Science Communication

In 2007, David Ewing Duncan revealed a staggering statistic: a mere 28 percent of the population was considered scientifically literate, leaving 216 million Americans scientifically illiterate.

Science literacy is crucial for multiple reasons, as Sarah Sharman, PhD, from the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, states: “it equips us with the critical thinking skills necessary to evaluate and engage with science communications effectively, ensuring we make informed decisions and promote scientific understanding within our communities.” Being scientifically literate doesn’t just mean understanding basic scientific concepts—it’s about cultivating the ability to critically evaluate information, make informed decisions, and engage in discussions about scientific issues that impact our lives and society at large.

Even if science wasn’t your favorite subject in school, it is woven into every aspect of our daily lives, from the technology we use to the air we breathe. Whether we realize it or not, science is at the core of how we understand and interact with the world, influencing everything from how we communicate to our daily decisions. By embracing science, we gain the knowledge to make better decisions and improve our quality of life in ways we might not even realize.

However, scientific literacy extends beyond understanding facts and figures. It encompasses the ability to question, reason, and apply scientific knowledge in practical ways. This level of understanding is essential in an era when misinformation is rampant and the consequences of poor decision-making—whether it’s sowing doubt about vaccines or ignoring climate science—can be dire.

Fast forward nearly two decades from Duncan’s report, and the communication landscape has become even more complex. The rise of social media, the proliferation of online content, and the increasing accessibility of scientific knowledge have created a paradox: while more information is available than ever before, the challenge of distinguishing fact from fiction has never been greater. In this new era, where technological advancements are accelerating and misinformation is rampant, the question remains: how will science communication evolve to meet these challenges?

What is Science Communication?

At its core, science communication is the art of making complex scientific information accessible and engaging to a broad audience. According to UPenn, “Science communication involves taking technically complex scientific topics and crafting them into accessible, informative, and compelling content for specific audiences.”

Science communication is a relatively new field, primarily taking off in the 20th century. However, its roots can be traced back much further. According to a blog post by Research Outreach, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, science was primarily shared through exhibits, lectures, and journals. However, due to the socioeconomic, racial, and gender inequalities of the time, this knowledge was often limited to the circles of affluent, well-educated European men.

The 20th century brought about the rise of mass media, transforming how science was communicated. Newspapers, radio, and later television, helped bring scientific discoveries to a wider audience. Public institutions, museums, and science fairs also played a crucial role in making science more accessible to the general public. These platforms democratized access to scientific knowledge, though they also had their limitations in reaching diverse audiences.

The Role of Modern Science Communicators

The 21st century introduced science communicators to mainstream audiences, significantly shaping public understanding of science. Figures like Bill Nye, known as "The Science Guy," have been instrumental in sparking curiosity about science, particularly among younger audiences, with a focus on climate change and sustainability. His ability to simplify complex ideas and engagingly present them has made science approachable and exciting.

Similarly, Brian Cox, a British physicist, has made the mysteries of the universe accessible through his BBC documentaries, reaching millions globally. His work highlights the wonders of space and time, making even the most abstract concepts relatable to viewers. Emily Calandrelli, an MIT engineer, advocates for women in STEM through her Netflix show Emily’s Wonder Lab, inspiring a new generation of young girls to pursue science and engineering careers.

These communicators, each in their unique style, have excelled in making science both engaging and understandable for diverse audiences. However, as the role of science in society becomes more prominent, the task of communicating science grows increasingly challenging. Mark Balschweid, a professor at The University of Nebraska–Lincoln Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources (IANR), notes that “It is becoming increasingly difficult to discern between what is fake and what is real, so we need to communicate the science in ways the public can understand and have that information be timely and relevant to the decisions they have to make.”

The Rise of Distrust And Misinformation

Communicating science is about more than just translating technical terms into layman’s language. It’s about navigating the complexities of public perception, political interference, and societal values. For instance, the politicization of issues like climate change, vaccines, evolution, and social science research has made these topics highly contentious and difficult to communicate effectively. The interference of political rhetoric has turned these critical scientific issues into battlegrounds of ideology, making rational, fact-based discussions nearly impossible.

Misinformation has become one of the greatest threats to public understanding of science. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), several factors contribute to the growing distrust in science. These include:

• A public overwhelmed by too much information.
• Growing political and social polarization.
• Disinformation campaigns by governments, corporations, and other entities.
• A media environment that increasingly rewards outlandishness and outrage over accuracy.
• The increasing misinterpretation of scientific research by those not familiar with the field.

In addition to these external factors, there are more philosophical reasons for rejecting science. These include:

• Deeply held beliefs, attitudes, and values that conflict with scientific evidence.
• Information that comes from sources perceived as non-credible.
• Identification with fundamentally anti-science groups.
• Information that contradicts what individuals believe to be good, true, or valuable.
• Communication that conflicts with how people think about the world.

What Covid-19 Taught Us

In the World Economic Forum’s article, “What the pandemic has taught us about science communication,” the organization outlines the important lessons learned from the pandemic:

Importance of Clarity in Communication: Scientists and healthcare leaders must prioritize clear, jargon-free language when conveying scientific information to the public. Using complex terminology and making assumptions about the audience's knowledge level can lead to confusion and disengagement.

Role of Empathy in Communication: Effective communication is not just about delivering information but also about demonstrating empathy. Acknowledging the social and emotional impacts of public health measures, like social distancing and vaccination, can make the public feel heard and cared for, ultimately leading to greater public acceptance and compliance.

Transparency and Flexibility in Messaging: Scientists should be transparent about the evolving nature of scientific knowledge. Instead of making definitive statements prematurely, they should communicate the potential for guideline changes as new evidence emerges. This approach helps maintain public trust, reassuring our communities and fostering trust, even as recommendations evolve.

Avoiding the Curse of Knowledge: Scientists must recognize and overcome the "curse of knowledge," which is the cognitive bias that occurs when an individual, communicating with others, unknowingly assumes others have the background to understand. Simplifying complex information and avoiding technical jargon is essential for effective public communication. This understanding can help scientists bridge the gap between their knowledge and the public’s understanding.

Accepting and Communicating Uncertainty: It is important to communicate scientific findings, even in cases where there may be uncertainty or ambiguity. Research shows that people are more likely to trust and embrace information that acknowledges uncertainty, especially when presented using clear numerical ranges or other terms that are relatable or easy to comprehend.

The Dual Importance of Content and Delivery: How information is communicated is as important as the content itself. Clear and empathetic communication can help avert conflicts, foster trust, and ultimately save lives.

In the Harvard Magazine article, “Why Some Citizens Reject Science,” Naomi Oreskes, Henry Charles Lea Professor of the History of Science Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, highlights research suggesting that the most effective way to connect with science deniers is by engaging with their values. This approach involves finding common ground between the values of scientists and skeptics. For instance, a biologist and a climate change skeptic might value biodiversity, even if one sees it as a result of natural selection and the other as a product of divine creation. By recognizing these shared values, they may find common ground and agree on the need for action against climate change because it endangers something they both deeply care about.

AI’s impact on science communication

There was a time when the transition from paper to digital communication seemed like a major disruption. Now, AI is poised to disrupt science communication in even more profound ways. In an article for the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Carsten Könneker, an expert in science communication, notes that “AI is now involved at all levels of the scientific process” and is “fundamentally changing the way we generate and share knowledge.”

Könneker mentioned some of the ways AI can benefit the science communication process, including, summarizing specialist publications into “generally understandable” ways, converting texts into audio versions and even short-form video content for social media, creating greater educational equity and opportunity, and more. In short, AI can bring individualized content for people outside of the scientific landscape, ultimately increasing access.

That said, as more people have access to AI tools, he also explains why we are subject to risk. As an example, AI can hallucinate false information, and people can use the tools to promote a misinformed agenda. Ultimately, this can deepen the problem we are already facing with misinformation. It poses the questions: How do we ensure that AI-generated content is accurate and unbiased? How do we address the ethical concerns surrounding AI’s role in shaping public understanding?

The science communication field must grapple with these questions as AI becomes more integrated into the scientific process.

Conclusion

The challenges of science communication in the modern world are undeniable, but so too is its importance. In an era where misinformation can spread faster than facts, the role of effective science communication is more critical than ever. As we face global challenges like climate change, pandemics, and the ethical implications of AI, the need for a scientifically literate public becomes even more urgent. Science communicators, educators, and organizations must work together to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and public understanding, ensuring that accurate, reliable information is accessible to all.

The future of science communication will require innovation, empathy and a commitment to truth. Whether through engaging storytelling, the responsible use of AI, or finding common ground with skeptics, there are numerous pathways to improving how we share and understand science. As we move forward, it’s important to remember that science is not just for the experts—it’s for everyone. We can and must build a society that values scientific knowledge and uses it to make informed decisions for the betterment of all. As said by the beloved Bill Nye the Science Guy:

“Science is the key to our future, and if you don’t believe in science, then you’re holding everybody back.”

Organizations & Academic Programs Spearheading Science Literacy

• The University of Nebraska: Lincoln Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources (IANR)
• Stony Brook University: The Alan Alda Center for Science Communication
• Stony Brook University: Master of Science in Science Communication
• The University of California — Santa Cruz: Master of Science in Science Communication
• University of Wisconsin-Madison: Bachelor/Masters of Science in Life Sciences Communication, Ph.D. in Mass Communications: Life Sciences Communication
• The University of Texas at Austin: Science Communication Minor
• The University of California — San Diego: Science Communication Specialized Certificate
• University of Maryland: Science Communication Graduate Certificate
• Columbia University: Masters of Arts- Science Concentration
• Science Policy and Communication Graduate Fellows Program at Tulane University

Additional Reads

From Sputnik To Twitter, The History Of Science Communication by Reyhaneh Maktoufi

“Instead of yesteryear’s dry and dusty lectures, science communicators are creating new and exciting ways to engage with science.”

Brown University Science Center’s Quick Guide to Science Communication

Brown University Science Center’s Quick Guide to Science Communication offers detailed guidance on how to answer these questions and how to communicate successfully with a wide range of audiences about science.

Northeastern University 10 Tips for Effective Science Communication

Scientists and biotechnologists perform vital work in health, food production, and sustainability, but their complex, technical language often creates barriers in communicating the importance of their work to non-experts. Effective science communication requires tailoring messages to different audiences, avoiding jargon, and focusing on the broader impact to make scientific concepts accessible and relatable.

Superposition: Q&A with Maya Bello

Maya Bello is a science communicator by creating content that demystifies tech and STEM fields. In this Q&A, she shares her personal experiences and challenges, and provides guidance and encouragement to others, particularly those from underrepresented groups, thereby making STEM more accessible and relatable.