Authors: Sara Carracedo, Tomás Garnier, Meera Chandra, Juan Garcia-Ruiz; Reviewers: Mar Barrantes-Cepas, Mona Zimmermann
The role of science communication, often referred to as SciComm, is to connect science and society. Its goal is to educate people, inform politicians, shape policy, and engage the public with the neuroscience community. This includes inreach, when referring to communication between experts, and outreach, when communicating between an expert and a non-expert. When we think of science, we often picture research happening at universities or private industries. But science goes beyond that: it’s a tool for benefiting society as a whole. The knowledge produced in these settings is usually shared through scientific publications. Yet, much of this research never reaches the non-scientific community, as most publications are written in technical English with field-specific jargon, making it hard for non-experts to understand the subject. Good science communication breaks down complex research topics, making them clear and accessible to everyone. That’s the essence of SciComm: any effort to bring people closer to science!
UNESCO’s 2021 Science Report highlights a striking contrast: while there are millions of full-time researchers worldwide, they still represent only a tiny fraction of the global population. With billions of people across the world, the challenge is to make science accessible to more than just a select few, emphasising the growing need for skilled science communicators (Maher et al., 2024).
Although often neglected by the scientific community, SciComm is vital to bridging gaps between stakeholders, industry and civil society and guiding public policy. Making science relatable and compelling is a crucial task for researchers themselves. Indeed, communicating science is the only way to make their work visible and impactful. According to a Nature Masterclasses survey, 90% of researchers who participated agree that knowing how to communicate their work is a necessary skill to succeed in science (Saskia Hoving, 2023). Everyone has the right to access scientific knowledge, just as they need to understand the economy or politics that shape their lives. Think back to 2020 and the challenges of discussing the Covid pandemic. It showed us clearly that science doesn’t exist in a bubble and how we communicate it matters. Not only can it drive public opinion away or towards a particular area of research, but it can also affect how decisionmakers engage with a particular topic. Failing to show how neuroscience impacts our lives can result in politicians losing interest, stakeholders allocating resources to other issues or the public not acting in the optimal way for their well being.
Science is a dynamic process, not a fixed idea, and the way we talk about it can strongly influence how people respond. Today, challenges like the politicization of science, fake news, and the spread of misinformation on social media make the work of science communicators both more important and more difficult.
This is especially true with neuroscience, a field rife with pseudoscience and fake information, sometimes referred to as neuromyths. When neurosciences knowledge is taken too far, misconceptions emerge and reach contexts that permeate our lives as a whole such as education. According to a study published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience by Howard-Jones (2014), teachers are susceptible to believe in neuromyths such as the one stating that we use only 10% of our brain. Integrating neuromyths in education can prove to be harmful. For instance, teachers embracing these misconceptions might abandon effective practices in favor of others that are not supported by evidence. The study of the brain is key to our own understanding, health and wellbeing while at the same time being a complicated and nuanced topic. This means quality science communication in neuroscience is a priority.
There are a myriad of ways of doing SciComm; from citizenship science and direct engagement, through documentary filmmaking and writing. In all of these cases science communicators must be mindful of their audience, craft an engaging narrative, and choose the right medium. This section explores the essential elements of successful science communication and offers practical advice on engaging different audiences.
One of the biggest barriers in science communication is language. Since the 1920s, more than 90% of research papers have been written in English (How Did English Become The Language Of Science? - The World From PRX, 2014). While having a common language can be helpful, it also creates a significant barrier, as most people do not speak English as their first language.
Although we call English the language of science, this does not hold up when talking about SciComm to the general audience. Doing science in local languages is crucial for promoting inclusivity, enhancing comprehension, and empowering communities. When scientific knowledge is shared in a language people understand, it ensures that more individuals can access information regardless of their educational and cultural background.
Everyone has different priorities, opinions, biases, political views, and convictions that will define how they view or react to a particular set of information. As science communicator Gina Errico points out, every audience is unique, and you must meet them where they are. If you are speaking to politicians, you need to highlight how science relates to their goals, such as getting re-elected or addressing public health issues. If you are speaking to children the message must be fun and interactive, often delivered through games or storytelling. Understanding your audience is perhaps the most important factor in crafting a successful message.
A technique often used by science journalists is to create a profile of your target audience. Consider factors such as age, education, sex, geographic location, and cultural background. Create cards describing a member of this target audience you are trying to communicate to, describing their age, sex, place of origin, residence, job… Try to communicate your science to them; you will see that planning your talk, video, or writing will become easier.
Knowing your audience’s familiarity with and engagement in scientific issues can guide your decisions on how much technical language to use. For example, if you are talking to a younger or less knowledgeable audience, you may need to explain what a neuron is and what it does, but this is not necessary if you are talking with a medical professional. However, regardless of their familiarity with the topic, be mindful of the knowledge gap. You may be an expert in the subject, but they might be hearing about it for the first time. It’s easy to overestimate how much the audience already knows. This can lead to explanations that feel incomplete to the audience. To avoid confusion, step into their shoes: keep explanations clear, avoid jargon, and use relatable examples to make complex ideas accessible.
When it comes to inreach, it’s important to keep the common goal in mind and ensure everyone is on the same page. Different fields use different terms, and some technical words can have different meanings depending on the area (for example, in vitro might refer to a slice in physiology, but dissociated cells in molecular biology). Don’t be afraid to clarify these details, even if they seem small: it’s essential for clear communication. Just like with the general public, it’s best to avoid jargon. Effective communication is key to successful collaboration across fields.
Before embarking on any science communication project, it’s crucial to clearly understand what you want to say and what emotions you want to evoke. Are you trying to raise awareness about a new scientific discovery? Do you want to inspire people? Are you seeking to change a habit to improve global health? These objectives will shape how you frame your message.
Having specific learning outcomes in mind helps you stay focused and prevents you from wandering away from your stated goal. Even if you’re working alone, writing down these goals at the outset keeps your message clear and helps you stay on track. A simple yet effective way to approach this is by using the AEIOU framework:
By aligning your communication with these pillars, you can tailor your approach to meet the specific needs of your audience.
Different platforms offer different opportunities for reaching people. Blogs, newspapers, YouTube, podcasts, and X can effectively engage the general public, while research papers in online journals tend to reach more specialised, research-oriented readers. Which medium you choose will influence how your message is received and what audience you reach. For example, social media platforms like TikTok or YouTube may be the best route if your goal is to engage a younger audience. Visual mediums like documentaries or infographics allow for a powerful combination of imagery and data.
Podcasts or radio shows, on the other hand, provide an intimate platform for in-depth, more informal or personal discussions where you can explore the nuances of a topic. However, you will face the challenge of a lack of visual aids. Written formats, such as blog posts, articles, or books, allow readers to re-read and digest information at their own pace. As you determine the best medium for your message, consider how your audience consumes information.
Here are some pros and cons to help you decide which way you would like to communicate with the general audience.
At the heart of any successful science communication effort is a compelling story. Humans are natural storytellers, and we engage deeply with narratives that resonate emotionally or challenge us intellectually. Even when discussing complex scientific topics, you can use storytelling techniques to capture your audience’s attention and make the information more relatable. In order to craft a story, begin by asking yourself:
By answering these questions, you can structure your narrative to reflect the ups and downs of scientific discovery, making it more relatable and engaging for your audience. Use the three-act structure to organize your ideas, starting with the introduction of your subject, developing the conflict or challenges, and ending with a resolution that ties everything together in a meaningful way.
Randy Olsen described a narrative technique based on story beats, which ensures a logical flow of the narrative. The idea is to write facts or events down, these are your story beats and connect them using “but” and “therefore”. This avoids the disjointed feeling of a story told with a series of disconnected “and then” statements.
To deliver scientific content effectively, it’s vital to use simple language while maintaining scientific rigour. Here are some tips to keep your writing clear and engaging:
By focusing on clarity and accessibility, we can break down barriers and foster a more inclusive scientific community.
One of the most effective ways to engage people in science is to inspire curiosity. Instead of overwhelming your audience with facts, aim to pique their interest by offering just enough information to leave them wanting more. For example, you might introduce a scientific concept and then pose an intriguing question that invites the audience to explore further on their own.
Asking questions is also a powerful tool when communicating with people who may be skeptical or hesitant about science. Instead of directly confronting misinformation or disbelief, try engaging your audience in a dialogue. By posing thoughtful questions, you encourage them to think critically and consider new perspectives. This approach is especially effective when addressing contentious topics like climate change or vaccine hesitancy.
In addition, humour can be a valuable asset in SciComm. When used appropriately, humour makes learning more enjoyable and can help maintain the audience’s attention. A well-placed joke or lighthearted comment can make even the driest topics feel more approachable, but it’s important to strike a balance between being informative and entertaining.
Finally, effective SciComm involves not just delivering your message but also evaluating whether it was received and understood as intended. To do this, reflect on three key questions:
By comparing your original goals with the actual outcome, you can adjust your approach for future communications. This process of reflection ensures that you are continuously improving and refining your techniques.
Spread of misinformation is also a challenge undeniably important in SciComm. For instance, the majority of scientific articles published even in open science journals are a work in progress, incomplete in very specific contexts. Communicating these kinds of evidence requires attention to detail and very responsible communication, particularly highlighting any gaps or uncertainties and their relevance to the general public. A failure to do this leads to spreading misinformation, panic, and mistrust in scientific/medical systems.
How can you avoid it: SciComm should always be grounded in evidence. This means double-checking information across multiple reliable sources and seeking input from peers to verify and refine our understanding. It’s essential to embrace the idea that we don’t have all the answers and can always learn from others. By relying on the best available evidence and maintaining a collaborative mindset, we ensure that the information we share is accurate, robust, and trustworthy.
One of the biggest misconceptions of SciComm is feeling the need to oversimplify. It is important to acknowledge that science is a complex stream, and communicating it without being condescending or missing the main message is important to make the topic easily understandable.
How to avoid this: complex data can be explained with the help of images and figures. For example, not everyone has looked down a microscope at a neuron, making it almost impossible for lay audiences to imagine without an image. Another way is to develop assistive visual cues. For example, a neuron is compared to a tree and astrocytes to a star. Complex concepts require more clarification and expertise from communicators, and metaphors should be used with caution. It is also important to be realistic with oneself. We cannot explain every minute detail of a subject. It is better to explain one key message well than to get lost in the branches of the tree of knowledge (or neurites of the neuron of knowledge, if you will).
In recent years, many national and international initiatives have emerged to bridge the gap between science and the public. Here is a non-exhaustive list of inspiring projects from around the world and ideas on how to engage with them!
Many universities are launching open-access student journals to encourage scientific writing and dissemination. Here are a few notable examples:
Whether you’re a student, a researcher, or simply a science enthusiast, there are many ways to engage with these initiatives or to create your own initiatives.
Behind all of these projects, there is a curious person just like you, that decided to take action and create something from scratch. You can be sure that if your idea is sufficiently worked out and your intention is to make neuroscience reach people, your friends will not hesitate to join you, and your university or research center will not hesitate to give you institutional and financial support!
If you are new to scicomm and all this feels too overwhelming, there are plenty of resources out there for you to tiptoe rather than plunge into this new adventure:
If you think writing is too challenging to explain what is in your mind, resort to visuals.
Maher, C., Gyles, T., Nestler, E. J., & Schiller, D. (2024). A guide to science communication training for doctoral students. Nature Neuroscience, 27(7), 1211-1213.
How did English become the language of science? (2014, October 6). The World from PRX.
| Saskia Hoving (2023). The impact of good science communication, and how organisations can support | For Librarians | Springer Nature. |
Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: myths and messages. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 15(12), 817-824.