If not you, then who will communicate science?

I often speak with scientists and researchers about ways to address the issue of fake news and misinformation online. While I understand it can be daunting, I believe the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) sector has the potential to shake up the status quo of storytelling.

As a publisher with experience in creating brands and building audiences, I’m surprised by how little universities prioritise public engagement beyond student recruitment. While much is discussed, university websites typically feature shallow press releases that promote, but don’t engage meaningfully. Rather than being a trusted source of information for the general public on complex topics in which universities are experts, they often come across as unapproachable and full of promotional material.

This lack of effective communication leaves many people feeling confused and frustrated, with no trusted source of information to turn to.

But what can individual scientists do if they don’t have the power to change university communication policies?

Plenty.

You don’t have to be the next Jane Goodall or Neil de Grasse Tyson to make a difference. You also don’t have to spend all your time on Twitter. And just because you’re communicating about science and research doesn’t mean you’ll be trolled.

It’s easy to see the problems and talk yourself out of doing anything but when experts don’t engage the public, several things occur:

1. You miss out on developing your voice and the skills that can help you build audience, funding, and influence. If you can’t explain your research, how can you engage philanthropists, investors, politicians, colleagues, or the media? You’re stuck in a limited bubble of influence and not building community.
2. Your research area is underfunded. If no one understands the importance of your work, they won’t fund it, demand funding for it, or support you. Effective communication, often considered a “soft skill,” is critical to securing research funding.
3. In the absence of experts, other voices fill the void. Debates can be swayed by media and social media commentators who may or may not understand the research. The media and commentators tend to sensationalise the negative aspects of Artificial Intelligence (AI), rather than have meaningful discussions on how AI improves our lives. As a result, the general public may be held back by fear instead of embracing the benefits of AI for personal, community, or business use.
4. People start to tune out from sensationalised or depressing news. If this is happening in your area of research, there needs to be engaging stories that balance out this distorted reporting.
5. When topics are not explained clearly to society as a whole, the public loses agency. An informed and engaged society drives politicians and corporations to act responsibly.
6. You’ve outsourced your messaging to the media. You’ve invested so much in your research, but at the end of the day, you’re letting others shape how the world perceives and acts on your work. Is that really what you want?

So where do you start? 

In the coming months, I’ll be sharing tips on developing your own STEM communication and engagement strategy, as an individual, community and from an institutional perspective. If you have topics you’d like me to cover, email me at kylie.ahern@stemmaters.com.au

Opinion by  Kylie Ahern, Publisher of The Brilliant and CEO of STEM Matters