experts and the general public. Tis helps people understand broader implications of scientific studies for society. Tere are a number of ways that scientists can help with effective science communication. Te effectiveness of science


communication can impact science policy- related legislation and monetary budget allocations from funding agencies for further scientific research. Te definition of science communication may seem straightforward, but current practices are far from perfect. In this age, a vast amount of information is at everyone’s fingertips. While each media platform offers unique ways to share science, there is the downside of prevalent misleading or false information. Often, the media oversimplifies scientific information to make it suited for lay audiences. A popular practice, known as “infotainment”, focuses on describing new scientific discoveries in an entertaining fashion. Frequently, to ‘sensationalise’ scientific evidence, journalists generalise facts to the point of being overreaching or worse – blatantly wrong. Unfortunately, it is these sensational headlines that lend themselves beautifully to being wildly circulated in the media. A study in Science found that fake news was 70% more likely to be re-tweeted than true news. A good example of false news in science

is the Planet X conspiracy that planetary system ‘Nibiru’ is going to collide with the Earth and cause the end of the world in the early 21st century. Although this apocalyptic theory has been widely debunked and rejected by scientists and astronomers worldwide (including NASA), it is still being periodically circulated on the internet.

Scientists often use specific jargon laden with complex terminologies when describing their science. While peers in the same field can understand each other, this poses a serious obstacle to communicating to the public. One of the major underlying reasons for this behaviour is the large divide in what scientists assume the public knows and what the public knows. Also, scientists in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields do not receive formal training on communicating science.


cience communication refers to the process of effectively relaying the facts and findings from scientific studies to other scientists, non-

Scientists can develop effective communications strategies

Maya Raghunandan describes how scientists can help with effective science communication


Scientists must pay close attention to the language they use. Te art of storytelling has the ability to unify science and humanities. Some scientists who excel at this, such as Olivia Ambrogio, Mitchell Waldrop and Megan Watzke, are great examples to follow. Reading examples of good science communication will help scientists develop their own communication style. Engaging in a narrative with broader

strokes is more effective to get people ‘hooked’ to learn more. Scientists must try to elaborate on what inspired them in the first place to this field of work – how would these findings help solve a current problem in the world? During their scientific training, aspiring scientists should be exposed to opportunities that involve informal science outreach, for a synergistic growth. In fact, integrating science communication without jargon as a part of the curriculum can go


a long way in bridging the divide between scientists and lay public.

ZOOM OUT Because of their vast knowledge, it can be challenging for a scientist to take a step back and see a bird’s eye view of the problem at hand. To explain specific scientific details to a lay audience, scientists must use simple and succinct language, which will encourage them to think broadly of the bigger picture and reflect on the importance of their research and the implications it holds for the world.

Science communication can be a rough and time-consuming terrain for naive and inexperienced scientists. However, backed by guidance from expert science writers, novices can develop coherent and effective science communication strategies that will help bridge the gap between scientists, journalists and the public.

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72