Science Communication Workshops

Translating health science into understandable and clear health advice isn’t easy, especially on social media. And it’s not about what algorithms want us to do to engage their users. It’s about how people think. In the past three years, the World Health Organization worked on a project with Meta, using their Brand Lift Study tool to test how different kinds of message framings, built on behavioural science theories, affect how people perceive risk and act on it. In the paper below, we highlight a measles vaccination experiment in which we targeted parents of young children. We compared two types of messaging: - Verbatim: fact-based and precise “1 in 1,000 children who get measles will die.” - Gist: essence-based and emotional “Some children who get measles will die.” Both are accurate, but they communicate risk differently. Here are a few reflections from the process: - We need to design social media public health campaigns with behavioural science lenses, not just communication instinct. - We need to evaluate impact beyond likes and shares; focus on understanding and intention. - We must keep messages evidence-based but human; clarity matters as much as accuracy. What matters most isn’t how much information we share, but how people make sense of it. Small shifts in framing can change how people understand risk and how they act on it — which is the ultimate objective of public health communication. WHO project team: Simon Williams Elena Altieri Mohamed Gulaid Giselle Miguens Lisa Menning Karin Stein, MD, MScPH

Under the microscope, tissues and cells look complex and beautiful. But without context, their story can be hard to follow, much like the science behind them. That’s why I’m so passionate about accessible science communication. In biotech and life sciences, breakthroughs like gene editing and cell therapies are extraordinary. But if they’re hidden behind technical language, we miss the chance to inspire, build trust, and show their real-world impact. At Thermo Fisher Scientific, I’ve seen how storytelling can unlock that understanding. We tell stories about the researchers, patients and innovators behind science to bring discoveries to life, use formats like podcasting to make complex topics approachable to spark curiosity beyond the lab, and social media to turn small scientific details into moments of wonder for a broad audience. The communicator’s role is to help people see both the beauty and the meaning behind the work so that people can feel connected to it. The most successful science communicators are shifting their focus from complexity to clarity. 💡 They translate research into stories that resonate with non-scientists. 💡 They highlight the why behind innovation, not just the how. 💡 They use plain language without sacrificing scientific accuracy. When we make science more accessible, we don’t dilute it. We amplify it. And in doing so, we bring more people into the conversation, which is where real impact begins.

I teach a seminar on science communication at Stanford, and think the ideas from it should be available to everyone. In that spirit, I've written a new essay that summarizes four principles and four practical tips from the course. I hope these can be useful to anyone (especially students) who want to try their hand at outreach. Principle 1: Compare yourself to the alternative, not the almighty. Remember that many people are already sharing science, often with little regard for accuracy or scruples. As researchers, you probably have lots of value to add! Principle 2: Communication is kindness. Rather than worrying about how you come off as a writer, focus on the service you can provide to the reader. Principle 3: You don't have to do science to talk about it. "Summarizer" is a useful role in the research world. Principle 4: Science is a story. People don't need pat, over-simplified narratives. Research is full of mystery and change... the stuff of all great writing. Tip 1: Write a shi*tty first draft. Think of your early writing as a block, not a sculpture. Tip 2: Reverse outlines are magic. Once you've created something, take stock and build an architecture. Tip 3: Sentences should be about people. Especially in psychology, write as intuitively and gently as possible. Tip 4: Elevators come in all heights. Be ready to describe your idea in a page, a paragraph, and a sentence. More at the link in comments. I truly think communication should be a part of training for all scientists. If this helps you do it, I bet you will help others by sharing your ideas!

In may commentary in Nature I argue argues that scientists must communicate their value more clearly, acknowledge uncertainty and ensure research remains connected to society’s needs. Indeed public support for science rests on a social contract: in return for support, science demonstrates its value to society. That contract is under pressure, though. Governments are becoming more prescriptive about research priorities, while political polarisation, disinformation and declining trust are making it harder for science to maintain public support. Researchers must engage more effectively with policymakers, business and civil society, and explain how science contributes to social, environmental, economic and security interests. Trust also depends on acknowledging uncertainty. Scientists should be clear about what they do not know, avoid overstating findings and recognise that people also draw on other systems of thought, including religion and Indigenous knowledge. We also need to protect the trustworthiness of science. Artificial intelligence is creating further risks through low-quality papers, fraudulent content and weak peer review. Stronger safeguards and more meaningful ways of assessing research are needed. My commentary discussed the work that the International Science Council is undertaking on these and related issues. see: https://lnkd.in/eY9KyTt7

The loudest voices in the room are often the least informed. Those with superficial knowledge speak with absolute certainty, while true experts hesitate before giving media interviews - or discard dozens of post drafts and never publish at all. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. When people know very little about a topic, they lack the framework to recognize their own ignorance. Their confidence skyrockets precisely because they don’t understand the complexity they’re missing. Meanwhile, experts become quieter. Because the more you know, the more you realize how much you don’t know. What does this mean for science communication? → Researcher should share their evidence-based knowledge. The public needs expert voices not the loudest ones. → More budget for communication support. Scientists shouldn’t have to choose between doing research and communicating it well. → Publish research more transparently by not only sharing conclusions but showcasing processes, methods and challenges. → Normalize uncertainty. Saying “we don’t know yet” or “the evidence suggests” isn’t weakness - it’s intellectual honesty. The cost of silence from experts is too high. When qualified voices withdraw from public discourse, misinformation fills the void. What’s your experience? How do you encourage experts in your field to engage publicly?

How's your voice? In scientific writing, the grammatical voice a writer chooses shapes the tone, clarity, emphasis and perceived objectivity of the work. Active voice occurs when the subject performs the action of the verb eg “The researcher conducted the experiment.” This voice is preferred for its clarity and directness. Passive voice shifts the focus from the subject to the object receiving the action eg “The experiment was conducted by the researcher.” This construction depersonalises the action and places emphasis on what was done, rather than who did it. It remains common in scientific writing, especially when the goal is to sound neutral and objective. A less familiar option is the middle voice, which is used when the subject appears to act upon itself eg “The solution mixed easily.” While rare in English, this type of construction is useful in science when describing processes that occur without deliberate intervention eg chemical reactions or biological behaviours. Beyond grammar, there are more stylistic or rhetorical 'voices' that can influence scientific communication. One of these is the passive-aggressive voice, which is a tone that emerges when blame or criticism is implied rather than stated directly eg “It’s surprising that no one thought to control for that variable.” This voice is unprofessional and best avoided in formal contexts. Another is the clickbait voice, which is more common in science communication aimed at the public. It uses sensational or emotionally charged language to grab attention eg, “This tiny microbe could change everything we know about life on Earth!” This is a useful tool in headlines or to engage the public or non-experts with scientific content. The impersonal or objective voice is also a hallmark of traditional academic writing. This voice avoids personal pronouns and foregrounds data or procedures eg “A statistically significant difference was observed.” It promotes neutrality and discourages emotional or subjective interpretation. However, the first-person active voice, using “I” or “we,” is now more accepted in many disciplines. Sentences like “We analysed the samples” can add clarity and accountability by specifying the author’s role without sounding egotistical. Some scientific writing also benefits from a narrative voice to take the reader through the process eg “After discovering the anomaly, we revised our hypothesis.” This can be especially effective in case studies, historical overviews, or discussions where process matters as much as outcome. Finally, the promotional voice is used in grant applications, public engagement and abstracts aiming to showcase importance eg, “This study presents a groundbreaking solution to antibiotic resistance.” It is important to balance enthusiasm with evidence and avoid overclaiming. Different voices serve different rhetorical purposes and tone and credibility can hinge on the right voice choice, so knowing them is part of scientific literacy.

Can scientists rebuild trust with people who disagree with them simply by changing how they talk? Post and Bienzeisler ⬇️ conducted experiments across three contentious policy debates: wolf management, pandemic school closures, and domestic flight restrictions. They compared two communication styles. ▶️ An epistocrat presents scientific conclusions as imperative, precluding debate about values. ▶️ An honest broker acknowledges that policy choices involve legitimate value disputes alongside evidence. The finding is striking. 👉 When scientists adopted the honest broker approach, they gained trust specifically among people whose prior views most strongly opposed the scientists' recommendations. These were the most attitudinally challenged audiences. Medium-sized effects emerged across four of six case studies. Yet the mechanism matters. 💡 The authors discovered that trust gains occurred because audiences perceived the honest broker as creating space for societal debate on values and priorities. This perception, not the scientist's apparent moderation, mediated the effect. 🔔 The critical insight is that dismissing value dimensions of policy questions actually damages scientific credibility among those who disagree. Scientists regain standing not by abandoning expertise but by acknowledging where science ends, and democratic deliberation begins. #ScienceCommunication #PublicTrust

Only 4 in 10 Americans trust nutrition science. I asked three experts why. Here’s what they said. Lucas Roldos, PhD in nutrition scientist studies the quality of information people consume. When he was a contributor at Examine his team reviewed the top 100 best-selling nutrition books and found a troubling pattern. “There’s too much misinformation and too little rigor. It’s never been easier to produce content without the ability to screen its quality.” In that analysis, 89 percent of authors had financial incentives, and nearly half relied more on personal stories than data. When the line between evidence and opinion blurs, the public learns to question everything… even legitimate research. That erosion of credibility is made worse by how the science is communicated. Dr. Anayanci Masis-Vargas M.Sc., Ph.D. , a neuroscientist and nutritionist, told me the public’s confusion isn’t just emotional. It’s physiological. “The distrust is earned. It’s not that science evolves — it’s that the evolution gets miscommunicated. Constant contradictions trigger stress and decision paralysis. People don’t need more rules; they need frameworks that honor both evidence and emotion.” And when that confusion reaches the front lines, people like Nick Smoot, a coach and educator, see the results firsthand. “Most people haven’t been taught how to think about science. Communicators cherry-pick, oversimplify, or take extreme positions. Black-and-white thinking in a gray field creates frustration and fatigue.” Across all three perspectives, a pattern emerges. People don’t necessarily distrust science. They distrust how it’s presented. Stripped of context, amplified by headlines, and sold for clicks. Rebuilding trust starts with raising the standard for how information is communicated, not just how it’s discovered.

Public trust in science is shaped less by how much information is provided and more by whether communication meets audience expectations of quality. A new review in Current Opinion in Psychology by Monika Taddicken argues that trust is built at the interface between science and its publics, where most people encounter research indirectly through journalism, platforms, institutional communication and creator content. In "mediated settings", audiences rely on quality cues rather than technical accuracy alone to judge both messages and science. Misalignment between format and audience expectations reduces satisfaction and erode trust, even when the science is sound. Trust is shown to be multidimensional and multilevel. The review distinguishes five trust dimensions that audiences use to evaluate science: expertise, integrity, benevolence, transparency and dialogue orientation. Importantly, distrust often emerges not from doubts about scientific competence, but from perceived failures in openness, independence or willingness to engage. Science communication that aims to strengthen trust must be deliberately designed to signal specific trust dimensions through observable quality cues. Accuracy alone is insufficient if communication lacks relevance, respect or transparency.

In a further effort to foster fussiness and annoy friends, I increasingly ask collaborators to avoid terms such as "translating science" and "communicating science." Why? Both terms put the focus on science rather than communication. More specifically, both terms frame science communication as a one-way activity focused on helping people understand science rather than a field focused around the role of communication in science-related decision-making. "Translating science" The translation metaphor suggests that the main challenge of science communication is helping people understand scientists. Translators play an essential role in diplomacy, but they are one tool in helping countries solve international problems. Similarly, science communicators must do more than make technical information easier to understand. "Communicating science" What does it mean to ‘communicate science’? Do health communicators ‘communicate health’? Do environmental communicators ‘communicate the environment’? A strategic perspective suggests that our focus should be on communication in the context of science. Once communication is viewed as a tool for helping achieve real-world goals, the key question becomes: What information do communicators need to SEEK and SHARE to help people make decisions consistent with their priorities and associated values? Such information might include: ⭐ the risks and benefits of different options, ⭐ the feasibility and acceptability of those options (i.e., self-efficacy and norm information), ⭐ and the trustworthiness of relevant institutions and actors. Such information is better described as science-related information rather than science information. Questions such as "How do vaccines work?" or "What happens to amino acids when I sear meat?" can certainly matter. But, from a communication perspective, they are secondary to helping people make informed choices.