SCIENCE science.org 24 DECEMBER 2021 • VOL 374 ISSUE 6575 1537EDITORIAL
A
mid the many miscommunications and mis-
understandings about how to respond to the
COVID-19 pandemic, scientists have been
called on to do a better job of explaining their
work to the public. In the United States, John
Holdren, former science adviser to President
Obama, has gone so far as to call for every sci-
entist to become a trained communicator in an army
of ambassadors for the whole country. That all sounds
good on the surface. But just what do we expect these
scientific emissaries to accomplish? Is it education? Is
it advocacy? Is it changing behaviors?
Media training for scientists has been fashionable
for years. Private companies cash in on the trend.
Universities regularly conduct science communica-
tion workshops for researchers. There are conferences
on the science of science communication. Science
journalists have written books
about how to convey complex
information to a general audi-
ence. What more can be done?
It’s not just a matter of
translating jargon into plain
language. As Kathleen Hall
Jamieson at the University of
Pennsylvania stated in a recent
article, the key is getting the
public to realize that science is
a work in progress, an honor-
ably self-correcting endeavor
carried out in good faith. Moreover, scientists need to
have some understanding of their audience to improve
the chance of a true dialog. They may need to learn
to listen and “read the room,” and prepare different
approaches for different audiences. Some communi-
cation lessons were learned, for example, by the US
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2014 Tips
campaign for smoking cessation. Rather than focusing
on the data showing why smoking is dangerous, the
campaign revolves around personal stories of patients
who have suffered smoking-related illnesses that in-
dividuals can relate to. Application of this principle—
which meets folks where they are rather than burying
them with data—led to remarkable progress in smok-
ing cessation. Understanding this is a high-level skill
that requires expertise.
It is also the case that not every scientist wants to
take time away from research to be a voice for science.
Traits that make a good researcher, such as concentra-tion on details and laser focus on a problem, don’t often
carry over to the public stage. Most scientists prefer to
persuade by performing meticulous, credible work.
I work with some of the best science communicators
in the world, and I see how hard they have endeavored
to hone their craft. This is a profession and a full-time
job—not something that can be picked up in a work-
shop. Recently, I talked to one scientist who seems to
succeed in wearing both hats. Rebecca Schwarzlose,
an accomplished neuroscientist at the Washington
University School of Medicine, wrote an outstanding
popular book, Brainscapes, about neural maps. Her
training as both a scientist and communicator didn’t
come easy. After getting her PhD from the Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology, Schwarzlose initially left
the lab and became an editor at Trends in Cognitive
Sciences. After hearing her give a talk to a general au-
dience, I complimented her on
the clarity of her message and
asked her if she thought every
scientist could do what she has
done. “No, I don’t,” she said. “I
think what we should probably
be aiming for is finding ways
to give scientists tools to help
them communicate, not neces-
sarily even with a general au-
dience, but just more broadly
between different disciplines.”
That sounds good, but it’s not
the same thing as preparing a cadre of communicators
to go to Kiwanis clubs full of climate deniers.
After talking to Schwarzlose, I think we need to be
careful with the notion that every scientist can be easily
trained to also be an outstanding communicator. You
frequently hear the idea that a science communication
course should be a required part of graduate training.
This can’t hurt, but asking someone to be a skilled sci-
ence communicator after taking one course is like ask-
ing someone who has taken a course in chemistry to
discover a novel reaction. Truly well-trained science
communicators—individuals who devote their lives to
helping the public understand research—deserve more
respect from their research colleagues. As Schwarzlose’s
story shows, it’s not something that just anyone can
pick up quickly. Maybe a better idea is to figure out how
to improve the partnership between researchers and
these public communicators.
–H. Holden ThorpIt’s not as easy as it looks
H. Holden Thorp
Editor-in-Chief,
Science journals.
[email protected];
@hholdenthorp10.1126/science.abn
PHOTO: CAMERON DAVIDSON
“It’s not just
a matter of translating
jargon into
plain language.”