants and publications rule. Teaching and public communication are appreciated, but certainly not at the same level. Some effort to explain your work to the public could certainly be required if institutions decided it was important. Writing textbooks and even blogs to offer explanations and applications could do a lot to change public perception.