Q&A with Sarah Goodwin

What’s the founding mission of the Science Communication Lab? And what do you do?

The mission of the Science Communication Lab is to connect with the public and educational communities around what science is and why it matters. We do this through high-quality documentary films and engaging with audiences, exploring what science is really about, sharing scientists' stories, and showing how it impacts society.

It all started back in 2006 when UCSF Professor Ron Vale founded what was then called iBiology. The idea was simple: feature top scientists, record their lectures, and make them available online for free. This was pretty early in the world of online education, but with seed money from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and a grant from the National Science Foundation, we were able to grow a great library of talks.

In 2015, we decided to shift gears and move toward more cinematic storytelling, experimenting with new production techniques. Since then, we’ve released numerous short films, educational resources, and professional development tools for educators and early-career scientists. Our first feature-length documentary, Human Nature (2019), which examined CRISPR and gene editing, won multiple awards and was nominated for three Emmys. Now, we’re working on several more cinematic shorts and feature films, with some exciting projects in the pipeline.

What inspired you to join The Science Communication Lab, and what has been your journey with the organization?

I was a graduate student in Ron Vale’s lab when he started iBiology. At the time, I was really interested in science education and curious about how videos could be used in the classroom to help illustrate science. While finishing up my PhD, I volunteered to help Ron with the project, conducting a few interviews for a short iBiology series he was working on, and assisting with project management.

When I graduated in 2011, Ron asked if I wanted to join the project full-time for a year, instead of immediately starting my planned postdoc. I thought it would be a great chance to try something different while still staying connected to science. In the end, I chose to stay on board. At the time, I was the only full-time employee, but now we’ve grown into a team of 12 staff and numerous collaborators, with people from all kinds of backgrounds—film, various science disciplines, social scientists and more. We've all evolved into science communicators who are passionate about showing how science works and why it matters to both public and educational audiences.

What inspired you to leverage film as a vehicle for science communication?

Film is such a powerful way to tell stories. It's immersive—you can show people and places, let others speak in their own words, and really capture emotion. It can create a shared viewing experience. Our team brings all of these elements into the science stories we tell. With film, we can see and hear directly from scientists and others in the community. It helps us craft their stories, showing not just the science itself, but the process and the people behind it. We can include multiple perspectives, highlight personalities and backgrounds, and bring more emotion into these stories.

Film also creates great opportunities for public engagement. People can watch together, then dive into a panel discussion or Q&A afterward, making the experience even more impactful. In classrooms, educators can use film to spark discussions and get students thinking more deeply.

On a personal level, using film to communicate science ties in perfectly with my love for visual media. I was really into photography growing up, and an animated video about the protein kinesin in one of my college courses actually motivated me to join the lab where I did my PhD. During my PhD, I spent a lot of time looking at fluourescently labeled proteins under a microscope and creating visually striking images. All of these experiences have definitely influenced my passion for working with film today.

How do you feel that film uniquely shares stories about the people behind the latest and greatest science and innovations compared to other mediums?

Film really draws people into the story. It lets us use animations to visually explain challenging science concepts, film in the lab or the field, add archival footage, music, and bring in multiple voices and perspectives. The audience gets to actually see and hear from the people we feature, which makes the experience more personal. With film, we can dive into things that are harder to convey in other formats—like the nature of science.

While film production can be expensive, it has the advantage of scalability. One film can be shown over and over in different contexts, which makes it especially valuable. These stories remain relevant even as science advances, and they often show how scientific knowledge builds over time with contributions from many different fields.

Plus, film is a really popular way to consume information right now. We hope our films reach people who are curious about science, but just as importantly, we want to connect with those who might think science isn’t for them.

The Wonder Collaborative is The Science Communication Lab’s feature film unit. How do you ensure that complex scientific concepts are accurately yet understandably communicated to diverse audiences?

Our approach varies with each project, but accuracy is always our top priority. For our short films, we do a lot of research—reading scientific papers, having the people in the film review the content for accuracy, and even getting “peer reviews” from other scientists. For feature-length films, the process is similar but on a larger scale. We still do the research and reviews, but we also conduct long, in-depth interviews, sometimes lasting hours. Even though only a small portion of those interviews might make it into the final cut, the depth of those conversations helps ensure we cover the topics thoroughly and accurately.

When it comes to making the information clear and engaging for audiences, that's where our filmmaking team really shines. We’ve got talented directors, editors, animators, and cinematographers who are great at taking complex content and presenting it in a way that’s easy to understand and visually compelling. The PhD-trained scientists on our team play a big role in the review process, making sure the science is both clear and accurate.

How do you tailor your communication strategies to different audience segments, such as children, adults, or professionals?

While we often have a specific audience in mind for our content, we also believe our films can resonate with a much larger audience than we initially plan for. Right now, we primarily think about two main groups: the general public, which is quite broad, and educational audiences, particularly high school and undergraduate students. For the public, we look for science stories that we believe will capture wide interest, whether it's because of the scientist we feature or the topic itself. We also consider the kinds of conversations these films might inspire. Within our team, we brainstorm ideas and consult trusted advisors. A key part of our approach is letting the scientists speak for themselves, exploring the nature of science, and avoiding "dumbing down" the content. Instead, we work hard to ensure the science is accurate and understandable.

For educational audiences, we spend a lot of time talking with teachers about areas in their curricula where they think a film could really help, especially for topics that are complicated to teach or where students often have misconceptions. When making films for these audiences, we collaborate closely with educators to make sure we're addressing key learning objectives and clarifying tricky concepts. We also work with them to create classroom materials to accompany the films, giving students activities to engage with after watching.

Additionally, we've partnered with talented science communication researchers who help us think through questions about science identity, how people understand the nature of science, and how to best meet our goals for each film. Their expertise brings valuable insights to our process.

From your perspective, what are some of the most impactful feature-length documentaries you’ve worked on, and what made them successful?

I’m still relatively early in my journey producing feature-length documentaries. I first started with Human Nature, which came out in 2019, and I am an Executive Producer on our upcoming film Observer, set to release in 2025. We also supported Picture a Scientist, which was released in 2020, and are currently developing three other features with some incredibly talented filmmakers. One thing I’ve learned for certain is that making feature-length documentaries takes a lot of time and a lot of support.

Our approach to filmmaking treats each project as an experiment in storytelling—exploring how we can convey the complexity of science in ways that engage and resonate with hopefully a wide variety of audiences. In Human Nature, we focused on CRISPR, the groundbreaking gene-editing technology with far-reaching societal implications. Our goal was to delve deeply into the science, making it accessible to a general audience, while also fostering a thoughtful and responsible dialogue about its impact on humanity. By telling this story, we aimed to illuminate not just the workings of CRISPR, but also the broader process of scientific discovery.

The overwhelmingly positive response from both scientists and the public affirmed that it's possible to present scientific complexity without losing the audience. We also found that when presenting the societal implications of science, people appreciate being trusted to navigate complexity and draw their own informed conclusions.

Picture a Scientist followed three women scientists, shedding light on the challenges and discrimination they faced throughout their careers due to their gender. These individual narratives were enriched by an exploration of the history of women in STEM and social science research into conscious and unconscious bias. With its carefully balanced and nuanced storytelling, the film exposed ugly truths without being polemical. This thoughtful approach ensured that audiences did not retreat into defensive corners, and the response from the scientific community — across divides of gender, age, and career stage — was overwhelmingly positive. It also provided viewers from differing viewpoints a meaningful starting point for deeper and more honest conversations about gender discrimination.

We approach the goal of measuring impact from a variety of perspectives. Some markers of success are easier to quantify—like Human Nature and Picture a Scientist both being nominated for Outstanding Science and Technology Documentary Emmy Awards. Both films were licensed by Netflix and PBS NOVA, and they won AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Awards. Human Nature also had two other Emmy nominations, was a duPont-Columbia Award finalist, and received great reviews in places like The New York Times, Variety, and The Washington Post.

But other impacts are harder to measure. For example, Picture a Scientist has had over 2,000 community screenings, many of which included panels and discussions. The film is being used in trainings across numerous scientific institutions. We know that is having an impact, but what can we measure? How do you quantify when a film changes someone’s perspective or inspires them to chart a new career path? And how do you capture the depth of the conversations people have after seeing a film?

We’re collaborating with science communication researchers to better understand how our films influence audiences' understanding of science, their trust in it, and their sense of connection to it, among other outcomes. Together, these insights help us form a clearer picture of the impact our films have. But honestly, it’s a challenge that content creators everywhere grapple with—determining how to truly measure the difference their work makes.

You were a 2023 recipient of the Schmidt Awards for Excellence in Science Communications for the films, Fire Among Giants, Tshaka Cunningham: Finding Faith in Science, and The CRISPR Apostle: Rodolphe Barrangou. What has been the most surprising or rewarding feedback you’ve received about all or any of these documentaries?

I think what really resonated with people about those films was how they showcased both science and the scientists behind it. Each film holds a special place for me for different reasons. Fire Among Giants explored Big Basin Redwoods State Park after the 2020 fire, and since I was living in the Bay Area at the time, I remember how emotional that period was. It was powerful to bring people into that forest and hear from individuals with different perspectives on the roles of wildfire in our environment.

Finding Faith in Science and The CRISPR Apostle came from content that didn’t make it into Human Nature, but by creating short films from this content we were able to dive into their stories more deeply. Both films focused on a single scientist—Dr. Tshaka Cunningham in Finding Faith and Dr. Rodolphe Barrangou in CRISPR Apostle. I think people really appreciated getting to know these scientists more personally, seeing their personalities and learning about what drives them. Finding Faith is a more personal story, while CRISPR Apostle digs into the process of discovering something new about biology.

Winning the award was especially meaningful to me because it validated the importance of using films to communicate science and highlighted the Science Communication Lab’s approach to storytelling. It’s also been such an honor to connect and collaborate with other inspiring awardees who are innovating in science communication.

What are some of the biggest challenges you face in science communication today?

Making films is expensive and requires a big upfront investment, which can be tough in today’s funding landscape. Even though science films have a lot of value—especially since they can reach large audiences for years after they’re made—it’s not always easy to secure the funding needed to get them off the ground.

We’ve been fortunate to receive funding from organizations like the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and private foundations, but fundraising is still a challenge. Despite the recognition we’ve received, some projects have struggled to get the necessary resources. Part of this is due to how the media landscape is shifting, with streaming services and platform consolidation changing how people value content.

Navigating these changes can be tricky, especially as people’s habits around content consumption evolve. We’ve even had conversations about whether we should be on platforms like TikTok, but that doesn’t really align with our current approach to science storytelling. Our content achieves different goals, ones that we believe are incredibly important. But it’s still a challenge to show the full impact of our work and demonstrate its value in this rapidly changing media world.

I also think science filmmaking can feel isolating, especially for independent filmmakers who are trying to piece together funding and resources. It’s hard to push a project forward when you’re passionate about it but don’t have a strong support system or team behind you. Everyone’s doing their best to create content that matters, but it can be an uphill battle.

What role do emerging technologies (like virtual reality, AI, etc.) play in the future of science communication?

That’s a tough question! Only time will tell. When it comes to technologies like virtual reality (VR), I can see some benefits. VR can immerse people in places they’d never be able to visit otherwise, and I know some companies are creating VR lab experiences for those who can’t physically be in a lab. But I really hope VR doesn’t end up completely replacing the in-person opportunities that exist today.

As for AI in science communication, it’s a tricky thing to wrap your head around. AI could make certain aspects more efficient, like helping with writing. It could solve that “blank page” problem and give you something to start with, suggest sources to explore, or even help tighten up a wandering paragraph. But it’s also very unsettling to think about AI replacing humans in creating content, and that opens up a lot of potential problems we’re only beginning to understand.

In film, AI could help with finding science stories or even digging deeper into the science itself. But it’s also being used to generate images, which makes it harder to know what’s real and what’s not. Who knows where it’s all heading, but I think it will be more important than ever to find trustworthy sources of information.

What advice would you give to aspiring documentary filmmakers, especially those interested in science topics?

The first thing I’d say is that there are so many amazing and exciting stories in science. Brilliant people are working across all sorts of fields, and not all of them would even consider themselves “scientists.” There’s really no shortage of incredible narratives or inspiring people to learn about.

For anyone interested in moving from academia into science communication, my biggest piece of advice is to find ways to get hands-on experience. Start a blog, try podcasting or video creation, or see if your academic institution’s press office has opportunities to write articles. There are also specific programs designed to help people, especially those with a Master’s or PhD, make the leap into science communication. For example, UC Santa Cruz has a fantastic Master’s program in this field. The AAAS also offers a summer internship where you can work with news outlets, radio stations, or organizations like the National Academy of Sciences to gain real-world experience.

I always encourage people to explore different media and see what resonates with them. There are so many platforms to work with right now. Some people ask whether you need a PhD to get into science communication, and the answer is no, absolutely not. Plenty of people without PhDs have honed their skills and become great journalists, podcasters, and storytellers in the science world. The key is to find what you’re passionate about. The media landscape is changing fast, and while it’s hard to predict what’s next, there’s a whole community of people in science communication who are excited to help and support anyone looking to get into this space.