Q&A with Sarah Goodwin

What’s the founding mission of the science communication lab? And what do you do?

The Science Communication Lab's mission is to make short and feature-length documentaries about science. Our goal is to feature innovations in science, scientists, the process of science, and how science is a human endeavor – and we convey this through the power of visual storytelling.

The Science Communication Lab started off as iBiology in 2006. The goal of iBiology was to feature scientists who were at the top of their field, record them giving something that was very similar to a university lecture, and put it online for free.

We were among the first to put educational content online. Once people saw what we were doing, we were able to get seed money from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. We also got a grant from the National Science Foundation, who helped distribute the recorded talks for free so we could grow our library. In 2015, we decided to pivot to more cinematic filmmaking and started experimenting with production.

I come from the science world and received my PhD in cell biology. I was working in a lab when I joined iBiology in the interest of making science information more accessible and today, I'm the Executive Director of Science Communication Lab.

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

I joined as a graduate student and helped with a project while I was getting my PhD. When I graduated, I joined full-time, and at first, I was the only full-time worker here. Now, we’re a team of 12. We’re from all different backgrounds, including film and different science disciplines. We’ve all morphed into science communicators who have deep insight into how and why science works, allowing us to reach various audiences.

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

I’ve always been a visual person and had an interest in photography when I was growing up. Later, I studied cell biology and I spent a lot of my time looking at cells through a microscope trying to understand how they changed under different conditions. One of the reasons I joined the lab I did was because of a short animated video of a motor protein called a kinesin that walks along these little microtubule ropes. It blew my mind how the animation brought science to life. I was so excited about it that my parents still remember me trying to describe these little proteins walking around inside cells.

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

I think there's a lot of interest in science out there, but when cinematic elements are brought in, they capture the interest of people who might not think science is for them, just through being more engaged and immersed in the story. Animation allows us to do this, as well as music, but showing scientists in the lab, their experiments, and the people around them has enabled us to cater to different modes of learning, expand the kinds of films we’re able to make, and the audiences we can reach.

At its core, science is collaborative so the opportunity to feature multiple voices, perspectives, and experiences is also something that differentiates film from other mediums. Further, films can cover barriers to entry like the high costs and the meritocracy often associated with science.

Though expensive, film production also offers significant scalability, as a single film can be used repeatedly in various contexts. This is particularly valuable for evergreen materials, like science stories, which remain relevant despite ongoing scientific advancements. These stories often highlight the collaborative and cumulative nature of scientific knowledge, showcasing the contributions from multiple fields of inquiry.

The Wonder Collective 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 depending on the project, but we prioritize accuracy and skilled editing across all our work. For instance, our short films benefit from the input of talented editors committed to scientific accuracy, ample research and reading of scientific papers, and seeking “peer reviews” from other scientists. For feature-length films, ​​the process is similar yet more extensive. For these films, we conduct extensive interviews with scientists, sometimes lasting hours, to gather comprehensive information from multiple angles. Even if only a fraction of this makes it into the final film, the depth of the interviews ensures we cover the topics thoroughly and accurately.

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

Regardless of the film at hand, we’re always thinking about how to best appeal to our target audience. For instance, in developing classroom content, our goal is to spark their interest in science. We’re not necessarily trying to turn them into scientists, but we want to engage them in the subject.

We spend considerable time discussing with educators how they use films, the ideal film length, and the challenging topics to convey through traditional teaching methods in order to make our classroom content the best it can be. For all of us at Science Communication Lab, the power of film lies in its ability to start rich conversations. Films serve as excellent conversation starters, which is particularly valuable in education but applies to our adult and professional audiences as well. We've recently begun collaborating with social scientists who specialize in science communication.

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

I'd say I'm very early in my feature-length documentary journey, however, Human Nature was our first documentary, and Picture a Scientist was the second, both of which had different impacts. Currently, we are working on our third and fourth feature-length documentaries, one of which will come out in 2025. I think the goal of our films is to showcase that observation is something we all can do, and try to connect people with science through the power of observation. As a result, I think that our films have the potential to bring in wider audiences and prompt them to think about how we see the world and how we live in it. We try to pick topics that we feel haven't been done before but really can highlight, you know, the nature of science, how science is done, science, identity, all of those topics are really important to us.

For impact, it's a little bit vague, but there are so many different ways you can measure the impact of a film, and I think that's a bit of a challenge that a lot of media is facing right now in this world of streaming and consolidation of platforms. For example, how do you measure the impact of a film like Picture a Scientist which sparks conversations and influences people in ways that are hard to quantify? Similarly, a small video in a college cell biology class might inspire someone to pursue a career in science, but how do you measure that impact?

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?

In terms of feedback, I think what's been equally surprising and rewarding are the people who have come to our organization to ask for advice or introduce a project that they're really excited about stemming from their appreciation of our work. The ability to advise people or connect people through my network, or my colleagues' networks, has been very rewarding.

On the award front, it’s been incredible to connect with other professionals who won these awards and are doing amazing and innovative things in the science communication space. Winning the National Academy of Sciences award was particularly meaningful to me. It validated the importance of using science films as a medium for science communication and highlighted our approach at the Science Communication Lab to telling science stories. Additionally, it allowed me to connect with other professionals who won similar awards, all of whom are doing amazing work in the science communication space.

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

The challenging thing about filmmaking and science communication is that there's no established network of people in this field. While there is a National Association of Science Writing and perhaps more structure in the writing and journalism space, for science filmmakers, there's no centralized place or organization. Sure, there are science film festivals and events focused on science and film, but it's still a bit fragmented.

I wish there were more ways to foster these connections. Often, when people reach out to us to make a film, it can feel isolating, especially for independent filmmakers trying to piece together funding and resources. It's tough to drive a project forward when you're passionate about it but lack the support of a team. Films, particularly, are expensive and require significant investment, which can be challenging in the current funding landscape. Despite the value that science films can bring, it can be difficult to secure funding, and our organization has faced these challenges as well.

While we've been fortunate to receive funding from sources like the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and private foundations, fundraising remains tough. Even with the awards and recognition we've received, some projects have faced surprising difficulties in securing the necessary resources. This is partly due to the evolving media landscape, where streaming and platform consolidation have changed the way people value content.

Navigating this media landscape is challenging, especially as content consumption habits change. We've had discussions about whether we should be on platforms like TikTok, but that’s not what we do. We're in a different media space, and we believe in sticking to that because we think it's important. However, proving the impact of our work and demonstrating its value remains a challenge in this ever-changing world of media.

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

I think virtual reality has a lot of potential for giving people the experience of doing science without needing to be in an actual lab. In education, especially, there's been a lot of work showing that real lab experiences are a huge driver of someone's interest in science and their belief that they can be a scientist. These types of virtual experiences are exciting.

The role of AI in the future of science communication is challenging because it will make it harder to distinguish what is real and what isn’t. At the Science Communication Lab, we've had conversations about the challenges of AI and how its advancement is worrisome. In filmmaking, people have developed talents over time that should be valued and not eclipsed in the face of innovation, particularly in fields like animation and design.

Further, I think it will become increasingly important to identify trustworthy sources of information. In Human Nature, we earned long interviews with scientists because of our reputation for highlighting science accurately. We're a nonprofit committed to spreading knowledge, which helped us gain the trust of these scientists.

Looking ahead, I hope that the Science Communication Lab continues to be a place where people can trust that the content is truthful and hasn't been manipulated.

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, and so many incredible people operating in this space – and it isn’t limited just to academia; there are brilliant scientists and individuals involved in science who may not even be labeled as scientists, working across various fields. There are countless stories to be told and no shortage of fascinating narratives or people to learn about.

Another point I'd make is for those interested in transitioning into science communication. My biggest piece of advice for them is to seek out opportunities to gain experience. This could involve starting a blog, experimenting with podcasting, or engaging with the press office at their academic institution to see if there are opportunities to write articles. There are also specific programs available, particularly for those with a master's or PhD, that facilitate a transition into science communication. For example, the University of California, Santa Cruz, offers an excellent master’s program in this field. Additionally, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has a summer internship in science communication, where participants are placed with news institutions, radio stations, or organizations like the National Academy of Sciences to gain hands-on experience.

I encourage people to explore different forms of media to see what resonates with them. There are so many options right now, and it's important to find what fits. Some people ask whether they need a PhD to do science communication, and the answer is no, you don’t. However, bringing together individuals with different expertise and those who have honed their storytelling or journalism skills can lead to great collaborations. That said, you definitely don’t need a PhD or a Master’s to tell compelling stories about science. There are many examples of individuals who have worked hard on their craft and have become excellent journalists, podcasters, or storytellers in the science domain.

More than anything, finding what you're passionate about is key. The media landscape is changing rapidly, and it’s hard to predict what the future holds, but there are passionate people in science communication who are eager to help those interested in exploring careers in this space.