Scientific Communication Techniques

I've spent 10 years helping scientists communicate their research. I've never once thought that doing so could put their funding at risk. Until now. The US Office of Management and Budget has proposed a rule (Docket OMB-2026-0034) that, if it passes in October 2026, would fundamentally change how science gets funded in America. And I mean fundamentally. Here are the key points: 🔴 Political appointees, not scientists, decide which grants get funded. Peer review becomes advisory only. A political appointee can override the scientific community's judgment with zero explanation. 🔴 Active grants can be cancelled at any time, for any reason. Mid-project. No misconduct required. Just "doesn't align with our priorities anymore." 🔴 International collaboration is severely restricted. Travel, partnerships, joint research with scientists in dozens of countries: presumptively banned or requiring political sign-off. 🔴 Publication fees are unallowable. That means federally funded scientists may not be able to publish their findings Open Access. And then there's the one that hit me hardest as a science communicator: 🔴 Science communication could effectively be banned for federally funded researchers. The proposed rule prohibits using federal grant funds for any public communications that could be labelled "issue advocacy." Given that the rule's own preamble classifies climate science, public health research, and DEI research as "divisive ideology," a researcher speaking publicly about their own federally funded findings on any sensitive topic puts their entire grant at risk. NOTE: this is not yet law. The public comment period is open until approximately 13 July 2026. But this is what's being proposed, right now, for one of the most influential research ecosystems on the planet. At Animate Your Science, our mission is to help researchers communicate their work in ways that reach beyond journal paywalls and conference rooms. That mission only matters if scientists are allowed to communicate. What's being proposed here is a direct threat to that. I'll keep making noise about it. Please read and share the original breakdown by Elizabeth Ginexi. It is detailed and calm. And sadly it is worse than this post makes it look. 👉 https://lnkd.in/gNT2stY6

“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.

Translating health science into understandable and clear health advice isn’t easy, especially on social media. And it’s not about what algorithms want us to do to engage their users. It’s about how people think. In the past three years, the World Health Organization worked on a project with Meta, using their Brand Lift Study tool to test how different kinds of message framings, built on behavioural science theories, affect how people perceive risk and act on it. In the paper below, we highlight a measles vaccination experiment in which we targeted parents of young children. We compared two types of messaging: - Verbatim: fact-based and precise “1 in 1,000 children who get measles will die.” - Gist: essence-based and emotional “Some children who get measles will die.” Both are accurate, but they communicate risk differently. Here are a few reflections from the process: - We need to design social media public health campaigns with behavioural science lenses, not just communication instinct. - We need to evaluate impact beyond likes and shares; focus on understanding and intention. - We must keep messages evidence-based but human; clarity matters as much as accuracy. What matters most isn’t how much information we share, but how people make sense of it. Small shifts in framing can change how people understand risk and how they act on it — which is the ultimate objective of public health communication. WHO project team: Simon Williams Elena Altieri Mohamed Gulaid Giselle Miguens Lisa Menning Karin Stein, MD, MScPH

Found this 1980 ad about writing clearly. 65 years later, it's still the best writing advice I've ever seen: 1) Know exactly what you want to say before you start Most people start writing and figure it out as they go. That's why most writing sucks. Thompson says outline first, write second. Revolutionary concept, apparently. 2) Start where your readers are, not where you are Don't assume people know what you know. Meet them at their level of understanding, then bring them along. Most "experts" write for other experts and wonder why nobody gets it. 3) Use familiar word combinations Thompson's example: A scientist wrote "The biota exhibited a one hundred percent mortality response." Translation: "All the fish died." Stop trying to sound smart. Start trying to be clear. 4) Arrange your points logically Put the most important stuff first. Then the next most important. Then the least important. Seems obvious, but most people do it backwards. 5) Use "first-degree" words Thompson says some words bring immediate images to mind. Others need to be "translated" through first-degree words before you see them. "Precipitation" => "Rain" "Utilize" => "Use" "Facilitate" => "Help" 6) Cut the jargon Thompson warns against words and phrases "known only to people with specific knowledge or interests." If your mom wouldn't understand it, rewrite it. 7) Think like your reader, not like yourself Thompson asks: "Do they detract from clarity?" Most writers ask: "Do I sound professional?" Wrong question. TAKEAWAY: This ad is from 1960. The internet didn't exist. Social media wasn't even a concept. But the principles of clear communication haven't changed. Most people still can't write clearly because they're trying to impress instead of express.

Are you ready to ditch the jargon? 🤐 It's the best way to connect with the public about sustainability, but hardly anyone is doing it. New research shows that most people in the UK struggle to grasp basic climate terms and policies: - 'Circular economy'? Only 4% of people claim to understand it - 'Carbon neutral'? 'Traceability'? They don't fair much better. - Even the concept of 'reducing single-use plastic' is only grasped by a minority of the public For those of us working in the sector, these terms are vital and specific. But that doesn’t mean they’re the right ones to use in the public domain. So what do we do about it? Luckily the answer is fairly simple. We need to speak plainly, specifically, and meet people where they're at. You see brands like Oatly and Fjällräven do this every day. More need to follow suit. I like to think we get this right at Hubbub, more often than not. Our Manchester Is Green campaign was a nice example, engaging football fans to adopt more sustainable diets by talking about 'tactical substitutions', not regenerative agricultural practices. When we skip the jargon, we start to strip away the confusion about the climate crisis and show that taking action makes sense. And when businesses speak plainly, highlighting specific benefits and results instead of generic sustainability claims, everyone can understand the role they have to play. What examples have you seen of companies who do this well? (A longer version of this just appeared in PRWeek. I'll post it below for anyone with an account. The research was by Trajectory Partnership and Fleet Street.) ++ P.S. I'm Alex Robinson, CEO of environmental charity Hubbub. We bring business, government and civil society together to create campaigns that make it easier and more possible for all of us to make choices that are good for the environment. Follow me to find out how, or get in touch for more. #sustainability #environment #communications

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.

How do you talk about sustainability and climate issues in your company? If you’ve ever found yourself struggling to make sustainability resonate with your team, you’re not alone. At Microsoft, for example, they’ve found that speaking the right "language" makes all the difference. Being a tech company, their conversations around sustainability are deeply rooted in a quantitative, data-driven approach after all, they’re engineers at heart. They use the same principles that drive their technology to frame sustainability risks and opportunities. But what if your company isn’t full of engineers? Every organization speaks its internal language, whether that’s the analytical mindset of finance, the creativity of marketing, or the operations-driven approach of manufacturing. Tailoring sustainability messaging to align with these unique perspectives can bridge the gap, making it easier for employees to see how it connects to what they do every day. One thing is clear across all industries though: the language of science is essential. Whether you're talking to your marketing team, engineers, or executives, scientific facts are the backbone of any meaningful conversation about sustainability. Data on carbon footprints, climate risks, and environmental impacts provide a foundation everyone can work with. According to the IPCC, we need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030 to stay on track with climate goals numbers. Take Unilever, for example. They made sustainability a part of their company culture by translating climate goals into everyday actions for each department. Their marketing team talks about sustainable sourcing, while their R&D team focuses on lowering the carbon footprint of products. By embedding sustainability into every part of the business, Unilever is empowering all employees to contribute, leading to a 32% reduction in their environmental impact. Sustainability isn’t a one-size-fits-all conversation. But when you frame it in terms that make sense to your team, it becomes part of how your business thinks and operates every day. So, how will you start the conversation within your organization?

55,526 projects. All required to communicate their results. Science communication is no longer optional in EU research. It is a legal obligation embedded in how projects are funded. A new study in Public Understanding of Science by Luis Arboledas-Lérida examines what this looks like in practice, based on interviews with 26 professionals working on Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe projects. The picture is more complex than expected. Project-based science communication has become one of the main institutional settings where society encounters research. It is structured, funded and planned through dedicated communication work packages, often with specialised teams and clear deliverables. But this institutionalisation comes with trade-offs. Communication is both enabled and constrained by funding rules. While projects include dedicated resources, cost-efficiency pressures often limit ambition. Most activities converge towards standard formats such as websites, social media and stakeholder events, with less room for experimentation or public engagement. At the operational level, the main bottleneck is internal. Communicators depend on researchers for content, input and visibility, but not the other way around. This creates an asymmetric relationship where communication is required, but not always prioritised. Many professionals describe internal coordination, not external outreach, as the most difficult part of their work. At the system level, scale creates its own problems. The multiplication of projects produces saturation. More outputs, more campaigns, more content competing for the same limited attention. Visibility becomes harder, and impact more difficult to measure. In some cases, communication risks becoming a formal requirement rather than a meaningful exchange. And yet, the perceived value remains high. Practitioners consistently see their work as contributing to transparency, accountability and public understanding. Communicating how public money is spent emerges as a central function.

In this time of alternative truth, social truths and outright denial of science, I saw a hopeful (scientific) article in Nature Magazine ( 👉 https://lnkd.in/eskKJxtD) researching the public trust in science in 68 countries. Why is this important? For instance, societies with high public trust in science and scientists dealt more effectively with the COVID-19 pandemic, as citizens were more likely to comply with non-pharmaceutical COVID-19 interventions and had higher vaccine confidence. People with high trust in scientists are also more likely to engage in individual and collective action on climate change. Some of the findings of the study: 🟡 Trust in scientists remains moderately high worldwide, countering the claim of a "crisis in trust." (also, if you look into the results (👇) you see for instance the US scoring relatively high in terms of trust in science). 🟡 Populist movements, led by figures like Trump and others, have fueled anti-science rhetoric, undermining public confidence in climate change, vaccines, and other critical issues. 🟡 Right-leaning and conservative groups show lower trust in scientists (see map 👇) , especially in countries where populist leaders have actively dismissed scientific expertise. The fight for public trust in science is part of the broader battle against disinformation and populist narratives. Trust isn't just about believing in facts—it's about ensuring science is seen as a tool for everyone, not just the elite. 🚨 The way forward: 🟢 Boost transparency and openness in science to address perceptions of elitism. 🟢Align scientific efforts with public priorities like health, energy, and poverty reduction to regain trust. 🟢 Foster inclusive dialogue that bridges ideological divides and counters disinformation. https://lnkd.in/eskKJxtD

We have been telling people the world is ending. And then wondering why they feel paralyzed. A review published in Sustainable Development, by Su, Kaburu, and colleagues across institutions in China, Ireland, Australia, Brazil, and beyond, takes on one of the quieter contradictions in climate action: the communication strategies meant to mobilize people may be actively undermining their capacity to act. The argument is not that climate urgency is overstated. It is that fear, deployed as the default register of climate messaging, produces a paradox. It captures attention, briefly, and then generates the very psychological conditions that make sustained engagement impossible. Eco-anxiety, helplessness, climate doomism, the belief that it is already too late and that responsibility therefore belongs to no one, are not failures of audience character. They are predictable responses to a communication environment that offers apocalypse without agency. The numbers are uncomfortable to sit with. A survey of 10,000 young people across 10 countries found that 59% were very or extremely worried about climate change, and over half reported feeling sad, anxious, angry, powerless, or guilty. These are not people who lack awareness. They are people drowning in it, without a clear sense of what their hands can actually do. The paper proposes a reorientation: toward messaging that is positive, personal, and people-centred. Positive, not in the sense of denial or false reassurance, but in the psychological sense, mobilizing hope, curiosity, and joy as motivational states rather than fear and guilt. Personal, meaning closing the distance between the crisis and the individual, moving away from glaciers and polar bears toward the concrete texture of daily life, health, food, cost of living, the morning coffee. People-centred, meaning grounded in what people can actually do, within their real agency and real constraints. This is precisely where Eco-Affective Health thinking enters. The field has long understood that emotional states are not incidental to environmental behavior. They are the medium through which the relationship between people and their environment is negotiated. Fear activates threat responses, which can produce short bursts of protective action, but sustained engagement with a long-horizon problem like climate change requires something different: a felt sense of efficacy, of connection, of meaning. These are broaden-and-build emotions, as the paper frames it, states that expand the repertoire of possible responses rather than narrowing it to fight or flight. Article link: https://lnkd.in/d98vMNAG Follow our work at ewahlab.com #EWAHLab #EcoAffectiveHealth #ClimateCommunication #ClimateAnxiety #PlanetaryHealth #ClimateMentalHealth #EcoAnxiety #ClimateAction #EnvironmentalPsychology #PublicHealth #GlobalSouth