Ivory Embassy once set out to make science more accessible by addressing common scientific misconceptions. That focus has evolved to help communicators like you and me build more intentional, collaborative, and evidence-based science communication. And I could use your help.
Science communication’s main tasks are to explain science clearly, engage audiences, and strengthen informed thinking and decision-making. This responsibility should cover all types of science communication, including scientific and academic writing. But seeing as the field is so broad, with multiple forms, objectives, and forums, we tend to implement the communication tactics that feel right.
We need coherent and intentional approaches to our communication without restricting creativity. Ivory Embassy now invites science communicators and researchers to co-create articles, interviews, reviews, and reflections. We want to make science communication more thoughtful, grounded, and collaborative—more scientific.
A classic anecdote describes a rubber raft leaking water from all ends and a captain frantically trying to plug the holes one by one with fingers, feet, and other things. The captain never manages to plug them all at once, and we can imagine that the boat eventually submits to the forces of nature and sinks.
It’s a metaphor for inefficiency and overwhelm in situations where we can’t stop the problems from appearing.
The old Ivory Embassy wanted to plug those holes one by one by explaining scientific concepts and debunking misconceptions. Although excellent platforms have successfully become the go-to debunking resources, it’s an overwhelming task. Especially considering the amount of science to report on, all the debunking to do, and the fact that there’s only one of me (to some people’s delight).
The “new” Ivory Embassy
Over time, I realized that reactively plugging holes felt a bit like playing whack-a-mole on water, even with the best intentions. No matter how many leaks I patched, new ones appeared. What if the problem isn’t just the holes but something deeper—something structural?
The original anecdote shows the symptoms but not the cause or the means to address them sustainably. I’ll butcher the age-old story with your permission by adding some new elements. We’ll throw in a couple of co-captains with knowledge about the lake (the science communication landscape and its obstacles) and a willingness to exchange knowledge. We’ll give them reliable equipment to enter the water and remove the thorny branches rubbing against the boat, causing the leaking holes.
We all see where this shoehorned adjustment to the story is heading. The new Ivory Embassy wants to improve the deeper roots of the problem: it wants to solidify the methods and strategies that, when suboptimal, cause some of the holes in the first place.
This project won’t solve the deepest root causes of issues in science and society, which would require fixing society’s more systemic, deep-rooted issues, including how economic and political interests sometimes distort or exploit scientific research. But it’s one we can reach as science communicators and researchers, and one we can improve to create more sustainable, responsible, and intentional science communication.
Intentional science communication needs your support
In case I lost you in the metaphors:
- The raft represents the state of science communication or public understanding of science.
- The water represents the misconceptions or false information.
- Plugging holes symbolizes the debunking measures.
- The co-captains are collaborators, science communicators, and researchers.
- The equipment symbolizes the experience-based or evidence-based methods we use.
- The thorny branches represent the deep-rooted issues in science communication, science, and society that dent the understanding and trust in science.
Finally, the shift means that Ivory Embassy has slowly moved from reactive fixes to proactive system improvement. We can help the science communication field by combining evidence-based science communication with the real-world experience of communicators.
It’s a long-term investment to make science communication more scientific or empirical (based on real-world evidence and research), making our writing and presentations more intentional, evidence-based, and audience-focused. Intentional communication means being clear about what we want to achieve and choosing formats, tone, and content that support that goal. Evidence-based means using knowledge from communication research and our practice to guide decisions, not just doing what feels right.
Our communication shouldn’t rely on intuition or charisma alone. It should be something we can test, teach, and adapt. This approach allows science communicators to build on what works and modify what doesn’t. Just like evidence-based medicine—but without losing our creativity in the process.
Contribute to the website
What I need from you or your contacts is your contribution and investment. No, not money (although if you want to support this project financially, you can buy me a coffee here). I need experience-based and evidence-based perspectives from science communication researchers and practitioners of all levels.
I’m putting together a growing list of professionals open to sharing their knowledge, findings, and reflections on Ivory Embassy through short-format or long-format articles, interviews, feature articles, book reviews, and more.
What contributors get:
- A platform with a clear, intentional focus.
- Editorial guidance and one-to-one support throughout the process, especially helpful if you’re new to science communication.
- A chance to build your voice, portfolio, and credibility, even if you have a platform already.
- Exposure to a growing, engaged audience interested in evidence-based science communication.
- A chance to discuss science communication with peers and like-minded people.
Whether you’re a researcher or a communicator (early-career or more established) I’d love to hear from you.
