importance of science communication essay

Science communication is more important than ever. Here are 3 lessons from around the world on what makes it work

Visiting fellow, Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University

Professor, Australian National University

Disclosure statement

Joan Leach receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Toss Gascoigne does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Australian National University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

It’s a challenging time to be a science communicator. The current pandemic, climate crisis, and concerns over new technologies from artificial intelligence to genetic modification by CRISPR demand public accountability, clear discussion and the ability to disagree in public.

However, science communication is not new to challenge. The 20th century can be read as a long argument for science communication in the interest of the public good.

Since the Second World War, there have been many efforts to negotiate a social contract between science and civil society. In the West, part of that negotiation has emphasised the distribution of scientific knowledge. But how is the relationship between science and society formulated around the globe?

We collected stories from 39 countries together into a book, Communicating Science: A Global Perspective , to understand how science communication has unfolded internationally. Globally it has played a key role in public health, environmental protection and agriculture.

Three key ideas emerge: community knowledge is a powerful context; successful science communication is integrated with other beliefs; and there is an expectation that researchers will contribute to the development of society.

Read more: Three key drivers of good messaging in a time of crisis: expertise, empathy and timing

What is science communication?

The term “science communication” is not universal. For 50 years, what is called “science communication” in Australia has had different names in other countries: “science popularisation”, “public understanding”, “vulgarisation”, “public understanding of science”, and the cultivation of a “scientific temper”.

Colombia uses the term “the social appropriation of science and technology”. This definition underscores that scientific knowledge is transformed through social interaction.

Each definition delivers insights into how science and society are positioned. Is science imagined as part of society? Is science held in high esteem? Does association with social issues lessen or strengthen the perception of science?

Read more: Engaging the disengaged with science

Governments play a variety of roles in the stories we collected. The 1970s German government stood back , perhaps recalling the unsavoury relationship between Nazi propaganda and science. Private foundations filled the gap by funding ambitious programs to train science journalists. In the United States, the absence of a strong central agency encouraged diversity in a field described variously as “vibrant”, “jostling” or “cacophonous”.

The United Kingdom is the opposite, providing one of the best-documented stories in this field. This is exemplified by the Royal Society’s Bodmer Report in 1985, which argued that scientists should consider it their duty to communicate their work to their fellow citizens.

Russia saw a state-driven focus on science through the communist years, to modernise and industrialise. In 1990 the Knowledge Society’s weekly science newspaper Argumenty i Fakty had the highest weekly circulation of any newspaper in the world: 33.5 million copies. But the collapse of the Soviet Union showed how fragile these scientific views were, as people turned to mysticism.

Many national accounts refer to the relationship between indigenous knowledge and Western science. Aotearoa New Zealand is managing this well (there’s a clue in the name), with its focus on mātauranga (Māori knowledge). The integration has not always been smooth sailing, but Māori views are now incorporated into nationwide science funding, research practice and public engagement.

Ecologist John Perrott points out that Māori “belonging” (I belong, therefore I am) is at odds with Western scientific training (I think, therefore I am). In Māori whakapapa (genealogy and cosmology), relationships with the land, flora and fauna are fundamental and all life is valued, as are collaboration and nurturing.

Science communication in the Global South

Eighteen countries contributing to the book have a recent colonial history, and many are from the Global South. They saw the end of colonial rule as an opportunity to embrace science. As Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah said in 1963 to a meeting of the Organisation of African Unity:

We shall drain marshes and swamps, clear infested areas, feed the under-nourished, and rid our people of parasites and disease. It is within the possibility of science and technology to make even the Sahara bloom into a vast field with verdant vegetation for agricultural and industrial developments.

Plans were formulated and optimism was strong. A lot depended on science communication: how would science be introduced to national narratives, gain political impetus and influence an education system for science?

Science in these countries focused mainly on health, the environment and agriculture. Nigeria’s polio vaccine campaign was almost derailed in 2003 when two influential groups, the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria and the Kaduna State Council of Imams and Ulamas, declared the vaccine contained anti-fertility substances and was part of a Western conspiracy to sterilise children. Only after five Muslim leaders witnessed a successful vaccine program in Egypt was it recognised as being compatible with the Qur’an.

Three key ideas

Three principles emerge from these stories. The first is that community knowledge is a powerful force. In rural Kenya, the number of babies delivered by unskilled people led to high mortality. Local science communication practices provided a solution . A baraza (community discussion) integrated the health problem with social solutions, and trained local motorcycle riders to transport mothers to hospitals. The baraza used role-plays to depict the arrival of a mother to a health facility, reactions from the health providers, eventual safe delivery of the baby, and mother and baby riding back home.

A second principle is how science communication can enhance the integration of science with other beliefs. Science and religion, for example, are not always at odds. The Malaysian chapter describes how Muslim concepts of halal (permitted) and haram (forbidden) determine the acceptability of biotechnology according to the principles of Islamic law. Does science pose any threat to the five purposes of maslahah (public interest): religion, life and health, progeny, intellect and property? It is not hard to see the resemblance to Western ethical considerations of controversial science.

Read more: What science communicators can learn from listening to people

The third is an approach to pursuing and debating science for the public good. Science communication has made science more accessible, and public opinions and responses more likely to be sought. The “third mission”, an established principle across Europe, is an expectation or obligation that researchers will contribute to the growth, welfare and development of society. Universities are expected to exchange knowledge and skills with others in society, disseminating scientific results and methods, and encouraging public debate.

These lessons about science communication will be needed in a post-COVID world. They are finding an audience: we have made the book freely available online , and it has so far been downloaded more than 14,000 times.

• Science communication
• History of science
• Public understanding of science
• Science of science communication

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Operations Manager

Senior Education Technologist

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

The Importance of Science Communication

• GUEST EDITORIAL
• Published: 27 January 2020
• Volume 9 , pages 3–4, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Gee Abraham 1  

8589 Accesses

5 Citations

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

I recently left a corporate position at a metallography company to go into business for myself as a freelance STEM writer/editor. I gave 14 years to traditional 40-hour/week roles in an office environment; it was satisfyingly predictable and stable. I dabbled in writing and editing work for a year and a half as a side gig before leaving, and I was surprised to find that I was actually drawn to the unpredictability of it all. Who would I meet and work with? What new ideas might I find? Which projects will bring out my passions, and in what ways? Is there a niche where I can make a difference?

It turns out that there is a need for effective communicators among scientists and other technical specialists. Scientific writing can often get clogged up with technical details and confusing jargon; scientists transfer that knowledge with the hopes of reaching people, but those people can have trouble understanding what it all means. When context is not available, connections are missed, and critical discoveries may remain hidden. Other editors and teachers noted difficulties collaborating with scientists, which was a sure sign that science communication had room to improve.

Scientists communicate constantly—in talks, papers, classrooms, proposals, and elsewhere. I am writing this myself as an editorial board member of this journal, teacher of metallography classes, invited conference speaker, peer-reviewer, STEM editor, blog writer, and published author. Scientists need to communicate for many reasons and in many forms.

With the Internet, science has never been more accessible, and self-publishing techniques have become much more prevalent in the forms of blogs, tweets, video, and others. The 30-second elevator pitch takes too much time now. Video clips automatically play and need to get a point across in 6 seconds; entire articles are boiled down to just a headline because they’ll be scrolled by; tweets and memes show up everywhere (and sometimes, the memes are just screenshots of tweets—such is the media landscape). To get clicks, adjectives like “miracle,” “radical,” and “disastrous” are used to present research without context.

In short, scientists communicate their science prolifically and the world consumes it rapidly. However, there seems to be a gap between the two parties—communicating science well so it is understood. This communication gap is easy to see in many current public debates involving the climate crisis, vaccination, transgender individuals’ existence, among others. The public notion of uncertainty is much different than the many definitions of scientific uncertainty. It might seem like mere semantics to some, but these public scientific debates have real life-and-death consequences for people.

A scientific discovery is only as good as its communication; the key is to accommodate the multiple communication paths from that discovery. Scientists doing the work can see more connections themselves when they organize data in a different way. Colleagues will more easily replicate experiments. Technical writers would have more context when writing up the research. Reviewers can see more of the scientists’ thought processes and paths during the peer-review process. Editors will better understand the papers’ fit for the industry and publications. Journalists will present the research more accurately and provide a broader base. Readers—those thousands of readers that can be reached —will more easily comprehend, contextualize, and then build upon and spread the science.

After a few years of involvement with journals, I saw a clear trend of great science communicated just well enough to get published, but not well enough to provide much other context. Often the most critical finding in a paper was hidden within a wall of text, when it could be summarized much more clearly in a table or diagram.

I reviewed one paper recently that went against the trend, and I mention it to anyone that will listen. It has not been published yet as of this writing, but the specifics are not important. The highlight for me was that it included two rarely-seen sections: a Graphical Abstract and a Prime Novelty Statement. The Graphical Abstract section complemented their traditional abstract by including key figures and data in a flowchart illustrating the experimental process. The Prime Novelty Statement summarized the reasons why that research was new and needed, in simple terms and in only a few lines. My hope is for sections like these (and more) to be added to every scientific paper, since they are helpful for all parties involved. These sections can be included in addition to the traditional technical sections, in a nod of understanding to readers who learn better with visuals or need a little more context.

In this very journal, in the first editorial of the first issue, the reason for communicating science is laid out explicitly: “The objective of a technical journal in any field is to foster the dissemination of acquired knowledge to a broader audience, so that other researchers may use and build upon the work of their colleagues” (Deacon, MMA 1:1–2, [ 1 ]). This can be achieved only if the broader audience understands the science that is communicated. And that can be achieved only if the science is communicated clearly, efficiently, and contextually.

Science communication needs to be more than just the technical details, more than appendices full of raw data, and even more than a gallery of pretty pictures. I love microstructures as much as anyone in this industry, but I love their explanations and context better.

R.M. Deacon, Metallography, microstructure, and analysis: birth of a new journal. Metallogr. Microstruct. Anal. 1 , 1 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13632-012-0003-2

Article   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Lakewood, CA, USA

Gee Abraham

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gee Abraham .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Abraham, G. The Importance of Science Communication. Metallogr. Microstruct. Anal. 9 , 3–4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13632-020-00613-w

Download citation

Published : 27 January 2020

Issue Date : February 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13632-020-00613-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 23 July 2021

Establishing a baseline of science communication skills in an undergraduate environmental science course

• Rashmi Shivni 1 ,
• Christina Cline 1 ,
• Morgan Newport 2 ,
• Shupei Yuan 3 &
• Heather E. Bergan-Roller   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4580-7775 1  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  8 , Article number:  47 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

13k Accesses

12 Citations

17 Altmetric

Metrics details

Seminal reports, based on recommendations by educators, scientists, and in collaboration with students, have called for undergraduate curricula to engage students in some of the same practices as scientists—one of which is communicating science with a general, non-scientific audience (SciComm). Unfortunately, very little research has focused on helping students develop these skills. An important early step in creating effective and efficient curricula is understanding what baseline skills students have prior to instruction. Here, we used the Essential Elements for Effective Science Communication (EEES) framework to survey the SciComm skills of students in an environmental science course in which they had little SciComm training.

Our analyses revealed that, despite not being given the framework, students included several of the 13 elements, especially those which were explicitly asked for in the assignment instructions. Students commonly targeted broad audiences composed of interested adults, aimed to increase the knowledge and awareness of their audience, and planned and executed remote projects using print on social media. Additionally, students demonstrated flexibility in their skills by slightly differing their choices depending on the context of the assignment, such as creating more engaging content than they had planned for.

Conclusions

The students exhibited several key baseline skills, even though they had minimal training on the best practices of SciComm; however, more support is required to help students become better communicators, and more work in different contexts may be beneficial to acquire additional perspectives on SciComm skills among a variety of science students. The few elements that were not well highlighted in the students’ projects may not have been as intuitive to novice communicators. Thus, we provide recommendations for how educators can help their undergraduate science students develop valuable, prescribed SciComm skills. Some of these recommendations include helping students determine the right audience for their communication project, providing opportunities for students to try multiple media types, determining the type of language that is appropriate for the audience, and encouraging students to aim for a mix of communication objectives. With this guidance, educators can better prepare their students to become a more open and communicative generation of scientists and citizens.

Introduction

Scientists engage in a number of practices in their pursuit of understanding. Having students participate in these same practices—and as early as possible—is vital in fostering future generations of scientists and developing a scientifically literate society (ACARA, 2012 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; American Chemical Society, 2015 ; Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs, 2016 ; NGSS Lead States, 2013 ). One such practice is effective science communication.

Science communication can take many forms and is typically grouped into one of two types depending on the target audience—either a scientific audience or a non-scientific, general audience. While both types of audience-oriented communication are important for scientists and students, the focus of this study is on communicating science with non-experts (abbreviated as SciComm). In the current study, we describe SciComm as the use of appropriate media, messages, or activities to exchange information or viewpoints of science opinion or scientific information with non-experts. Depending on the goal of SciComm, it can be used for “fostering greater understanding of science and scientific methods or gaining greater insight into diverse public views and concerns about the science related to a contentious issue” (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 2017a , p. 14).

SciComm is an important scientific practice that benefits both scientists and the public. With effective SciComm, the public learns about foundational and modern scientific understanding that can guide personal and societal decisions. Additionally, the public can appreciate the credibility of scientists and the scientific process to trust scientific consensus even if the scientific content is not easily understood. Communication also allows scientists to recruit more people to engage with science as well as to collaborate and learn about issues in need of more research.

As such, scientists are being encouraged to engage in SciComm by their scientific communities and the public (Cicerone, 2006 ; Department of Science and Technology, 2014 ; European Commission, 2002 ; Jia & Liu, 2014 ; Leshner, 2007 ; National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Risk Perception and Communication, 1989 ; Royal Society (Great Britain) & Bodmer, 1985 ), as well as combat the spread of misinformation (Scheufele & Krause, 2019 ). Additionally, surveyed scientists report viewing themselves as important components in societal decision-making (Besley & Nisbet, 2013 ) and commonly communicate with the public (Hamlyn et al., 2015 ; Rainie et al., 2015 ). Moreover, support and focus for more effective SciComm across STEM fields has grown. For example, researchers have investigated how to communicate engineering issues and technological perspectives of science, such as genetic engineering (Blancke et al., 2017 ; Kolodinsky, 2018 ), nanotechnology (Castellini et al., 2007 ), and artificial intelligence (Nah et al., 2020 ).

A pertinent example of scientists practicing effective SciComm was seen throughout the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, where technical experts in virology, epidemiology, data science, etc. took to social media and news media to produce and disseminate evidence-based, accurate health protocols and information about the novel coronavirus (American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB), 2020 ). During major events, such as the pandemic, scientists are responsible for an important role in communicating emerging science with the public to ease fears, inform decisions, encourage engagement, and give hope to the future.

Because SciComm is an important practice for scientists, it is also essential that undergraduate science students engage with SciComm (Brownell et al., 2013b ). All college students are expected to become proficient in interpersonal skills, including communication (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 2017b ), and this is expressly true for students in STEM fields including biology (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ), chemistry (American Chemical Society, 2015 ), physics (Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs, 2016 ), engineering (Eichhorn et al., 2010 ; Riemer, 2007 ), technology (Bielefeldt, 2014 ), and math (Saxe & Braddy, 2015 ).

Environmental science is an important context in which to study SciComm skills because it is transdisciplinary—at the intersection of biology, chemistry, physics, and social sciences. Seminal documents in biology (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011 ; Clemmons et al., 2020 ), chemistry (American Chemical Society, 2015 ), and physics (Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs, 2016 ) have explicitly stated the need for helping students develop science communication skills. These seminal documents are being used across the sciences to inform curricula and are relevant in guiding curricula and research in environmental science education. Additionally, environmental science encompasses some vital topics relevant to all of society (e.g., climate change) and thus students learning about these important topics should also be learning about how to share that information with the public. Helping a wide range of students develop science communication skills may help students understand scientific concepts, the process of science, and the skills to engage with science after they are out of school regardless of whether they pursue science-related careers. These outcomes are essential in promoting the science literacy of our students and citizens.

Conceptual framework

When aiming to help students develop skills, it is an important first step to operationalize those skills. In the context of undergraduate life sciences, the 2011 Vision and Change report broadly defined the skills, labeled as core competencies, students should develop in their undergraduate programs (AAAS, 2011 ). Clemmons et al. ( 2020 ) unpacked these core competencies into program- and course-level outcomes. Regarding communication, they define that students should be able to “share ideas, data, and findings with others clearly and accurately”; “Use appropriate language and style to communicate science effectively to targeted audiences (e.g., the general public, biology experts, collaborators in other disciplines)”; and “Use a variety of modes to communicate science (e.g., oral, written, visual).” We expanded those definitions, using evidence-based practices and principles of science communication, to define the key elements of SciComm that are appropriate for undergraduate science students. The resulting Essential Elements for Effective Science Communication (EEES) framework (Wack et al., 2021 ) adapts skills and concepts from the literature (Besley et al., 2018 ; Mercer-Mapstone & Kuchel, 2017 ) and organizes them into four strategic categories of storytelling: “who,” “why,” “what,” and “how” (Fig. 1 ). The full framework is available in Wack et al. ( 2021 ).

Overview of the Essential Elements for Effective Science Communication (EEES) framework (adapted from Wack et al., 2021 ). Elements are organized into interrelated strategic categories of who, why, what, and how. The element of purpose is broken down into important SciComm objectives as defined by Besley et al. ( 2018 )

The framework is further broken down into 13 elements that are organized under these four categories, which we used to assess the students’ baseline SciComm skills. As shown in Fig. 1 , the four categories overlap to represent the interrelated nature of the 13 elements. In order to create effective and cohesive SciComm, each element must be considered in relation to the others. Briefly, we describe the categories and the elements they encompass below.

The elements for who science students should communicate science with include identifying and understanding a suitable target audience and considering the levels of prior knowledge in the target audience. The elements for why science students should communicate science include identifying the purpose and intended outcome of the communication; this element is expanded upon by the important SciComm objectives defined by Besley et al. ( 2018 )—including to increase knowledge and awareness, boost interest and excitement, listen and demonstrate openness, prove competence, reframe issues, impart shared values, and convey warmth and respect. Further, science students should understand the theories of science communication and why science communication is important. The elements of what science students should communicate include focusing on narrow, factual content and situating that content in a relevant context that is sensitive to social, political, and cultural factors. Finally, the elements for how science students should communicate science includes encouraging a two-way dialogue with the audience, promoting audience engagement with the science, using appropriate language, choosing a mode and platform to reach the target audience, and adding stylistic elements (e.g., humor, anecdotes, analogies, metaphors, rhetoric, imagery, narratives, and trying to appeal to multiple senses). See Wack et al. ( 2021 ) for the full framework.

The EEES framework was originally used to guide the development of a lesson for undergraduate biology students in an introductory lab (Wack et al., 2021 ). This framework is relevant here because, while biology is only a portion of the course context in this study (i.e., environmental science), this framework was developed to be broadly applicable to any science students in undergraduate programs. Also, the framework describes the best practices for communicating science; through the lens of the backward design process (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005 ), these best practices can be thought of as learning objectives. Therefore, it is appropriate to then assess student work with the same framework.

• Baseline skills

After operationalizing competencies to provide a clear picture of what instructors should help their students attain, it is also important to understand what baseline skills students have at the start of a lesson; that way, a curriculum can be tailored to skim through honed skills and emphasize weaker skills. Identifying baseline skills, therefore, makes helping students learn these skills as efficiently and effectively as possible (Novak, 2010 ; Quitadamo & Kurtz, 2007 ). A similar argument is well-established in the context of helping students achieve conceptual understanding with the literature on prior knowledge (e.g., Ausubel, 2012 ; Bergan-Roller et al., 2018 ; Binder et al., 2019 ; Lazarowitz & Lieb, 2006 ; National Research Council (U.S.) & Committee on Programs for Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in American High Schools., 2002 ; Tanner & Allen, 2005 ; Upadhyay & DeFranco, 2008 ); however, assessing skills before a lesson is less commonly discussed in the literature, which we designate as baseline skills .

Assessment is required to identify students’ skills, including their baseline skills. However, to our knowledge, there is very little literature that provides insight into the assessment of undergraduate science students on science communication skills. Kulgemeyer and Schecker ( 2013 ) examined how students communicate science in the limited context of older secondary students communicating physics phenomena to younger students. In another study, Kulgemeyer ( 2018 ) went further by testing older secondary students on audience-oriented SciComm best practices and found that those with more SciComm experience, or more developed baseline skills, were better at discerning an audience’s needs for particular SciComm content than students who had less experience with SciComm but were quite knowledgeable about the content. Other studies related to students and SciComm have measured application of SciComm knowledge with closed-response quiz questions (Wack et al., 2021 ), perceptions and confidence in communicating science (Brownell et al., 2013a ), the value of SciComm (Edmondston et al., 2010a ), and perceptions of SciComm skills (Yeoman et al., 2011 ); but they have not assessed how students demonstrate SciComm skills. More work needs to be done to assess how students communicate science in a variety of contexts (e.g., disciplines, audiences, level of the student) in order to establish a generalized baseline of skills from which to build an effective curriculum.

In this descriptive study, we surveyed baseline SciComm skills of students in an undergraduate environmental science course in order to inform instructors and curriculum designers on how to help similar science students develop SciComm skills. We took an exploratory, qualitative approach to investigate the following research questions:

RQ1- How did these students demonstrate their SciComm skills according to the EEES framework?

RQ2- How did the way these students planned their SciComm compare to how they executed their SciComm projects?

RQ3- Did instructions influence the SciComm skills that these students demonstrated?

We conducted an exploratory case study according to VanWynsberghe and Khan ( 2007 ); our unit of analysis was students’ SciComm skills and our case was one undergraduate environmental science course in which the students demonstrated their baseline skills with a project that included planning and executing a SciComm product.

Study context

The study was conducted at a large 4-year, doctoral-granting, regional comprehensive university in the Midwestern United States with students enrolled in an environmental science course. This course focused on the functioning of ecosystems, the patterns of biological diversity, the processes that influence those patterns over space and time, and how human activities can disrupt those processes. The course included a SciComm project, which we used for this research; however, SciComm was not a focus of the course. Students did not receive formal training on the underlying theories or practices of SciComm relevant to the EEES framework or otherwise; and we did not gather background information on whether students had knowledge from elsewhere to apply to their SciComm projects. We saw this as a unique opportunity to obtain a baseline of SciComm skills.

Study participants were recruited by one author attending a class period early in the semester, describing the study, and asking for their explicit consent. The entire class was given the opportunity to participate in the study, of which 32 (65%) consented. Students were assigned to plan and execute SciComm products, which we analyzed for this research. From the consenting students, 27 plans and 21 products were available for this research. All names listed herein are pseudonyms. Demographics for each of these populations are shown in Table 1 and the result show that they are equivalent. Generally, the samples consisted of more females than males. Most of the students were White/non-Hispanic, juniors, and 18–25 years old. About one-third of the students were first-generation college students and two-thirds were transfer students. Cumulative GPAs averaged 3.1 to 3.3 (with standard deviations of 0.9). The demographics of these students are typical for the university and major, as well as for undergraduate biology students throughout the USA—as compared to data from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (Data USA, 2018 ).

As a regular part of the course, students were assigned a project to communicate science with a general, non-scientific audience. Their projects included having students submit a plan to the instructor, who gave individual feedback, and then execute their plan in what we call their product. Assignment instructions and rubric, which were provided to the students when the project was assigned, are available in supplemental materials S 1 and S 2 , respectively. Students were given creative freedom to communicate scientific content—using any means such as presentations, social media, and blogging—to a specific audience of their choosing. The instructions required the students to interact with an audience from the public. Though the assignment was developed solely by the instructor (the researchers and the framework were not a part of the assignment design), there was some overlap with the EEES framework that was explicitly mentioned in the assignment.

Data sources

Several course artifacts and student demographics were collected for this research (Table 1 ). Students’ plans and products were collected to identify which elements of the framework they included as evidence of their baseline skills. The students’ final products are available through the figshare data repository (Bergan-Roller & Yuan, 2021 ). Additionally, we collected the assignment instructions and rubric (supplemental materials S 1 and S 2 ) to identify which elements of the framework were included in order to provide insight into the possible influence that instruction can have on the students’ demonstration of skills. However, we did not analyze the individualized feedback given by the instructor after students submitted their plans as we focused on students’ skills in aggregate.

The plans, products, assignment instructions, and rubric were imported into qualitative software (NVIVO) and analyzed using content analysis which describes the themes in artifacts such as coursework (Neuendorf, 2017 ). First, we conducted a priori thematic analysis by coding for the presence or absence of each of the elements of the EEES framework (codebook provided in Supplemental Materials S 3 ). Three elements were not observable in the products (purpose, prior knowledge, and theory). After the presence of elements was identified, student plans and products underwent further thematic analysis to identify themes in how students addressed the elements of the framework (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ). An excerpt of an example product is presented in Fig. 2 with a description of how it was coded in the figure caption. To ensure the reliability of the codes, two of the authors co-coded all the data. The initial agreement was 83%. All dissimilar codes were discussed to a consensus, and the codebook was revised to clarify the codes. The final codebook is available in supplemental materials S 3 .

Example product from student Zoe. This product was coded to include the following elements with the types and levels indicated in parentheses: audience (general, primarily young adult to adult), content (apex predators and ecological topic; human and biological components), dialogue (social media Q&A and conversations with audience members; high), language (no jargon, mixed formality), mode (remote location; print media), platform (social media, specifically Twitter), and engagement (asks specific questions; low). The product was absent of style, appeal, and context. The elements of prior knowledge, purpose, and theory were not observable for any products

Most students completed the assignment individually; however, when a pair worked together on the assignment, the project artifacts (plans and products) were treated as single artifacts. This work was conducted with prior approval from the institutional review board (#HS17-0259).

Below we describe if and how the elements of the EEES framework appeared in students’ projects (i.e., plans and products). Later, in the discussion, we interpret these descriptions to characterize these students’ baseline SciComm skills. Additionally, we examined the project instructions for alignment with the EEES framework as an indication of how instruction may be able to influence the development of SciComm skills in undergraduate science students.

Presence of SciComm elements

The elements of SciComm that students described in their plans were similar to those demonstrated in their products, but there were a few key differences (Table 2 ). Students described a similar number of elements in their plans (8.0 ± 1.0) as they demonstrated in their products (8.1 ± 0.9), despite all 13 elements being observable in plans but only 10 being observable in products. Most to all the students described the elements of content, platform, mode, audience, dialogue, and engagement in their plans and demonstrated these elements in their products. Additionally, plans and products were similar in how few students included the elements of context and style. Dissimilarities existed in the number of students who described intending to use language in the plans and who demonstrated language in the products. Appeal was also present in more products than plans. Most students described a purpose in their plans while less than a third described considering the prior knowledge of their audience or the theoretical rationale for their decisions.

The instructor’s assignment instructions and rubric included some of the EEES framework elements even though the instructor did not have the framework and the researchers did not direct the instructor on assignment design prior to the semester. Nevertheless, we compared what elements appeared in the assignment instructions and rubric with the elements students demonstrated in their projects to provide insight into the effect that instruction can have on the students’ demonstration of skills (as further explained in the discussion). Elements that were explicitly mentioned in the assignment instructions were described in plans and demonstrated in products by most students (Table 2 ); fewer students described elements in their plans that were only present in the rubric, while many more students demonstrated these rubric-only elements in their products. Elements that were not explicitly asked for in either the instructions or rubric were present in the fewest student plans and products.

Themes for how students presented SciComm elements

Beyond if the elements were present in the students’ projects, we analyzed how the students presented these elements. We organized the results below into the four strategic categories to which the elements belong in the framework.

Who did students communicate with?

The students defined their audiences through categories of specificity, age, and interest (Table 3 ). More than half the students targeted both a specific audience in conjunction with a general audience in their plans and products. For example, Wells wrote,

My target audience would be people that work outdoors first and foremost, as this issue would affect them the most from a health perspective. Otherwise, I think the environmental aspect of the issue affects everyone and anyone, so I would want to spread that information to as many people as possible.

When specifying their audience, the students described age and interest. More students targeted adults over young adults or children. In the plans, about half of the students aimed for an audience with identified interest or non-interest in the scientific content that they intended to communicate. Of the 15 plans that addressed the interest of the audience, most targeted an audience with an interest in the subject. A few of the students explicitly sought out an audience who were not already interested in the scientific content (Table 3 ). For example, Bellamy wrote,

I hope to reach people that are not extremely in tune with the environment.

Two out of the 27 plans (Bellamy and Echo) described wanting to address an audience that included both interested and uninterested members. The interest of the audience was not observable in the final products as this work focused on the students and their work, not the students’ audiences.

Prior knowledge

The students approached the element of prior knowledge by collecting and sometimes using information about their audiences’ understanding to influence their projects. Eight students (30%) planned to collect information on the prior knowledge of their audience. For example, Raven wrote,

I plan to ask the children about their own thoughts on the subject, of what they already know about sharks and how they perceive them, why they think sharks are important and helpful to the ecosystem, and what they can do to help preserve the shark's habitat.

Raven planned to move forward with her presentation irrespective of the children’s input. Four students (15%) described planning to use the prior knowledge information they gathered by adapting their products accordingly. For example, Niylah wrote that she would (emphasis is ours):

create a survey with a mixture of multiple-choice and open-ended/extended-response questions to gauge the public’s knowledge on recycling (what is recyclable, where do these materials go after they are recycled, etc.) and what questions they have about recycling…Create easy-to-understand and visually appealing infographics on recycling based on survey results …in an attempt to address and clarify common misconceptions.

Why did the students communicate this science?

Purpose: communication objectives.

We examined how students described the purpose of their projects in their plans through the lens of Besley’s work that defines important science communication objectives (Besley et al., 2018 ) (Table 4 ). Several students intuitively developed their project’s purpose and described between zero and four objectives with two objectives being the most common (9 students, 33%). The objective to increase knowledge or awareness was the most common followed by the explicit goal to cause their audience to act, which is not a part of the Besley framework of objectives. For instance, Wells planned to create a public service announcement to show the effects of climate change on human health. His call to action was to help people slow the buildup of greenhouse gases from everyday changes, such as providing examples of cleaner forms of transportation and energy use.

The next most common objectives were to boost interest and excitement, as well as listen and demonstrate openness. For example, Echo demonstrated openness by starting a discussion on Facebook—within her circle of family and friends—to understand different points of view on climate change. She stated that she would “respond politely with facts, but in a way where [my peers] don’t feel attacked.” Few students included any one of the other four objectives.

For the students that included some element of theory (7 plans, 26%), their rationalization for why they made certain decisions did not align with science communication theory or evidence-based practices. For example, Clarke said she wanted to make the project entertaining so that the audience would be more likely to remember the information, and Anya chose college students as a target audience because she believed that people who go to college are more passionate and generally interested in changing the world. These explanations seemed to be based on their interpretations of how learning works and how education increases interest, respectively, but not necessarily based on the literature.

Another student, Madi, chose a target audience of high school students because “They are mature enough to instill the information being taught, but just as immature enough to refuse to accept it.” Her rationale stems from, as she explained, her upbringing in a household with parents who were teachers. Though not established in the literature on teaching nor SciComm, this student made a decision about her audience based on descriptions from her parents—her authority figures.

What did the students communicate?

We analyzed the scientific content of the students’ projects regarding what components they included and what topics they focused on (Table 5 ). Most to all students incorporated a human component to their projects and several included a biological (non-human) component. The human component was labeled if the plans and products presented anything related to human involvement. For instance, climate change would fall into this category only if a student explicitly talked about human roles in either causing climate change or how their actions could mitigate the effects of climate change. There had to be some language explicitly relating to people and not just assumed human involvement. For the biological component, the projects had to explicitly reference non-human biological species. For example, a student working on a climate change SciComm project would need to mention the effects on other species than humans. Components relating to earth sciences (e.g., weather and oil spills) were present but infrequent (four or fewer students). The students focused on topics that were covered at other times during the course at relatively equal proportions with an ecological topic being slightly more popular than sustainability or climate change.

Some of the students considered the social, political, and/or cultural context of the scientific information (4 out of 27 plans, 5 out of 21 products). Although there were too few of these students to decipher themes within context, examples included describing the culture of coastal fishermen in relation to overfishing issues (Harper), and that the ability to choose foods from sustainable farming practices may be impacted by socioeconomic status (Lincoln).

How did the students communicate science?

Dialogue pertains to any conversation between the student presenter and the audience. Conversation could be on any subject including on scientific content being communicated or other topics. Student plans and products were analyzed for the element of dialogue in two ways: the direction and level of dialogue. For the direction of dialogue, all students talked to their audience and most students also received input from their audience (Table 6 ).

The level of dialogue indicated how much dialogue was planned or occurred. Low dialogue was when only one direction of communication was planned or occurred (e.g., student communicating to the audience only). Fewer students executed low dialogue than described low dialogue in their plans (Table 6 ). Medium dialogue was when both directions of dialogue were planned or occurred, but one direction was much more prevalent than the other (e.g., a presentation with a brief question-and-answer (Q&A) session). Over half of the students described medium dialogue in their plans while only about a third executed dialogue at this level (Table 6 ). High dialogue was when both directions of dialogue were planned or occurred frequently and throughout the communication. The fewest number of students planned high dialogue, although the largest number of students executed high dialogue (Table 6 ).

Engagement pertains to how the audience engages with the science. Student plans and products were analyzed for the element of engagement in two ways: the type and level of engagement. Most of the students passively engaged their audience by having the audience listen and/or observe the presentation (Table 6 ). Engagement commonly took the form of asking the audience specific questions about the science or allowing for questions or comments from the audience. Only 1 out of 27 students planned to actively engage their audience with the science by having them play a board game on migration and go bird watching (Indra). Only 1 out of 21 students executed active engagement by having students identify rocks with a game (Lexa). A few of the students mentioned engaging their audience with the science but did not further describe how they planned to do so (coded as ambiguous) (Table 6 ).

The level of engagement indicated how much the student planned or facilitated the audience to engage with the science. Low engagement was when the student presented to the audience who only viewed or listened nearly the entire time. A third of students planned to engage their audience at a low level but a slightly lower percentage executed low-level engagement (Table 6 ). Medium engagement was when the student presented and the audience viewed and/or listened most of the time but there were some other types of engagement, commonly as questions between the audience and student. Most students planned and executed medium-level engagement (Table 6 ). High engagement was when the student facilitated active and/or frequent engagement between the audience and the science, such as the audience answering frequent specific questions and modeling or observing a scientific phenomenon (e.g., bird watching or the rock game). The fewest students planned high-level engagement; however, more of the students executed high engagement (Table 6 ).

We coded language for whether students used jargon and the formality of their language (Table 6 ). Only 1 out of the 27 students (Abby) described in her plans what language she would use by “avoiding jargon.” More students omitted jargon from their products than included jargon. More students used informal language when communicating science than formal language, or they used a mix of formal and informal rhetoric.

Mode and platform

The students approached the elements of mode and platform in terms of location, use of media types, and use of social media (Table 6 ). More of the students had projects that were remote from their audience than in-person. A few of the students planned projects that involved both remote and in-person portions. In-person projects were commonly set in a classroom. As for media types, most students used print media (e.g., the Twitter Q&A and conversations in Fig. 2 ) in their final products and several students used multiple types of media (Table 6 ). While many of the 27 students planned to do audio-based projects such as podcasts, only 2 out of 21 executed that plan. Regarding where to put their SciComm, most students included social media, which included sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (Table 6 ).

Appeal and style

The students appealed to their audiences’ senses primarily with visuals including PowerPoint slides, photos, artwork, and charts. Some of the students used stylistic elements to present scientific information. For example, Bellamy included humor and satire by dressing up in a penguin suit and advertising to “kill the penguins.” Gaia employed narration and described her adventures at the local farmer’s market.

To tailor a curriculum to be meaningful and authentic, educators and education researchers need to first define learning outcomes that align with professional, scientific practice, and then use those definitions to assess students’ baseline skills, including for SciComm. Then, the curriculum can be built upon this solid foundation. Here, we provided a rich description of the baseline SciComm skills of students in an undergraduate environmental science course. Overall, our results showed that these undergraduate students are on their way to being effective science communicators and have room to develop these skills further with proper curricular support. We next interpret that description to guide instructors on how to help students develop important SciComm skills.

Students demonstrated their skills consistently, between their plans and products, in many ways including identifying their audience and focusing on factual content. However, there were a few notable exceptions. Students planned primarily one-way dialogue (e.g., talking at a class) but executed frequent two-way dialogue (e.g., played a game with the audience) throughout their SciComm; this switch to more interaction from planning to execution was similar to how students engaged their audiences with the science. But not all skills listed in the framework were observed in the students’ work, which provides instructors the room to give students a wide variety of opportunities and circumstances to demonstrate, practice, and develop their SciComm skills.

Furthermore, the results showed that it is important to recognize the value of the instruction given by the instructor, which affected the types of skills students demonstrated. The students demonstrated most of the elements in their plans and products that aligned with what was asked of them in the instructions. This suggests that students would benefit from explicit SciComm instruction and training on effective SciComm to develop their SciComm skills in the context of their science coursework.

Pedagogical and curricular recommendations for integrating SciComm into science courses

Below, we take a fine-grain view of the SciComm skills these students demonstrated and make recommendations on how instructors and curriculum can build off this baseline to effectively help science students develop their SciComm skills.

With whom to communicate science

Help students identify a narrow audience. Our findings showed that the students commonly described a specific population but then also described trying to reach a broader audience. Students may need help recognizing that fostering quality communication with a small and specific audience is more effective than just exposing their SciComm to large quantities of people (Mercer-Mapstone & Kuchel, 2017 ).

Help students understand their audience. Here, about a third of the students considered the prior knowledge of their audience and fewer used it to influence their products. Similarly, about half of the students did not describe whether they thought their audience was explicitly interested or not interested in the subject. A presenter must acknowledge and understand what their audience already knows (i.e., prior knowledge) and what the audience is interested in to increase knowledge (Ausubel, 2012 ; Novak, 2010 ; Vosniadou, 2013 ), which was the most commonly stated purpose objective. This is true whether the setting is a classroom between an instructor and students or on a public stage such as with these environmental science students and their target audiences.

Why communicate science

Introduce students to the theories that make for effective SciComm. Despite not being asked to, some of the students described their rationale behind why their project would effectively communicate science with the public (theory element). However, these explanations seemed to be based on intuition, and were lacking operational description, which are often ineffective and can be harmful to the public’s perceptions of science (Scheufele, 2013 ). Therefore, instructors may consider introducing SciComm via its theoretical underpinnings to help students better understand the need for developing such skills.

Encourage students to aim for diverse communication objectives. Here, many students intuitively aimed to increase knowledge and awareness. Similarly, scientists focus more on this traditional knowledge-based objective than other equally important objectives (Besley et al., 2018 ). Nevertheless, scientists, and thus science students, need to aim beyond just increasing knowledge and awareness as many other objectives are key to effective SciComm (Besley et al., 2018 ). Specifically, appropriate for science students are the objectives of boosting interest and excitement, conveying warmth and respect, conveying shared values, and listening and demonstrating openness (Fig. 1 ). Further, having an audience take action is an assumed, ultimate goal of communication (Besley et al., 2018 ); here, about half of the students’ plans made this goal explicit. More work is needed to know if students are thinking about an ultimate goal for their SciComm. Together, our work suggests that the curriculum should provide support to help students identify their broader goals and specific objectives for SciComm.

How to communicate science

Give students practice with multiple media types. Here, many students planned to use audio and video, but then executed their SciComm with print media. A recent report concluded that Gen Z (people born between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s) prefer video over print for learning, whereas Millennials (people born in the early 1980s to mid-1990s) prefer print (Pearson Education Inc., 2018 ). The students studied here were composed of approximately 75% Gen Z and 20% Millennials. One explanation for our results could be that the students had ambitions to increase the knowledge and awareness of their audience using a medium which they themselves prefer and commonly consume (video) but potentially experienced logistical constraints that directed them to a simpler media (print) that could still reach a large audience (e.g., Lincoln’s switch from podcast to print). Scientists have increasingly connected with the public, using print, audio, and video remotely due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (ASBMB, 2020 ). Therefore, students need practice with a variety of media types, especially on a variety of platforms as communication with the public evolves.

Example curricula

There are a few published examples of integrated SciComm and science curriculum that may help science students develop their SciComm skills. These are organized either as whole courses or modules within science courses. Examples of whole courses include an undergraduate neuroimmunology and writing course (Brownell et al., 2013a ) and a biotech and SciComm course (Edmondston et al., 2010a , 2010b ). Examples of the modular approach have been documented in the contexts of junior high school (Spektor-Levy et al., 2008 , 2009 ), undergraduate physics (Arion, 2016 ; Arion et al., 2018 ), mid-level undergraduate biology, physics, and chemistry (Mercer-Mapstone & Kuchel, 2016 ), and upper-level undergraduate biology (Yeoman et al., 2011 ). Additionally, we applied the EEES framework to develop and assess a module for introductory undergraduate biology students (Wack et al., 2021 ). These curricula may be excellent sources for instructors looking for guidance on how to help their students develop SciComm skills.

Assessment and feedback

Vital components of learning are assessment and feedback. Assessment of students should be based on the learning goals and objectives that instructors make explicit at the beginning of any lesson (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005 ) and thus can vary considerably. The options to assess SciComm lessons include what others in the literature have done, including using a closed-response quiz where students apply their knowledge of SciComm (Wack et al., 2021 ); asking for students to report on their gained skills (Yeoman et al., 2011 ); measuring perceptions, value, and confidence in communicating science (Brownell et al., 2013a ; Edmondston et al., 2010a ); and characterizing the skills students demonstrate as we have done here. Additional assessment could include input from the audience to gauge the effectiveness of the communication. These assessment options can be used to provide feedback to students so that they may reflect on their performance and how they may perform better in the future—an important step in developing lasting skills.

Limitations and future directions

We recognize the limitations of this research and suggest how future studies could augment this work. For instance, we intentionally omitted giving the students the framework in the instructions and rubric so that we could observe a baseline of SciComm skills. Future work should investigate how providing different scaffolds, or support such as the framework, affects students’ SciComm skills.

By using content analysis of student work, we were able to provide rich descriptions of students’ SciComm skills. Future work should use student interviews and reflective journaling to triangulate evidence on SciComm skills. When only a few students described a certain element, it reduced our ability to establish themes for how students commonly address an element and limits the generalizability of the results. Nevertheless, our findings on these elements provide some anecdotal examples of what one might expect from their students or study population.

Many of the elements of SciComm are intertwined, as are best practices for SciComm. For example, the audience one targets (e.g., young children) will impact the platform they choose (e.g., a classroom, not Twitter). These interconnections led to occasional overlap in our coding (e.g., engagement/dialogue, types/levels) and results could be influencing other results. Nonetheless, descriptions of each element provided a comprehensive survey of the students’ baseline skills and thus were important to characterize individually.

We recognize that this is just one class in one context; much more work needs to be done in a variety of contexts, and separate results based on student demographics, to gain additional perspectives on undergraduate life science students’ baseline SciComm skills. For example, repeating this study with larger groups of students in more disciplines would improve statistical strength; additionally, larger samples would allow for testing the effects of age or experience on outcomes so that these results may be extrapolated to other institutions and other disciplinary contexts across STEM fields.

SciComm is an important scientific practice for which undergraduate science students should develop skills. To effectively help students develop these skills, it is important to understand what baseline skills students have. Here, we used the EEES framework to explore the SciComm skills students in an environmental science course demonstrated with little training. Despite not being given the framework, students included several of the 13 elements, especially those which were explicitly asked for in the assignment instructions. Students exhibited SciComm skills similar to scientists who are novice in SciComm but showed promising development by following many of the instructions and refining their work from planning to execution. Together with the recommendations we make for how instructors can use these findings, a curriculum that is grounded in effective science communication can help undergraduate science students develop meaningful SciComm skills.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Student products, specifically, are available in the figshare repository, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14544072 (Bergan-Roller & Yuan, 2021 ).

Abbreviations

Elements for Effective Science Communication framework

Written documents students submitted to plan their SciComm

Evidence students submitted of their executed SciComm

The combination of students’ plans and products

Question and answer

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Communicating science with non-experts

ACARA. (2012). The Australian Curriculum—Science . https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/ .

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action . In American Association for the Advancement of Science .

Google Scholar  

American Chemical Society. (2015). Undergraduate professional education in chemistry: 2015 ACS Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs. Retrieved August 15, 2018, from https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/about/governance/committees/training/2015-acs-guidelines-for-bachelors-degree-programs.pdf .

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. (2020). Shaping the narrative: Effective science communication in the COVID-19 era . Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://www.asbmb.org/meetings-events/shaping-the-narrative .

Arion, D. N. (2016). Improving science communication and engaging the public in astronomy and nature. American Astronomical Society, AAS Meeting #227, Id.446.01 , 227 . Retrieved September 18, 2017, from  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AAS...22744601A .

Arion, D. N., OConnell, C., Lowenthal, J., Hickox, R. C., & Lyons, D. (2018). Public science education and outreach as a modality for teaching science communication skills to undergraduates. American Astronomical Society, AAS Meeting #231, Id. 216.04 , 231 . Retrieved August 14, 2018, from  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AAS...23121604A .

Ausubel, D. P. (2012). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view . Springer Science & Business Media. https://books.google.com/books?id=wfckBAAAQBAJ .

Bergan-Roller, H. E., Galt, N. J., Helikar, T., & Dauer, J. T. (2018). Using concept maps to characterise cellular respiration knowledge in undergraduate students. Journal of Biological Education. , 54 (1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1541001 .

Bergan-Roller, H. E., & Yuan, S. (2021). Shivni et al_IJSTEMED_Student products . Figshare.  Retrieved May 15, 2021, from https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14544072 .

Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., & Yuan, S. (2018). Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science , 27 (6), 708–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728478 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Besley, J. C., & Nisbet, M. (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science , 22 (6), 644–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511418743 .

Bielefeldt, T. (2014). Know the ISTE Standards for Students, Standard 2: Communication and Collaboration | ISTE . Retrieved May 11, 2021, from  https://www.iste.org/explore/ISTE-Standards-in-Action/Know-the-ISTE-Standards-for-Students%2C-Standard-2%3A-Communication-and-Collaboration .

Binder, T., Sandmann, A., Sures, B., Friege, G., Theyssen, H., & Schmiemann, P. (2019). Assessing prior knowledge types as predictors of academic achievement in the introductory phase of biology and physics study programmes using logistic regression. International Journal of STEM Education , 6 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0189-9 .

Blancke, S., Grunewald, W., & De Jaeger, G. (2017). De-problematizing ‘GMOs’: Suggestions for communicating about genetic engineering. In Trends in Biotechnology (Vol. 35, Issue 3, pp. 185–186). Elsevier Ltd, 35 (3), 185–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.12.004 .

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa .

Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013a). A writing-intensive course improves biology undergraduates’ perception and confidence of their abilities to read scientific literature and communicate science. AJP: Advances in Physiology Education , 37 (1), 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00138.2012 .

Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013b). Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education : JUNE : A Publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience , 12 (1), E6–E10 Retrieved September 13, 2017, from . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24319399

Castellini, O. M., Walejko, G. K., Holladay, C. E., Theim, T. J., Zenner, G. M., & Crone, W. C. (2007). Nanotechnology and the public: Effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts. Journal of Nanoparticle Research , 9 (2), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-006-9160-z .

Cicerone, R. J. (2006). Celebrating and rethinking science communication. Focus , 6 (3).

Clemmons, A. W., Timbrook, J., Herron, J. C., & Crowe, A. J. (2020). BioSkills Guide: Development and national validation of a tool for interpreting the Vision and Change core competencies. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 19 (4), ar53, 19 (4), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-11-0259 .

Data USA. (2018). Data USA:Biology . Retrieved August 11, 2020, from  https://datausa.io/profile/cip/biology .

Department of Science and Technology. (2014). Science engagement framework . Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://www.npep.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Science-Engagement-Framework.pdf .

Edmondston, J., Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2010a). Undergraduate biotechnology students’ views of science communication. International Journal of Science Education , 32 (18), 2451–2474. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903514598 .

Edmondston, J., Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2010b). Are students prepared to communicate? A case study of an Australian degree course in biotechnology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 8 (6), 1091–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9234-3 .

Eichhorn, K., Thompson, C., Vampola, D., Messere, F., & Manseur, R. (2010). Infusing communication skills in an engineering curriculum . Retrieved August 14, 2018, from  https://peer.asee.org/infusing-communication-skills-in-an-engineering-curriculum.pdf .

European Commission. (2002). Science and Society Action Plan . Retrieved August 14, 2018, from https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/ss_ap_en.pdf .

Hamlyn, B., Shanahan, M., Hanson, T., Mortimer, E., Lewis, H., O’Donoghue, E., & Burchell, K. (2015). Factors affecting public engagement by researchers . Retrieved August 14, 2018, from  https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wtp060032.pdf .

Jia, H., & Liu, L. (2014). Unbalanced progress: The hard road from science popularisation to public engagement with science in China. Public Understanding of Science , 23 (1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513476404 .

Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs. (2016). Phys21: Preparing Physics Students for 21st-Century Careers . Retrieved December 10, 2020, from https://www.compadre.org/JTUPP/docs/J-Tupp_Report.pdf .

Kolodinsky, J. (2018). Ethical tensions from a ‘science alone’ approach in communicating genetic engineering science to consumers. In Ethical tensions from new technology: The case of agricultural biotechnology . Retrieved May 11, 2021, from  https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ethical_Tensions_from_New_Technology/WJJqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=thical+Tensions+from+a+%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%CB%9CScience+Alone%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2Approach+in+Communicating+Genetic+Engineering+Science+to+Consumers&pg=PA12&printsec=frontcover .

Kulgemeyer, C. (2018). Impact of secondary students’ content knowledge on their communication skills in science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 16 (1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9762-6 .

Kulgemeyer, C., & Schecker, H. (2013). Students explaining science—Assessment of science communication competence. Research in Science Education , 43 (6), 2235–2256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9354-1 .

Lazarowitz, R., & Lieb, C. (2006). Formative assessment pre-test to identify college students’ prior knowledge, misconceptions and learning difficulties in biology. In International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, Issue 4, pp. 741–762). Springer, 4 (4), 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-005-9024-5 .

Leshner, A. I. (2007). Outreach training needed. Science (New York, N.Y.) , 315 (5809), 161, 315 (5809), 161. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1138712 .

Mercer-Mapstone, L. D., & Kuchel, L. (2017). Core skills for effective science communication: A teaching resource for undergraduate science education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B , 7 (2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1113573 .

Mercer-Mapstone, L. D., & Kuchel, L. J. (2016). Integrating communication skills into undergraduate science degrees: A practical and evidence-based approach. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal , 4 (2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.4.2.11 .

Nah, S., McNealy, J., Kim, J. H., & Joo, J. (2020). Communicating artificial intelligence (AI): Theory, research, and practice. Communication Studies , 71 (3), 369–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1788909 .

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and M. (2017). Supporting students’ college success: The role of assessment of intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies (J. Herman & M. Hilton (eds.)). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24697 .

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and M (2017). Communicating science effectively . National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23674 .

National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on risk perception and communication. (1989). Improving risk communication. National Academies Press. Retrieved August 14, 2018, from  https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=gj8rAAAAYAAJ .

National Research Council (U.S.), & Committee on Programs for Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in American High Schools. (2002). Learning and understanding. In Learning and Understanding . National Academies Press. Retrieved August 14, 2018, from  https://doi.org/10.17226/10129 .

Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook , (2nd ed., ). Sage. https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/nMA5DQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PP1 . https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802878 .

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states . Retrieved August 14, 2018, from  http://www.nextgenscience.org/trademark-and-copyright .

Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://books.google.com/books?id=dXiMAgAAQBAJ , DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203862001

Pearson Education Inc. (2018). Beyond millennials: The next generation of learners . Retrieved May 18, 2020, from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/news/news-annoucements/2018/The-Next-Generation-of-Learners_final.pdf .

Quitadamo, I. J., & Kurtz, M. J. (2007). Learning to improve: Using writing to increase critical thinking performance in general education biology. CBE Life Sciences Education , 6 (2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-11-0203 .

Rainie, L., Funk, C., & Anderson, M. (2015). How scientists engage the public . Retrieved August 14, 2018, from  http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/02/15/how-scientists-engage-public/ .

Riemer, M. J. (2007). Communication Skills for the 21st Century Engineer. Journal of Engineering Education , 11 (1), 89–100 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299507876 .

Royal Society (Great Britain), & Bodmer, W. (1985). The public understanding of science . Retrieved August 14, 2018, from .

Saxe, K., & Braddy, L. (2015). A common vision for undergraduate mathematical sciences programs in 2025 .

Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 110 (Supplement 3), 14040–14047. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213275110 .

Scheufele, D. A., & Krause, N. M. (2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 116 (16), 7662–7669. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805871115 .

Spektor-Levy, O., Eylon, B.-S., & Scherz, Z. (2008). Teaching communication skills in science: Tracing teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education , 24 (2), 462–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2006.10.009 .

Spektor-Levy, O., Eylon, B.-S., & Scherz, Z. (2009). Teaching scientific communication skills in science studies: Does it make a difference? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 7 (5), 875–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9150-6 .

Tanner, K., & Allen, D. (2005). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: Understanding the wrong answers—Teaching toward conceptual change. Cell Biology Education , 4 (2), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-02-0068 .

Upadhyay, B., & DeFranco, C. (2008). Elementary students’ retention of environmental science knowledge: Connected science instruction versus direct instruction. Journal of Elementary Science Education , 20 (2), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173668 .

VanWynsberghe, R., & Khan, S. (2007). Redefining case study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 6 (2), 80–94 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/160940690700600208 .

Vosniadou, S. (2013). International handbook of research on conceptual change (S. Vosniadou (ed.); 2nd ed.). Routledge.

Wack, J., Jaeger, C. P., Yuan, S., & Bergan-Roller, H. E. (2021). A framework and lesson to engage biology students in communicating science with nonexperts. The American Biology Teacher , 83 (1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2021.83.1.17 .

Wiggins, & McTighe. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd Expand). Assn. for Supervision & Curriculum Development. http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-By-Design-Grant-Wiggins/dp/1416600353 .

Yeoman, K. H., James, H. A., & Bowater, L. (2011). Development and evaluation of an undergraduate science communication module. Bioscience Education , 17 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.17.7 .

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the faculty member who instructed the course for providing access to her class and supporting the project. We thank Dr. Devarati Bhattacharya for her advice on content analysis. We thank Dr. Jaime Sabel, Dr. Jenny Dauer, the NIU DBER group, and the anonymous reviewers for their input on earlier versions of this manuscript.

This project was funded by the Department of Biological Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the Division of Research and Innovative Partnerships at Northern Illinois University, as well as the Summer Internship Grant Program at Northwestern University. Funds were used to support the authors in their work on this project. The funders had no input on any aspect of this project.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biological Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Northern Illinois University, 447 Montgomery Hall, DeKalb, IL, 60115, USA

Rashmi Shivni, Christina Cline & Heather E. Bergan-Roller

Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

Morgan Newport

Department of Communication, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA

Shupei Yuan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RS analyzed and interpreted the data and substantively revised the manuscript. CC acquired, analyzed, and interpreted the data and wrote portions of the manuscript. MN analyzed and interpreted the data and wrote portions of the manuscript. SY helped conceive the work, and substantively wrote and revised the manuscript. HBR helped conceive and design the work, analyzed and interpreted the data, and substantively wrote and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather E. Bergan-Roller .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file s1:.

Assignment instructions

Additional file S2:

Assignment Rubric

Additional file S3:

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Shivni, R., Cline, C., Newport, M. et al. Establishing a baseline of science communication skills in an undergraduate environmental science course. IJ STEM Ed 8 , 47 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00304-0

Download citation

Received : 17 August 2020

Accepted : 02 July 2021

Published : 23 July 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00304-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Science communication
• Environmental science
• Undergraduate
• Content analysis

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• About This Blog
• Official PLOS Blog
• EveryONE Blog
• Speaking of Medicine
• PLOS Biologue
• Absolutely Maybe
• DNA Science
• PLOS ECR Community
• All Models Are Wrong
• About PLOS Blogs

SciComm at School: Science Communication in Undergraduate Education

More and more, academic science programs at U.S. universities are training their undergraduates to communicate effectively about science to a variety of audiences.  This includes  courses like University of Chicago , minor programs like the University of Texas , and even stand-alone degrees in the study and practice of life science communication like the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  However, for most institutions, incorporating science communication can be challenging.  There is just too much material to cover and not enough space in degree programs to add a course (or more).  So, how can faculty incorporate science communication into existing undegraduate courses?  And what do students gain from this practice?   Dr. Erin Gereke , a biology faculty member at Butler University  opted to dip her toe in the #SciComm water; here’s what she learned.  –KHL

Scientists are hearing more than ever about the importance of clearly communicating their work , not only to other scientists and funding agencies, but also to policymakers, friends and family, and the broader public.

The rapidly growing collection of tools for science communication , or “SciComm,” taps the power of interpersonal connection, storytelling, and other strategies to energize scientific conversations outside of research or academic settings. Professional science communicators, such as journalists, also use many of these same strategies to write about science for various public audiences.

Most new SciComm training efforts focus on working at the forefront of professional scientific discovery and practice: namely senior scientists and physicians, early-career scientists, and sometimes graduate trainees. (See, for example, the various resources of the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] .)

I’ve participated in several workshops recently to learn more about these tools and how to reevaluate my own SciComm skills. But, as an undergraduate educator, I quickly noticed that few of these programs discuss their potential value for communication training earlier, at the college level. Some isolated efforts and research have started to address this issue, but it’s not a widespread movement.

Reaching the undergraduate population may not attract the same urgency as targeting senior scientists with established research programs or leadership positions. But it’s important to consider the needs of undergraduate science students, because many of them already participate in some kind of science communication , even as they consider their future career options in science.

Expanding the conversation about SciComm training to include the needs of educators and diverse populations of undergraduates could help strengthen the scientific pipeline and create a new generation of scientists who can communicate more effectively with different audiences, right from the start.

In the meantime, scientists like me—who were trained through this same research pipeline but primarily teach undergraduates—can explore and adapt some of the emerging SciComm strategies to engage our students during their college years. Undergraduate educators have at least two overlapping roles when thinking about science communication:

• modeling clear communication strategies when teaching science content, training novice scientists in research skills, or discussing their own scientific work in different settings; and
• helping undergraduate potential scientists to be effective science communicators themselves.

Here, I offer a few points to consider when thinking about undergraduate science teaching and learning through a SciComm lens. Many of these are adapted from a blend of SciComm and pedagogical strategies or research. Selected resources are included for further exploration of some of these ideas.

SciComm strategies for undergraduate educators:

• Know your audience: Teaching first-year science majors is different from teaching advanced students. Likewise, working with diverse learners, non-science majors, large vs. small classes, or individually with students all require different approaches. It’s important to think carefully about your specific audience’s background and needs in different contexts and plan your own formal and informal scientific communication goals accordingly.
• Build empathy: When you connect with your students, it’s easier to be empathetic to their various strengths, stumbling blocks, and concerns. Listening, as well as speaking, and finding commonalities with your particular students can help foster more mutual trust and a deeper commitment to the educational process. (See, for example, James Lang’s book Small Teaching for ideas on empathy and motivation in teaching, as well as some other pedagogical ideas discussed below.)
• Use analogies: Finding appropriate analogies for complex scientific concepts can be very helpful in bridging the gap between what students already know and what they are trying to learn. Making the science “come to life” by using comparisons with everyday objects can be a helpful starting point for students to visualize topics that are difficult to observe directly.
• Cut the jargon: Science courses and teaching materials contain many important vocabulary words specific to a discipline. But using scientific jargon before you have introduced it to students—or in contexts in which it’s not essential—can be counterproductive. Consider how information is scaffolded and build toward successful integration of new vocabulary with previously mastered terms. Ultimately, modeling to students when and how to use their new vocabulary can help them develop their own science communication skills.

• Try improvisation-based teaching strategies : For a twist on traditional approaches to communication in the classroom, consider using aspects of improvisational theatre (improv), such as the foundational “ Yes, And ” idea . As an example, if you’re asking a class to provide an answer to an open-ended question you’ve asked them, try accepting their answer (“Yes”) and building on it (“And”). What if the answer was supposed to be “mitochondria,” but they came up with “chloroplasts” instead? Rather than shutting down the dialog with a quick “No,” try using the moment to build positive connections between two related concepts instead (in this case, energy use in cells). Including “Yes, And” or other improv tools in your teaching repertoire can be challenging in practice, but it can lead to more low-stakes risk-taking on both sides of the classroom interaction, better science communication overall, and a more positive environment for learning .
• Distill your own professional message : Outside of class, you might give presentations, write grants, or share your own work with alumni, potential students, donors, or the general public. In these scenarios, being engaging and concise is important. Tools such as COMPASS SciComm’s “Message Box” or activities such as “Half-Life Your Message” can help you identify the core concept that you want to share with a specific audience (and why they should care) and communicate it concisely and clearly at the right level of complexity. Incorporating SciComm strategies when describing your own work simultaneously benefits students in your audience by modeling effective approaches and showcases your professional efforts well beyond the classroom.

SciComm opportunities for undergraduate students:

• Small-group and active-learning activities : When students work in smaller groups and engage in reflective activities, their own communication skills can grow in new ways. Rather than engaging only with an instructor, students must carefully listen to others in the group, work as a team to determine the key ideas, and learn to describe them to others. Improv-based activities can have a place here, too, for team-building and fostering inclusive engagement and communication skills.
• Storytelling in science : I’ve already identified how “science as story” is a common SciComm strategy for researchers. Undergraduate students can start thinking about this idea, too, even in their first year. The traditional format of primary scientific reports provides an opportunity to discuss how the “story” of the experiment is revealed, and what makes certain papers clearer to understand than others. Secondary news sources or popular books describe science in a different way, but they, too, often rely on storytelling approaches. Exposure to both types of writing (or videos, animations, and more) can provide opportunities for discussion or assignments focused on identifying and using different science communication strategies, including narrative structure, for different audiences.

• Public engagement/outreach : Courses, departments, student organizations, and local communities often have opportunities for students to engage with people outside the academic institution. Such programs can be wonderful opportunities for undergraduate students to reframe their growing skills and knowledge to share them with others. Most importantly, students can form connections with a broader group of people in their community while building mutual enthusiasm for their science through interpersonal interactions. For example, I teach a class in which students design biology activities that they share with children and adults at a community science festival and in partnership with a local museum. In this context, students must consider how to interact with a wide variety of people who are talking with them about their activity. Introducing role play and improv techniques with students engaged in outreach can be a fun way to help students find common ground with others in their community and reflect on how science fits into their own and others’ life experiences.

Undergraduates today have rich opportunities to start developing a clear and engaging science communication style right from the start, alongside learning technical scientific skills and content in the classroom. Intentionally modeling and emphasizing SciComm skills early on could (1) positively impact student success in the short term, and (2) help students avoid having to recalibrate their skills later in a scientific career, like I and many others have done recently.

Furthermore, students pursuing a career path outside of science—such as journalism, business, or K–12 education— also would benefit from understanding the logic of different types of science communication as part of a general scientific literacy curriculum. Such students hopefully will become lifelong consumers of scientific information and can become powerful allies and advocates for science.

As we consider new approaches in SciComm for advanced scientists, thinking more broadly about how some of these strategies can trickle down to educators and students at earlier levels of scientific training (and how best to evaluate these tools) may build a more inclusive and engaged scientific enterprise for generations to come.

Edited by Krista Hoffmann-Longtin, PhD, Indiana University- Purdue University Indianapolis.

_________________________________________________________________

Erin Gerecke, Ph.D., is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biological Sciences at Butler University. Trained in fungal genetics and molecular biology, she teaches undergraduate biology courses in genetics and cell/molecular biology, as well as non-majors’ biology, a senior seminar, and a biology-themed community engagement course. She is certified as an Editor in the Life Sciences from the Board of Editors in the Life Sciences (BELS) and is passionate about science communication and informal STEM engagement. Find her on Twitter @mulledscience.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name and email for the next time I comment.

By Ashley Moses, edited by Andrew S. Cale Each year, millions of scientific research papers are published. Virtually none of them can…

By Ana Santos-Carvalho and Carolina Lebre, edited by Andrew S. Cale Excessive use of technical jargon can be a significant barrier to…

By Ryan McRae and Briana Pobiner, edited by Andrew S. Cale In 2023, the field of human evolution benefited from a plethora…

February 24, 2015

Effective Communication, Better Science

Science communication is part of a scientist's everyday life. Scientists must give talks, write papers and proposals, communicate with a variety of audiences, and educate others.

By Mónica I. Feliú-Mójer

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

Science communication is part of a scientist’s everyday life. Scientists must give talks, write papers and proposals, communicate with a variety of audiences, and educate others. Thus to be successful, regardless of field or career path, scientists must learn how to communicate. Moreover, scientists must learn how to communicate effectively. In other words, to be a successful scientist, you must be an effective communicator.

Before I go on, I should note that for the purpose of this post, I am defining science communication broadly, meaning any activity that involves one person transmitting science-related information to another, from peer-reviewed articles to tweets.

Effective communication means transmitting your message clearly and concisely so that it is understood. It’s about engaging your audience – it’s about the ‘So what?’ and ‘Why does it matter?’ of your message.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

When scientists communicate more effectively, science thrives. Science is increasingly interdisciplinary and the ability to communicate more effectively across disciplines fosters collaboration and innovation. Being able to communicate the relevance and impact of their ideas and discoveries can enhance scientists’ ability to secure funding or find a job. It allows them to write better and more comprehensible research papers. It also allows them to be better teachers and mentors for next-generation scientists.

When scientists are able to communicate effectively beyond their peers to broader, non-scientist audiences, it builds support for science, promotes understanding of its wider relevance to society, and encourages more informed decision-making at all levels, from government to communities to individuals. It can also make science accessible to audiences that traditionally have been excluded from the process of science. It can help make science more diverse and inclusive.

Although having more scientists who are effective communicators benefits science and society greatly, there are still relatively few training opportunities for science students and professionals to develop these skills.

Fortunately, effective communication skills are no longer perceived as soft skills. Increasingly , they are becoming part of the core professional skills every science student and professional should have.

Many science communication training programs and courses for scientists use the public communication of science as a tool to develop effective communication skills. See, for example, this list of training opportunities compiled by COMPASS , an organization dedicated to improving science communication. Here are a number of other resources:

iBiology Young Scientist Seminar Series

Escape from the Ivory Tower: A Guide to Making Your Science Matter

English Communication for Scientists

AAAS Mass Media Fellows Program

Communicating Science: Tools for Scientists and Engineers

#GradSciComm: How COMPASS is Answering the National Demand for Science Communication Training

Building Buzz: (Scientists) Communicating Science in New Media Environments

Practical Science Communication Strategies for Graduate Students

Successful Science Communication: A Case Study

Communication Breakdown

Public communication of science is not for everyone, of course. We can’t expect all scientists to use Twitter, participate in their local school’s career day or blog, but a little bit of effort goes a long way.

Public communication encourages scientists to think about the big picture. For instance, scientists can get bogged down with the specifics of a research question or use too much jargon to explain a concept. Public communication encourages scientists to find simple, more succinct ways to get the essentials of their message across. Why does/should it matter to your audience? Why is it important?

Sure, no one can argue that writing a peer-reviewed research article is the same as writing a science blog for high school students, or that giving a talk to your peers at a scientific conference is the same as standing in front of a group of middle schoolers to teach them about chemistry. Although public communication may seem very different from scholarly communication of science, the principles and strategies that make messaging effective in each arena are very similar.

For example, know your audience. Who are they? You always need to know who you are trying to reach, as it affects everything else you do. Are you trying to reach peers in your field or are you communicating across fields? Are you talking to a potential funder or to a local reporter? Regardless of your message and your goal, you always need to know your audience.

“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough,” Albert Einstein said. As experts, scientists have a deep knowledge of particular subjects. To communicate something effectively, one needs a similarly deep knowledge of the associated skills. Public communication offers scientists ways to learn and practice the basics of effective communication. By teaching scientists how to explain their work simply—and more effectively—public communication increases the impact of science in multiple dimensions.

APPLY NOW    REQUEST INFO

Apply Today

Ready to apply to Penn LPS Online? Apply Now

Learn more about Penn LPS Online

Request More Information

Why excellent communication skills are vital to a successful science career

What is communication in science?

Science communication involves taking technically complex scientific topics and crafting them into accessible, informative, and compelling content for specific audiences. This audience could be scientific peers, the media, potential investors, government or other leadership decision-makers, or the general public. Successful communication requires strong scientific and industry expertise and practical messaging skills to bridge the knowledge gap between researchers and other diverse groups.

Academics, journalists, technical writers, marketing and public relations professionals, and environmental advocates may also benefit from building strong rhetorical abilities to help further society’s understanding of scientific research. Whether you aspire to become a scientist or a writer, to be a successful science communicator you must develop the skills necessary to explain relevant findings and why people should care.

Different types of science communication

In the past, the preferred channels for science communication included scientific journals, books, conferences, and traditional forms of mass media. But with advances in technology—and changes in the way people consume information—science communication has branched out into documentaries, podcasts, webinars, digital newsletters and magazines, social media, and virtual or in-person presentations such as TED Talks.

With an increase in online misinformation and a decrease in trust in the scientific community from certain members of the public and government, it’s more critical than ever to identify engaging ways to reinforce the validity of scientific research. The types of communication you may develop as a scientist include presentations to foster partnerships, academic papers to inform peers, grant proposals to obtain funding for research, or features and interviews with media outlets to educate the world.

Strategies for science communication

Strong communication skills are essential for networking, collaborating, educating, and succeeding in a career as a scientist. Below are important strategies you can employ to strengthen your science communication and help ensure your message is received.

1. Pinpoint your communication goals

The first step in creating effective science messaging is to identify your goals. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), examples of short-term objectives for science communication include raising awareness of a particular topic and making scientists, and science in general, more relatable. Common long-term goals include engaging the public to build trust, influence policy, improve scientific research, advocate for change, and create a positive dialogue.

The goals for your science communication will vary depending on the topic and target audience. If you’re communicating research on the efficacy of the flu vaccine to the general public, your goal is likely to educate people on the importance of vaccination and convince them to make an appointment. But if you’re speaking to mass media, your messaging may focus on rising hospitalization rates and the vaccine’s effectiveness to establish relevance.

2. Tailor messaging to your audiences

Multiple audiences consume scientific communications, so it’s essential to customize your messaging to align with each group’s interests and needs. For instance, messaging for potential research funders should include hard numbers highlighting the possible return on the investment. In contrast, conversations with a potential partner may focus on the expertise of the research team, prior successes, and the benefits of collaborating.

The AAAS recommends asking the following questions to frame your narrative more effectively:

• Which audience interests may align with my research topic?
• What do I have in common with the target audience?
• What types of questions might the audience have?

If you’re eager to enhance your rhetorical prowess to help you advance your career, CLCH 3000: Communicating Science at Penn LPS Online is the course for you. Focusing on climate change issues, you’ll learn how to refine your communication skills to relate scientific concepts and quantitative data through messaging customized for different audiences. You must take at least two undergraduate-level physical science or life science courses before enrolling to set you up for success in this course.

3. Lead with the most critical information

Although scientists generally present key findings at the end of research papers, when communicating to the public, journalists, or fundraising stakeholders, the best practice is to lead with the most important takeaways. The AAAS recommends starting with the big picture and using a three-point structure to build your messaging around how it impacts your audience, including supporting details. Depending on the audience, these could be three conclusions of your research, applications of your findings, or critical data points that indicate a potential solution to a problem.

For instance, in an article in Smithsonian Magazine on top scientific discoveries in 2021, three notable conclusions on a study of the cancer-prone lemon frost gecko include:

• Discovering that a gene called SPINT1, linked to skin cancer in humans, is responsible for the geckos’ golden color and skin tumors
• Studying SPINT1 could help scientists better understand how certain cancers develop in humans
• Researching how the gene is expressed in geckos that don’t develop cancer could help inspire new melanoma treatments

4. Avoid using jargon

Jargon refers to scientific terminology, including abbreviations, acronyms, or other technical terms, that could alienate a broader audience unfamiliar with their meaning. Even within the scientific community, similar language can have completely different connotations, so including jargon can dilute the impact of your messaging. The American Geophysical Union, a leading non-profit scientific association and publisher, recommends asking the following questions to determine whether your phrasing includes jargon:

• Does it have a different meaning in regular conversation?
• Do you only use it when discussing your research?
• Would friends, family, or neighbors be able to explain or define it?
• Does it serve as a barrier to communication rather than a bridge?
• Are there alternatives that would be more widely understood?

An excellent way to avoid jargon and increase relatability in your science communication is to incorporate analogies and anecdotes that make complex topics more accessible. And if you want to engage your audience, it’s vital to appeal to them in a way that allows for dialogue and addresses misconceptions, such as those promulgated on social media, rather than denouncing the people who espouse them.

5. Include data-based visuals

Another strategy to improve the efficacy of your science storytelling is incorporating different media forms to explain research data. This includes photography, illustrations, animation, video, infographics, charts, and graphs. The more interactive you can make the experience, the better. An added benefit of creating visually compelling digital stories, images, and reels is that they are easily shared on social media networks like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or Tik Tok. This is a significant advantage because it is easy to customize this media for your target audience, build awareness, and—if you’re successful in your execution—convince your followers to share your communications.

Why is science communication important?

Science communication is important because, when done correctly, it can build trust, educate, and inspire people to do good. In a 2019 review article featured in Frontiers , various accepted definitions of the goals of science communication were cited, including one from The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine that included:

• Sharing recent findings and generating excitement for science
• Developing and growing the public appreciation of science
• Increasing general knowledge and understanding of science
• Influencing opinions, policy preferences, or behavior
• Ensuring a diversity of perspectives is included when pursuing scientific solutions

When research findings are communicated concisely and coherently, there are many benefits to society and the scientific community. According to academic and professional publisher Sciendo, effectual and open-access dissemination of research can build support for science, influence behavior, and support informed decision-making at the individual, community, and governmental levels to help solve societal issues.

This is particularly important when it comes to an urgent subject such as climate change or the proliferation of a virus like COVID-19, as these require actions such as passing evidence-based climate policy initiatives and educating the public on symptoms, risks, and treatments.

Another benefit of compelling science communication is the ability to inspire the next generation of scientists to investigate methods to prevent and cure disease, develop new technologies, and make a positive difference in the world. Read on to learn about five rewarding careers in science that you may want to investigate.

1. Biochemist or biophysicist

Biochemists and biophysicists study the chemical and physical properties of living things and biological processes like cell development, growth, disease, and heredity. The minimum education requirement to work in some entry-level positions in this field is a bachelor’s or master’s degree in biochemistry, biology, chemistry, or physics. However, a PhD is needed to work in independent research-and-development roles.

2. Computer and information research scientist

Computer and information research scientists study and design computing technology to solve complex issues in business, medicine, science, and other fields. Employers typically require a minimum of a master’s degree in computer science or computer engineering for consideration, but certain employers may prefer those with doctorate degrees.

3. Environmental scientist

Environmental scientists specialize in using their expertise to protect the environment and human health by cleaning up pollution, advising policymakers, and working with industries to reduce waste and other hazards. Although some entry-level positions may require a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in natural science or a related field, you may need to obtain a master’s degree to qualify for higher-level roles.

4. Forensic scientist

If you're a true crime buff, you may be familiar with forensic scientists. Responsible for collecting and analyzing evidence, forensic science technicians typically specialize in laboratory analysis or crime scene investigations. Employers may prefer applicants with bachelor’s degrees in biology, physical science, or forensic science, and this role typically requires a significant amount of on-the-job training.

5. Medical scientist

Medical scientists conduct research to help prevent and cure disease and improve overall human health, often through clinical trials and other investigative methods. Medical scientists typically obtain a PhD in biology, chemistry, or a related field. However, some may opt to earn a medical degree instead of, or in addition to, a doctorate.

Start your scientific journey at Penn LPS Online

Whether your career goal in science involves combatting biodiversity losses, mitigating the impacts of global warming and increasing gas emissions, or tracking the epidemiology of new diseases and viruses, you must be capable of convincing others why your research matters.

With the Certificate in Science Foundations at Penn LPS Online, you can enhance your understanding of physical and life sciences and develop the groundwork needed for further study. The Ivy League courses in this program are designed to provide the scientific and mathematical tools to allow you to evaluate data, apply logic, and effectively communicate complex scientific concepts to diverse audiences. The scientific skills and knowledge you acquire may be relevant to careers in health and science adjacent fields of education, public health, and law.

If you want to complete your Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences (BAAS) while developing a solid interdisciplinary scientific foundation, the concentration in Physical and Life Sciences may be an ideal fit. With course requirements covering biology, chemistry, and physics, you’ll learn the scientific method, analyze and research alternate points of view, interpret quantitative and qualitative evidence, and communicate scientific findings through oral, visual, and written media. The expertise you obtain may be applicable in health, research, and clinical settings and provides a foundation for pursuing further graduate study.

Ready to get started? Apply today to the Physical and Life Sciences concentration for the BAAS program or enroll in the Science Foundations Certificate . If you haven’t already, fill out our online application form or view our course guide to explore your options.

In March of 2020, I received a call at night from my father across the ocean in southeastern Europe. He had been sick for three days with a temperature of 100.4 degrees F.

“So, what do you think about this new virus?” he asked me while continuing to cough loudly. The sound of his cough worried me since he had been diagnosed with heart failure and asthma, but I could not take care of him. I was too far away, working on my PhD and afraid that if I went home, the borders would close, leaving me unable to continue my studies. What surprised me at that moment was his curiosity. Despite how poorly he felt, he flooded me with many eager questions, all while I tried to hide the worry in my voice. Immediately we started to talk about viruses and recent genetic discoveries. Our conversation lasted until 4:00 am. After the talk, I was left with a renewed hope that he would get better and that the future would be better as well.

It has been more than a year since the first outbreak of COVID-19. The world came to a halt. Humanity came face to face with a new enemy that attacked our immune systems where they were the most vulnerable. From Wuhan, China, where everything started, the COVID-19 virus spread throughout the entire globe and showed us that our countries are not isolated and that there is a need to build bridges with effective and transparent communication to prevent other pandemics.

Despite the closed borders, scientists from across the globe ignited the flame of collaboration to bring us the latest data about the COVID-19 pandemic. Soon, Chinese researchers made the first draft of the COVID-19 viral genome open to the public, and other researchers continued with scientific papers, online meetings, and webinars. I attended some of these online meetings, which were easy, free to access, and brought together experts from different backgrounds such as journalism, public health, virology, etc. This helped the world better understand the data collected about COVID-19 infections in a time when uncertainty was being generated from the mixed messages of government and health leadership.

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic showed us that we need to engage with policymakers and stakeholders. However, in many cases, the communication of scientific information and the subsequent translation into policies proved to be challenging. Throughout this process, scientists insisted on continuing to communicate their results and pushing policymakers to take immediate preventive actions.

Scientists and policymakers worked together to produce a message that could be understood by the general public with the goal of increasing awareness and consequently reducing the spread of the virus. This made me realize how essential these collaborations are in addressing public health crises and how we can be a voice by participating actively and advocating for better policies.

Moreover, I was impressed by how social media became a great tool for scientists to share their expertise. A great example of science communication in the context of COVID-19 was the use of the idea of “flattening the curve,” which underwent the transformation from an epidemiological chart curve to a simple and important message to take basic precautions such as social distancing and washing hands. The message was easy to understand and as a result, was shared worldwide. This increased the understanding and therefore the trust the general public had in science, and through social media, the general audience was able to participate in discussions with experts and had the opportunity to ask questions.

However, the necessarily rapid dissemination of information introduced the public to the dynamic and self-corrective nature of scientific research. One example was the confusion around the use of masks. The CDC and WHO didn’t immediately recommend using masks, as it was not clear whether COVID-19 spread through droplets. When it became clear that the virus was airborne, they changed their recommendation. This quick shift gave people concerns and doubts, especially those unfamiliar with how research is conducted.

These doubts, together with misinformation, showed that social media can be a double-edged sword. As a result of this misunderstanding and poor communication, many countries are still having difficulties with implementing the use of masks, social distancing, and vaccinations. This made me carefully consider how we can best share scientific information with the public in a way that will reduce fear and anxiety during public crises.

The greatest lesson that I learned regarding the essential role of science communication and its impact was taught to me by Dr. Anthony Fauci. He represents an excellent model of a global scientist. In every communication with the media, he is precise, empathetic, and avoids political influence. In every interview, Dr. Fauci follows the same formula, explaining what is known and what is not known. He brings the audience to his central message, which is to trust science. With these strategies, he won the hearts of many people and built trust between the general public and scientific institutions. Dr. Fauci’s example during the pandemic made me reflect on the importance of using understandable and transparent language, not only in scientific journals but also in communication with the general public. By speaking with respect and empathy to those who are not in science, we can help mend their relationship with the institution designed to help them.

Dr. Fauci has said, “I believe I have a personal responsibility to make a positive impact on society.” I will add to the above that it is not only his responsibility but that of every scientist. Only when we all take on this challenge, through effective communication and collaboration, can we build a healthier society.

As a former public health worker who is currently working in a research lab doing my PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology, I was excited to be eligible to get the COVID-19 vaccine. So, on a cold day in February, with tears of joy, I called my father. “Dad, I finally got the first shot of the Moderna vaccine!” He was as happy as I was. We started to talk about the history of important vaccines and how they have impacted our lives. Even though my father doesn’t have a medical background, we both understand the importance of vaccines as part of an effective strategy to improve public health.

Works cited

• Matta, G. Science communication as a preventative tool in the COVID19 pandemic. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7, 159 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00645-1
• Fauci A. A Goal of Service to Humankind (2005). https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761448
• Ruao T., Silva S., The “Flatten the Curve”, Metaphor in COVID-19 Public (2020) https://doi.org/10.21814/uminho.ed.46.9

About the Author:

Recommended articles.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous
• Next chapter >

Introduction: Why Science Communication?

Dan M. Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School. He is a member of the Cultural Cognition Project, an interdisciplinary team of scholars who use empirical methods to examine the impact of group values on perceptions of risk and science communication.

Dietram A. Scheufele is the John E. Ross Professor in Science Communication and Vilas Distinguished Achievement Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and in the Morgridge Institute for Research. His research deals with the interface of media, policy and public opinion.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson is the Elizabeth Ware Packard Professor of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, the Walter and Leonore Director of the university’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, and the program director of the Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. She is the author or coauthor of fifteen books, five of which have received a total of eight political science or communication book awards.

• Published: 06 June 2017
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

The introductory chapter defines a science of science communication, examines efforts to advance scholarship in this area, provides an overview of the contents within the six parts of the handbook, and indicates ways in which communication about the Zika virus relates to each of those parts and to chapters within them.

Ironically, those communicating about science often rely on intuition rather than scientific inquiry not only to ascertain what effective messaging looks like but also to determine how to engage different audiences about emerging technologies and get science’s voice heard. For decades, one plausible explanation for this state of affairs was the relative absence of empirical work in science communication. This is no longer a problem. As the essays in this volume confirm, researchers in fields as diverse as political science, decision science, communication, and sociology have examined how science can best be communicated in different social settings and in the process have evaluated different approaches to cultivating societal engagement about emerging technologies. A central task of the work in this handbook is distilling what they know about the science of science communication and unpacking how they know it.

By the science of science communication, we mean an empirical approach to defining and understanding audiences, designing messages, mapping communication landscapes, and—most important—evaluating the effectiveness of communication efforts. The science of science communication, as a result, relies on evidence that is transparent and replicable, theory driven, and generalizable. In short, evidence is derived by the scientific method, drawing on theories and methods from disciplines including economics, sociology, psychology, education, and communications science. What makes science communication distinctive is the fact that science’s way of knowing places constraints on communication that are not present in the same way in other forms of communication—for instance, communication about politics. The distinctive nature of science communication is discussed in Chapter 1 .

The audience we envision for this book includes scholars and students interested in understanding the pitfalls and promise of a scientific approach to science communication as well as, but not primarily, those on the front lines tasked with communicating complex and sometimes controversial science to policymakers and the public on consequential topics ranging from nanotechnology and nuclear power to the need for vaccination.

The Science of Science Communication

In 2012, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine took a leadership role in connecting a community of social scientists who were conducting empirical research on different aspects of science communication. Two Sackler Colloquia and two special issues of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences devoted to the “Science of Science Communication” were the result (Fischhoff and Scheufele 2013 , 2014 ). Their intent was both to heighten awareness among bench scientists about empirically based approaches to better communicating science and to promote the exchange of ideas among social scientists working on problems related to science communication in various (sub)disciplines.

Built on the foundations laid by those Sackler Colloquia, this volume is predicated on three major assumption. First, science is not monolithic. Second, the aspects of science or its applications that are being communicated or debated are a function of the nature of the science itself, the types of applications made possible by science or their societal implications, and the social dynamics surrounding emerging science. Finally, communication is an inevitable part of the process of characterizing scientific findings, engagement among scientists about them, and the process of sharing them with policymakers and diverse publics.

This Handbook

The handbook parses its exploration of the science of science communication into 47 essays organized into a six-part structure:

An overview of the science of science communication

Identifying and overcoming challenges to science featured in attacks on science

Failures and successes in communicating science

The roles of elite intermediaries in communicating science

The role, power, and peril of media for the communication of science

Overcoming challenges in communicating science in a polarized environment

In the model implied by this framework, scientists and elite intermediaries such as scholarly associations and governmental agencies communicate scientific norms, methods, and findings directly on websites and in scholarly publications and indirectly through communication outlets while also having their messages prioritized and framed by news and entertainment media as well as by political leaders and partisans. Various publics process both these exchanges and elite and mediated messages through the wide range of human biases that either can aid them in making sense of what matters to them or distort messages and meanings. Throughout this process, the public can be actively engaged or bypassed with sometimes unforeseen results.

As we were preparing to turn these chapters over to our extraordinary Oxford editor, Joan Bossert, and her talented team, the summer 2016 escalation of the Zika threat in the United States and ongoing concerns about the risks it posed to Olympians at the Summer Games in Rio provided an opportunity for us to test the serviceability of our handbook’s six-part structure. At the same time, this situation invited us to ask whether material in the book can provide principles of use to respond to a health challenge (and a result of a science communication problem) not anticipated when the volume was commissioned. In short, can the science of science communication guide a response that increases the likelihood of policy guided by science, better behavioral outcomes, and an informed debate about the risks and benefits of different solutions without triggering a polarized denial of what science knows?

To address these questions, we inflected this forecast of the contents of this book with tales of a virus so stealthy that most of those infected have no idea that they are. Nonetheless, being infected with this mosquito-borne and also sexually transmitted virus is associated with an increased likelihood of Guillain-Barré—temporary paralysis—and with a heightened chance that a pregnant woman will deliver an infant with microcephaly—a smaller than usual head and defective brain. Frustratingly for health officials, there is not yet a vaccine for Zika on the market, although one is being tested, nor is there a treatment. Raising the stakes for communicators is the fact that more than 60% of the US population — about 200 million individuals — reside in areas susceptible to the spread of Zika from biting female Aedes mosquitoes. As we write this introduction, “The disease has ‘explosive’ pandemic potential, with outbreaks in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, and the Americas” ( Lucey and Gostin 2016 , E1). So what help, if any, do the handbook’s six clusters of chapters offer the scholar trying to understand the communication dynamics at play in this complex messaging environment?

Overview of the Science of Science Communication

The “science communication environment” is the interaction of processes and cues that citizens, organizations, governments, and a host of other stakeholders use to identify valid science and align it with their value systems, understanding of the world, and ultimately decisions. A central theme implicit in all the chapters in the first section is the idea that the amount of science that one must accept as valid exceeds the amount that any individual could ever be expected to comprehend much less verify for him- or herself. To attain the benefit of the collective knowledge at their disposal, members of a modern democratic society must become experts not in any particular form (much less all forms) of decision-relevant science but rather at reliably discerning who knows what about what ( Kahan 2015 ; Keil 2010 ).

The first section of the book spells out the essential features of science communication as an emerging area of scientific inquiry. Central to this section is a synthesis by Heather Akin and Dietram A. Scheufele (Chapter 2 ) on what we know about the science of science communication. Various chapters help to fill in what empirical study has taught us. To focus attention on the sorts of cues science communicators are actually transmitting, William Hallman, for example, discusses how little the public actually knows about science and why that does not generally matter for its effective use of scientific knowledge (Chapter 5 ). In the case of Zika, one cannot assume that the public knows the difference between a viral and a bacterial infection or is aware that it is the female mosquito that bites. But one can assume that the public is likely to trust recommendations offered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

This fact is particularly important when the communication climate is filled with issues in the process of being sorted out. “We don’t really know where these mosquitos are in the US,” CDC Director Tom Frieden stated in his early March 2016 appeal for Congress to appropriate the emergency funds requested by the Obama administration for Zika research. “The maps that are on our website are very clearly tagged with the comment that they are both incomplete and out of date” ( Branswell 2016a ). “We don’t have anything we can use today to screen the blood supply for Zika,” reported Brian Custer, associate director of Blood Systems Research Institute ( Seipel 2016 ). “As the weeks and months go by, we learn more and more about how much we don’t know, and the more we learn the worse things seem to get,” head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci told reporters on March 10, 2016 ( Sun 2016 ). Yet within weeks both concerns had been addressed. By late March the CDC had placed update maps on its site. And by March 30, 2016, the Food and Drug Administration announced that it had okayed an experimental test to screen blood donations for the virus and the CDC had posted prevention guidelines and an action plan for vulnerable cities.

Mike S. Schäfer adds depth to this perspective by discussing how media structures affect science news coverage (Chapter 4 ). Some of these constructions of the voice of science come with necessary debates and sometimes even controversy about ethical or political questions raised by emerging science. Persistent states of public controversy over established, decision-relevant science, however, can damage the science communication environment. Protecting it from such damage is one of the aims of the science of science communication.

This is the central message of the chapter by Dan Kahan and Asheley Landrum (Chapter 17 ) on vaccines, where systematic neglect of the science communication environment led to the controversy over the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in the United States and is today exposing universal childhood immunizations to similar controversy. Bruce Lewenstein reinforces this message by putting scientific controversies in an historical context (Chapter 6 ).

How to protect the science communication environment is the focus of the opening chapter (“The Need for a Science of Science Communication: Communicating Science’s Values and Norms”). In it, Kathleen Hall Jamieson argues that “the communicating scientist needs to focus on definitions and linguistic choices because failing to do so mucks up the science … [and] confuses policy debates” (Chapter 1 ). One of the central contentions of this essay is one threaded throughout the handbook— naming and framing matter—a point that the Zika science communication readily illustrates. Was Zika an “epidemic” or an “emerging health threat”? It was an “epidemic” according to the Rapid Response Assessment of the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control in December 2015 (“Rapid Risk Assessment” 2016) but “an emerging health threat” according to the blog of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Dr. Francis Collins (2016) .

These characterizations will predictably have an impact on public comprehension of Zika. The effect, of course, is unlikely to reflect how ordinary members reacted to these particular communications; little of what ordinary citizens know about science is a consequence of what they have heard a scientist or an institutionally based science communicator say. But the information that ultimately does reach citizens starts with statements that these actors make. How scientists and those speaking in their name express themselves can affect the career of information as it makes its way through the complex of intermediaries and institutions and processes that the science communication environment comprises. Given how valuable what scientists have to tell citizens is, failing to use the science of science communication to increase the chances that they express it in the terms most conductive to its uneventful passage through these pathways is problematic.

Each step of this process could draw insight from the understanding advanced by Akin and Scheufele’s synthesis (Chapter 2 ) of what we know about the science of science communication, Hallman’s assessment of what the public knows about science and why it matters (Chapter 5 ), Dan Kahan’s report on ordinary science knowledge and why communicating science in a polarized environment poses special challenges (Chapter 3 ), Schäfer’s precis of how media structures affect science news coverage (Chapter 4 ), and Lewenstein’s reprise of the lessons to be learned from scientific controversies in an historical context (Chapter 6 ).

Identifying and Overcoming Challenges Featured in Attacks on Science

The overall credibility of science and scientists is higher than that of many communities ( Scheufele 2013 ), with only military leaders eliciting greater public confidence than the scientific community in 2014 ( General Social Survey 2012). Nevertheless, popular understanding of how scientists generate knowledge is freighted with misleading simplifications. The gap between how people think science works and how it actually does can itself generate confusion that undermines public confidence.

Climate science communication furnishes a case in point. The popular conception of the “scientific method” envisions scientists “proving” or “disproving” asserted “facts” through conclusive experiments. The contribution that climate science makes to policymaking, however, consists less of experimentally corroborating basic climate mechanisms, most of which are well-known, than it does of establishing how they interact with one another. To generate such understanding, climate scientists use dynamic models, which are iteratively refined and adjusted to take account of new data. Discrepancies between model forecasts and subsequently observed data are expected—indeed, they are the source of progressive improvements in understanding. By design, dynamic modeling enlarges knowledge through its failed predictions as much as through its successful ones ( Silver 2012 ).

Not only did science communicators fail to make this element of climate science clear to the public, but over the past decade, many of them adopted communication “strategies” that elided it. To promote the urgency of action, they depicted the projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports—particularly those of the Fourth Assessment—as extrapolations from settled and incontrovertible scientific findings. But because this framing was selected to accommodate the popular understanding that science warrants confidence based on experimentally “proven” facts, it made climate science more vulnerable to attack by those intent on undermining public confidence in it when, as was anticipated by scientists themselves, actual data diverged from the climate-science model forecasts.

The 2001–2014 slowing in the acceleration of global temperature increase—a development not forecast by the IPCC Fourth Assessment model—had this effect. Predictably, climate scientists themselves were untroubled by this finding, viewing it as a development to be used to improve their models (Tollefson 2014). Partisans opposed to specific forms of climate change mitigation or prevention, however, highlighted this “failed prediction” as evidence of the invalidity of basic climate science.

The public’s comprehension of the threat posed by Zika could be undermined by this same misunderstanding. Like climate scientists, epidemiologists use iterative, dynamic modeling when forecasting the likely transmission of infectious diseases. The first generation of such models has now been developed for Zika ( Monaghan et al. 2016 ). Actual transmission patterns will—inevitably and instructively— vary from the predictions of these models too.

Will this discrepancy, highlighted by conflict entrepreneurs with a stake in casting doubt on the Zika science, undermine public confidence? It is the job of science communicators to try to forestall this result and avoid engaging in behavior that makes it more likely. The material in the second section of the book is designed to promote these objectives, in the case of the Zika science communication challenge and future ones as well. If the recommendations found in these essays are adopted, the public will be more likely to greet new findings — for example, about the Zika-microcephaly and Guillain-Barré links — aware that science is iterative and self-correcting and not perceive it through a prism that has exaggerated the originality and significance of individual studies (Peter Weingart, Chapter 11 ), prevalence and significance of failures to replicate key findings (Joseph Hilgard and Jamieson, Chapter 8 ), bias in the publication process (Andrew Brown, Tapan Mehta, and David Allison, Chapter 9 ), salient retractions of seemingly consequential work (Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, Chapter 12 ), and exposés of statistical chicanery (John Ioannidis, Chapter 10 ).

Failures and Successes

The science communication difficulties posed by Zika are not singular. Instead, they are instances of a class of such challenges, all of which feature conditions with the potential to disrupt one or another element of the science communication environment—the sum total of institutions, process, and cues that normally enable members of the public to align their decisions with what is known by science.

The failure of valid, compelling, and widely accessible scientific evidence to minimize public controversy over risks and evidence is a consequence of such disruption. Yet only a subset of the class of risk issues that could experience this problem ever does. Indeed, as Kahan and Landrum argue (Chapter 17 ), the number of societal risks that could plausibly experience what they call the “science communication problem” but do not is orders of magnitude larger than the number that do. There is no meaningful degree of public controversy over the impact of routine medical x-rays, exposure to the magnetic fields of high-voltage power lines, or the consumption of fluoridated water. But if there were, that would not seem any weirder than controversy over the dangers of geologic isolation of nuclear wastes, the carcinogenic effects of various pesticides or food additives, or the medicinal benefits of marijuana. As Kahan and Landrum indicate, the US public is (or at least was) highly polarized on the risks and benefits of immunizing adolescents against HPV, a sexually transmitted pathogen that causes cervical cancer, but it was not—at the very same time that a debate was raging over proposals for making the HPV vaccine mandatory as a condition of middle school enrollment—on universally immunizing adolescents against hepatitis B, another sexually transmitted disease that causes cancer (the shot is now administered to infants). The general public in Europe is culturally polarized over genetically modified (GM) foods; it is less so in the United States (see Hallman, Chapter 5 ).

As they craft the communication strategies that will determine how and to what ends science communicators will address various publics about Zika, those messengers have available cross-national lessons of the recent and distant past. In the section of the book telescoping failures and successes, our authors capsulize what we can learn from consequential successes and mistakes in communicating about food safety before and during the “mad cow” crisis (Matteo Ferrari, Chapter 14 ), HPV and hepatitis B vaccination (Kahan and Landrum, Chapter 17 ), the risks of nanotechnologies (Nick Pidgeon, Barbara Herr Harthorn, Terre Satterfield, and Christina Demski, Chapter 15 ), biotechnologies and genetically modified organisms (GMOs; Heinz Bonfadelli, Chapter 16 ).

Elite Intermediaries as Communicators of Science

As we noted earlier, the public is likely to learn less about Zika from the words spoken by scientists than it will from information transmitted to it via a host of intermediaries. Some of these will be institutions—such as government agencies and professional science communicators—specifically charged with communicating scientific information. What should those tasked with speaking for scientists do to protect the Zika science communication environment from consequential misinformation? What should they be doing to avoid past mistakes?

Of course, most members of the public will not learn what science knows about Zika from directly hearing what any of these institutions say either. They will garner it instead from other ordinary members of the public or from their family physician (Kahan, Chapter 3 ). Those interactions, the science of science communication tells us, are consequential elements in the science communication environment. In the case of Zika, for example, scientists might conclude that the most effective protective measures include the release of transgenic mosquitos or the administration of a Zika vaccine to some parts of the general population or all of it. How might the public react to these proposals? There is ample experimental evidence suggesting that the impact of what scientists or science communicators say to the public at that point will not matter as much as interactions among members of the public who share their basic outlooks and commitments, which may have already disposed them to reject what those authorities are saying ( Nyhan et al. 2014 ; Gollust 2010; Kahan et al. 2010 ). Similarly, the likelihood of agreeing to be vaccinated against Zika, once a vaccine exists, will probably be determined by the behavior and messaging of a family physician ( Smith et al. 2006 ). Accordingly, if they want to be guided by the best evidence on science communication, institutions charged with communicating science should not limit themselves simply to speaking to the public. They should play an active role in structuring how members of the public communicate among themselves.

However, interpersonal channels of communication within like-minded communities can fuel the spread of viral misinformation and conspiracy theories. In the absence of conclusive evidence that Zika was responsible for the rise in cases of microcephaly in Brazil and elsewhere, such theories predictably festered. Those suspicious of GMOs harnessed that fear to early uncertainty about cause of the outbreak of microcephaly in Brazil to seed a viral rumor blaming the outbreak there on the transgenic mosquito bred to minimize the transmission of malaria, dengue, and now Zika by ensuring that its offspring did not reproduce. Although that cause was discredited by the fact that the outbreak and site of the experimental release were in different locales, and no Zika associated with other genetically engineered mosquito test sites, when a national random sample of the US population was asked in July 2016 whether GM mosquitoes caused the spread of the Zika virus, 20% reported that they did. And, due to shards of Internet misinformation, in May 2016 the same Annenberg Science Knowledge Survey (ASK) found that 32% accepted the notion that the real cause of the Zika outbreak was prior inoculations.

Those making decisions about how to talk to the public about Zika are among the players treated in the handbook’s fourth section on the role of elite intermediaries in communicating and implementing science. In this part of the book we include chapters on scholarly presses (Barbara Kline Pope and Elizabeth Marincola, Chapter 20 ), governmental agencies (Jeffery Morris, Chapter 21 ), museums (Victoria Cain and Karen Rader, Chapter 22 ), foundations (Elizabeth Good Christopherson, Chapter 23 ), and scholarly associations (Tiffany Lohwater and Martin Storksdieck, Chapter 19 ). Essays in this section also construct an understanding of science and the assessment of responses to evidence it offers.

Citizen engagement will play a key role in determining whether possible experimental release of transgenic mosquitoes occurs in Florida and whether the eventual development and approval of a Zika vaccine will be met with widespread adoption or with controversy and rejection. Can insights generated by the science of science communication guide those involved in the process of increasing public understanding of the science involved in each and also ensure that that science plays a role in public and policymakers’ deliberations about such issues regarding whether the transgenic mosquito should be released, and if so where and how, and whether vaccination should be required of school-aged children? The closing essays in this section offer clues from past efforts to communicate science through public deliberation (see John Gastil’s Chapter 25 “Designing Public Deliberation at the Intersection of Science and Public Policy”) and social networks (see Brian Southwell’s Chapter 24 “Promoting Popular Understanding of Science and Health through Social Networks”) while also capturing what we know about the translation of science into policy (Jason Gallo, Chapter 26 ).

The Media Landscape

The media are another critical intermediary institution. Their role, moreover, is likely to be decisive not only in conveying accurate information but in countering inaccurate claims injected into the pathways of the science communication environment by those intent on misleading the public on Zika.

Adding complexity to these questions, the media landscape for science is undergoing a dramatic transformation as a result of new information technologies. A person seeking Zika information is less likely to look for it in the newspaper than on the Internet. One result is wider access to direct forms of communication from scientists unmediated by traditional media gatekeepers. On the Web today one can, for example, find an American Public Health Association webinar titled “ The Zika Crisis: Latest Findings” (2016) featuring NIH director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease Anthony Fauci, as well as the NIH director’s blog with a detailed posting on “Zika Virus: An Emerging Health Threat” ( Collins 2016 ) and the CDC Zika data on Github as well as the World Health Organization app that “gathers all of WHO’s guidance for agencies and individuals involved in the response to Zika Virus.” (“WHO Launches the Zika APP” 2016).

The Web also provides venues for scholar-to-scholar communication in forms including Web-based specialty publications such as Medical News Today (MNT) that detail the questions for which scientists are seeking answers, including “Why are the symptoms in adults so mild? How is the virus entering the nervous system of the developing fetus? How is the virus crossing the blood-brain barrier once it enters the blood? [And] Could Zika infect the small population of neural stem cells that, in adults, reside above the brain stem in the hippocampus?” ( Brazier 2016 ). Those interested in eavesdropping on science in action can do so by reading MNT, where one will find conclusions such as “While not proving a direct link between Zika and microcephaly, the present study does pinpoint where the virus may be causing the most damage” ( Brazier 2016 ). Unanswered questions are featured as well. The NIH director’s blog notes that scientists are trying to discover how readily Asian tiger mosquitoes, “which can tolerate relatively cold temperatures, spread Zika virus” ( Collins 2016 ). For the lay person who wants an efficient way to track ongoing news coverage, STAT, a Web news outlet directed by former New York Times political editor Rick Berke, posts regular updates under the banner “Zika in 30 Seconds” (2016) that include state-of-the-art videos answering commonly asked questions about Zika and efforts to combat it.

Although we address the topic throughout the handbook, the ways in which science information is conveyed through the media is the special focus of Section 5. The research unpacked here includes a cross-national analysis on: “The (Changing) Nature of Scientist–Media Interactions” (Sara Yeo and Dominique Brossard, Chapter 28 ), “New Models of Knowledge-Based Journalism” (Matthew Nisbet and Declan Fahy, Chapter 29 ), “Citizens Making Sense of Science Issues: Supply and Demand Factors for Science News and Information in the Digital Age” (Michael Xenos, Chapter 30 ), “The Changing Popular Images of Science” (David Kirby, Chapter 31 ), “What Do We Know About the Entertainment Industry’s Portrayal of Science” (James Shanahan, Chapter 32 ), “How Narrative Functions in Entertainment to Communicate Science” (Martin Kaplan and Michael Dahlstrom, Chapter 33 ), and “Assumptions about Science in Satirical News and Late Night Comedy” (Lauren Feldman, Chapter 34 ).

Challenges in Communicating Science in a Polarized Environment: Overcoming Biased Processing in an Era of Polarized Politics

People are imperfect information processors. Decision science has documented cognitive biases that interfere with individuals’ appropriate evaluation of evidence on risk ( Slovic 2000 ). Understanding the nature of these biases and how they can be counteracted are major objectives of the science of science communication.

Such biases pose an obvious impediment to the effective communication of information on a public health risk such as Zika. So, for example, the affect heuristic and cultural cognition can combine to reproduce about Zika the same reason-threatening states of political polarization that deformed public understanding of science on nuclear power and that impede effective engagement with climate change science. Hence, a number of chapters ask: How can democratic societies use the science of science communication to forestall this possibility?

Complicating matters further, political battles over reallocation of funding to communicate about Zika, prepare for a potential outbreak, and search for treatment and vaccines forced scientists and leaders of agencies to make predictions about areas of greatest need in a still fluid scientific environment. This process happened in a presidential campaign year with key members of the House and Senate facing reelection as they battled over approval of a White House funding request in February to authorize $1.9 billion for the Zika fight. When this debate polarized over funding of Planned Parenthood and a proposed Republican regulatory roll-back of Environmental Protection Agency pesticide regulation, as of August 2016, no additional congressional funds had been authorized.

Because concerns about Zika can foreseeably be harnessed to those about immigration, vaccination, GMOs, abortion, evolution, and climate change ( Kahan et al. 2017 )—contentious issues in which ideological partisans have hardened into evidence-resistant positions—the risk that polarized politics would corrupt policy decision-making and thwart the efforts of the CDC, NIH, and the World Health Organization was real. Actions by some worked to sidetrack that impulse. Although in 1968 the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae had prohibited use of contraception, in 2016 Pope Francis invoked an exception made in the 1960s in the case of nuns in danger of rape and declared that pregnant women in Zika-infected areas could in good conscience use contraception to prevent contracting the virus.

On the horizon were three other polarizing issues. The arrival of evidence that the Aedes mosquito was developing resistance to permethrin—the pesticide the CDC website urges people to apply to their clothing to repel mosquitoes—put evolution at play ( Branswell 2016b ). Since the transgenic mosquito provided a possible way to diminish the Aedes population, the GMO debate was at the fore as well. Global warming entered the conversation as news accounts noted that, over time, warmer temperatures could accelerate the spread of the Zika-carrying mosquito north.

Dan Kahan’s essay (Chapter 44 ) on communicating science in a “polluted science communication environment” addresses issues such as these. The antagonistic social meanings that transform positions on risks and facts into badges of membership in and loyalty to cultural groups are a form of science communication pollution because they disable the faculties that enable diverse groups to converge on the best available evidence.

Cultural cognition (in this pathological form at least) is only one of the recurring forms of defective information processing that threatens to distort assessments of risks on Zika ( Kahan et al. 2017 ). Others—and what can be done to combat them—figure in the handbook’s final section. Kate Kenski’s (Chapter 39 ) “Overcoming Confirmation and Blind Spot Bias When Communicating Science” and Natalie Jomini Stroud’s (Chapter 40 ) “Overcoming Selective Exposure and Judgment When Communicating Science” summarize what scholars know about addressing natural human inclinations to distort information to conform to predispositions. Nan Li, Stroud, and Jamieson (Chapter 45 ) outline communication strategies available in such settings in “Overcoming False Causal Attribution: Debunking the MMR–Autism Association.” Man–pui Sally Chan, Christopher Jones, and Dolores Albarracin (Chapter 36 ) address “Countering False Beliefs: An Analysis of the Evidence and Recommendations of Best Practices for the Retraction and Correction of Scientific Misinformation.” Michael Siegrist and Christina Hartmann (Chapter 46 ) speak to ways to communicate about them in “Overcoming the Challenges of Communicating Uncertainty across National Contexts.” Jon Baron (Chapter 38 ) identifies how more general philosophical orientations can complicate effective science communication, and how that distinctive challenge might be met.

These chapters provide principles useful in dispatching the conspiracy theories generated by an increasing anxiety about Zika. So, for example, the escalating number of births of Zika-infected Brazilian infants with neurological problems fueled a viral rumor blaming the outbreak there on the transgenic mosquito bred to minimize the transmission of malaria, dengue, and now Zika by ensuring that its offspring did not reproduce. As discussed, the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s ASK national tracking poll results showed that these rumors were embraced by at least some portions of the public. The acceptance of them persisted even after scientists confirmed that Zika caused microcephaly and refuted any suggestion that the new strain originated in GM mosquitos. The essays in this section provide answers to questions such as: How should the media respond to these forms of misinformation? How can they resist being made the conduit of science communication environment pollution? What role can they play in insulating that environment from contamination emanating elsewhere?

At the same time, this sixth section of the book identifies ways to effectively frame scientific content (James Druckman and Arthur Lupia, Chapter 37 ), ways to overcome public innumeracy (Ellen Peters, Chapter 41 ), fear of the supposedly “unnatural” (Robert Lull and Dietram A. Scheufele, Chapter 43 ), end point bias (Bruce Hardy and Jamieson, Chapter 42 ), and undesirable forms of normalization (Kahan, Chapter 44 ).

Why “Just” the Science of Science Communication?

As this overview suggests, science communication is an interest shared by scientists, policymakers, journalists, audiences, and many communities of practitioners in media, museums, virtual spaces, and elsewhere. So why limit our focus here to the scientific foundations of how to best communicate about science? A first part of the answer is that thought-provoking and useful books already have been written by science communication practitioners ( Baron 2010 ), science journalists ( Blum et al. 2006 ), and bench scientists ( Olson 2010 ) on best practices, pitfalls, and the day-to-day practice of effectively communicating. Some of this work draws on empirical social science research and other on the experiences from the field. Some of these efforts complement those in this volume; others are modified or challenged by work based in the science of science communication.

A second part of the answer, however, is built on the premise that this book is the first in a series of volumes to be superintended by the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s program on the Science of Science Communication. A subsequent volume will synthesize and draw on applied work now in progress to derive primary, research-based lessons for the practice of science communication.

By contrast, here we address questions such as: Are some communication principles applicable across issues? And how can we harness existing research capacity in the science of science communication to guide efforts to better communicate emerging technologies? Toward these ends, each of the sections of this handbook is followed by a synthesis chapter that highlights the themes cutting across the chapters in the section and offers lessons for science communication more broadly. These section-ending essays also identify missing pieces of research and important unanswered questions. We hope that these ideas and agendas will help guide the next stages of the science of science communication in four domains shaping the language of science, communicating science, communicating about science, and communicating science in a polarized environment on contentious issues.

Shaping the Language of Science

The language in which scientists discuss their work is freighted with assumptions and associations. So, for instance, mental associations are triggered by terms such as “herd immunity” or “embryonic stem cell research” (see Jamieson, Chapter 1 ). Research on how different descriptions of technologies shape initial public reactions ( Anderson et al., 2013 ) shows that how we talk about emerging science and the tools matters. Aware of that fact, grant proposers describe their research as “transformative” rather than “incremental.” Findings are described as “novel” or “groundbreaking” in journal submissions. Subtle cultural nuances in how new technologies are framed can not only affect how different public and policy audiences approach them downstream but may also block or facilitate technology transfer, build unjustified hype about them, or unnecessarily narrow or expand public debate. One key question facing those studying the science of science communication is: What can we know empirically about the impact of the full range of scientists’ linguistic choices and potential alternatives on public debate?

The Communication of Science

A second domain in which science communication is central comes into play when information is transferred from the scientific community to nonexpert audiences. One form this takes is the communication of “settled” science or scientific consensus on issues, such as climate change or the safety of GMOs for human consumption. But it extends as well to communication designed to align citizen behaviors with the best available science, as is the case with messaging designed to increase or in some cases sustain high rates of vaccination against communicable diseases such as whooping cough and measles. Much of the research on how to best communicate science to particular audiences is based on experimental designs. This maximizes our ability to make causal claims. The heavy reliance on experimental work, however, also limits our ability to make clear predictions about how scalable some of the mechanisms are to larger societal settings characterized by competing information environments, influences of social groups, and other influences that are held constant in the lab. Science communication researchers will also have to collect more systematic data about how some of the processes established in the lab hold or decay over time with or without repeated exposure to the same messages.

Communication about Science

A third domain of science communication involves deliberation about the boundaries within which science should work. This discussion pivots on ethical, political, or regulatory issues that fall into the domain of philosophy, not science. The notion that the public has a role in addressing the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of evolving technologies emerged as part of the Human Genome Initiative in 1990 ( Watson 1990 ) and is now cast by the Obama administration as responsible development:

To the extent feasible … relevant information should be developed with ample opportunities for stakeholder involvement and public participation. Public participation is important for promoting accountability, for improving decisions, for increasing trust, and for ensuring that officials have access to widely dispersed information. ( Holdren et al. 2011 , 2)

A growing body of empirical work asks how to best structure efforts to involve public stakeholders in some of these broader debates about ELSI issues. Many of these efforts rely on consensus conferences or other forms of public meetings ( Scheufele 2011 ) and often struggle with an inability to capture opinions from an exhaustive and representative set of relevant stakeholders ( Binder et al. 2012 ; Merkle 1996 ). The challenge for the field of science of science communication will be providing data-driven guidance on how to translate some of the mandates on responsible innovation into effective day-to-day science communication practice.

Communicating Science in Polarized Policy Debates

A fourth domain in which communication is implicated occurs when scientific findings are at issue in partisan regulatory and policy debates (Jasanoff 2007; Pielke 2007 ) One issue here is when, if at all, and, if so, how, is it appropriate for the climate scientist, for example, to engage in policy discussions. Some argue that scientists should serve as honest brokers of information and translate those data into policy. Others contend that the scientist’s role should be limited to ensuring that what science knows is clearly and accurately presented and then step back while leaving policy concerns to others.

These different domains of science communication are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive. In fact, they are closely interrelated. The case that we threaded through this introduction—the recent cross-continent spread of the Zika virus with its related health risks of microcephaly and Guillain-Barré—illustrates some of these interconnected dynamics.

In a 2006 editorial, Ralph Cicerone, then president of the National Academy of Sciences, identified many of the problems facing the science–public interface. Disappearing news holes for science and the thinning ranks of science journalists led him to attribute some responsibility for bridging science–public divides to scientists themselves who — he argued — “must do a better job of communicating directly to the public.” As we noted at the beginning of this introduction, we as social scientists have exacerbated the problem by not being as proactive as we might have been in conducting research that offers policy-relevant insights and have also failed to seek audiences outside our disciplines. To address these lapses, this handbook digests the social science of science communication in areas relevant to closing science–public divides, assesses its strengths and limitations, and identifies areas in which additional research is needed.

Anderson, Ashley A. , Jiyoun Kim , Dietram A. Scheufele , Dominique Brossard , and Michael A. Xenos . ( 2013 ). What’s in a name? How we define nanotech shapes public reactions.   Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15(2), 1–5. doi:10.1007/s11051-013-1421-z 10.1007/s11051-013-1421-z

Google Scholar

Baron, Nancy. ( 2010 ). Escape from the Ivory Tower: a guide to making your science matter . Washington, DC: Island Press.

Google Preview

Binder, A. R. , D. A. Scheufele , and Dominique Brossard . ( 2012 ). Misguided science policy? The pitfalls of using public meetings as surrogate gauges of public opinion.   The Scientist, April 10, 2012.

Blum, Deborah , Mary Knudson , and Robin Marantz Henig . ( 2006 ). A field guide for science writers . New York: Oxford University Press.

Branswell, Helen. (2016a). Congress is blocking key efforts to fight Zika, top health officials say. STAT, March 10. http://www.statnews.com/2016/03/10/zika-emergency-funding-anxiety/

Branswell, Helen. (2016b). Zika-carrying mosquitoes developing resistance to top insecticide. STAT, March 10. http://www.statnews.com/2016/03/10/puerto-rico-mosquitoes-insecticide/

Brazier, Yvette. (2016). Could Zika’s link to microcephaly be in the neural stem cells? Medical News Today , March 4. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/307279.php

Collins, Francis. (2016). Zika virus: An emerging health threat. National Institutes of Health: NIH Director’s Blog, January 26. http://directorsblog.nih.gov/2016/01/26/zika-virus-an-emerging-health-threat/

Fischhoff, Baruch , and Dietram A. Scheufele . ( 2013 ). The science of science communication.   Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14031–14032. doi:10.1073/pnas.1312080110 10.1073/pnas.1312080110

Fischhoff, Baruch , and Dietram A. Scheufele . ( 2014 ). The science of science communication II.   Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13583–13584. doi:10.1073/pnas.1414635111 10.1073/pnas.1414635111

General Social Survey 2012 final report: Trends in public attitudes about confidence in institutions . ( 2012 ). Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.

Gollust, S. E. , A. F. Dempsey , P. M. Lantz , P. A. Ubel , and E. F. Fowler . ( 2010 ). Controversy undermines support for state mandates on the human papillomavirus vaccine.   Health Affairs, 29(11), 2041–2046.

Holdren, John P. , Cass R. Sunstein , and Islam A. Siddiqui . ( 2011 ). Memorandum: Principles for regulation and oversight of emerging technologies. Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Jasanoff, Sheila. ( 1990 ). The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kahan, Dan , Donald Braman , Geoffrey Cohen , John Gastil , and Paul Slovic . ( 2010 ). Who fears the HPV vaccine, who doesn’t, and why? An experimental study of the mechanisms of cultural cognition.   Law and Human Behavior, 34(6), 501–516.

Kahan, D. M. ( 2015 ). What is the “science of science communication”?   Journal of Science Communication , 14(3), 1–12.

Kahan, D. M. , K. H. Jamieson , A. Landrum & K. Winneg . ( 2017 ). Culturally antagonistic memes and the Zika virus: an experimental test.   Journal of Risk Research , 20, 1–40.

Keil, Frank. ( 2010 ). The feasibility of folk science.   Cognitive Science, 34(5), 826–862.

Lucey, D. R. , & L. O. Gostin . ( 2016 ). The emerging Zika pandemic: Enhancing preparedness.   JAMA, 315(9), 865–866.

Merkle, D. M. ( 1996 ). The polls—Review—The National Issues Convention Deliberative Poll.   Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(4), 588–619.

Monaghan, Andrew , Cory W. Morin , Daniel F. Steinhoff , Olga Wilhelmi , Mary Hayden , Dale A. Quattrochi , et al. ( 2016 ). On the seasonal occurrence and abundance of the Zika virus vector mosquito Aedes aegypti in the contiguous United States.   PLOS Currents Outbreaks, Edition 1, March 16. doi:10.1371/currents.outbreaks.50dfc7f46798675fc63e7d7da563da76 10.1371/currents.outbreaks.50dfc7f46798675fc63e7d7da563da76

Nyhan, Brendan , Jason Reifler , Sean Richey , and Gary L Freed . ( 2014 ). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial.   Pediatrics, 133(4), e835–e42.

Olson, Randy. ( 2010 ). Don’t be such a scientist: Talking substance in an age of style . Washington, DC: Island Press.

Pielke, Roger A. Jr. ( 2007 ). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rapid risk assessment: Zika virus epidemic in the Americas: potential association with microcephaly and Guillain-Barré syndrome. ( 2015 ). European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, December.

Scheufele, D. A. (2011). Modern citizenship or policy dead end? Evaluating the need for public participation in science policy making, and why public meetings may not be the answer. Paper #R-34, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Research Paper Series, Cambridge, MA.

Scheufele, Dietram. A. , (2013). Communicating science in social settings.   Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14040–14047.

Seipel, Tracy. (2016). Early FDA approval sought for Zika virus blood tests. San Jose Mercury News , March 7. http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_29603313/early-fda-approval-sought-zika-virus-blood-tests

Silver, Nate. ( 2012 ). The signal and the noise: Why so many predictions fail—but some don’t . New York: Penguin Press.

Slovic, Paul. ( 2000 ). The perception of risk . Risk, Society, and Policy Series. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Smith, Philip J. , Allison M. Kennedy , Karen Wooten , Deborah A. Gust , and Larry K. Pickering . ( 2006 ). Association between health care providers’ influence on parents who have concerns about vaccine safety and vaccination coverage.   Pediatrics, 118(5), e1287–e1292.

Sun, Lena H. (2016). Zika outbreak: “The more we learn, the worse things seem to get.” The Washington Post , March 10. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/03/10/zika-outbreak-the-more-we-learn-the-worse-things-seem-to-get/

The Zika crisis: latest findings. (2016). American Public Health Association, March 4. https://www.apha.org/events-and-meetings/apha-calendar/webinar-events/2016/the-zika-crisis

Tollefson, Jeff.   Climate change: the case of the missing heat.   Nature, 505(7483), 276.

Watson, J. D. ( 1990 ). The human genome project: Past, present, and future.   Science, 248(4951), 44–49. doi:10.1126/science.2181665. 10.1126/science.2181665

WHO launches the Zika APP for health care providers. (n.d.). World Health Organization. http://eepurl.com/bTkihL

Zika in 30 seconds: what you need to know today. (2016). STAT, December 9. http://www.statnews.com/series/zika-update/

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Perspective article, evidence-based science communication.

• 1 Department of Sociology, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
• 2 Department of Science Communication, Rhine-Waal University of Applied Sciences, Kleve, Germany

Effective science communication can empower research and innovation systems to address global challenges and put public interests at the heart of how knowledge is produced, shared, and applied. For science communication to play this mediating role effectively, we propose a more integrated and “evidence-based” approach. This commentary identifies key issues facing the science communication field. It suggests a series of prescriptions, inspired by the impact of “evidence-based medicine” over the past decades. In practice, evidence-based science communication should combine professional expertise and skills with the best available evidence from systematic research. Steps required to achieve this outcome include more quality assurance in science communication research, significant changes in teaching and training, and improved interfaces between science communication research and practice.

At its best, science communication can empower research and innovation systems to address global challenges, by improving the relationships with stakeholders in policy, industry, and civil society (see “Quadruple Helix,” e.g., Carayannis and Campbell, 2009 , e.g., 2018ff). Science communication can put public interests at the heart of how knowledge is produced, shared, and applied today, thereby enhancing the benefits of science and technology and mitigating their limitations or risks. Moreover, effective science communication can facilitate the role of research and innovation in developing a more sustainable world. Therefore, it is imperative that science communication plays its mediating role effectively. This view of science communication's value inspires our call in this essay to open a dialogue about integrating science communication research and practice within a new vision for “evidence-based science communication.”

It has now been decades since the notion of “evidence-based medicine” gained a foothold in scholarly discourse. In this commentary, we argue that the field of science communication faces challenges that would benefit from some of the prescriptions that evidence-based medicine offers, in particular, with the aim of helping research and practice take each other's experiences and insights fully into account. This evolution is essential to drive real progress in science communication as a field of practice.

Key Challenges

Science communication today is expected to go far beyond making scientific knowledge more accessible to lay audiences. For example, ambitious notions about science communications potential role can be identified in the European policy prescription of “Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI) or efforts to include stakeholders earlier in technology assessment and regulatory processes to establish a more “social” innovation ( Phills et al., 2008 , e.g., p. 39ff). With the growing expectations of 21st science communication, it also becomes increasingly important for this field to be more self-reflective and demonstrably effective. This commentary presents our view of these challenges across both science communication research and practice based on our experience in this field.

Key challenges underpinning this commentary are identified in the first empirical gap analysis for the field of science communication research ( Gerber et al., 2020 , p. 61ff), in particular the following: (i) to build a research corpus with effective transfer mechanisms, so that science communication practitioners can apply research in their work practice, and perhaps even investigate in collaboration with scholars the applicability of potentially useful strategies; (ii) to widen the spectrums of science communication research topics and methods, in particular by extending the existing methodological toolkit in science communication to include more longitudinal and experimental research. Experts contributing to a Delphi study in this science communication research field analysis emphasized that neither scholarship nor practice adequately take account of the other side's priorities, needs and possible solutions: This can be understood as a double-disconnect between research and practice ( Gerber et al., 2020 , e.g., p. 4).

Both authors of this essay have worked in science communication practice and research, and especially at the interface between the two domains over many years in this evolving field. In this time, we have seen many challenges that trouble the research/practice interface in science communication (e.g., see Fischhoff, 2013 , e.g., p. 14038). Many of these challenges have been raised in one form or another in empirical studies of science communication research and practice (e.g., Holliman and Jensen, 2009 ; Gerber, 2014 ; Jamieson et al., 2017 ; Gerber et al., 2020 ). Ironically, the challenges begin with communication about science communication evidence (see Table 1 ). The framework suggested here, based on our experience, addresses four usually sequential steps of a “Knowledge Cascade,” which is addressed on four levels, namely Relevance, Accessibility, Transferability, and Quality assurance.

Table 1 . The science communication knowledge cascade: key challenges at the interfaces between research and practice.

It is both self-evident and revealing that there is limited empirical evidence that speaks to the generalizations and truth claims presented in the table above based on our practical experience across the research-practice divide in science communication. We think the sparse research available on these topics highlights the need for more evidence-based integration and mutual learning to more systematically clarify the state of play.

Beyond strengthening the links between research and practice and establishing additional opportunities for knowledge exchange and collaboration, there are numerous challenges at a practical level to implementing evidence-based approaches. These challenges run deep, with barriers embedded in science communication training, norms and values that drive practice (e.g., see Jensen and Holliman, 2016 ).

Evidence-Based Science Communication (EBSC): Pathways Forward

A classic editorial in the British Medical Journal set out to clarify the direction that was being advocated for the field of medicine in an article entitled: “Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't.” We would adopt a similar account for defining “evidence-based science communication” as a viable pathway forward. To adapt the language used by Sackett et al. (1996) , p. 71, we are advocating the “conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions” about science communication. In practice, evidence-based science communication involves combining professional expertise and skills with the best available evidence from systematic research, underpinned by established theory. By professional expertise we mean the “proficiency and judgment” that individual science communication practitioners acquire through experience and practice, refined over time through empirical evaluation (cf. Sackett et al., 1996 , p. 71). There are numerous indicators of such professional expertise in science communication, including:

• Applying social science research and theory when designing science communication activities to avoid well-known pitfalls and improve the odds of success.

• Planning, developing, and applying objectives in a logical way to address the needs of specific stakeholders or audiences.

• Following good ethical principles including informed consent for participation and responsible data protection and management.

• Being open and transparent about the nature of the funding, organizations involved and influences on the design of science communication activities

• Ensuring that appropriate and relevant communication skills are developed and applied for a given science communication challenge.

• Being inclusive and welcoming of those who are often marginalized or excluded, both in the development and delivery of science communication activities.

• Willingness and capability to reflect on limitations in one's own communication objectives and strategies despite institutional constraints and agendas, even if this may invalidate previously accepted practices.

• Committing to continually improve practice based on ongoing collection and analysis of evaluation evidence ( Jensen, 2014 , 2015a ).

• Being learning-oriented, focusing on continual professional improvement and sharing of new findings to aid others.

• Working to make any given science communication activity as resource efficient as possible to ensure that opportunities for positive impact are not squandered.

It will be clear from the points above that we believe that “using robust social scientific evidence […] to ensure success should be viewed as a basic necessity across the sector” ( Jensen, 2015b , p. 13). Applying well-established principles of good communication (e.g., Spitzberg, 1983 ) should be a basic expectation of science communication practice for professionals and their funders.

Just as in evidence-based medicine, EBSC must be expected to “invalidate previously accepted” practices and “replace them with new ones that are more powerful, more accurate, more efficacious” ( Sackett et al., 1996 , p. 71). What counts as effective science communication practice depends on the institutional, local and cultural context. The nature of the science communication evidence base and how to define satisfactory evidence is a matter that requires elaboration aimed at the research community in science communication, which we will develop in a separate essay. Here, we wish to emphasize that science communication research should be providing relevant, accurate , and timely insights that practitioners can use. Indeed, the issues we wish to raise are not only about a deficit of evidence in practice, but also a lack of sufficient applicability, mutual appreciation and collaboration, explained in more detail below (inspired by Heneghan et al., 2017 ).

We fully recognize that our diagnosis of the problem and perspective on pathways forward will face criticism. Some of that criticism may fall along the lines of prior critiques of evidence-based medicine, including the idea that evidence-based science communication is “old hat,” a “dangerous innovation,” “perpetrated by the arrogant,” and a move to “suppress” science communicators” or researchers' professional “freedom” ( Sackett et al., 1996 , p. 73). Clearly “evidence” in science communication and beyond will always be contested and provisional, but it nevertheless provides the strongest pragmatic basis for making improvements in practice.

We need to have this debate as a field, including practitioners, researchers and those–like the two of us–that work across these two domains. This commentary is meant to cultivate reflexivity in our community by initiating a discussion about the value, quality, and effectiveness of what we are practicing and researching. Many of the questions posed in and even resulting from this commentary are expected to trigger a discussion about fundamental principles and practices in our field. At the same time, however, we also hope that general issues, such as querying how relevant research should be expected to be for practice, will not overshadow the very concrete issues we are raising about how to use existing evidence and experience on both sides to empower science communication to live up to its potential in the interest of a world that desperately needs it more than ever. This is also why this commentary does not attempt to provide easy solutions but instead welcomes and explicitly invites dialogue about the pathways forward for our field.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The reviewers, JR and BW, declared a past collaboration with one of the authors, EJ, to the handling editor.

Acknowledgments

The authors are deeply grateful for the reflexivity provoked in the long process of developing this commentary by numerous inspiring discussions with friends and colleagues working in science communication research and practice around the world.

Carayannis, E. G., and Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). 'Mode 3' and 'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int. J. Technol. Manage. 46, 201–234. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B. (2013). The science of science communication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 14031–14032. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1312080110

Gerber, A. (2014). “Science caught flat-footed: how academia struggles with open science communication,” in Opening Science – The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing , eds S. Bartling and S. Friesike (Wiesbaden: Springer), 73–80. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_4

Gerber, A., Metcalfe, J., Broks, P., Lorke, J., Gabriel, M., and Lorenz, L. (2020). Science Communication Research: An Empirical Field Analysis (Government Report) . German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Google Scholar

Heneghan, C., Mahtani, K. R., Goldacre, B., Godlee, F., Macdonald, H., and Jarvies, D. (2017). Evidence based medicine manifesto for better healthcare: a response to systematic bias, wastage, error and fraud in research underpinning patient care. Evid. Based Med. 22, 120–122. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-j2973rep

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Holliman, R., and Jensen, E. (2009). “(In)authentic science and (im)partial publics: (Re)constructing the science outreach and public engagement agenda,” in Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media , eds R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt, Sam, and J. Thomas (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 35–52.

Jamieson, K. H., Kahan, D., and Scheufele, D. A, (eds.). (2017). The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jensen, E. (2014). The problems with science communication evaluation. J. Sci. Commun. 13:C04. doi: 10.22323/2.13010304

Jensen, E. (2015a). Evaluating impact and quality of experience in the 21 st century: using technology to narrow the gap between science communication research and practice. J. Sci. Commun. 14:C05. doi: 10.22323/2.14030305

Jensen, E. (2015b). Highlighting the value of impact evaluation: enhancing informal science learning and public engagement theory and practice. J. Sci. Commun. 14:Y05. doi: 10.22323/2.14030405

Jensen, E., and Holliman, R. (2016). Norms and values in UK science engagement practice. Int. J. Sci. Educ. B Commun. Public Engage. 6, 68–88. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2014.995743

Martin, V. Y. (2019), Four common problems in environmental social research undertaken by natural scientists. BioScience 128. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biz128. [Epub ahead of print].

Phills, J. A. Jr., Deiglmeier, K., and Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review. 6, 34.

Sackett, D., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., and Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 312, 71–73. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71

Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and impression. Commun. Educ. 32, 323–329. doi: 10.1080/03634528309378550

Keywords: public engagement with research, public understanding of science (PUS), public communication of science and technology, divulgación científica, divulgação científica, science communication

Citation: Jensen EA and Gerber A (2020) Evidence-Based Science Communication. Front. Commun. 4:78. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00078

Received: 21 November 2019; Accepted: 31 December 2019; Published: 23 January 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Jensen and Gerber. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Eric A. Jensen, e.jensen@warwick.ac.uk

† These authors have contributed equally to this work

10 Tips for Effective Science Communication

Industry Advice Science & Mathematics

Scientists and biotechnologists do incredible work every day in the fields of health, food production, and sustainability. However, the deeply technical nature of this work makes it difficult to explain its importance in a way that people without a technical background can understand.

Effective science communication puts complex concepts into simpler terms, helping researchers demonstrate the importance of their work to a wide range of stakeholders, from venture capitalists and business executives to the public and the press. 

“The thing I try to instill with anyone is that you need to be able to present what you’re doing to your mom or dad so that they can understand it,” said Jared R. Auclair, PhD , Director of Executive Training and Biotechnology Programs in the department of chemistry and chemical biology at Northeastern University. “Take the time in your writing to state the obvious, because it’s not obvious to most people.”

Download Our Free Guide to Advancing Your Biotechnology Career

Learn how to transform your career in an industry that’s transforming the world.

DOWNLOAD NOW

These 10 tips will help you provide more effective science communication, whether you’re in the classroom or the boardroom, in a meeting with a few colleagues, or with dozens of members of the public.

10 Effective Communication Tips for Scientists

1. know your audience..

The most important rule for effective science communication is to remember that different groups of people will have different expectations for speaking with you. Consider the following examples from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the science communication consultancy Agent Majeur : 

• The general public wants to know how your research impacts their lives and their societies. This communication could take the form of a formal presentation, or it could be a casual conversation with friends and neighbors.
• The media wants to know what makes the findings of your research important, including how it’s different from what others have done.
• Potential investors want to know whether your work will provide them with a significant return.
• Peers will be interested in determining whether your work may provide an opportunity for future collaboration. 
• Leadership at your company needs to know if a project has achieved the expected results and should progress to the next phase, or if changes are needed.

It’s important to approach each audience differently and to tailor your communication based on the group’s unique interests.

2. Identify the goals of communication. 

This step builds on the process of knowing your audience to determine the goals and objectives of communicating. In some cases, such as a meeting with internal business leaders or potential investors, the goal is often clear: To present your findings and gain support for additional work. 

In other cases, such as public meetings or presentations, you may have one or more communication goals : to educate, to advocate, to raise awareness, to build trust, to influence policy or research, to encourage change, or to be part of a dialogue. In these scenarios, take some time in advance to research the group you’ll be addressing (as well as any other speakers) in order to better understand their point of view. 

3. Start with the most important information.

In scientific or medical research, the key findings appear at the end of the paper, after the authors have provided background information, described their methodology, and identified potential limitations. The same is true for presentations at scientific conferences.

However, as the AAAS Communication Toolkit points out, the public, the media, and business stakeholders tend to absorb information in the opposite order. They want the key findings first, then the “So what?” that explains why the findings matter, and then the supporting details that led to your key findings. The research community may have the time and attention to devote to a lengthy paper or presentation, but co-workers and citizens alike have a lot to do. Keep this in mind as you plan your communication strategy.

4. Avoid jargon. 

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, and technical terminology are common in research papers, presentations, and on-the-job conversations. However, effective science communication stays away from jargon or unfamiliar words and uses terms that make sense to a broader audience. Writing in Forbes , former NASA meteorologist J. Marshall Shepherd, PhD, noted that, for the scientific community, “PDF” means “probability density function”—but for everyone else, it’s simply a document file format.

If scientific terminology must be used, explain it in more commonly understood terms. Test your explanation on a friend, family member, or colleague with a different professional and educational specialty to see if they know what you mean. Don’t be afraid to try multiple options before you find the terms that work best.

5. Be relatable.

One way to avoid scientific jargon is to incorporate analogies and stories into your scientific communication. For example, to help distinguish between weather and climate, Shepherd might say , “If you don’t like the weather, wait a few hours. If you don’t like the climate, move.” 

In addition, Agent Majeur recommends storytelling as a way to “humanize” scientific research or other technical topics. A personal or professional anecdote will make a potentially complex topic seem more approachable, and it may leave an audience with something to remember. Just be sure that it ties back to your key findings or overall message.

Finally, conversations can enhance scientific communication . Instead of simply presenting information in a lecture format, it’s important to engage with an audience whenever possible—by taking questions after a presentation, responding to relevant comments on social media, and striving to address misconceptions instead of dismissing them. Conversations allow a dialogue to take place, which can help an audience get more comfortable with a scientific concept.

6. Provide visuals. 

Charts, graphs, images, and other visuals are another way to avoid jargon and make an audience comfortable with a topic. “A picture speaks 1,000 words, and science is one industry where that holds true,” Auclair said. Visuals are also engaging for presentations in front of a large audience; the slides in TED Talks , for example, use pictures and graphs but very few words.

Creating data visualizations may seem daunting, but Auclair noted that Microsoft Excel has advanced capabilities for charts and graphs, and that many of the instruments that scientists use in the lab connect to software applications that create visuals for their specific data sets. 

That said, Auclair cautioned against being too advanced: “One thing that I emphasize is not to hit us with a sledgehammer when a regular hammer will do. If you’re presenting to business people, you can be a little more technical than when you talk to your mom and dad, but you still need to be basic.”

7. Stick to three points.

From life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to stop, drop, and roll, many of the most memorable phrases in writing and storytelling stick to three key points. Effective science communication is no different. 

The AAAS Communication Fundamentals note that these three points could come from several areas, such as the three major takeaways of your research, three uses for your product, or three important numbers that highlight a problem or solution. Your message shouldn’t just be about the three points—you should add the appropriate level of background information that’s relevant for your audience—but you should focus and emphasize those three points throughout your communication.  

8. Talk about the scientific process.

One of the biggest challenges with science communication is that the scientific process is rarely final. A reader or audience member may ask a question with the hope of getting a “Yes” or “No,” but the actual answer is often conditional and requires further investigation. This disconnect can lead to frustration as well as mistrust.

Writing in Scientific American , former director of the communications organization Science in the News Katherine Wu suggests talking about the scientific process. Instead of focusing solely on the results, be ready to explain how you got there, why you used certain research methods, and what next steps you will take. In addition to serving an educational purpose, such as helping people distinguish between credible and suspect research, Wu said discussing the scientific process can spark curiosity in people without a scientific background.

9. Focus on the bigger impact. 

Remember that the work you do in the lab or the field is part of a larger problem, whether it’s treating cancer or addressing climate change. Bringing your conversation back to the big-picture impact can help an audience understand why your work is important even if they may not understand the steps of your research or the nuances of biology or chemistry.

The American Society for Cell Biology notes that the impact could be financial, technological, educational, or political. It could also vary depending on the audience—financial for an internal presentation, educational for a visit to a local school, and so on. Keeping the big picture in mind will lead to more impactful and effective science communication. 

10. Develop an elevator pitch.

You may associate the elevator pitch with startups looking for their next investor. However, the American Society for Cell Biology notes that a focused statement short enough to “pitch” while you ride an elevator with someone can help you quickly and effectively communicate the value of your scientific work. 

The elevator pitch also offers an opportunity to practice many of the tips highlighted above:

• Focus on the big-picture relevance, not the nuances of your research question and methodology.
• Describe the goals of your research, using analogies wherever possible in order to avoid the use of jargon.
• Explain why your research is exciting. Highlight the problem you are trying to solve and tie it back to why your work is relevant.

Honing your Communication Skills

The Department of Biotechnology within the College of Science at Northeastern University trains students not just in the scientific rigors of a career in biotechnology but also in effective communication with business leaders and the public alike. To learn more about how an advanced degree program can help you improve your skills and further your scientific career, explore Northeastern’s MS in Biotechnology program , or download our eBook below.

Subscribe below to receive future content from the Graduate Programs Blog.

About shayna joubert, related articles.

Compliance Specialists: Who They Are and What They Earn

Science or science fiction the future of personalized medicine.

In-Demand Biotechnology Careers Shaping Our Future

Did you know.

The average U.S. bioscience worker earned nearly $99,000 in 2016, 85% greater than the average for the overall private sector. (BIO, 2018)

Master of Science in Biotechnology

An innovative degree for a dynamic industry.

Most Popular:

Tips for taking online classes: 8 strategies for success, public health careers: what can you do with an mph, 7 international business careers that are in high demand, edd vs. phd in education: what’s the difference, 7 must-have skills for data analysts, the benefits of online learning: 8 advantages of online degrees, how to write a statement of purpose for graduate school, the best of our graduate blog—right to your inbox.

Stay up to date on our latest posts and university events. Plus receive relevant career tips and grad school advice.

By providing us with your email, you agree to the terms of our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Keep Reading:

The 8 Highest-Paying Master’s Degrees in 2024

Graduate School Application Tips & Advice

How To Get a Job in Emergency Management

Join Us at Northeastern’s Virtual Graduate Open House | March 5–7, 2024

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

The Science of Science Communication III

National Academy of Sciences .

• Copyright and Permissions

Successful scientists must be effective communicators within their professions. Without those skills, they could not write papers and funding proposals, give talks and field questions, or teach classes and mentor students. However, communicating with audiences outside their profession - people who may not share scientists' interests, technical background, cultural assumptions, and modes of expression - presents different challenges and requires additional skills. Communication about science in political or social settings differs from discourse within a scientific discipline. Not only are scientists just one of many stakeholders vying for access to the public agenda, but the political debates surrounding science and its applications may sometimes confront scientists with unfamiliar and uncomfortable discussions involving religious values, partisan interests, and even the trustworthiness of science.

The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity summarizes the presentations and discussions from a Sackler Colloquium convened in November 2017. This event used Communicating Science Effectively as a framework for examining how one might apply its lessons to research and practice. It considered opportunities for creating and applying the science along with the barriers to doing so, such as the incentive systems in academic institutions and the perils of communicating science in polarized environments. Special attention was given to the organization and infrastructure necessary for building capacity in science communication.

• Collapse All
• The National Academies of SCIENCES • ENGINEERING • MEDICINE
• BUILDING THE CAPACITY FOR RESEARCH ON SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
• COMMUNICATING UNCERTAINTY
• DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SCIENCE AND PSEUDOSCIENCE
• TRUTH SEEKING THROUGH DIALOGUE
• POLITICAL POLARIZATION AND SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
• COMMUNICATING ABOUT IMMIGRATION
• COMMUNICATING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
• COUNTERING VACCINE HESITANCY
• WHEN DOES SCIENCE MISINFORMATION MATTER?
• THE INFLUENCE OF SCIENCE, HEALTH, AND CULTURAL LITERACY
• MANAGING CONFLICTS IN SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
• BRIDGING BOUNDARIES IN SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
• COLLABORATIVE SCIENCE COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
• FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE FACULTY BEHAVIOR
• AMBASSADORS FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
• REVISING TENURE GUIDELINES
• MELDING ART WITH RESEARCH
• CONGRATULATIONS AND CAUTIONS
• THE “SCIENCE IS BROKEN” NARRATIVE
• ENHANCING TRUST IN SCIENCE
• ADDRESSING DETRIMENTAL PRACTICES IN SCIENCE
• PROMOTING TRANSPARENCY AND OPENNESS
• INFLUENCE ON TWITTER
• SCIENTISTS ON TWITTER
• PREDICTIONS WITHOUT MEASURES OF UNCERTAINTY
• THE RISKS OF IGNORING UNCERTAINTY
• PROMOTING SCIENCE COMMUNICATION AMONG SCIENTISTS
• SCIENCE COMMUNICATION FOR PHILANTHROPISTS
• STORIES, REWARDS, AND RELATIONSHIPS
• THE POWER OF STORIES
• Appendix A. Agenda
• Appendix B. Speakers

Rapporteur: Steve Olson.

Suggested citation:

NAS (National Academy of Sciences). The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24958.

• Cite this Page National Academy of Sciences. The Science of Science Communication III: Inspiring Novel Collaborations and Building Capacity: Proceedings of a Colloquium. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2018 May 16. doi: 10.17226/24958
• PDF version of this title (1.4M)

Similar articles in PubMed

• Communicating science in politicized environments. [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013] Communicating science in politicized environments. Lupia A. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Aug 20; 110 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):14048-54. Epub 2013 Aug 12.
• Review Sustainable Infrastructures for Life Science Communication: Workshop Summary [ 2014] Review Sustainable Infrastructures for Life Science Communication: Workshop Summary Roundtable on Public Interfaces of the Life Sciences, Board on Life Sciences, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. 2014 Apr 3
• Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014] Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Fiske ST, Dupree C. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Sep 16; 111 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):13593-7. Epub 2014 Sep 15.
• ComSciCon-Triangle: Regional Science Communication Training for Graduate Students. [J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2018] ComSciCon-Triangle: Regional Science Communication Training for Graduate Students. O'Keeffe K, Bain R. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2018; 19(1). Epub 2018 Mar 30.
• Review Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda [ 2017] Review Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Committee on the Science of Science Communication: A Research Agenda. 2017 Mar 8

Recent Activity

• The Science of Science Communication III The Science of Science Communication III

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Essay on Importance of Communication for Students and Children

500+ words essay on importance of communication:.

Communication is one of the important tools that aid us to connect with people. Either you are a student or a working professional, good communication is something that will connect you far ahead. Proper communication can help you to solve a number of issues and resolve problems. This is the reason that one must know how to communicate well. The skills of communication essential to be developed so that you are able to interact with people. And able to share your thoughts and reach out to them. All this needs the correct guidance and self-analysis as well.

Meaning of Communication

The word communication is basically a process of interaction with the people and their environment . Through such type of interactions, two or more individuals influence the ideas, beliefs, and attitudes of each other.

Such interactions happen through the exchange of information through words, gestures, signs, symbols, and expressions. In organizations, communication is an endless process of giving and receiving information and to build social relationships.

Importance of Communication

Communication is not merely essential but the need of the hour. It allows you to get the trust of the people and at the same time carry better opportunities before you. Some important points are as follows –

Help to Build Relationships 

No matter either you are studying or working, communication can aid you to build a relationship with the people. If you are studying you communicate with classmates and teachers to build a relationship with them. Likewise in offices and organizations too, you make relationships with the staff, your boss and other people around.

Improve the Working Environment 

There are a number of issues which can be handled through the right and effective communication. Even planning needs communication both written as well as verbal. Hence it is essential to be good in them so as to fill in the communication gap.

Foster strong team

Communication helps to build a strong team environment in the office and other places. Any work which requires to be done in a team. It is only possible if the head communicates everything well and in the right direction.

Find the right solutions

Through communication, anyone can find solutions to even serious problems. When we talk, we get ideas from people that aid us to solve the issues. This is where communication comes into play. Powerful communication is the strength of any organization and can help it in many ways.

Earns more respect

If your communication skills are admirable, people will love and give you respect. If there is any problem, you will be the first person to be contacted. Thus it will increase your importance. Hence you can say that communications skills can make a big change to your reputation in society.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Don’t Go Overboard With Your Point

The conversation is about to express your thoughts. And to let the other person know what you feel. It is not mean to prove that your point is correct and the other person is wrong. Don’t Overboard other With Your Point.

Watch Your Words

Before you say something to Watch Your Words. At times, out of anger or anxiousness, we say somethings that we must not say. Whenever you are in a professional meeting or in some formal place, where there is a necessity of communicating about your product or work then it is advised to practice the same beforehand

Communication is the greatest importance. It is important to sharing out one’s thoughts and feelings to live a fuller and happier life. The more we communicate the less we suffer and the better we feel about everything around. However, it is all the more necessary to learn the art of effective communication to put across ones point well.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Essay On Importance Of Communication

Importance of Communication Essay

500+ words importance of communication essay.

For every human being, communication is one of the essential parts of our lives. People build relationships in their personal and professional lives based on communication. Effective communication works as a foundation for respect and trust to grow. It helps in better understanding a person and the context of the conversation. People always believe that their way of communication is better than others. To communicate effectively, individuals should understand the motion behind the said information. We know that communication is effortless, but miscommunication between two or more individuals sometimes leads to conflicts and distress. Building relationships at home, work, and social affairs will be easier if you know the right way to communicate effectively. It is required to have better communication skills such as non-verbal communication, listening and managing stress can improve the relationship between individuals.

Meaning of Communication

Communication is essential for all of us, whether humans or animals. Communication is a part of written and spoken language, and altogether it completes the communication process. Both use different languages to communicate because it’s hard to survive in this world without communication.

Good communication skills are all about exchanging ideas and thoughts to convey information. It is a two-way conversation that includes vocalisation as well as a gesture. One of the crucial purposes of communication is to express ideas, needs or thoughts, and one’s beliefs with clarity for a mutually accepted solution.

Communication skills cannot be underestimated. Before languages were invented, people communicated with their hand gestures, body language, etc. We all require better communication skills at every step of our life. Personal and professional life will get hampered if you lack practical communication.

Importance of Effective Communication

People understand the importance of communication, but sometimes they cannot communicate through communication. It happens due to a lack of better communication skills. Below, we have discussed a few ways to communicate effectively.

• Interruption: It becomes very annoying when someone disrupts you while talking. It looks pretty unethical to disrupt someone while talking constantly, and the conversation can take a different turn. So, while talking, let the other person complete their talk before you start talking.
• Listen patiently: Listen patiently when someone tries to make a healthy conversation. It is one of the ways to do effective communication, as it gives a clear understanding of what the person is trying to say.
• View your body language: Body language speaks about your personality. Some people make uncomfortable gestures through their body language. So, you should keep your body language friendly and warm rather than keeping it arrogant.
• Do not go over your point: Communication is all about expressing thoughts so that the other person can understand. It is not that you are trying to prove something correct and the other person incorrect. Some people try to win the conservation, which leads to struggles and arguments.
• Watch your words: Before telling someone something, make sure you know what you are saying. We often say things that we should not do out of anger or anxiety. Remember, once spoken, words can not be withdrawn. Thus, it is suggested that you do not say something that you can regret later.
• Practice: If there is a professional meeting where you need to communicate about your product or work, it is recommended to practise already. Practise in front of the mirror or with a friend only. Choose how your conversation will begin, all the points you cover, and how you will end it.

As many people may feel comfortable communicating, communication is an art developed through practice and evaluation; every good communicator passes through a process to learn communication and practice skills, review themselves, and decrease where they can be.

Communication is essential to share our thoughts and feelings to live a happy life. Better communication makes us feel better about everything surrounding us and makes us suffer less. So, it is necessary to learn the art of communication to put across one point well.

Therefore, communication is a vital aspect of our existence. Effective communication can be achieved by being mindful of different elements of communication. Using appropriate communication in appropriate settings is essential for effective communication.

From our BYJU’S website, students can also access CBSE Essays related to different topics. It will help students to get good marks in their exams.

Frequently asked Questions on the Importance of communication Essay

How important is communication.

Communication of ideas, and thoughts is an important skill to be acquired. Conveying things in an effective manner is necessary for both our personal and professional lives.

What are types of communication?

There are 4 main types of communication are verbal, non verbal, visual and written forms of communication.

What are the factors that act as a barrier for communication?

Language is obviously the biggest barrier for communication between peoples of the world. Then comes the physical barrier. Geographical separation hinders communication. There are other factors like the gender barrier, cultural differences that prevail in the society. Last but not the least, emotional barriers too hinder proper understanding between persons involved in communication.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Counselling