I will get straight to the point and say that science communication needs refurbishing to keep it from becoming too superficial; we must gear up. I’m not trying to ruff any feathers or put science communicators down, but it needs to be said, and we should be okay with that.
Let’s objectively analyze the state of science communication and how it relates to scientific research. We should clearly see that our field benefits from keeping up with crucial elements of science. Although we communicate about science, we don’t always approach science communication scientifically, which we should. Neglecting the scientific aspects reduces the perception, reputation, and public-engaging values of science communication and, as a result, public trust in science. But I’ll share the silver lining in all this: we can make science communication more scientific by learning from the club theory, similar to a swimming club or math club, but for science communicators.
Most of us started communicating science to satisfy two needs: a self-indulgent need and an altruistic need.
On the one hand, science communication is a passion. As we round up our study or research projects, we might glance at our social media stream covered with smiling science communicators and think, “I can do that.” It looks fun and refreshing and can add our name to the imaginary Hall of Fame of Science. We might imagine ourselves featuring renowned science podcasts or articles, discussing what we love the most: Science.
We also realize our privileged state in the scientific discourse and want to help people understand or see what we know about science. Throughout our scientific journey, the public’s all-too-prevalent misconceptions baffle us, and we feel responsible for sharing our research or knowledge with the world. We want to engage, intrigue, and have them experience that belly tingling we feel when we think about science.
The self-indulgent need is the strongest force in us at first, and we engage with the styles we align to, whether starting a blog, TikTok account, or podcast. We describe our favorite research topic, protein reaction, physics theory, or global warming highlight.
But at some point, we should realize our intentions with our communication project, asking ourselves until-now hidden questions, becoming increasingly relevant as we proceed, “What’s the point of it all? Why am I communicating science?”
We do it for the public
If we communicate science for fun, to describe our favorite scientific topic, then we can keep doing what we do and set aside this post (maybe for later)—it’s an entirely valid and respectable choice.
However, if we want to engage our audiences to participate and develop scientific literacy in society, we’ll eventually have to ask ourselves if our means fulfill our objectives.
Science communication is challenging and complex. It’s a science that benefits from being treated as a science. But what does that mean? Once we start digging through the nuances in the science of science communication, we find that there’s more to it than simplifying and storytelling.
For example, in an essay on the science of science communication, Dr. Dan Kahan highlights that scientific literacy and critical thinking don’t necessarily lead to more objectivity on issues like climate change. Climate change is a controversial topic and polarizes people into two main camps, which is why Kahan emphasizes the topic. His takes may be debatable and require more nuances, but he sets straight the common belief that the “other camp” is unreasonable or ignorant. Regardless of our camp, we adapt our understanding of the empirical evidence based on our identity-defining affinity group (our camp), specifically on polarizing issues.
A more recent study compared the effects of infotainment (humorous storytelling) and expository (documentary narrative) science communication on participants and found that infotainment can reduce the perceived seriousness of an issue. The study concluded that infotainment effectively informed people about science, particularly an audience lacking a university education. But, expository science communication worked better as a narrative to affect attitudes and persuade the public, for example, about global warming.
How to treat science more scientifically
If it feels like some of the arguments above contradict my mission of enhancing scientific literacy, it’s because they kind of do—and don’t. These questions are filled with nuances and depend on context. And that’s the entire point of treating science communication more scientifically.
If science communication is a science, how do we treat it as such? A handful of aspects of science can help to highlight how:
Adaptable approaches
Each aspect of science constantly moves, from the micro level (methods and materials) to the macro level (paradigms). A new, more efficient method replaces the old, and a scientific revolution creates space for a new way of thinking about a concept or field. We find similar dynamics in science communication, where improvements to our understanding and application of science communication finetune the field over time (like in the two examples above).
Contradictions and paradoxes
In the early 20th century, physicists debated whether light was a particle or a wave. The most famous debates on quantum mechanics occurred between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, including discussions on wave-particle duality and the nature of reality. Bohr argued that quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic and that particles can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like properties depending on the experimental setup. Einstein was skeptical that quantum mechanics provided a complete description of reality and believed that an underlying deterministic theory might eventually replace it. Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation became the dominant view and helped shape modern quantum mechanics, though alternative interpretations still exist. Despite their professional disagreements, they remained friends and admired each other.
Scientific contradictions are common since we approach problems from different perspectives, use different experimental conditions, and interpret the results differently for one reason or another. They’re even necessary for scientific progress.
Science communicators should be comfortable considering different arguments and conclusions—even when these challenge the dominating narrative. We can acknowledge that seemingly contracting conclusions may describe unique conditions of the same problem or a relevant part of a nuanced issue. For example, someone who questions vaccine mandates may still support their effectiveness and importance.
Collaboration and opposition
Apart from the collaborative scientific ecosystem, a constant flood of healthy skepticism advances the research by forcing scientists to question potential flaws or weaknesses. Scientists discuss these limitations, often critiquing methodologies or interpretations, during peer-reviewing, journal clubs, conferences, and editorial articles. It’s a ruthless environment that can break the ego of any researcher but, importantly, creates more decisive conclusions. It’s okay to disagree on topics as long as we keep the discussions respectful.
Science—and science communication—stagnates without vigilant, challenging (yet collaborative) voices. Without challenging ideas, we continue spinning our wheels and fail to engage our audience.
The question is how we can implement these scientific aspects into science communication, especially as we work independently and, sometimes, isolated from other communicators. How do we keep up with the advances in communication while maintaining deadlines? How can we enhance the quality of science communication? What can we do to make science communication more scientific?
A club to make science communication scientific
The scientific environment maintains evidence-based adaptability based on constant interactions and accountability. As science communicators, we benefit from spaces where we help each other grow and improve our audience’s engagement. This space can include different types of communicators, experience levels, scientific themes, and targeted audiences but with a common objective: to invest in science communication. I hypothesize that this investment will enhance science communication’s quality, reputation, and the public’s trust in the scientific consensus.
I recently started publishing videos and blog posts on democratizing open-access publishing models. While researching different models, I found a review suggesting a knowledge club would rescue knowledge dissemination from a crisis in scholarly publishing (and quality journalism). The authors propose a model where members (researchers) form groups to share resources and confer benefits on each other while managing congestion and competition for publication space through exclusivity. This model emphasizes reciprocity, ensuring that members contribute to and benefit from the collective knowledge.
I believe this model is limited and counterproductive for academic publishing. I won’t go into the details here, but I clarify the concept and my thoughts in another piece about the topic. However, an interdisciplinary science communication club can benefit science communicators who want support from others through peer-reviewing, courses, seminars, workshops, journal clubs, and collaborations.
The club would be an open space for communicators to discuss and enhance science communication individually and at a societal level. It would enable us to invest in science communication to gain the reputation it deserves. Apart from reporting science, we can engage ourselves and the public in science-related discussions and decision-making when they matter to us.
At the beginning of this post, I said I didn’t want to ruff any feathers—I probably did—but that it should be okay and even vital to criticize our field. I hope I’ve managed to clarify why. We improve and advance the field by focusing on existing problems that stagnate the field. We don’t always have to agree, but we can always learn from each other.
If you want to keep learning about improving science communication and engagement, I invite you to follow this website. I’ve also started a LinkedIn group where I hope members motivate each other to learn and share questions and ideas about science communication. Subscribe to my newsletter (see right sidebar) if you want updates on my posts, videos, and ideas.
