Strategies for Science Outreach Programs

“Our messaging is not working” Enrique Ortiz, a veteran conservationist and founding member of the Andes Amazon Fund, has spent decades translating the complexities of ecosystems into action. But in his recent commentary for Mongabay, he issues a striking critique—not of science itself, but of how it’s conveyed. “Facts are not the most important part,” Ortiz writes. “The current narrative needs a re-thinking.” That rethinking, he argues, begins not with more data, but with deeper insight into how people process information, make decisions, and respond emotionally to the world around them. Ortiz’s concern is not that people are unaware of climate change. In fact, the majority of the global population acknowledges it. But many remain unmoved, caught in a web of abstract language, ideological filters, and emotional distance. Scientific accuracy, while essential, often falters in the face of cognitive and cultural barriers. Ortiz points to the findings of cognitive scientists and neuroscientists: facts rarely shift belief systems. Instead, people gravitate toward stories, experiences, and social cues. “When facing uncertainty,” he notes, “humans make decisions that are satisfactory, rather than optimal.” This disconnect, Ortiz argues, is especially clear in environmental communication. Words like “rewilding,” “green,” or “ecological” may have once inspired clarity, but have since become muddled through overuse or conflicting interpretations. Worse, they sometimes trigger skepticism or backlash. In this fog of abstraction, the human connection is lost. What’s needed, Ortiz suggests, is a new narrative strategy—one that harnesses the emotional power of stories and speaks to how people actually think and feel. He draws from his own experience as an educator: while his lectures on plant-animal interactions faded from memory, it was the stories that lingered. This phenomenon, known as “narrative transportation,” isn’t mere sentimentality. It’s a neurological reality that helps ideas stick—and decisions shift. Rather than continuing to warn of catastrophe, Ortiz believes we should share stories of adaptation and resilience. From Andean farmers modifying how they grow quinoa and potatoes, to everyday consumers making environmentally conscious choices, these narratives offer agency and hope. They bridge divides and foster shared values. “Our messaging is not working,” Ortiz writes bluntly. “We need a revolution in narratives—and in how we tell them.” That revolution may begin not in the lab or the newsroom, but in the quiet space where empathy meets understanding—and where change can finally take root. 📰 His piece: https://lnkd.in/gmrWBcc5 📸 Hoatzin. My photo.

Regardless of what you've been told, academic communication and dissemination is (much) more than just publishing. When I started my research career, I thought publishing papers was the key part of being successful in academia. Needles to say, was I wrong! Academic communication is a powerful ecosystem that extends far beyond peer-reviewed journals. Here are 5 critical communication channels every academic should master: 1. Conference Presentations • Storytelling matters more than dense data slides • Practice your narrative arc • Engage, don't just inform 2. Digital Platforms • Twitter/X for rapid knowledge sharing • LinkedIn for professional networking • Personal blogs for deeper insights • YouTube for visual explanations 3. Collaborative Workshops • Cross-disciplinary dialogue • Knowledge co-creation • Breaking academic silos 4. Public Engagement • Science communication podcasts • Media interviews • Community lectures • Making complex ideas accessible 5. Mentorship & Dialogue • Guiding next-generation researchers • Informal knowledge transfer • Building intellectual communities Pro Tip: Your research impact isn't measured just by publication count, but by how widely and effectively you communicate your insights. Have you expanded your academic communication beyond traditional publishing? What strategies have worked best for you? #PhD #Research #Science #Scientist #Academia #Professor #Nature #Publishing

Under the microscope, tissues and cells look complex and beautiful. But without context, their story can be hard to follow, much like the science behind them. That’s why I’m so passionate about accessible science communication. In biotech and life sciences, breakthroughs like gene editing and cell therapies are extraordinary. But if they’re hidden behind technical language, we miss the chance to inspire, build trust, and show their real-world impact. At Thermo Fisher Scientific, I’ve seen how storytelling can unlock that understanding. We tell stories about the researchers, patients and innovators behind science to bring discoveries to life, use formats like podcasting to make complex topics approachable to spark curiosity beyond the lab, and social media to turn small scientific details into moments of wonder for a broad audience. The communicator’s role is to help people see both the beauty and the meaning behind the work so that people can feel connected to it. The most successful science communicators are shifting their focus from complexity to clarity. 💡 They translate research into stories that resonate with non-scientists. 💡 They highlight the why behind innovation, not just the how. 💡 They use plain language without sacrificing scientific accuracy. When we make science more accessible, we don’t dilute it. We amplify it. And in doing so, we bring more people into the conversation, which is where real impact begins.

What I learned from my first science slam workshop Less than two weeks ago, I gave my first science slam — and I was instantly hooked. I absolutely loved the experience. Wanting to take things further, I joined a science slam workshop. It might seem ironic to do the workshop after the performance, but sometimes learning sticks better once you've had a taste. Here are the takeaways I’ll carry with me into the next round: 🔑 Less is more. Ten minutes is the official limit. If you’re worried that your talk won’t fit into ten minutes, trust that it definitely won’t work in twelve. Aim for 9:30. Keep it tight, clear, and punchy. 🎭 Authenticity beats perfection. You don’t have to be the funniest person in the room or a natural performer. But you do have to show up as yourself. If the audience can feel why your topic matters to you, it has a real chance of mattering to them too. 🧵 Structure it: Know – Feel – Do. Every strong talk has a clear thread. Ask yourself: What should people know by the end? What should they feel? And what might they be inspired to do? 💬 Start with “Why” — and go deeper. When preparing your talk, ask “Why?” not just once, but four or five times, like a curious three-year-old might. That’s when you move past the surface of your topic and reach the heart of your message. 🎯 Clarify your message. What is the core insight you want the audience to remember — not just right after the talk, but three weeks later, maybe even at 3 a.m.? That’s your north star. Everything else should support it. 🔔 Nail your opening and your ending. Audiences remember beginnings and endings more than anything else. Avoid a generic closing like “That’s it — thanks for listening.” And don’t just wing it — memorize your opening, closing, and transitions. They’re your anchors. 📚 Stories connect more than concepts. People connect more than things. If you want people to care, tell stories. Wrap your ideas in a narrative arc — not because it’s cute, but because it’s how our brains are wired to understand the world. 🧠 Storytelling is problem-solving. A good story reveals a challenge, a journey, and a resolution. Make that path visible. And don’t be afraid to show your own vulnerability — it’s the glue that holds everything together. I’m excited to keep exploring this format. It combines what I love most: research, storytelling, connection, and comedy. You could say: It’s passion in motion.

The loudest voices in the room are often the least informed. Those with superficial knowledge speak with absolute certainty, while true experts hesitate before giving media interviews - or discard dozens of post drafts and never publish at all. This is the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. When people know very little about a topic, they lack the framework to recognize their own ignorance. Their confidence skyrockets precisely because they don’t understand the complexity they’re missing. Meanwhile, experts become quieter. Because the more you know, the more you realize how much you don’t know. What does this mean for science communication? → Researcher should share their evidence-based knowledge. The public needs expert voices not the loudest ones. → More budget for communication support. Scientists shouldn’t have to choose between doing research and communicating it well. → Publish research more transparently by not only sharing conclusions but showcasing processes, methods and challenges. → Normalize uncertainty. Saying “we don’t know yet” or “the evidence suggests” isn’t weakness - it’s intellectual honesty. The cost of silence from experts is too high. When qualified voices withdraw from public discourse, misinformation fills the void. What’s your experience? How do you encourage experts in your field to engage publicly?

How's your voice? In scientific writing, the grammatical voice a writer chooses shapes the tone, clarity, emphasis and perceived objectivity of the work. Active voice occurs when the subject performs the action of the verb eg “The researcher conducted the experiment.” This voice is preferred for its clarity and directness. Passive voice shifts the focus from the subject to the object receiving the action eg “The experiment was conducted by the researcher.” This construction depersonalises the action and places emphasis on what was done, rather than who did it. It remains common in scientific writing, especially when the goal is to sound neutral and objective. A less familiar option is the middle voice, which is used when the subject appears to act upon itself eg “The solution mixed easily.” While rare in English, this type of construction is useful in science when describing processes that occur without deliberate intervention eg chemical reactions or biological behaviours. Beyond grammar, there are more stylistic or rhetorical 'voices' that can influence scientific communication. One of these is the passive-aggressive voice, which is a tone that emerges when blame or criticism is implied rather than stated directly eg “It’s surprising that no one thought to control for that variable.” This voice is unprofessional and best avoided in formal contexts. Another is the clickbait voice, which is more common in science communication aimed at the public. It uses sensational or emotionally charged language to grab attention eg, “This tiny microbe could change everything we know about life on Earth!” This is a useful tool in headlines or to engage the public or non-experts with scientific content. The impersonal or objective voice is also a hallmark of traditional academic writing. This voice avoids personal pronouns and foregrounds data or procedures eg “A statistically significant difference was observed.” It promotes neutrality and discourages emotional or subjective interpretation. However, the first-person active voice, using “I” or “we,” is now more accepted in many disciplines. Sentences like “We analysed the samples” can add clarity and accountability by specifying the author’s role without sounding egotistical. Some scientific writing also benefits from a narrative voice to take the reader through the process eg “After discovering the anomaly, we revised our hypothesis.” This can be especially effective in case studies, historical overviews, or discussions where process matters as much as outcome. Finally, the promotional voice is used in grant applications, public engagement and abstracts aiming to showcase importance eg, “This study presents a groundbreaking solution to antibiotic resistance.” It is important to balance enthusiasm with evidence and avoid overclaiming. Different voices serve different rhetorical purposes and tone and credibility can hinge on the right voice choice, so knowing them is part of scientific literacy.

🔥 If you’re leading with facts, you’re already losing. We’re not in an information crisis—we’re in a story crisis. From alt proteins to gene editing to climate tech, the same thing keeps happening: 👉 Scientific progress meets public resistance. 👉 Innovation meets outrage. 👉 Trust collapses before the conversation even begins. Why? Because traditional risk communication is built on a broken assumption: “If people just understood the science, they’d agree with us.” But that’s backwards. It centers the message around what you think is important—rather than what your audience actually cares about. It treats emotion as a problem to overcome, instead of the starting point for connection. That’s why we developed the Contextual Framework for Risk Communication (CFRC)—a new model for a fractured, high-stakes world. 🧠 Built on behavioral science. 🌍 Grounded in global realities. 🚀 Designed for the future of food, health, and sustainability. Here’s how it works: ✅ Challenge Context: Start with shared values, not conclusions ✅ Historical Context: Rebuild trust with historical context and progress ✅ Future Context: Move people with a clear, emotionally resonant future vision This isn’t about dumbing it down, it’s about emotionally sequencing the message so people can actually hear it. 📢 At the UCLA Rothman Family Institute for Food Studies, we’re applying CFRC to some of the most divisive issues in food and ag—alt proteins, gene editing, ultra-processed foods, and beyond. 📩 Want to explore how it could support your work? Let’s connect. A. Janet Tomiyama Marcie Rothman Amy Rowat Erica Lee, MPH Gunhild Anker Stordalen, MD/PhD Jens Tuider Lucy Wallace Maha Tahiri Bruce Friedrich Lori Amos Tilt Collective EAT The Good Food Institute #riskcommunication #behavioralscience #storytelling #trust #foodsystems #communicationstrategy #misinformation #sciencecommunication #narrativeleadership

Science and LinkedIn just doesn't work! "I published my paper — now I’ll post it on LinkedIn and everyone will read it!" I hear this a lot in my LinkedIn strategy workshops for scientists and universities. So please check out my carousel (the images below, 9 slides!) Behind this sentence is a deep misunderstanding of how LinkedIn — and social media in general — actually works. The hard truth: Scientific institutions and researchers often treat LinkedIn like a digital notice board. They post papers, conference talks, awards — and then wait. No engagement, no real value for the reader, no strategic thinking. Just magical thinking: If I post it, they will come. But that’s not how LinkedIn works. Not for science. Not for anyone. The 5 biggest mistakes I see scientists and institutions make on LinkedIn: 1) Treating LinkedIn like a CV 2) Posting without thinking about the reader 3) Overestimating the power of a single post (let me tell you: One post ≠ impact. Visibility takes time, repetition, and interaction. You’re not writing for a journal — you’re building relationships.) 4) Using academic language 5) Not engaging with others LinkedIn is a social network, not a dumping ground. If you’re not commenting, cheering others on, or responding — the algorithm (and the community) will ignore you. 5 things that actually do work on LinkedIn: Start with why and who, as in: "Why are you here? Who do you want to reach?" This changes how you post. Offer value in every post: Share insights, reflections, how-tos, lessons learned. Make it about the reader. Tell stories, not just facts...turn that conference into a moment of learning. That failed experiment into a lesson. And so on... Engage with others before you expect engagement...I mean you wouldn't walk into a party and just shout "My new paper is out!". Instead: Comment. Congratulate. Ask questions. Visibility is reciprocal. Be consistent, not perfect!!! You don’t need viral posts. You need regular, real, human content. If you're a researcher or part of a scientific institution, please stop the magical thinking. Let’s make LinkedIn a place where science communicates, connects, and inspires. Want to get better at this? Drop a comment or DM - or tag someone who needs this post. Let’s build science communication that actually works.

𝗗𝗼 scientist 𝗛𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗣𝗥 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺? The needs of Science go beyond more funding; it needs better branding. → People connect with narratives, not statistics. ↳ The most influential figures tell compelling stories about their work. ↳ Science needs big-picture, relatable messaging. 📌 Fix It: Translate research into a mission-driven story that resonates with people. ⚠️ Science Stays in Journals, Not in Public Spaces → The most groundbreaking discoveries are often locked behind paywalls. ↳ The average person doesn’t read research papers. ↳ But they do watch YouTube, follow Twitter threads, and listen to podcasts. ↳ Meanwhile, non-science influencers dominate public conversations. 📌 Fix It: Scientists need to actively participate in media, podcasts, and social platforms. ⚠️ Scientists Underestimate Personal Branding → Visibility matters. ↳ The world remembers figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan because they built strong public personas. ↳ Many scientists fear “self-promotion”—but branding isn’t ego; it’s impact. ↳ Without branding, anti-science voices fill the gap. 📌 Fix It: Own your expertise. Be present on platforms, write, speak, and engage with diverse audiences. ⚠️ Media amplifies those who know how to market themselves. ↳ When research is misrepresented, scientists often don’t push back effectively. ↳ The result? Public trust shift. 📌 Fix It: Scientists must actively correct misinformation and lead public discussions on science-driven issues. ✅ Make science relatable. ✅ Engage in mainstream media. ✅ Own the public conversation. ✅ Turn research into a compelling mission. —— #ScienceCommunication #PublicEngagement #ScienceBranding #Misinformation

What does effective science communication look like under conditions of high uncertainty and societal division? A recent study analyses the TikTok channel @energiewende.erklaert and positions it as a model of both transformative and post-normal science communication. • Content is grounded in scientific research but shaped by direct audience interaction • Topics focus on the energy transition, with responses tailored to questions from sceptics and supporters alike • The channel has over 590,000 views and a 7.3% average interaction rate—higher than on Instagram • It reflects post-normal conditions: facts uncertain, values contested, stakes high, decisions urgent • The researcher behind the channel communicates not only findings but context, uncertainty, and values Platforms like TikTok can support dialogue-based communication, where science enters public discourse without losing rigour, and where the public shapes the agenda.