science based communication assignment

• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Association of Science Communicators

Giving science a voice.

Search Association of Science Communicators

Practical science communication exercises for the classroom.

Jun 3, 2021 · Sheeva Azma & Nidhi Parekh

This resource was featured in  How Science Communication Can Improve Your Career  on Neuronline.  Visit today  to read more.

We’ve previously blogged for Science Talk about  how to lecture about science communication . In this post, we’ll talk about practical science communication exercises that educators can use, and discuss a few do’s and don’ts in undertaking these exercises in the classroom.

Here are a few examples of science communication exercises

• Layperson summaries of science papers — we like calling them “News and Views.”  Students can summarize a scientific paper’s main points in a few easy-to-understand sentences. To do this, they should only provide as much detail as needed to explain the topic. They should explain the concepts in the paper at the level of someone unfamiliar with the topic who has no formal science training.
• Social media exercises.  Social media is increasingly becoming a source of information, including emerging insights from the scientific community. Your students can  write a tweet  about a paper, summarizing the main takeaway(s) in 280 characters or less. We’ve found that our students were surprisingly good at this task! If your students would like to communicate their science on Instagram, try to get them to explain their study within the 2,200 character limit. Our suggestion is to let your students decide their platform for their science communication.
• Science art.  Alternatively, if they are interested in creating scientific art, they can use this exercise to create accordingly. There’s so many ways to use a creative medium to express scientific concepts: knitting, drawing, illustrations, singing, etc. Try not to limit your students’ way of expression. Need inspiration? Here are a few examples: Sheeva’s favorite science art is the  brainbow  from the Harvard Center of Brain Science, which actually originated from the need to track different brain cells or neurons, by labeling each with a different color. We both love fellow science communicator Raven the Science Maven, who puts out  science-themed music videos . There’s also  a great needlepoint  of supernova remnant Cas-A.
• Writing a paper critique meant for a general audience.  Often, in the science world, papers that are hot off the press are fraught with controversy. An important SciComm skill is to be able to use critical thinking skills to explain why a scientific paper might not be all it’s purporting to be.
• Explaining a complex science topic as one might to friends and family.  Exercises in which students explain scientific concepts to friends and family can be useful to improve science communication skills. We learned in the COVID-19 pandemic that verbal SciComm skills are useful. Talking to people about the science of COVID-19 vaccines can help  dispel vaccine hesitancy . Anyone with a science background can help improve science literacy among the general population by exercising science communication skills. For example, Nidhi’s family had so many questions about the science of COVID-19 that she published various  COVID-19 explainers .
• Doing role-playing to explain a complex science topic to policymakers.  Policymakers are not scientists, but the work they do often occurs at the intersection of society — think agriculture, healthcare, environmental policy, even providing federal funding for both biomedical and basic science. As a result, our lawmakers need someone to explain science to them in order for them to make effective policies. As Sheeva has written before, a neglected aspect of scientific training is  the policy aspect of science communication . So, students can practice their SciComm skills by role-playing interactions with their lawmakers, which can culminate in drafting emails to policymakers about various topics in science, or even picking up the phone and calling their members of Congress (or the relevant lawmaking body in your country, if you are not based in the United States).
• Engage in “science storytelling.”  Stories are a convenient way to communicate, and have been used throughout history. Science can also tell a story. Encourage your students to engage in storytelling using the 5 W’s — what is happening, who is the focus of the story, when and where is the story taking place, and why is it important to the listener or reader?
• Improvise.  Check out the  PLoS SciComm blog’s discussion  of using improvisation in the classroom to improve science communication teaching. If you ask your class an open-ended question, and they provide an answer, continue the conversation using concepts from improv. Say “yes, and” before adding your own information to the mix. The  four C’s of improv  are “creativity, critical thinking, collaboration and communication,” which are also foundational in SciComm.
• Use technology.  Video recordings are a great way to capture oral science communication, as  Ponzio and colleagues  report from their SciComm communication endeavors at Rutgers University. It’s easy to record an oral SciComm presentation on one’s smartphone for feedback from oneself and one’s colleagues. If your students are not comfortable on camera, consider suggesting creating animations of science concepts.
• Leverage outreach opportunities as ways to improve SciComm.  Outreach opportunities, such as teaching science to K-12 students or doing a science demo at a museum, can be a great way for students to gain hands-on science communication experience. While outreach has traditionally been a foundational aspect of most graduate training programs in science, these experiences are rarely leveraged in terms of their ability to improve students’ SciComm skills. ​

​What exercises have you used in the classroom to successfully teach SciComm? What has worked, and what hasn’t worked? Feel free to chime in below in the comments!

Pitch & Contribute

A science blog co-editors.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Apply to Teach a Course

Thank you for your interest in teaching a course within the Science Talk community! Courses taught by Science Talk community members for community members will enable easier dissemination of science communication best-practices, and help scicomm grow as a profession. We want to help this community thrive, and are glad you are a part of it.

In offering courses, Science Talk provides the platform for organizing your course & registering students, course support, and access & marketing to our community of science communicators. We charge for course registrations and split net revenue from registrations on a 50:50 basis with instructors. All course IP remains the property of the instructor. We hope this arrangement will help support facilitators in our community in their work, and also support the growth of our organization & community.

Please, complete the form below. We will use this information to assess the proposed course for inclusion in our catalog of offerings. We review proposals on an ongoing basis, and will get back to you soon!

Science Talk is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization (Tax ID: 82-2076772). We are a volunteer-run organization and depend entirely on donors and sponsors for operational support. Donate now .

• Conferences

Scicomm 101: A Beginner’s Guide to Science Communication

• by Sydney Wyatt
• November 02, 2020

As scientists, we constantly engage in science communication, but have you taken a moment to think about what that means and how you could improve your communication? Science Says hosted a SciComm 101 presentation in lieu of our annual kick-off barbecue (thanks, COVID-19) to explore some science communication background, basics, and careers.

When we talk about science communication (scicomm), we are referring to the practice of communicating science-related topics to non-experts, usually in the fields of  science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). The primary goal of scicomm is to engage and educate the public through outreach activities. Non-scientists and everyday citizens need to be informed and educated about the scientific issues at hand in order to be fully informed about the world they live in—climate change, vaccines, and COVID-19 are some current issues with a big impact on our lives. The average person only experiences scientific engagement in school and is often met with challenges that prevent them from continued engagement; they may have the understanding that there is only one way into STEM fields successfully, even though this is an inaccurate assumption . This gate-keeping negatively impacts the scientific literacy of the public who vote on policies affected by science like healthcare and environmental protections. Thus, science communication is imperative to improving the accessibility of science to the public.

What does science communication look like?

Who doesn’t like lists? This definitely isn’t an exhaustive one, but we just wanted to give you some examples of ways that you can communicate science. These are just some ideas so that you can think about a method that works best for you! 

• Digital media (videos, podcasts)

Other graduate students hone their skills in video creation and editing, such as on the Science Says Youtube channel . Here, you can talk about specific topics that you are interested in, or make videos debunking some myths about the field you study. You can even record yourself doing an experiment, either one for kids or a more advanced one for high school students interested in understanding research. 

• Writing (books, blogs, journalists, press releases…)

Traditionally, some scientists have written books about their work or their experiences as a scientist. These are usually aimed at the general public, with the intent to tell a story about their experiences. One example of this is Sy Montgomery’s The Soul of an Octopus: A Surprising Exploration into the Wonder of Consciousness , in which she talks about her appreciation for octopuses (not octopi!). In our book club we talk about how she really paints a picture of how octopuses act and make connections with people, even though their experiences are vastly different than that of humans. Scientists don’t have to write long-form pieces either—many scientists write short-form pieces such as blog posts , news articles, and press releases featuring recent research highlights. 

• Outreach (festivals, pubs)

When we think of outreach, many of us think of schools—like a classroom setting. But a lot of the outreach that we do can vary a lot! Science Says (at least, before COVID-19,) frequently goes to Farmer’s Markets to table and talk one-on-one with the public about things like GMOs, agriculture, and other hot-button scientific topics. Science cafés are becoming more popular, especially at bars, where you can discuss science with adults in a casual setting. Check out this list of science cafés near Davis.

• Education (formal/informal) (aka traditional science education in schools vs. museums, camps, other non-school educational settings)

While this can also fall under outreach, some science communication can be dedicated to education itself such as designing classroom lesson plans about exploring the world around them in a scientific manner. Some classrooms will allow graduate students to demonstrate experiments or talk to students about science; there are even opportunities for field trips. It depends on what kind of setting you work best in! 

• Science policy (pitching to and advising policy-makers)

Not surprisingly, many politicians don’t keep up with research. There is a new wave of graduate students interested in science policy, which may involve them running for office or becoming an adviser to politicians at the local, state, or national level.The goal of science communication in this realm is to help politicians make decisions based on evidence from scientific studies. 

• Social media 

Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and even TikTok are quickly becoming platforms for scientists to talk about their research to a very wide audience. Some creative scientists post their artwork or microscopy images on Instagram. Others use TikTok to make short, entertaining videos about their research or even what it’s like to be a scientist. These platforms are a unique challenge for a scientist that is interested in science communication—how can you condense the information you want to convey into less than 280 characters? How do you visualize your research? How do you phrase your work in a way that everyone, ESPECIALLY non-experts, can understand?

Most importantly, you use your science communication skills anytime you talk about science, even with other scientists! Honing your scicomm skills is essential for any researcher. Good communication is critical to giving engaging talks, writing scientific articles, and networking with other scientists.

Who does science communication?

As a scientist, you do! Whenever you are talking about science, even to fellow scientists, you are engaging in science communication. 

Where do science communicators work?

There are a myriad of scicomm careers so here’s just  a sample of them. As a note, many scicomm careers involve lots of written communication so this is a valuable skill you can build with our workshops and blogs . Many of these careers integrate several of the different types of science communication discussed above (writing, social media, digital media, public speaking). Here are just a few examples of scicomm careers:

Academia: professors who incorporate scicomm into their work, news and media departments, colleges and institutes within a university with communications staff Journalism: freelance and full-time writers Informal education (museums, nature centers, etc): educators, docents, exhibit curators, communications and outreach directors Formal education: Science teachers and college professors or lecturers Other science writing: script writers for TV, radio, movies, podcasts; book authors Science policy: state and national level as staff member for a legislator, think tanks focused on science-informed policy and research Industry: science writers, digital communications, technical writers Publishing: academic journals Government organizations based on science (NASA, USGS, NIH, National Labs, etc)

How do you launch a science communication career?

Networking is a huge part of developing a scicomm career. This can be done through professional networks like CapSciComm or by attending conferences like Science Talk and the National Association of Science Writers’ ( NASW ) annual conference. Networking allows you to develop relationships and contacts, and puts you on the radar for opportunities. You may also connect with professionals you want to conduct an informational interview with to learn more about a particular career and necessary skills. 

Finally, build a portfolio to demonstrate your work. You can create your own free website through Wix or similar sources to curate your science writing or art; if you’re more interested in a digital career, make a YouTube channel or a podcast. Be sure to broadcast your portfolio and work on professional social media, whether that’s LinkedIn or your professional Twitter account. 

Science communication basics

There are many ways to prepare for a science communication event, so we shared some of our favorite tools and tips for monitoring our use of technical jargon and developing relatable and understandable talks or presentations. Identify which areas of scicomm you want to work on this year by watching Mary’s recorded portion below and keep an eye out for future Science Says workshops and events that will help you hone and polish that skill!

You can find all these resources and more on our resources page . 

How Science Says can help with science communication

We at Science Says offer a variety of opportunities to build and practice your scicomm skills. From workshops to invited speakers, we host events to build skills like storytelling , writing and digital science communication. We also extend opportunities to practice scicomm through our various blogs , our public science book club and different outreach events . If you’re interested in starting your scicomm career, reach out to us at [email protected] to get involved in planning an event, writing a blog, or brainstorming creative ways to engage the public especially in the current Zoom climate. Happy communicating!

Science Says is a community of UC Davis graduate students, postdocs and early career scientists dedicated to making scientific research interesting, relevant and accessible to everyone. For more content, follow us on Twitter @SciSays .

Primary Category

Effective Science Communication A practical guide to surviving as a scientist

• Related Documents

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

Abstract Background 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. Results 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.

Bringing Science to Bars: A Strategy for Effective Science Communication

It is well accepted that it is part of a scientist’s duty to communicate science, yet most practicing scientists lack the training and opportunity to do so. In this article, we use the framework of science talks in bars to highlight the importance of locality and environment. We propose that science communication programs should be developed around the locales of the target community as an effective strategy to counter the rising mistrust in science and scientists.

Evaluating science communication

Effective science communication requires assembling scientists with knowledge relevant to decision makers, translating that knowledge into useful terms, establishing trusted two-way communication channels, evaluating the process, and refining it as needed. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda [National Research Council (2017)] surveys the scientific foundations for accomplishing these tasks, the research agenda for improving them, and the essential collaborative relations with decision makers and communication professionals. Recognizing the complexity of the science, the decisions, and the communication processes, the report calls for a systems approach. This perspective offers an approach to creating such systems by adapting scientific methods to the practical constraints of science communication. It considers staffing (are the right people involved?), internal collaboration (are they talking to one another?), and external collaboration (are they talking to other stakeholders?). It focuses on contexts where the goal of science communication is helping people to make autonomous choices rather than promoting specific behaviors (e.g., voter turnout, vaccination rates, energy consumption). The approach is illustrated with research in two domains: decisions about preventing sexual assault and responding to pandemic disease.

Antecedents of Vaccine Hesitancy in WEIRD and East Asian Contexts

Following decreasing vaccination rates over the last two decades, understanding the roots of vaccine hesitancy has become a public health priority. Vaccine hesitancy is linked to scientifically unfounded fears around the MMR vaccine and autism which are often fuelled by misinformation spread on social media. To counteract the effects of misinformation about vaccines and in particular the falling vaccination rates, much research has focused on identifying the antecedents of vaccine hesitancy. As antecedents of vaccine hesitancy are contextually dependent, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful in non-WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) populations, and even in certain (non-typical) WEIRD sub-populations. Successful interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy must be based on understanding of the specific context. To identify potential contextual differences in the antecedents of vaccine hesitancy, we review research from three non-WEIRD populations in East Asia, and three WEIRD sub-populations. We find that regardless of the context, mistrust seems to be the key factor leading to vaccine hesitancy. However, the object of mistrust varies across WEIRD and non-WEIRD populations, and across WEIRD subgroups suggesting that effective science communication must be mindful of these differences.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Microbial Sciences—the Texas Perspective

The way that diversity, equity, and inclusion impact scientific careers varies for everyone, but it is evident that institutions providing an environment where being different or having differences creates a sense of being welcomed, supported, and valued are beneficial to the scientific community at large. In this commentary, three short stories from Texas-based microbiologists are used to depict (i) the importance of bringing the guiding principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion within their professional roles, (ii) the need to apply and translate those principles to support and enable successful scientific careers among peers and trainees, and (iii) the impact of effective science communication to increase the understanding of microbial environments among the community at large.

Using Frames to Make Scientific Communication More Effective

Science can serve as a valuable foundation for the making of public policy. For science to have this effect, it must be effectively communicated to individuals, organizations, and institutions. Effective science communication often involves frames that highlight particular aspects of a scientific finding or issue. This chapter discusses ways in which frames can be used to facilitate effective scientific communication—particularly we explore the impact of frames with regard to attention limitations, political polarization, and the politicization of science. We also highlight unanswered questions and challenges. The main lesson of this chapter is that there are certain conditions under which choosing particular frames yields more effective communication. While understanding these conditions does not guarantee success, it can help science communicators avoid common mistakes.

The Background to Effective Science Communication with the Public

Human biology is a matter of life or death: effective science communication for covid ‐19 research, jargon as a barrier to effective science communication: evidence from metacognition.

In this experiment ( N = 650), we examine the negative consequences of jargon on individuals’ perceptions of emerging scientific technology and aim to explain these effects. We find that the presence of jargon impairs people’s ability to process scientific information, and that this impairment leads to greater motivated resistance to persuasion, increased risk perceptions, and lower support for technology adoption. These findings suggest that the use of jargon undermines efforts to inform and persuade the public through the cognitive mechanism of metacognition.

Delivering effective science communication: advice from a professional science communicator

Export citation format, share document.

LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Create a new account.

Can't sign in? Forgot your password?

Enter your email address below and we will send you the reset instructions

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

Verify Phone

Your Phone has been verified

• This journal
• This Journal
• sample issues
• publication fees
• latest issues

Considerations for effective science communication

Information & authors, metrics & citations, view options, considerations, 1. define what science communication means to you and your research, 2. know—and listen to—your target audience, 3. consider a diverse but coordinated communication portfolio, 4. draft skilled players and build a network, 5. create and seize opportunities, 6. be creative when you communicate, 7. focus on the science in science communication, 8. be an honest broker, 9. understand the science of science communication, 10. think like an entrepreneur, 11. don’t let your colleagues stop you, 12. integrate science communication into your research program, 13. recognize how science communication enhances your science, 14. request science communication funds from grants, 15. strive for bidirectional communication, 16. evaluate, reflect, and be prepared to adapt, acknowledgements, information, published in.

Data Availability Statement

• science engagement
• science outreach
• communication science
• evaluation of science communication
• academic cultures
• professional development
• Integrative Sciences
• Science Communication

Affiliations

Author contributions, competing interests, other metrics, export citations.

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

• Karen J. Murchie ,
• Dylan Diomede , and
• Marie-Claire Shanahan
• Natalie M. Sopinka ,
• Laura E. Coristine ,
• Maria C. DeRosa ,
• Chelsea M. Rochman ,
• Brian L. Owens ,
• Steven J. Cooke , and
• Stephen B. Heard
• Jonathan W. Moore ,
• Linda Nowlan ,
• Martin Olszynski ,
• Aerin L. Jacob ,
• Brett Favaro ,
• Lynda Collins ,
• G.L. Terri-Lynn Williams-Davidson ,
• Jill Weitz , and

View options

Share options, share the article link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Previous article, next article.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 26 April 2024

A guide to science communication training for doctoral students

• Christina Maher 1   na1 ,
• Trevonn Gyles   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4635-5985 1   na1 ,
• Eric J. Nestler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7905-2000 1 , 2 &
• Daniela Schiller   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0357-7724 1 , 2  

Nature Neuroscience ( 2024 ) Cite this article

2188 Accesses

79 Altmetric

Metrics details

Effective science communication is necessary for engaging the public in scientific discourse and ensuring equitable access to knowledge. Training doctoral students in science communication will instill principles of accessibility, accountability, and adaptability in the next generation of scientific leaders, who are poised to expand science’s reach, generate public support for research funding, and counter misinformation. To this aim, we provide a guide for implementing formal science communication training for doctoral students.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

195,33 € per year

only 16,28 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Steinbeck, J. The Log From the Sea of Cortez (Penguin, 2001).

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. UNESCO Science Report 2021: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development (United Nations, 2021).

Croxson, P. L., Neeley, L. & Schiller, D. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5 , 1466–1468 (2021).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rein, B. Cell 185 , 3059–3065 (2022).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Weingart, P. & Guenther, L. J. Sci. Commun. 15 , C01 (2016).

Article   Google Scholar  

Fischhoff, B. & Scheufele, D. A. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110 , 14031–14032 (2013). (Suppl. 3).

Grorud-Colvert, K., Lester, S. E., Airamé, S., Neeley, E. & Gaines, S. D. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107 , 18306–18311 (2010).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Ending Discrimination Against People with Mental and Substance Use Disorders: the Evidence for Stigma Change (National Academies Press, 2016).

Neeley, L. et al. Front. Commun. 5 , 35 (2020).

Goldstein, C. M., Murray, E. J., Beard, J., Schnoes, A. M. & Wang, M. L. Ann. Behav. Med. 54 , 985–990 (2020).

Gascoigne, T. et al. (eds.) Communicating Science: A Global Perspective (ANU Press, 2020).

Rein, B. Neuroscience 530 , 192–200 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank P. Croxson for her involvement as co-founder of the effective science communication course. We also thank the various teaching assistants over the years, who were actively involved in shaping the course: T. Fehr, C. Lardner, C. Guevara and M. O’Brien.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Christina Maher, Trevonn Gyles.

Authors and Affiliations

Nash Family Department of Neuroscience, Friedman Brain Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

Christina Maher, Trevonn Gyles, Eric J. Nestler & Daniela Schiller

Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

Eric J. Nestler & Daniela Schiller

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniela Schiller .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Maher, C., Gyles, T., Nestler, E.J. et al. A guide to science communication training for doctoral students. Nat Neurosci (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-024-01646-y

Download citation

Published : 26 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-024-01646-y

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

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Core Principles of Science Communication

Before you dive into creating your first Message Box, it’s good to brush up on a few principles that will help you craft messages that stick. 

Think about where they’re coming from

We all absorb information through the lens of our values and cultural identities. Many scientists believe that if they simply share the facts and data, the person they’re talking to will automatically agree with them. After all, the science is clear! But research in the field of communication has shown time and time again that simply sharing more scientific information doesn’t change minds, attitudes, or behaviors‚ which are formed by our communities, identities, and values. 

Instead of spewing knowledge, try to understand the person you are talking to, by asking questions to learn more about what matters to them. This helps you to know which aspects of your research are most relevant for them, what you should prioritize as you’re sharing your work, and how best to frame what you’re sharing so that they’re more likely to consider it. 

Start with what matters most

People want to know why your work is relevant to them. Sharing that first, and coming back to it again later, will help your audience remember your bottom line.​ Effective science communication is less about cramming in all the details that you might want to convey, and more about knowing what someone cares about and how to share why your work matters for them. 

Distill it down to just a couple points

Cognitive research tells us that the human brain can only absorb three to five pieces of information at a time. It may be tough to fight the urge to share everything you know in a firehose of information! Your goal as you fill out your Message Box is to identify the information that really matters for your audience and share only that . Your audience – whether a journalist, a policymaker, a room of colleagues at a professional meeting, or a class of second-graders – doesn’t have deep knowledge of your subject matter. So prioritize what you share, based on what your audience needs to know.

Avoid gobbledygook. 

Watch out for jargon as you practice your messages. Jargon is precise and can be very helpful when writing scientific papers, but to those outside of your discipline, it’s a foreign language. Even if you define key terms at the start, every time you use them your audience will be several steps behind you, trying to translate unfamiliar words, rather than focusing on the message you want to convey. A good way to test for jargon is to practice with someone who is unfamiliar with your field—if they don’t understand what you’re saying, it’s time to revise so that they do!

If you’re curious to learn more, check out these resources: here , here , and here .

A Role for Science in a Policy Storyline

Extra! Extra! Read All About It!

Confessions of a Conference Zombie

Did you like this article share it out with your community., stay in the know.

Get the latest events, training, and networking opportunities right in your inbox by signing up for our email list.

Evidence-Based Science Communication (EBSC)

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.

Translations:

Audio Version

Dr Eric Jensen and Prof Alexander Gerber have also recorded an audio version of the commentary.

Future of SciComm – Recorded Discussion

A recorded discussion of the authors goes into further detail about the Future of Science Communication .

Prof. Pedersen: SciComm research needs to take its own medicine!

Dr. Eric Jensen interviews Prof. David Budtz Pedersen (University of Aalborg) following a meeting about the COST Cross-Cutting Action project on EU science communication .

Dr Eric A. Jensen

Dr Eric A. Jensen has a global reputation in impact evaluation of public and stakeholder engagement with science. Dr Jensen’s track record includes dozens of major projects on science communication, public engagement and responsible research and innovation. He has worked as an evaluation trainer, advisor and consultant for many government departments, agencies and public engagement institutions globally, such as Science Foundation Ireland, Science Gallery Dublin, the European Space Agency, CERN, Arts Council England, the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement, Association of Science & Technology Centers and the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Dr Jensen’s PhD is in sociology from the University of Cambridge. Dr. Eric A. Jensen is currently a senior research fellow at ICoRSA working on the RRING and GRRIP projects about responsible research and innovation. Most of his papers can be accessed freely on Warwick.academia.edu .

Selected Publications

• Why impact evaluation matters in science communication: Or, advancing the science of science communication Eric A. Jensen (2019, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.35572131)
• Preaching to the scientifically converted: evaluating inclusivity in science festival audiences Eric B. Kennedy, Eric A. Jensen & Monae Verbeke (2018, doi: 10.1080/21548455.2017.1371356)
• Highlighting the value of impact evaluation: Enhancing informal science learning and public engagement theory and practice Eric A. Jensen (2015, doi: 10.22323/2.14030405)
• Evaluating impact and quality of experience in the 21st century: Using technology to narrow the gap between science communication research and practice Eric A. Jensen (2015, doi: 10.22323/2.14030305)
• The Problems with science communication evaluation Eric A. Jensen (2015, doi: 10.22323/2.13010304)

Other Resources

• Webinar on science communication teaching Frans van Dam, Liesbeth de Bakker, Marina Joubert, Eric A. Jensen & Jadranka J. Turnes (2020, Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tqwIll1cfI&t=113s)
• Discussion on monitoring and evaluating public engagement efforts, accomplishments, and impact, with Dr. Eric Jensen:

Prof Alexander Gerber

Alexander Gerber is Full Professor of Science Communication at Rhine-Waal University and Research Director of the Institute for Science and Innovation Communication, INSCICO . His work crosses what is often seen as a divide between scholarship and practice, trying to drive the field of science communication towards social innovation. Professor Gerber also serves as an elected member of the Steering Board of PCST, the world association for science communication. He has deep practical experience working in the field of science journalism and innovation communication. A leading proponent of evidence-based science communication, Prof. Gerber has coordinated and advised numerous public engagement-related projects such as NUCLEUS , RRING , GRRIP , Project Ô , TeRRIFICA , CREATIONS or PLACES.

• How to mainstream upstream engagement Alexander Gerber (2018, doi: 10.22323/2.17030306.2018)
• Science Caught Flat-footed: How Academia Struggles with Open Science Communication Alexander Gerber (2014, ISBN 978-3319000251)
• Science communication research: an empirical field analysis Alexander Gerber (2020, ISBN 978-3-947540-02-0)
• Why we need evidence based science communication Swedish Research Council (2018, Retrieved from https://www.vr.se/english/just-now/news/news-archive/2018-08-10-why-we-need-evidence-based-science-communication.html )

• 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