50 essentials

on scienCe
communication
edited by
Jean Paul Bertemes Serge Haan Dirk Hans
IMPRINT

ISBN 978-3-11-076326-3
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-076357-7
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-076364-5
DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110763577

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. For
details go to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Creative Commons license terms for re-use do not apply to any

content (such as graphs, figures, photos, excerpts, etc.) not origi-
nal to the Open Access publication and further permission may
be required from the rights holder. The obligation to research and
clear permission lies solely with the party re-using the material.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2023950563

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche

Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the
Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are
available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2024 with the author(s), editing © 2024 Jean Paul Bertemes,

Serge Haan and Dirk Hans, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH,
Berlin/Boston. This book is published with open access at
www.degruyter.com

Co-created by the University of Luxembourg and the Luxembourg

National Research Fund

Cover illustration, typesetting & illustrations:

Human Made, hum.lu

Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck

www.degruyter.com
 PREFACE

Science and research are fundamental to our modern knowl-

J E N S K R E I S E L & M A R C S C H I LT Z

edge-based societies. The ivory towers have had their day. Science
wants to be explained and wants to explain itself, also and espe-
cially to the society outside the so-called scientific community.
Af ter all, science, its findings and the innovations derived from
them shape all our lives. For the scientific community, hence the
University of Luxembourg, the active involvement of the public is
not an option, but a responsibility.
PREFACE

We conscientiously foster diverse formats and channels of science

by

communication, spanning from school laboratories and training

programs to captivating mediums like comics or video productions.
Our mission is to share knowledge and collaborate with society in
a dialogue that seeks to cultivate a better world. Through ef fec-
tive science communication, we strive to attain this vision. I am
delighted by the release of this book, which ­embodies
our aspirations, and which is now available to all
incoming doctoral candidates, PhD students and
researchers at the University of Luxembourg. To
kindle dialogue and encourage active partici-
pation with and about science.

With best regards,

Jens Kreisel

Jens Kreisel

Rector of the University of
Luxembourg

4
 Marc Schiltz
CEO of the Luxembourg
National Research Fund

Over the last 20-30 years, Luxembourg has

built up an attractive and fertile research
landscape, which has achieved high inter-
national recognition in specific fields. Our
mission as the Luxembourg National Research
Fund is to build – together with our partner
institutions – a sustainable, world-class research
system here in Luxembourg that not only produces high quality
research results, but also generates societal and economic impact.
And one of our strategic priorities is to anchor science in society.

We believe that science outreach is an integral part of the research

activities and one of the multiple dimensions of research excel-
lence that needs to be strengthened. By promoting open science,
research culture, collaborations between science and society and
by empowering researchers and science communicators to engage
with the public, we contribute to shape a research system that
brings value to society at large. And science communication plays
an essential role in this effort. With this book, we hope to help sci-
entists, researchers and science communicators around the world
to take their first steps in science communication or to profession-
alise their skills.

With best regards,

Marc Schiltz

5
 EDITORIAL
J E A N - PA U L B E R T E M E S , S E R G E H A A N & D I R K H A N S

What do we know about the world, about ourselves, about reality?

And from where do we know it? Of course, this is also closely related
to the question of how superstition, conspiracy theories and per-
sistent misbelief can become established. In the end, it’s about
understanding our existence and our ability to shape it – with all its
consequences and by taking responsibility for our actions. Science
EDITORIAL

is probably the most ef fective tool humanity has ever created to

tackle these challenges. Science pursues a straightforward goal
and has an almost sporting attitude: May the best theory win! And
by

it will continue to do so until there is an even better one. In this con-

text, better means that it – the new theory – describes the world
even more accurately.

The knowledge of things, of existence and of our possibilities for

shaping things must be made accessible to humanity, especially
because only a few people, the scientists, are involved in the pro-
cesses of scientific theory formation and its falsification. It is
imperative to organise the transmission of knowledge and to trans-
fer initially exclusive knowledge into an educational process that
enables an informed and connected society to gain knowledge, to
understand and to make the “right” decisions. This enlightening
goal is arguably the most noble objective of science communication
and makes every member of its guild stand before the auditorium
with a proud chest and confess: I am a science communicator!

The fact that, today, science communication also pursues less

noble, even downright profane goals, should be confessed right
away in the introduction to this compact handbook.

6
Science has always competed for limited resources: Money and
personnel. Money that flows into research cannot flow into the
expansion of daycare centres. Likewise, a brilliant programmer
who gets paid well working for a huge e-commerce company is no
longer available to the university science system. The science sec-
tor therefore has to figure out its place in the world. As a result,
science – and with it science communication – has no choice but
to submit to the various mechanisms of marketing and the atten-
tion economy.

The conflicting goals of modern science communication – i.e.

empowering society while at the same time optimising one’s own
image in order to maximise acquired resources – form the of ten
uncomfortable balancing act of the working reality within this
profession.

This handy booklet aims to empower the reader with 50 compact

introductions to relevant topics, which aim to capture the essential
mindset and diversity of working practice in contemporary science
communication. It is aimed at researchers across all disciplines
seeking further qualifications, entry-level employees in science
communication departments and anyone who wants to take their
first steps in the field. These 50 essentials offer an introduction to
the tumultuous world of science communication – from the pens of
many proven experts who have formed the team of authors.

Those who have a good overview of the entire field and have
reflected on the wealth of options in current science communica-
tion can make wise decisions about its design. Surprisingly often,
it is a matter of leaving things undone. Identifying and excluding
inef fective activities that only waste time and money. If you can
avoid the “rat race” of science PR, you should. The art, if you like, is
to find the right balance between benevolent science communica-
tion and goal-oriented science PR and not to get bogged down in
too many parallel “construction sites” of communication. Careful
consideration, prioritisation, and responsible decision-making are
essential components of good science communication practice.
We are therefore conveying the goals of science communication in

7
 general to the readers and thus to the makers of the congenial and
wondrous world of science communication.

We would like to express our sincere thanks to our project col-

J E A N - PA U L B E R T E M E S , S E R G E H A A N & D I R K H A N S

leagues Oliver Glassl, Nicole Paschek and Céline Lecarpentier from

the University of Luxembourg for their contributions and unwa-
vering support. We are also grateful to the Luxembourg National
Research Fund and the University of Luxembourg for their finan-
cial support, which has enabled us to carry out this project. And we
would like to thank all the authors who have contributed their valu-
able insights and perspectives to this book. As editors, our aim was
to curate a collection of articles that would inspire and engage the
readers while preserving the individuality and authenticity of each
author’s voice. The diverse views and styles presented in this book
reflect the multitude of facets, goals and circumstances within the
field of science communication. While all the texts in this book
EDITORIAL

come from the authors, the graphics mostly result from a collab-
oration between the editors and the graphic designers. So last but
not least, we would like to thank HUMAN MADE for their outstand-
by

ing creative input.

With the goal of inspiring and enlightening the readers, we aim to

offer an enjoyable and educational experience. Finally, in the spirit
of good edutainment, we also hope that you find great pleasure in
the exciting journey of discovery that awaits you.

8
 The Editors

SERGE HA AN J E A N - PA U L B E R T E M E S
DIRK HANS

9
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Imprint 2
Preface 4
Editorial 6

1. Science with and for society 14

2. What is science communication? 16
3. The history of science communication 18
4. Goals of science communication 20
5. Inform, interact, involve 23
6. Science communication and science journalism 24
7. Science education 26
8. Authenticity in science communication 28
I.   B A S I C S

9. The communicating scientist 30

IV.   C H A N N E L S

10. The science of science communication 32

11. Trust in science 34

12. Stakeholders of science 38

13. Target groups of science communication 40
II.   S T R AT E G Y

14. Institutional communication strategy 42

15. Internal communication 44
16. Communications departments 46
V.   H O T T O P I C S

17. Science as a brand 48

18. Learning science communication 52

19. Media training 54
20. Public engagement 56
21. Inredients of a good story 58
VI.   A P P E N D I X

III.   G E T S TA R T E D

22. Language and simplification 60

23. Numbers and statistics 62
24. Communicating uncertainty 64
25. Visual communication 66
26. Evaluation of science communication 68

10
27. Interpersonal communication 72
28. Website 74
29. Social media 76
30. Channels of social media 78
31. Videos 80
32. Podcasts 82
33. Print materials 84
34. Science comics 86
35. Press releases 88
36. Press invitations and conferences 90
37. Events 92

IV.   C H A N N E L S
38. School lab 94
39. Science slam 96
40. Science shows and festivals 98
41. Science centres and museums 100

42. Competition in science communication 104

43. Bad science and misrepresentation 106
44. Fake news, misinformation and disinformation 108
45. Science Media Centres 110
46. Engaging with policymakers 112
47. Risk communication 114
V.   H O T T O P I C S

48. Crisis communication 116

49. Animals in research 118
50. Ethical perspectives 120
51. AI in science communication 122

References 125
Authors 128
Partners 134

11
 ATION →
D E GREE OF AC TIVE PARTICIP orld . ew
he out sid
C ommunic ation ab out r e s e ar c h w ith t

E WH O A
OP L RE
PE
Y
IN
AN

TE
RE ARE M

R E ST D I N N E
E
TH E
GS

SC
IN IEN
TI F I C F I ND
BA SIC S

1. Science with and for society 14

2. What is science communication? 16

3. The history of science communication 18

4. Goals of science communication 20

5. Inform, interact, involve 22

6. Science communication and science journalism 24

7. Science education 26

8. Authenticity in science communication 28

9. The communicating scientist 30

10. The science of science communication 32

11. Trust in science 34

 Science with and for society
E WH O A
OP L RE
PE
Y

IN
AN

TE
RE ARE M

R E ST D I N N E
E
TH E
GS

W
SC
IN IEN
TI F I C F I ND
J E A N - PA U L B E R T E M E S

Research in an ivory tower? Almost everyone is in constant contact,

whether directly or indirectly, with the results of research. Indeed,
research can benefit from contact with society. It even has obliga-
tions towards society. After all, society places a certain amount of
B asics

trust in science and provides public money for public research. In

return, however, society also has expectations, like a certain return
on its investment. Societal investments in research are invest-
by
I.

ments in know-how. And in a knowledge society, it is essential

that this know-how is actually made available to society and that
it contributes to social, cultural and technological development.
Science in an ivory tower belongs to the past. For some time now,
the approach has been “science with and for society”!

There are many people who are interested in new scientific find-
ings, whether for professional reasons – such as doctors, engineers,
farmers or policymakers – or simply out of curiosity, cultural inter-
est or fascination. Science communication, open science, citizen
science, science education and science engagement are important
concepts for bringing society and science closer together.

However: Not every researcher has to engage with the public!

Not every research result has to be communicated. And not every
research project has to directly solve a human or societal problem.
Researchers must have enough time to do their research, and basic
research must not be sacrificed.

14
But science as a whole (not each researcher) should engage with
the public. There is a need for structures that facilitate high-qual-
1.
ity science engagement and communication, so that those who
are motivated to engage with the public are supported, and so
that relevant results and know-how can be shared with society in
an appropriate way. Furthermore, science as a whole (not each pro-
ject) should address societal problems in order to develop a better
understanding or of fer potential solutions, such as in the areas
of environment, education, economy, politics, social issues and
health. In all of this, it is important for research to be aware of soci-
ety’s values, needs and expectations and to integrate them into
the research process in line with the RRI approach (Responsible
Research and Innovation, as defined by the European Commission;
see illustration).

Conversely, science can also benefit greatly from a high level of sci-
entific literacy among the population, which has an enlightened,
critical and at the same time appreciative relationship with science.
One can assume that such a population will be more inclined to
(critically) trust science and to grant it freedoms, such as allowing
basic research and not only insisting on direct results. Science that
is closely linked to society can also enjoy better access to data from
the real economy and society, conduct research on society’s prob-
lems and thereby create societal impact – something
that is playing an increasingly important role in the
evaluation of science by funding institutions.
Ensure R&I
addresses
In order for this dialogue to work and for societal
challenges
researchers to continue pursuing their
research, it is important to actively
develop interfaces between research
and society. And this includes: science RRI
communication. Open R&I to Align R&I with,
all actors and societal values,
at all levels needs and
expectations

Recommended reads:
◆ European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication, Directorate-General for Research
and Innovation, Responsible research and innovation (RRI), science and technology: report, Publications
Office, 2013, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/45726
◆ Schnurr J.& Mäder A. (2020), Wissenschaf t und Gesellschaf t: Ein vertrauensvoller Dialog.
Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59466-7
15
 What is science communication?
DIRK HANS
B asics

A trivial question, you might think. Science communication is

given when science communicates. But it is not quite that sim-
by
I.

ple. Who communicates what, and to whom? Do scientists have to

be involved, or is it enough if the content merely originates from
science? Definitions remain inconsistent to this day. Bonfadelli
et al. (2017), in their acclaimed edited volume Forschungsfeld
Wissenschaftskommunikation, use the following definition: “We
understand science communication as all forms of communication focused
on scientific knowledge or scientific work, both inside and outside insti-
tutionalised science, including its production, content, use, and ef fects”
(translated by author). Admittedly, this is an academically sophis-
ticated definition, and one that can be confidently endorsed.

However, such definitions are often of little use, because they are
simply too broad. Let’s take a look back in history to gain a better
overview of the popular terms and their meanings. Traditionally,
the term “science communication” was used primarily to distin-
guish it from “science journalism” in the sense of “institutional
science communication”. It therefore encompassed all commu-
nication activities of scientific institutions or organisations (e.g.
universities) towards a non-scientific public. This includes direct

16
communication by scientists, as well as mediated communi-
cation by the corresponding communications departments. In
2.
these cases, it is advisable to refer directly to “institutional science
communication” in order to avoid misunderstandings. Currently,
more and more experts are adding the term “science PR” (pub-
lic relations) to the portfolio of terminology in order to make the
immanent aspects of interest-driven communication, which is pri-
marily aimed at building reputation, more transparent. This term
is very helpful! And, to be straight, science PR is an important,
sometimes dominant part of today’s institutional science commu-
nication. But there are many other actors who can also engage in
science communication, such as smaller associations, teachers, or
even private individuals who simply want to share their fascination
with science. This type of science communication is non-institu-
tional and often close to what we like to call “science education”.

And there is more. The dedicated exchange within the scientific

community, such as at a scientific conference, is also often attrib-
uted to science communication. There are a number of helpful
clarifications that we strongly recommend. In the latter example,
we can speak of “internal science communication” or “scholarly
communication”. Of course, the complementary terminology of
“external science communication” can be used to make it clear
that science is aimed at an audience outside the field of science.
And, of course, we have the aforementioned institutional science
communication and science PR, science journalism, science educa-
tion and even knowledge transfer, which is often used to describe
communication with industry or societal actors. It appears obvious
that when discussing science communication, it is of fundamen-
tal importance to first clarify what is actually being talked about.
In this book, we use the terminology of
science communication (SciCom) in
the broad sense, but we always try to
add the necessary specificity.

Recommended reads:
◆ Bonfadelli et al. (2017), Forschungsfeld Wissenschaf tskommunikation. Springer Verlag.
ISBN:978-3-658-12898-2
◆ Cormick C. (2019), The Science of Communicating Science.CSIRO Publishing. ISBN:9781486309818
◆ Bennett D. J. & Jennings R.C. (2011), Successful Science Communication. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN:978-0-521-17678-1
17
 The history of science
communication

Before we can get to a history of science communication, we need

to understand how science emerged, who was doing it and how
they initially communicated. Science has a global history stretch-
ing back for centuries. But what we perceive as modern science in
Western civilisation was born out of a cultural movement of the
14th to 17th centuries – the Renaissance. Part of this movement was a
rediscovery of communication in the form of Greek and Latin texts.
Ideas of natural philosophy were discussed between influential
men in the popular coffee houses of 17th -century London.
K AY Y E O M A N

These verbal conversations gave rise to the Royal Society (1660),

B asics

followed by the French and Berlin Academies of Science (1666 and

1700). Members of the Royal Society communicated their ideas to
each other through letters, which formed the world’s first scien-
by
I.

tific journal, the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and

introduced the concept of peer review, making the published “sci-
entific paper” not only a channel of communication but also a unit
of productivity.

The “Grand Tour” of fered wealthy young men the opportunity to

bring back curiosities and specimens, forming “cabinets of curios­
ity”, which enabled lively af ter-dinner conversations about the
natural world. Public interest in science began to grow rapidly. In
the 19th century, England, France and America were peppered with
local science societies, of fering an opportunity for more wide-
spread communication and with it, education.

The first society aimed specifically at science communication was

the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1831).
Science had been professionalised much earlier by other European
countries, such as the education and examination system in
Prussia, which gave rise to the Bildungsbürgertum, the educated
middle class. Despite these endeavours over the decades, the public

18
attitude towards science in the UK lagged behind that in other
European countries, leading to a deficit model of science commu-
3.
nication, the idea of which was developed in the 1980s to address
the public’s lack of scientific literacy. In the early 2000s, this model
morphed into the public understanding of science, where scientists
began to talk more to the public about their work and communicate
through a much wider range of channels. This was seen as essential
if the public were to accept new technologies such as nuclear power
and genetic modification of crops. The fundamental premise was
“the more you know, the more positive and accepting you will be”.
This model was also seen in other European countries: vulgarisation
scientifique in France or Wissenschaftspopularisierung in Germany.

However, as we moved through the issues of the 21st century, it

became clear that the acceptance of science and technology was
far more nuanced than simply a lack of knowledge – there was
also a cultural and ethical influence. Global issues such as climate
change and the emergence of new infectious diseases and vacci-
nations have modernised the models of communication. There is
far less emphasis on a deficit of knowledge or understanding and
more on dialogue and debate, allowing the public to shape the
future direction of science and technology.

Recommended reads:
◆ Babbage C. (2013), Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on Some of its Causes.
Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9781139381048; https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381048

19
 Goals of science communication

Disseminating information and building society’s trust in science

are the central goals driving science communication, and they are
mutually reinforcing: In addition to the ethical obligation to inform
the public about their research activities (see Essential 50), indi-
vidual researchers and entire research institutions will increase
their chances of being perceived as credible and trustworthy if
they are visible and transparent towards the public. On the other
hand, the information communicated will have a greater impact
if the audience considers the authors to be trustworthy. Science
OLIVER GL ASSL

will be discussed publicly whether or not scientists inform the

public about their research. However, without clear and under-
B asics

standable communication from research institutions, universities

or companies about their ongoing research, public discourse may
rely increasingly on individual beliefs about research rather than
by
I.

on academic reality. It may also be more susceptible to misinfor-

mation, ignorance, denial, political instrumentalisation, and many
other inappropriate influences. Recent public debates on climate
change or vaccination are striking examples of how dif ferent
actors and interest groups successfully use an increasing variety
of media and methods to influence public opinion to support their
own agendas, rather than to support informed democratic deci-
sion-making. Science communication is therefore a crucial tool for
building stable public relations and a trusted brand [1,2].

However, the communicating party should be aware that science

communication does not automatically contribute to more trust in
science and clearer public opinion: Science cannot provide unam-
biguous answers, and even if scientific data were incontrovertible,
individual or societal opinions will always be influenced by the
political, social and cultural context, which is not necessarily sci-
entifically justifiable [3], and they also tend to be issue-specific and
dependent on a number of personal factors [4]. In this sense, sci-
ence communication should not only disseminate information, but

20
also stimulate public critical thinking to nurture the understand-
ing that uncertainty and ambiguity are constituents of science
4.
and research, and that any resulting controversy is a mechanism
for finding scientific consensus [5,6]. This understanding supports
a society’s ability to put scientific results and many other pieces
of information into perspective. Ultimately, this may be the most
sustainable way to build society’s trust in science. One appropri-
ate way to achieve this is to engage in dialogue with the public, as
it allows scientists to also consider societal needs when defining
the scope of their research and it helps science communicators to
understand what information is of interest to the public [3,4].

Science communication also serves the goal of creating a compet-

itive edge in the field of science. However, this is the subject of a
controversial debate, as it may interfere with the ethical obligation
to communicate in an unbiased, truthful and accurate manner [1].

NO
WLEDG TRUST
K

Recommended reads:
◆ Autzen C. & Weitkamp E. (2020), 22. Science communication and public relations: beyond borders.
In Science Communication, De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 465-484. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255522-022
◆ Betz G & Lanius D. (2020), 1. Philosophy of science for science communication in twenty-two questions. In
Science Communication,: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255522-001
◆ Hendriks F. & Kienhues D. (2020), 2. Science understanding between scientific literacy and trust: contri-
butions from psychological and educational research. In Science Communication, De Gruyter Mouton, pp.
29-50. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255522-002
21
 Inform, interact, involve
N of
C L A R IF IC AT IOm in o lo g ie s
furth e r t e r
There are many terminologies and concepts besides science com-
munication when it comes to communicating science or engaging
the public with science. But there are no unanimously agreed upon
definitions.

So before we go any further, here are a few more descriptions of

terms and concepts you will encounter in this book.

Let’s start with “open science”: This is about making research more
accessible and transparent to other researchers and to society at
large. It is a concept that embraces dif ferent means of opening
C I S S I A S K WA L L

up research. The umbrella of open science includes open access

to scientific publications, openly available research data, educa-
B asics

tional resources, sof tware and hardware. The fact that science
communication, public engagement, citizen science and altmet-
rics (alternative ways of measuring the impact of research) are also
by
I.

part of the open science concept is less well known.

SciCom can be more or less interactive:

◆ “Dissemination” is characterised by one-way commu-

nication aimed at a recipient, such as press releases and
popular science lectures.
◆ “Dialogue” invites all parties to play a role as both sender
and receiver. Both researchers and the public can speak
and take an active interest in each other’s views, such as
in science cafés and other engagement formats.
◆ “Co-creation” gives all parties the opportunity not only to
express their views, but also to be involved in, participate
in and thereby influence the research process.

ATION →
D E GREE OF AC TIVE PARTICIP orld . ew
he out sid
C ommunic ation ab out r e s e ar c h w ith t

22
“Public engagement”, also known as “science engagement”, is a
concept that encompasses a wide range of collaborative activities.
5.
The National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) in
the UK defines it broadly: “Public engagement is a two-way process,
involving interaction and listening, with the goal of generating mutual
benefit.” In some countries, SciCom is separate from public engage-
ment, while in others, engagement with the public or with specific
groups or actors is seen as a way of conducting SciCom. Co-creation

“Citizen science” is a common feature of co-creation, where the

public is directly involved in research and innovation processes,
often helping researchers to collect and/or review large amounts of
data. It can also involve collaboratively formulating research ques-
tions, testing certain methods, and compiling or communicating
findings. Dialogue

“Science education” is the teaching and learning of science. It can

take many forms and involve different levels of interactivity. The
TWO-WAY
term is used to emphasise the aim: to increase knowledge of sci- COMMUNICATION
ence or research among pupils, students or the public. ↕

ONE-WAY
In the context of SciCom, you may still come across “outreach” and COMMUNICATION
“popularisation”, somewhat outdated terms that can be used for
different forms of SciCom activities. Dissemination

Regardless of the various terms and concepts, science communica-

tion is a growing field of research and a key practice. It is supported
by international scientific journals, networks and conferences.
Most countries have decided to work towards open science.
However, in order to be accessible to people outside academia, sci-
ence and research must be communicated in an understandable,
inclusive and evidence-based way.

Recommended reads:
◆ UNESCO recommendation on Open Science -UNESCO Digital Library,
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale=en
◆ Main open access or partially open access SciCom publications: JCOM (J. of Science Communication),
Research for All, PUS (Public Understanding of Science) and Science Communication.
◆ Continuous updates on topical SciCom research, methods, activities, projects, courses and events:
The global PCST (Public Communication of Science and Technology) mailing list:
https://www.pcst.network/discuss/
23
 Science communication and
science journalism

Journalism is of ten referred to as the “fourth estate”.

Independent journalism is fundamental to democracies
because it can provide factual information, reveal grievances
and represent a diverse spectrum of
opinions. It is not without reason that
autocrats shun press freedom like
the devil shuns holy water.
JOURNALIST

Science journalism is part of this

“fourth estate”. Given the enor-
DIRK HANS

mous importance of science in

B asics

SCIENTIST
our modern knowledge societies,
it is currently all the more surpris-
ing how inadequately equipped – both
I.

&

financially and in terms of staf f – many jour-

nalistic media are in the domain of science. Declining revenues in
the media industry have played their part. Fortunately, compen-
satory structures such as Science Media Centres (see Essential 45)
have emerged to help out.

However, journalism also feels threatened by the ever-increasing

professionalisation of institutional science communication, i.e.
the work of the highly qualified communications departments of
research institutions, but also by the increasing number of social
media channels, often run directly by scientists. News are dissem-
inated without anyone checking the quality of the information, the
honesty of the source, or its motivation. Without corrective action,
boasting and false promises could become a profitable strategy
and even tempt institutional science communication. The impor-
tant function of journalism – to act as a filter and to separate the
relevant from the irrelevant – is no longer fulfilled if science edito-
rial teams of independent media outlets are no longer present or
are bypassed.

24
It is not uncommon to find former, often badly paid science journal-
ists in the communications departments of well equiped research
6.
institutions. Indeed, articles in print magazines or video contribu-
tions from research institutions are often indistinguishable from
articles in major newspapers or coverage on publicly funded televi-
sion. But there is one very important difference that is increasingly
being overlooked by uncritical recipients: independence!

The internal editorial team of a research institution is unlikely to

carry out investigative journalistic research on data manipulation
and misconduct by its own executives. Instead, they are more likely
to present success stories to enhance their institute's reputation.

But should publicly funded science be afraid of independent jour-

nalism? Well – both journalism and science ideally pursue the goal
of supporting an informed and educated society, so the answer
should be “no”.

In fact, science must allow itself to be asked the question: What

are you doing for good and independent science journalism?
Supporting institutions like Science Media Centres through
financial contributions is one possibility for larger research organi-
sations. Another would be to make press releases
more transparent through a code of con-
duct, including information on conflicts
of interest, third-party funding, animal
testing or dual-use issues. And last
but not least there is something to
do for everyone: Subscribe to a good
newspaper or online magazine that
offers well-researched science jour-
nalism. We must all be willing to pay
a bit for good journalism.

Recommended reads:
◆ Massarani et al. (2021), Global Science Journalism Report: Working conditions and practices, professional
ethos and future expectations. SciDev.Net/CABI: UK. Available at: www.scidev.net/global/wp-content/
uploads/Global-Science-Journalism-Report-2021.pdf

25
 Science education
CHRISTINA SIRY & SAR A WILMES

“Science education” refers to the teaching and learning of sci-

ence, beginning in the early years and continuing throughout life.
Science education is a broad field that encompasses the content,
processes and practices of science and – by extension – the ped-
agogy and didactics of teaching science. Science education in a
broad sense can take place in formal and informal learning set-
tings, such as forests, museums and playgrounds, and with a range
B asics

of disciplines spanning physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astron-

omy and environmental sciences, for example. Learning science
involves developing an understanding of the concepts, theories
by
I.

and laws of the natural world, as well as developing important sci-

entific practices such as observing, experimenting, analysing and
interpreting, and applying these practices through scientific critical
decision-making processes [7, 8].

Science education should strive to nurture a sense of curiosity and

wonder, as learners ask questions, design experiments, collect and
interpret data, and draw evidence-based conclusions. At the same
time, science education can also develop critical thinking skills and
promote problem-solving abilities. A central goal of science educa-
tion both in and out of school is to foster scientific literacy, which
refers to the ways in which people can use scientific knowledge and
skills to think critically, analyse data and make informed decisions
based on evidence.

Science education should build upon learners’ curiosity, inter-

ests and wonder, and science teaching approaches should ideally
encourage active learning and discovery and emphasise the con-
nection between scientific concepts and their applications in

26
everyday life. Inquiry-based learning approaches can help to
achieve this goal, as they build on what students think about when
7.
examining questions that are relevant to them, and they engage
critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. Science education
plays a crucial role in developing an appreciation of the natural
world and in preparing individuals for careers in scientific fields
– as informed citizens who can engage with and participate in sci-
entific discourse relevant to our rapidly changing planet. life longing
learn
Science is a dynamic and rapidly evolving field. Science
education should therefore integrate new discoveries,
emerging technologies, and contemporary scientific
issues and challenges. To work towards contemporary
scientific literacy, science curricula should be reimag­
ined [9]. At the same time, it is critical to provide
professional development for teachers in ways
that integrate current scientific research into
instructional materials and approaches.

Key issues in science education relate to equity, access and inclu-

sion, as ensuring equitable access to quality science education is
a significant challenge internationally. Disparities in resources,
funding and opportunities to learn disproportionately af fect
students from marginalised communities, which leads to gaps
in achievement across dif ferent groups. Females continue to be
underrepresented in scientific professions. Addressing gender
disparities and creating structures and approaches for fostering
inclusivity in science is crucial to promoting diversity and equity
in scientific fields. Addressing these disparities and fostering
inclusivity requires recognition and collaborative ef forts from
educators, policymakers, scientists and the community at large.
By working towards equitable access to science education contexts
and learning resources, fostering inclusivity, promoting inquiry-
based learning and keeping pace with scientific advancements, the
field and practice of science education can better prepare individu-
als for the challenges and opportunities of the future.

Recommended reads:
◆ Adams et al. (2018). The role of science education in a changing world.
Lorentz Center, Netherlands. https://www.lorentzcenter.nl/lc/web/2018/960/extra.
php3?wsid=960&venue=Snellius

27
 Authenticity in
science communication
Authenticity can be defined as a true representation of a person,
object or situation. In communication, it often refers to the percep-
tion of the communicator, the content or a message as being real
or true. It is recognised that authentic SciCom increases the trans-
parency of science, supports credibility and fosters trust in science.
Establishing perceptions of authenticity is therefore a powerful
tool for gaining trust and having an impact on an audience. But
where can authenticity come into play?

First, there is the question of the authenticity of the content itself.

Are the materials, the situation or location authentic? An audi-
ence that sees or touches a real object, rather than a replica or
SERGE HA AN

model, can of ten be fascinated and engaged much more easily.

B asics

For example, the importance of authenticity in the appreciation of

museum objects has been shown in a study of children’s responses
to authentic fossils compared to replicas [10]. Similarly, audiences
by
I.

often appreciate seeing real cells under a microscope, or even vis-

iting a lab with real researchers, rather than watching a video. Of
course, you cannot bring everyone or any size of audience to every
location. Think about how you can adapt the use of materials or
the location to suit your objective, activity and audience! Also, not
everyone will value authenticity to the same degree. Furthermore,
Horseshoe crab
found 1958, Mexico
it is clear that a science show does not need an authentic location
and that it is always a staged event. However, integrating authen-
tic materials, machines or scenarios can be an option. The use of
authentic real-life scenarios also makes it possible to build a bridge
between school science knowledge and everyday knowledge and is
especially important for making a task meaningful for pupils in an
educational context [11].
Horseshoe crab
found 1958, Mexico (replica)
A second important point is the authenticity of the communicators
and protagonists. Here, authenticity describes the impression that
these people are not influenced by external factors and present
themselves as they really are. The key to reaching the audience is
to avoid a teacher-student perspective, to break the emotional and

28
intellectual distance to the audience and to be recognisable as an
individual with own values and interests. It has also been shown
8.
that first-person communication increases authenticity compared
to third-person accounts [12]. However, the aforementioned aspects
may hurt the perception of a neutral scientific report, and the com-
municator may need to consider this depending on the goal of
the communication ef forts. Authenticity and eye-level commu-
nication are cards that can be played easily during face-to-face
communication or events, but also in social media formats or pod-
casts. However, web video formats and podcasts are often artificial
in the sense that they are scripted or staged, and this can affect the
perception of authenticity. For example, it is clear that a regurgi-
tated, well-prepared text will be perceived as less authentic than
an unscripted response. In these types of media, the conscious
omission of staging or over-scripting, as well as careful post-pro-
duction, can therefore support perceptions of authenticity [13].

One of the many reasons why researchers should contribute to

SciCom ef forts is that they can easily establish the perception of
authenticity if they engage in communication about their own
research. Even if parts of the audience do not understand all of the
scientific details, they can still be captivated by the communica-
tors’ fascination and passion for a topic.

Recommended reads:
◆ Saf fran et al. (2020), Constructing and influencing perceived authenticity in science communication:
Experimenting with narrative. PLoS ONE 15(1): e0226711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226711
◆ Åkerblom & Lindahl (2017), Authenticity and the relevance of discourse and figured worlds in secondary
students' discussions of socioscientific issues, Teaching and teacher education 65: 205-214, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.025
◆ van Gerven et al. (2018), Authenticity matters: Children look beyond appearances in their appreciation of
museum objects, International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8:325-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21548455.2018.1497218
29
 The communicating scientist
Around half of all academics appear to be involved in some out-
reach activities, but only a small percentage are responsible for the
majority of activities [14]. A study involving US academic biologists
and physicists also showed that female scientists are significantly
more involved in outreach activities than men (72% of women vs.
42% of men) [15].

Why do researchers engage in SciCom activities? Reasons may

include: presenting their own research; ensuring that the public
is better informed about scientific issues; increasing the visibil-
ity of the institution; contributing to the recruitment of students;
meeting the requirements of funding bodies, etc. It is becoming
increasingly important for researchers to be good communicators.
SERGE HA AN

To raise money for their research, researchers often have to pitch

B asics

their projects to investors, industry partners or funding agencies.

Furthermore, science communication is increasingly seen as an
asset in the processes of funding programmes (e.g. narrative CVs).
by
I.

However, there are several barriers that tend to prevent efficient

science communication [16, 17]:

Lack of time, institutional support and reward by the research system:

Research is a time-consuming and highly competitive activity.
When teaching and administrative tasks are added to the mix,
many researchers are reluctant to take on an additional time-con-
suming task, even if many perceive it as rewarding. The underlying

Opinion Di�ferences Between Public and Scientists

Biomedical sciences % of U.S. adults and scientists saying each of the following
Safe to eat U.S. ADULTS SCIENTISTS
genetically ₃₇ % ₅₁ point gap ₈₈%
modified foods
Favor use of
NO
Health
Risks
animals in ₄₇ % ₄₂ ₈₉%
research
Safe to eat foods
grown with ₂₈% ₄₀ ₆₈%
pesticides
₀ ₁₀ ₂₀ ₃₀ ₄₀ ₅₀ ₆₀ ₇₀ ₈₀ ₉₀ ₁₀₀
(source: "public and scientists' view on science and society". Pew Research Center,
Washington, D.C. (2015) https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/01/29/public-and-
scientists-views-on-science-and-society/ )

30
reasons may be a marginal role of public engagement in institutional
strategies and a lack of recognition, either by colleagues or in the con-
9.
text of evaluations and career development, which tend to focus on
scientific output. Obvious solutions are clear recognition of outreach
investments by institutions and funding bodies to give SciCom its
rightful place in modern research culture. Furthermore, the devel-
opment of support structures for SciCom activities is essential for
reducing the high initial time investment in developing outreach
activities and for coordinating the ef forts. Researchers should
also seek cooperation, help and advice from professional science
communicators, either within or outside their organisation, where
possible.

Lack of skills and training: It is too easy to say that researchers are not
good communicators. Communication towards peers, trainees
and students is central to research and teaching. However, many
researchers have never been formally trained to communicate
in dif ferent contexts, and this of ten af fects the communication
towards lay audiences, where it is important to stimulate interest,
adapt to the audience and hold their attention effectively. When
communicating to lay audiences, researchers need to be aware
that their perceptions may dif fer dramatically from those of the
audience (see illustration). They also need to understand which
tools and approaches are most appropriate for a given audience.
Particularly at times when institutions seek to increase their visibil-
ity and funding bodies require outreach as a project deliverable, it
is vital that appropriate training and support are provided.

Climate, energy, space sciences

Climate change is U.S. ADULTS SCIENTISTS

mostly due to ₅₀ % ₃₇ point gap ₈₇ %
human activity
Growing world
population will be ₅₉% ₂₃ ₈₂%
a major problem
Favor building
more nuclear ₄₅% ₂₀ ₆₅%
power plants
₀ ₁₀ ₂₀ ₃₀ ₄₀ ₅₀ ₆₀ ₇₀ ₈₀ ₉₀ ₁₀₀

Recommended reads:
◆ Mannino et al. (2021). Supporting quality in science communication: insights from the QUEST project.
JCOM 20, A07. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20030207.
◆ Woitowich et al. (2021), Assessing Motivations and Barriers to Science Outreach within Academia:
A Mixed-Methods Survey. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.28.466319
◆ Rose et al. (2020). Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication.
PNAS, 117: 1274–1276. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1916740117 31
 The science of science
communication

The science of science communication (SoSC) has traditionally

been seen as a sub-discipline of communication science, studying,
for example, the coverage of science content in public media or the
selection of science-related topics by newspaper readers. More
recently, SoSC topics have been studied by other disciplines, such
as psychology, sociology and science education. This development
also reflects a broader perspective on the conditions, processes and
effects of science communication.
R AINER BROMME

For example, individual and cultural belief systems are studied as

conditions for citizens’ beliefs in the validity of scientific findings.
B asics

Conversations on social media about science-related topics such

as COVID-19 or climate change are examples of processes of science
communication. In this case, the research topic is communication
by
I.

within the general public about science, rather than the provision
of scientific knowledge by science communicators to the general
public. Public trust in science is studied as both a condition and an
effect of science communication. A wide range of research methods
are used. Examples include content analysis, experimental labora-
tory and field studies, and representative surveys. Theoretical and
conceptual SoSC studies are also carried out.

Due to the multidisciplinary nature of SoSC, the

corresponding scientific community is defined
rather vaguely and not as clearly organised
as more established disciplines such as psy-
chology or sociology. Nevertheless, it is
growing, as evidenced by the increasing
number of scientific publications on SoSC
(see illustration).

32
SoSC has an impact on the quality of science communication.
Testing the impact of science communication activities would be
10.
an example of practical, applied SoSC. The impact of SoSC on the
practice of science communication is not limited to the conscious
design and evaluation of communication activities or methods. It
is also important to provide food for thought, as well as discourse
on science communication and the relationship between science
and society. In this respect, even basic (non-applied) SoSC studies
are of practical importance. Conceptual/theoretical results, as well
as empirical findings on the conditions, processes and ef fects of
science communication, enable thinking and arguing about science
communication to align with the topic in a science-based way.

Publication count per year in Web of Science (1999-2022)

Search items mentioned in the abstracts of the publications
₈₀₀
₇₀₀
₆₀₀
₅₀₀ 100

₄₀₀ 80

₃₀₀ 60

₂₀₀ 40

₁₀₀ 20

₀
0

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

₁₀₀
"science
communication" or
₈₀ "public engagement"

₆₀ +health
+education
₄₀ +covid
+climate change
₂₀

₀
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Recommended reads:
◆ Jamieson et al. (2017), The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, Oxford University
Press. ISBN: 9780190497620 ; https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.001.0001
◆ Public Understanding of Science, Journal, https://journals.sagepub.com/home/PUS
◆ Science Communication, Journal, https://journals.sagepub.com/home/scx

33
 Trust in science

Trust is needed from those who don’t know or can’t do everything

themselves – in other words, from everyone. We delegate control
because we have to. Two examples to begin with: Since we can
­neither build an aeroplane nor fly one ourselves, we have to trust
the manufacturers and the pilots that we will somehow arrive at
our holiday destination. If the WHO recommends a vaccination,
it is up to us to trust it or not. In any case, we can’t do the research
that led to a vaccine ourselves, and we don’t have the pilot’s flight
certificates shown to us before take-off. Therefore, the only thing
left for the individual to do, as is so often the case, is to evaluate
DIRK HANS

the expertise and honesty of the participants and make a decision.

B asics

In a world that is as technological and complex as ours, in which our

inter­actions with other people and machines are so varied, every
second of our existence is interwoven with trust.
by
I.

Science, with its sophisticated methods of generating scientific

knowledge, is a particularly challenging case. Evolution, quan-
tum mechanics, black matter and epigenetics – come on! With
such “crazy” scientific theories, why trust anyone? Since there are
probably only a few supporters of the Flat Earth Theory or cli-
mate-change deniers among the readers of this book, let’s keep
it brief: The ­scientific system, while not perfect, is the most reli­
able system we have – it is “fundamentally consensual” [18]. A high
degree of trust can rightly be placed in the process of peer review
and scientific discourse. And international studies confirm that
societies around the world generally have a high level of trust in
science and scientists [19].

This immediately leads to other aspects that

need to be addressed in the context of trust
in science: doubt.

Doubt is important – it is a virtue.

34
Fortunately, many people become sceptical when dubious sources
suggest that injecting disinfectants to fight SARS-CoV-2 might
11.
be a good idea. And it is perfectly clear that scientists can err and
make mistakes. The COVID-19 pandemic, because of its remarkably
public scientific disputes, shows us to this day how much science
struggles for truth, and that competing theories and disputes
about them are part and parcel of the scientific system. Doubt is
already built into science and its theories. This is a strength! The
fact that the reluctance with which many scientists present their
scientific findings to the public is not a weakness. But this is often
difficult to convey to a society that wants to know the “truth” – now,
not tomorrow.

Those who want to promote trust in science in a sustainable way

need to invest more in explaining the scientific system and the
process of gaining scientific knowledge, and put less ef fort into
boasting about the latest research results. Trust in science and a
political system based on its findings are fundamental to a stable
society that is focused on the common good. Trust in science saved
countless lives during the pandemic. So perhaps the most impor-
tant goal of benevolent SciCom is this: to promote trust in science.

How much do you

?
trust science and research
Wissenschaf tsbarometer 2022
Results from the German
₈₀
₇₃ Trust fully / tend to trust
₇₀ ₆₆
₆₁ ₆₂
₆₀ ₅₄
₆₀

₅₀
₅₀ ₄₆
undecided
₃₉
₄₀ ₃₇
₃₀ ₃₂
₂₉
₃₀ ₂₀
₂₄

₂₀ ₁₂
₇ ₈ ₉
Tend not to trust / do not trust
₇ ₈
₆ ₆
₁₀ ₂₀₁₇ ₂₀₁₈ ₂₀₁₉ ₂₀ ₂₀ ₂₀ ₂₀₂₁ ₂₀₂₂
Apr May Nov

(adapted from [34]

)

Recommended reads:
◆ Oreskes N. (2019) Why trust science? Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691179001
◆ Hendriks et al. (2015), Measuring Laypeople’s Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster
Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS ONE 10: e0139309.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139309
◆ van der Bles et al. (2020), The ef fects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and
numbers. PNAS 117 :7672–7683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913678117 35
STR ATE G Y

12. Stakeholders of science 38

13. Target groups of science communication 40

14. Institutional communication strategy 42

15. Internal communication 44

16. Communication departments 46

17. Science as a brand 48

 Stakeholders of science

For all those who communicate science, it is essential to know their

stakeholders. Be they internal or external, influential or less impor-
tant. Stakeholders are people or organisations that have a special
connection to you, your institute or the institution as a whole. They
can significantly promote or inhibit the development of indivi­duals
and institutions and are therefore crucial to success. That is why
professional stakeholder management is essential, which of course
includes good communication. But who are these notorious stake-
MARKUS WEISSKOPF

holders really?
S trategy

If you look at science as a whole, at scientists and scientific insti-

tutions, then society and every single citizen are its stakeholders.
Especially in the case of the pandemic or issues such as energy
supply, the essential role of science for society becomes clear.
II.

by

On the other hand, citizens somehow decide on the funding and

direction of science at the ballot box. Or they get involved in cit-
izen science projects, where they help researchers to collect or
analyse data or even find new research questions. Or they protest
against animal testing in research, against research on genetically
modified organisms, or against vaccinations. Society is a power-
ful stakeholder, and this also highlights the importance of a good
relationship between science and the public. Of course, this rela-
tionship shouldn’t just be managed and seen in a one-directional
way. Science must learn to listen, too. And, of course, the needs and
moods of society must be captured with the appropriate analytical
tools. Surveys such as the Eurobarometer or national science barom-
eters can help with this, as can studies on general societal trends.

For many scientific institutions, an important role

is also played by local and regional businesses,
NGOs, cultural institutions and, of course, poli-
tics. It is important that they develop a detailed
stakeholder map and define objectives for

38
relations with the respective actors. What do I want to achieve
with my communication towards politics or business? Which peo-
12.
ple and institutions are particularly important for my institution?
Who shares the same values? And what are the right measures
for addressing them? Perhaps you could involve stakeholders in
a transformative research or citizen science project. Or get them
­involved in the next construction project on your campus. But
­always remember that this is not a one-way street. Respect the
needs and the perspectives of different stakeholder groups and do
not hesitate to put the tough questions on the table.

Recommended reads:
◆ European Commission Report (2021), Special Eurobarometer 516 - European citizens’ knowledge and
attitudes towards science and technology. ISBN: 978-92-76-41143-7. https://doi.org/10.2775/071577
◆ Boaz et al. (2018), How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement.
Health Res Policy Sys 16: 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0337-6
◆ Boon et al. (2021), Open Science & Stakeholder Engagement: Why, how, and what could be improved?
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/416090/Open_Science_Stakeholder_
Engagement_exploratory_study_report.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
39
 Target groups of science
communication

After defining the goal of your communication, the guiding ques-

tion should be WHAT am I communicating to WHOM? These two
aspects are strongly interconnected. For the WHAT, you need to
decide whether you want to speak about a specific aspect/finding
or whether you want to communicate about aspects of a particular
research field, area, topic or project more generally. Specific find-
ings are often aimed at a well-defined and more informed target
audience, such as other researchers, sponsors etc. But even if you
want to communicate a very specific finding to such a group, the
SERGE HA AN
S trategy

target group will often influence the content... you might decide to
emphasise aspects for one group, but may omit them completely
for another. For example, two sponsors for the same project may
have dif ferent interests/philosophies that you need to consider.
II.

by

In practice, this means you will often have to iteratively adapt the
WHAT to the WHOM when planning a communication. Addressing
a larger audience, you will of ten choose to communicate more
generally about a topic. The larger the audience, the more het­
erogeneous it will be. At some point, the group becomes too large
to be a suitable target audience. The best example is the “general
public”. If you state that your activity is aimed at the general pub-
lic, you must follow up by defining the primary and maybe also
the secondary subgroups that you are targeting. Also think about
how to retain the audience once you have gained their interest. For
example, if you expect families to attend an event, you can attract
and retain them by adding an activity for children or young peo-
ple. Each audience is made up of people with different knowledge,
backgrounds and personal experiences, so one size will not fit all. A
general, dumbed-down approach is therefore not the best way to
reach even a lay audience: Try to build on your audience’s existing
knowledge and experiences wherever possible.

40
Concepts such as the science capital or science identity of an audience
are useful for reflecting on the heterogeneity of a target group,
13.
for helping to design targeting strategies for specific subgroups
or for responding to an audience during an interactive activity.
Science capital is a theoretical concept that aims to explain the sci-
ence-related patterns of aspirations and educational participation
of a group of people [20]. It considers the “scientific baggage” that a
person or group accumulates over time, including scientific knowl-
edge and education, experiences, beliefs and social environments.
High or low science identity refers to the degree to which a person
identifies with science and the extent to which science influences
their thinking and behaviour [21]. In addition to aspects such as gen-
der and age, scientific baggage will influence a person’s attraction
to and behaviour during a SciCom activity. Some people may be
engaged, while others may be inactive or even disinterested [22].
The target audience also defines the place, medium, time and
often the effort required for the activity. Find out as much as you
can about your audience. Be aware that even defined groups can
be very heterogeneous and that you cannot reach everyone at
the same time. Think about the blend of information, dialogue and
involvement that might be most appropriate for a given audience. If
you are a researcher, consult professional science communicators
within or outside your institution, if possible.

Recommended reads:
◆ Schäfer et al. (2018). The dif ferent audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss
population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns, Public Understanding of
Science, 27(7): 836–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517752886
◆ Humm, C. & Schrögel, P. (2020), Science for All? Practical Recommendations on Reaching Underserved
Audiences, Front. Commun. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00042
41
 Institutional communication
strategy

Communicating the work of public research institutions to a

wide variety of audiences is a complex task. What can be done to
develop a comprehensive communication strategy for these insti-
tutions? This is the most important question for any institutional
communications officer.

The key to developing such a communication strategy is to match

the specific needs of individual researchers with the organisation’s
DIDIER GOOSSENS

overarching communication objectives, which are defined in such

a way as to best serve the institution and help it achieve its stra-
S trategy

tegic goals. This requires institutions to interact closely with their

researchers in order to understand their communication needs
and to provide information about the institution’s communication
objectives. This is not always trivial, as researchers might have spe-
II.

by

cific ambitions that may not appear to align with the institution’s
overall communication goals.

Another challenge is that institutions have to interact with a

diverse group of stakeholders, such as members of the public,
the research community and government officials. Each of these
groups has unique needs and expectations for how information is
conveyed, and institutions must be able to adapt their communica-
tion methods and tactics to accommodate these differences to suit
the needs of each audience.

Establishing clear and consistent messages is essential for effective

communication. This includes developing key messages that con-
vey the institution’s mission, its research and findings, as well as
its impact on society. These messages should be aligned with the
overall goals of the institution and communicated consistently at
all levels, both inside and outside the organisation.

42
To reach different stakeholders, it is essential to consider the var-
ious communication channels that will be used. These include
14.
traditional methods such as press releases and media relations, as
well as digital platforms such as social media, the institution’s web-
site and e-newsletters. Each channel needs to be chosen based on
its ef fectiveness in reaching the target audience and the type of
message that needs to be communicated.

Communications officers need to build and protect a brand – and

ensure that researchers are on board. It is therefore important to
empower scientists and researchers to communicate ef fectively
on behalf of the institution. This may include providing training and
resources, such as advice and guidelines on communicating with
the media, to ensure that they can contribute to the institution’s
key messages.

For any scientist working for an institution: If you want to engage in

science communication towards people outside your institution,
it is always a good idea to contact your institutional communi-
cations manager for advice and support, or just to inform them.
And always bear in mind that the institutional context makes your
personal communication more complex because of the various
aspects that need to be considered.

43
 Internal communication

1,0

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,0
JULIE T TE PERTUY
S trategy

Not communicating internally is like going on holiday with

a group of friends but being the only one who knows the desti-
II.

by

nation. No one will be able to help you along the way, and your
pals will have packed their snowshoes instead of their swimsuits.
It could get messy! Even if internal communication is the last chap-
ter you want to spend time on, diving into it can actually transform
your external communication and its outcomes.

The concept of internal communication is quite simple: It is about

getting your colleagues, staf f and fellow researchers to under-
stand what’s happening in the institution, the projects or the
working groups. The specific hurdle of working in science comes
mainly from the complexity of the topics. You could say that this
is true when communicating to an external, non-specialist audi-
ence, but in reality there can be so many different topics, experts
and research teams in the same institute that scientific education
is often needed internally as well.

Ideally, the content produced for internal communication is

tailored to its audience, both from a technical and strategic per-
spective. So, what are the development goals at the institutional

44
level? Is the main focus on transversal projects and collaboration
between research teams? Do we want to foster collaborations with
15.
commercial companies? The stories that will be put in the spotlight
internally will contribute to the creation of a corporate culture and
foster motivation.

Informing everyone at the right time is the second key step of

internal communication. This can be done through dedicated
communication channels such as newsletters, the intranet, or
information screens in the canteen. The main thing to remem-
ber here is timeliness. You would probably not be happy to find
out that your child is getting married by reading the engagement
announcements in the local newspaper. The same goes for your
colleagues: So save them front-row seats for the show!

Finally, internal communication must ensure that everyone in the

institution understands the WHY behind the activities. In other
words, internal communication has to connect the dots between
strategic decisions and operational projects. Understanding how
and why each individual contributes to the success of the institute,
project or working group paves the way for the creation of a commu-
nity. Who better than proud and genuinely convinced colleagues to
advocate the institution or project to external audiences?

Therefore, internal communication can, as a side effect, exponen-

tially improve your external communication – and this applies not
only to institutions, but to any initiative aimed at creating a com-
munity with a common purpose and shared values. So remember:
“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”

“If you want to go fast, go alone, if you

want to go far, go together”

45
 Communications departments
ideal
nice
utopia

In institutions such as universities and research centres, science

communication in all its facets is a continuous process. To com-
municate effectively in a field as complex as science, research
institutions typically organise themselves by establishing a dedi-
cated communications department. The role of such a department
can vary greatly depending on the research institutions’ needs,
resources, staff and even the commitment of C-level management
A R N A U D D 'A G O S T I N I

to openness and transparency in research. In some cases, the com-

munications department can take on a major role and become a
key pillar of the overall corporate strategy.
S trategy

A successful communications department, and this is the focus

of this chapter, requires a well-structured organisation with a
well-defined departmental strategy that is ideally aligned with the
II.

by

corporate vision. Assessing the needs of the institution in relation

to those of the communications department and setting common
goals to position the department close to the core activities of the
institution is crucial to supporting the full implementation of the
corporate strategy and building its long-term reputation.

In addition to an experienced senior communications professional

(e.g. communications director) who can advise the senior manage-
ment, influence decisions and contribute to the overall strategy of
the institution, it is necessary to have a team that covers a variety
of skills and areas of expertise: science communicators with a sci-
entific background, digital marketing specialists, public relations
professionals, web editors, social media community managers,
creative profiles such as graphic designers, event managers, etc.

A professional, competent and well-structured communications

team should act as the main point of contact for all communi-
cation support requests. It can also act as a proactive advisor
to r­ esearchers, helping them to choose the most appropriate

46
communication channels and tools to maximise the impact and
visibility of their work and to create lasting and meaningful collab-
16.
orations with external partners.

Positioning the communications department as a trusted and

valuable contributor to senior management, scientists and their
research projects is essential for adding value to their research
activities and output (i.e. scientific publications). In large institu-
tions, this requires the definition of a service catalogue that clearly
outlines what the communications department can do for inter-
nal clients, the application of a project management approach,
and the development and implementation of efficient processes
and procedures. In some institutions, these services may even be
outsourced to external service providers such as communications
agencies and consultants.

Recommended reads:
◆ Rödder S. (2020), Organisation matters: towards an organisational sociology of science com-
munication, Journal of Communication Management 24:169-188. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JCOM-06-2019-0093
◆ Ojeda-Romano et al. (2022), Organisational forms of science communication: the UK and Spanish
European higher education systems as paradigms. High Educ 84: 801–825.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00801-9
47
 Science as a brand

Science locations, research institutions and even individuals (i.e.

researchers) can be viewed and analysed as brands from a mar-
keting perspective. Silicon Valley, Harvard University or Stephen
Hawking are brands with reach and appeal. For many people, it is
a goal to come into contact with these places and people and to
connect with these brands. Simply making the casual remark at a
conference reception about being a Harvard graduate can greatly
enhance someone’s reputation, even if nothing else is known about
them. Af ter all, anyone who has made it into Stephen Hawking’s
research group can’t be that bad!
S trategy

DIRK HANS
II.

by

48
When building a brand, the procedure of ”branding” is important.
That is why logos, acronyms and slogans are designed to be memo-
17.
rable and therefore recognisable. A brand only works if it “brands”
itself into the memory. So be careful and don’t cobble together a
flimsy logo in your do-it-yourself workshop. Instead, take a profes-
sional approach from the outset. Brands are a promise of quality.
They provide a cognitive shortcut that makes life easier: If it says
MIT on it, it must be high-quality. But developing an established
brand and being perceived as an attractive brand by key stake-
holders requires a good image, and this requires long-term work.
Modern science communication of ten includes essential aspects
of branding, as the brand carries the reputation of an institution,
research group or individual researcher out into the world.

The core aspect of building a good science brand, which is of ten

underestimated by management, is the time factor. Continuous
high quality must first get around. Because publicly funded
research tends not to have large advertising budgets compared
to those of sof t drinks companies or sportswear manufacturers,
the business of brand development in the field of science tends to
be arduous. Yet the trust aspect is of paramount importance. Few
things are as fragile as trust. It can take years to build, and it can be
destroyed in an instant. If you try to build your brand on half-truths,
you might just get away with it in the energy drinks business. In
science, the consequences can be catastrophic and the damage
to your reputation might be permanent. The scientific system is
extremely unforgiving in this respect – which may well be recog-
nised as a sign of quality.

But establishing a brand with a built-in promise of quality and

reputation is precisely what can put a region, an institution or an
individual researcher on the road to success: namely, a self-rein-
forcing mechanism. Good brands recruit better staf f and attract
more funding. And better staff attract even better staff and even
more funding.

Recommended reads:
◆ Keller et al. (2012), Strategic Brand Management. A European Perspective.
ISBN: 978-0273737872
◆ Merten W. & Knoll Th. (2019), Handbuch Wissenschaf tsmarketing. Springer Gabler.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25353-0

49
GE T STAR TE D

18. Learning science communication 52

19. Media training 54

20. Public engagement 56

21. Inredients of a good story 58

22. Language and simplification 60

23. Numbers and statistics 62

24. Communicating uncertainty 64

25. Visual communication 66

26. Evaluation of science communication 68

 Learning science communication

The proliferation of communication platforms, each with its own

specificities and pitfalls, is just one factor that illustrates the need
for formal training and continuing professional development
in SciCom. A relatively small number of science communicators
III.  get started

(28% [23]) enter the field of SciCom with a degree in journalism or

SERGE HA AN

communication. A much larger number develop their skills through

informal training, by observing others, or simply through learning
by doing. However, the number of formal training courses is clearly
increasing. These range from short introductory courses to entire
by

masters programmes [24]. But what should be taught in this train-

ing, and who needs it?

Nobody will deny that SciCom professionals need to be familiar

with SciCom concepts and their translation into practice, and that
they must understand today’s society and its dynamics. Ideally,
the same will also be true for researchers engaging in SciCom.
Although a quick practical introduction without much theoretical
background may help researchers to survive some initial activi-
ties, a more wholesome approach is needed for lasting success and
impact. An optimal approach provides a foundation of conceptual
knowledge as well as hands-on training approaches. However, long
courses tend to strongly discourage busy re­­searchers­from partic-
ipating. It makes sense to propose a catalogue of smaller training
courses instead of long ones. This helps researchers to manage
their time and increase their SciCom competence gradually. In
addition, those considering an alternative career in SciCom can
take the first steps during their scientific career and get a feel for

52
the environment and the different jobs in the field. Courses range
from basic to advanced, and they include media training, social
18.
media training, presentation training, individual coaching for out-
reach activities. Courses on inclusivity and cultural awareness are
also very useful. Often more difficult for institutions to set up, but
very important for those thinking about a career in SciCom, are
internships in communications departments, museums or SciCom
organisations, as they allow interested researchers to take the pulse
of the SciCom system. Major barriers for early-stage researchers
are the time investment and/or resistance from their supervisors,
who of ten fear a reduction in scientific output. Supervisors may
need to be convinced that SciCom training provides transferable
skills that can increase the quality of research as well as its dis-
semination and impact. In doctoral education, the integration of
SciCom courses in the catalogue of transferable skills trainings and
the awarding of ECTS credits may help to valorise these courses.
Starting even earlier, at bachelor’s level, with a more general course
in communication and extending it to science communication at
master’s level, could further prepare the new generation of scien-
tists for their interaction with society.

(Source: Fähnrich et al. [23])

Recommended reads:
◆ Fähnrich et al. (2021), RETHINKING Science Communication Education and Training: Towards a Competence
Model for Science Communication. Front. Commun. 6:795198; https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.795198
◆ Longnecker N. (2022). Twenty years of teaching science communication — a personal reflection. JCOM.
21:C06110. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21070306
◆ Baram-Tsabari et al. (2017) Science communication training: what are we trying to teach?, International
Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7:285-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1303756 53
 Media training

!
B e p r e par e d
III.  get started

DIRK HANS
by

Media training for scientists is being of fered increasingly by

universities, research centres, research clusters and funding organ-
isations. The aim is to prepare scientists for contact with journalists
so that they can communicate scientific content as competently
and comprehensibly as possible. On the other hand, of course, it
is also about presenting one’s own research and institution in a
favourable light.

Media training usually consists of a theoretical part in which the

media’s way of working and thinking is explained, and a practical
part in which a professional appearance in front of a microphone and
camera can be rehearsed. The training is supposed to be fun, even
if the on-camera exercises can be a little bit intimidating. After all,
you might embarrass yourself in front of your colleagues because the
training usually takes place in small groups. As a result, there is often
a slightly tense cheerfulness among the participants. The trainers are
then responsible not only for imparting profound knowledge, but
also for making the experiment enjoyable. Nobody is perfect, after
all, and the training is there precisely to try things out and learn.

54
The trainers are of ten science journalists. They tend to have the
perfect double qualification: They know science and journalism
19.
very well. Training that takes place in larger groups typically lacks
individual practice time. If it lasts longer than a day it may be useful
for aspiring media professionals in science, but it is generally con-
sidered too time-consuming for many researchers. As there are a
lot of trainers offering their services on the market, a careful com-
parison is recommended. The question of experience and previous
clients should always be asked, as a bad training session will spoil
the day for several scientists at once. In addition, when composing
groups, which is usually done at the institutions, make sure that
only people from one hierarchical level are put together. No senior
professor likes to appear in front of first-year students as someone
who needs tutoring.

And one thing is particularly important, and perhaps should have

been mentioned at the beginning of the article: Media training
teaches very basic communication skills that are not just helpful for
dealing with the media. Anyone who can succinctly articulate why
their research is important and exciting will also cut a fine figure at
the next standing reception with the executive board and indus-
try partners. So if you are a scientist interested in improving your
communication skills, check out the opportunities at your research
institution to take part in a media training course.

compact stateme
nts.

Recommended reads:
◆ Hayes R. & Grossman D. (2006). A scientist’s guide to talking with the media. Rutgers University Press.
ISBN: 9780813538587
◆ Von Campenhausen J. (2014). Wissenschaf t vermitteln. Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-531-19361-8

55
 Public engagement

Planning and developing science communication for research

should be part of your project from the outset, not just some-
thing that is thought about at the end. Being clear from the start
about who you want to share outputs with, and why, will help you
shape a better project and define how best to engage them. If peo-
ple are engaged with the question, they will be engaged with the answer,
so involve the groups you plan to communicate with, and involve
them early.
III.  get started

D AV I D S C H L E Y

But how do you do this? Which people should be

involved and how do you determine that and find them?
by

Here is a five-step process to help you plan a public engagement

activity and involve the public you want to communicate with in
co-creating communications of research or scientific insights.
A co-creation process ensures that the activity is tailored to the
needs and interests of the audience and has the right format to
make an impact; presenting potential users with finished material
for approval is not co-creation. The five-step guide consists of key
questions that you should ask yourself before starting your pro-
ject. These guiding questions will help you dig deeper. Your main
target audience isn’t just the general public. Who is particularly
interested in your topic? The more of this five-step process you are
able to do, the more successful your public engagement activity is
likely to be.

56
 20.
1.Scoping How is your research topic being talked about in the
Look at what people are public domain? How well is information being used?
saying and the underlying What are the misconceptions? What context is missing?
assumptions. What are the key underlying assumptions?

2.Involving people Which individuals and groups are most interested, con-
Work out the significance for cerned or involved in the issue? Who isn’t but should be?
different groups and how to Who is driving the public conversation? Who should be
involve them. part of the project team? Who should you invite to user
testing? Who can help you share your findings?

3.Planning What is the best format to communicate your research:

Propose content and formats website, graphics, video, events, publications? What is
that are relevant for the people the key content and context you need to include? What
accessing them. language and style should you use?

4.User testing How can you run user testing? Who should be involved?
Develop your material Which parts of your output should you user test? What
together. questions can you ask?
Use the feedback from user testing to re-plan your
science communication activity.

5.Dissemination Who should know about your research findings? Who

Continue to engage people and will talk about and publicise them? How can you share
use feedback. them with the media, with professionals, with the public?

The process should expand the scope for others to shape commu-
nication and increase the range of opportunities and conversations
where this can happen.

Recommended reads:
◆ Sense about Science (2017), Public engagement: a practical guide,
https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/public-engagement-guide/
◆ National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Centre for Engagement and Dissemination (2012),
Briefing notes for researchers: How to involve members of the public in research.
https://www.invo.org.uk/resource-centre/
◆ The National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE), Engagement activity planning
guides for universities. https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/do-engagement/planning
57
 Inredients of a good story

?
A “good” story – what is that meant to be? Probably something
exciting, something entertaining, something you want to read or
III.  get started

listen to. Maybe it has even been made into a film. But where does
DIRK HANS

science come into play? Research rarely provides a James Bond

plot. But science is full of great stories. A whole field of journal-
ism thrives on it – science journalism. And there are piles of books
about science, its achievements and its heroes. Easy to read, excit-
by

ingly told.

But what makes a good science story? The first thing to think about
is who you want to inspire with the story. Who is the target audi-
ence? Let’s focus on the big standard target group: the so-called
“interested public”. How do I tell a story so that people outside the
scientific community are excited and want to know more? The key
is to make the fish take the bait – not the angler! So what aspect of
your research would be of most interest to your father or niece who
is not a scientist? This is something you should definitely ask your-
self before you start telling your story.

And it is also advisable – and this is practical knowledge – to include

at least four factors in the story: topicality, proximity, emotion and
eye-catchers. If the story contains these ingredients, the chances of
getting undivided attention are pretty good. Let’s look at the fac-
tors one by one, starting with “topicality”. In our news-driven world,
if something has just been discovered or a research expedition has
just been successfully launched, this is potentially more interesting

58
 21.

than yesterday’s cold cup of cof fee. But relevance is even more
important. The content has to be relevant to me – it needs to con-
cern my health, my children or where I live. If this is the case and
proximity is given, I really pay attention. Besides, we humans are
emotional beings. If there is suf fering, a rescue or a long hoped-
for breakthrough in a story, empathy arises. If the story can then
be enriched further with great eye-catchers like pictures, insight-
ful infographics or captivating video sequences, success is almost
guaranteed. Knowing these things will be very helpful to you in
front of an audience at an open day, but it’s even more important
when writing good press releases. Include these four “magic” ingre-
dients in your communications with the media and your chances of
getting coverage will increase dramatically.

And one final, perhaps disappointing but relieving insight: Most

science stories are uninteresting to the outside world because they
deal with the minutiae of continuous research: very important to
the scientific community – unimportant to your niece. So there
is also a great responsibility not to tell every story. Current science
communication tends to overshoot the mark
here and of ten tries to make
mountains out of molehills.

Recommended reads:
◆ Martinez-Conde S. (2017), Finding the plot in science storytelling in hopes of enhancing science
communication, PNAS, 114:8127. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711790114
◆ Jones M.D. & Crow D.A. (2017), How can we use the ‘science of stories’ to produce persuasive scientific
stories? Palgrave Communications 3, 53. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0047-7

59
 Language and simplification

Language is a flexible tool with a wide range of func-

tions, the most important of which is the transmission
of information. A survey among 205 scientists from differ-
ent disciplines around the world showed that almost half use two or
more languages when communicating science to the general pub-
lic online [25]. This trend helps to disseminate scientific findings more
effectively – and more widely.

Besides using different languages (e.g. Spanish, English), the lan-

guage of science is filled with technical terms that can vary so much
from one discipline to another that even r­ esearchers­working on
MICHÈLE WEBER
III.  get started

interdisciplinary projects sometimes find it difficult to understand

each other. Imagine how hard it must be for people outside the sci-
entific community to follow a talk at a conference. If scientists want
to communicate successfully with lay audiences they must use
clear and concise language and adapt it to the target groups. They
by

must simplify their communication, but not to the point that it is no

longer scientifically correct. This is a real intellectual challenge and
a skill that requires thought and time to develop.

Consider the following four key points. (i) Avoid scientific jargon. Or
at the very least explain jargon in simpler terms when first using
it. Research suggests that a text becomes difficult for a lay audi-
ence to understand if more than 2 percent of the words in it are
jargon [26]. But sometimes it’s dif ficult to know which words are
scientific jargon. When communicating to an adult lay audience,
imagine you are talking to a 14-year-old child, to whom even the
word ‘molecule’ may need to be explained. If you communicate to
children, you need to simplify your language even more. Reducing
jargon can even be beneficial when communicating with peers in
other fields. An analysis of 20,000 research papers indicates that
scientists are more likely to open and read a paper if the title and
abstract contain little or no jargon [27]. (ii) Be aware of what the same
word can mean to dif ferent audiences. For example, when scientists
use the word “theory”, they usually mean an established, accepted

60
principle that explains a scientific phenomenon (e.g. Darwin’s the-
ory of evolution) and is backed up by scientific evidence. However,
22.
the general public of ten uses the word to describe what scien-
tists call a hypothesis: an idea, opinion or abstract thought (He
has a theory about why he caught a cold) that is mere speculation.
Certain words can also be interpreted differently by people from
dif ferent backgrounds, such as the word “cell”. (iii) People may
also interpret what you say dif ferently because of their experiences
or culture. Avoid language that might be alienating and take care
to minimise value judgements. (iv) Be aware of your language style.
Use short sentences. Choose simple words: use, instead of utilise;
show, instead of demonstrate. And use the active voice, instead of
the passive voice: we ran an experiment, instead of an experiment
was conducted.

In summary, scientists should not be afraid to simplify their lan-

guage and think carefully about how to adapt it to their target
audience. This is particularly important when communicating with
lay people, as it creates proximity and helps them to understand
science and build trust in scientists. As for communicating with
peers, they probably won’t mind if their colleagues manage to get
to the heart of their research in a simple and understandable way.

Recommended reads:
◆ Engagement And Journalism Innovation For Outstanding Open Science Communication:
https://enjoiscicomm.eu/spis/
◆ De-Jargonizer, an online jargon detection tool [28]: http://scienceandpublic.com/
◆ Wissenschaf tskommunikation.de, Schwerpunkt: Sprache und Wissenschaf tskommunikation –
https://www.wissenschaf tskommunikation.de/
schwerpunkt-sprache-und-wissenschaf tskommunikation/ 61
 Numbers and statistics

When communicating science, it is often necessary to communi-

cate numbers and statistics, as they provide scientific evidence in
a lot of cases. However, special care should be taken here, because
it can’t be assumed that every recipient knows the strengths and
weaknesses of different statistical methods or has sufficient con-
textual knowledge to be able to evaluate numbers, statistical
results or risks. Is a hundred deaths a lot or a little? Isn’t a two-de-
gree rise in global temperature actually quite pleasant?
J E A N - PA U L B E R T E M E S

When dealing with particularly large or small numbers, for exam-

III.  get started

ple, it is important to give readers a sense of scale. The distance

between the Sun and the Earth is about 150 million kilometres.
That is hard to imagine. How long would it take to get there on a
train travelling at 250 km/h? Nearly 70 years... that makes the dis-
tance more comprehensible.
by

When using projections and simulations, it is important to com-

municate not only the result, but also the uncertainties and
background information about the method. During the COVID-19
crisis, epidemiologists were sometimes accused of trying to pre-
dict the future like clairvoyants. Perhaps because the projections
were sometimes poorly communicated by the media? “Scientists
predict 20,000 deaths by March!” More nuanced information
would emphasise that the model predicts a certain number of
deaths based on the current state and data, assuming that nothing
changes – and that changes in behaviour might have a significant
impact on the results. For reasons of transparency it is also wise
to emphasise uncertainties, by indicating for example the posi-
tive, negative and middle scenario. Otherwise, the risk is high that
the next news is: “The scientists were wrong. Not exactly the pre-
dicted number…” When you indicate uncertainties, it is good to use
numerical ranges rather than verbal statements [29].

62
And when communicating statistics, be aware of the common risks
of interpretation. For example, if a study finds that people who
23.
drink a lot of red wine live longer, does this automatically mean that
it is because of the red wine or because of something else? People
can be too quick to assume causation from a mere correlation.

In many cases, context is very important. This is the case when talk-
ing about risks, for example. What is the risk of a drug worth if you
don’t compare it with the risk of the disease it prevents? Only then
can the recipient decide what risk they are willing to take. Or if you
indicate growth as a percentage, it is important to also provide
absolute figures as a reference. If a company increases its sales by
100 per cent compared to the previous month, it makes a dif fer-
ence whether the company sold one item last month or a million.
Or, if the management of a company received a 5 per cent pay rise
and the staff received a 10 per cent increase, it doesn’t necessarily
mean that the employees received more in absolute terms.

Visualisations are particularly important in this area. But beware

of possible manipulations! For example, compressing or stretching
graphs to make values appear more blatant or harmless. Or not dis-
playing the axes correctly. But when done correctly, visualisations
can help make numbers and statistics more easily digestible. Social
media makes visualisations even more important, as they of ten
constitute shareable content. In response to this, data journalism
has recently become a field in its own right.

Recommended reads:
◆ Kerr et al. (2021), The ef fects of communicating uncertainty around statistics on public trust: an interna-
tional study. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.27.21264202
◆ Bauer et al. (2014), Warum dick nicht doof macht und Genmais nicht tötet; Über Risiken und
Nebenwirkungen der Unstatistik. Campus Verlag. ISBN:9783593500300 ; https://doi.
org/10.1101/2021.09.27.21264202
63
 Communicating uncertainty

One thing is certain: nothing is. Science is an iterative approach of

getting closer to “the truth” but without any hope of ever reaching
it. It’s about degrees of confidence and the perpetual refinement
of our current understanding. Also, measurements are imprecise,
samples are biased and models are oversimplified. You’ll have to
decide how much of these uncertainties to disclose.

First, know what you don’t know. Establishing facts (“It is the skeleton
of a Caucasian female child”) is always probabilistic; and quantities
DANIEL SAR AGA
III.  get started

(“The Earth will warm up by 2.5°C”) are determined only within mar-
gins of error. This aleatory uncertainty can usually be estimated.

On the contrary, it is very hard to quantify epistemic uncertainty: the

fact that models have gaps, that theories are disputed, that experts
by

disagree. This does not prevent us from being transparent about

existing debates and divergent opinions.

For aleatory uncertainty, you can provide the whole probability dis-
tribution or just its mean and standard deviation. Research suggests
that some representations (violin plots) are better understood than
others (error bars in bar charts) [30]. It is best to state the range of val-
ues (95% confidence interval or minimum and maximum values,
etc.), but a range, even if unexplained, is better than nothing. When
comparing dif ferent options (medical treatments, educational
approaches or economic interventions), try to visually communi-
cate the strength of evidence and ef fect size, to avoid the fallacy
that all insights carry the same weight.

Studies indicate that numerical values of probability are usually

better understood – even by people with low numeracy – than
verbal descriptions (“approximately”, “likely”, etc.). The latter are
interpreted differently by different people – or even by the same
person – depending on the context.

64
The IPCC has defined a glossary in which “very likely” means prob-
abilities above 90 per cent, but readers tend to underestimate the
24.
term at 65 to 75 per cent [31]. The use of qualifiers blurs the intended
communication of uncertainty, but – again – this is better than
reinforcing, by omission, a dreamed-up certainty.

Does transparency about uncertainty increase trust in your mes-

sage or does it encourage unfair dismissal of expertise? Current
research, alas, presents diverging answers. It seems, however, that
communicating aleatory uncertainty promotes trust and quality in
decision-making [30]. Honestly addressing the struggle for certainty
is a strength of the scientific method. In science communication, it
is usually perceived as good practice.

There is a lot of uncertainty about the best way to communicate

uncertainty, and you have to deal with that uncertainty – just like
your audience does when you explain scientific knowledge. Now,
some things are fairly certain, and you might state with confidence
that “The Earth is not flat, climate change is real, and I have read
this chapter”.

Recommended reads:
◆ van der Bles et al. (2019), Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science,
Royal Society Open Science 6: 181870. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181870
◆ Dhami M.K. & Mandel D.R. (2022), Communicating Uncertainty Using Words and Numbers,
Trends in Cognitive Sciences 26: 514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.03.002
◆ Institute of Medicine (2013), Environmental Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press., chapter 6. https://doi.org/10.17226/12568 65
 Visual communication

(Siggener Kreis, adapted from [33])

III.  get started

One thing in advance: In this article, the platitude “A picture paints

DIRK HANS

a thousand words” will definitely not be used. Having made

that clear, we can now systematically turn to the extraordinary
importance of visual information in the context of science com-
munication. Illustrations, graphics, cartoons, animations, photos
by

and videos provide visual stimuli that can attract attention, excite,
educate or manipulate, sometimes all at the same time. Visual
information is processed incredibly quickly and of ten provides a
much more complex pattern of information than text.

The consumption of visual information via image-based networks

(YouTube, TikTok, etc.) continues to grow at an impressive rate [32].
In terms of quality, there is a considerable range: beautiful graph-
ics, loveless photos, ugly logos and fascinating animations. All
these adjectives are in fact expressions of an emotional involve-
ment that occurs involuntarily in the recipients and is partly
processed subconsciously. Our approval or disapproval, our trust
or mistrust is significantly influenced by visual communication. It
is therefore particularly susceptible to influence and manipulation.
This realisation places a high degree of responsibility on all science
communicators when using visual media to shape the “image of
science” in the minds of people who only know science from the
outside. The use of photographs, for example, raises the question
of the extent to which an image should depict actual reality or only

66
a desired outcome, such as when it comes to the topic of diversity
in research teams or even the set-up of workplaces in research. This
25.
is where the “danger of beauty” lurks. Ugly offices and shabby labo-
ratories, which are part of the reality of science in many places, are
hardly ever depicted. Is this the right strategy? This is the subject of
considerable debate. The Siggener Kreis – a German think tank on
science communication – states: “The aim of using images in sci-
ence communication should be to depict science in its multiformity
and make this publicly accessible” [33]. So a little more reality is prob-
ably called for...

Let’s come back to the platitude from the beginning and also
broaden our view once more in the direction of graphic-illustrative
representations. Of course, visual information is very effective at
helping us to cognitively process complex concepts. In science, lit-
eral description regularly reaches its limits. Animations of drifting
continental plates or data visualisations on climate change provide
an immediate “Aha!” moment. This quality – the instant enlighten-
ment – should definitely be used in science communication, which
is constantly trying to convey complex information.

The power of images is still too of ten underestimated and their

ef fect diminished to the decorative. In this area, too, science
communication would benefit from a greater degree of profession-
alism, in the sense of benevolent and sustainable use.

Recommended reads:
◆ Siggener Kreis, Siggener Impulse 2021: Bilder in der Wissenschaf tskommunikation;
https://www.wissenschaf t-im-dialog.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Ueber_uns/Gut_Siggen/
Dokumente/220223_Siggener-Impuls-2021.pdf
◆ Metag J. (2019), Visuelle Wissenschaf tskommunikation, in Handbuch Visuelle Kommunikationsforschung,
Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06508-9
◆ Pol A. (2014), Menschen am CERN. Lars Müller Publishers. ISBN: 978-3-03778-262-0 67
 Evaluation of science
communication

Data

Scientifically substantiated evaluations are pivotal to ensuring the

RIC ARDA ZIEGLER

effectiveness and improvement of the growing number of science

III.  get started

communication projects. Evaluation results can reveal what a sci-

ence communication activity has achieved, who it has reached or
what impact it has had.

However, evaluation is not yet common in science communication,

by

and current evaluation practices are often flawed. Many projects

lack concrete definitions of their objectives and target groups. This
is problematic, because clear definitions are the necessary basis
for assessing a project’s success. In addition, evaluation designs
and data collection methods are often not appropriate for answer-
ing the evaluation questions. This is especially true when trying to
investigate the effects and impact of an activity. Such an investiga-
tion requires carefully developed data collection strategies – and,
most importantly, data collected at more than one point in time –
to enable meaningful comparisons.

Good practice in evaluating science communication does not nec-

essarily consist of handing out a questionnaire to participants after
the event. Rather, it starts with a clear articulation of the motives,
interests and questions of an evaluation by all stakeholders
involved. On this basis, the study design and data collection meth-
ods can be derived accordingly.

68
 Conducting meaningful evaluations in science communication
therefore requires resources. These include time and money,
26.
but also people with the appropriate knowledge and skills. This
might seem hard to achieve for smaller project-based activities
with limited timelines, or for individual science communicators.
Nevertheless, evaluation is the only way to really understand how
a science communication activity “works”, how the people involved
experience it and whether it makes a difference.

As impact evaluation is an ambitious undertaking, practitioners

who lack the appropriate resources or necessary skills are of ten
Resources

better advised to focus on gathering descriptive data. This allows

them to gain important insights about their participants and their
experience, which is preferable to unreliable results produced by
trying to capture potential effects with inappropriate designs and
methods.

Ideally, insights from meaningful evaluation will also be shared

with others. In the future, evaluation will hopefully no longer be
seen as a mandatory task to amaze funders or supervisors with
impressive numbers, but rather as a learning process for individual
science communicators and the science communication commu-
nity as a whole.
Methods

& Design

Recommended reads:
◆ Pellegrini G. (2021), Evaluating science communication, in Routledge Handbook of Public Communication
of Science and Technology. ISBN 9781003039242
◆ Impact Unit: Wie evaluieren? Tools für die Praxis. https://www.impactunit.de/tools
◆ Ziegler et al. (2021), Evaluation of Science Communication: Current Practices, Challenges, and Future
Implications. Front. Commun. 6:669744. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.669744
69
CHANNE L S OF S C IE NC E
COM MUNIC ATION

27. Interpersonal communication 72

28. Website 74

29. Social media 76

30. Channels of social media 78

31. Videos 80

32. Podcasts 82

33. Print materials 84

34. Science comics 86

35. Press releases 88

36. Press invitations and conferences 90

37. Events 92

38. School lab 94

39. Science slam 96

40. Science shows and festivals 98

41. Science centres and museums 100

 Interpersonal
communication

r ea lly ?
C hannels of science communication

ok,cool.

Some days, you get so excited about science and research that you
want to tell everyone about it. Research – wow! Enthusiasm is best
conveyed face to face. So shouldn’t science communication focus
DIRK HANS

primarily on interpersonal communication as a success factor?

Well… no!

Direct, interpersonal communication between individuals can be

IV.

by

described as the most complex form of communication. In addi-

tion to word-bound information, facial expressions, gestures and
voice modulation are exchanged with information about the emo-
tional state of the communicating persons. Even the clothing and
chosen setting play a role that should not be underestimated.
Communication science and psychology offer a wealth of findings
in this area.

A face-to-face encounter usually sticks in the memory longer than

a read message, and if something is particularly important, we
like to communicate it directly. But interpersonal communication
requires work. Sending a message via a messenger app to a group
of colleagues is much less effort than making phone calls or meet-
ing all these people in person. For active communicators, therefore,
one aspect in particular is central in the context of interpersonal
communication: efficiency.

72
Assuming that the goals of science communication are essentially
to share knowledge and build trust, the various forms of science
27.
communication must always be weighed up against the costs and
benefits. Especially when scientists communicate themselves and
do not delegate the work, it must always be considered whether
it is better to invest time in their own research or in communicat-
ing it. Science communication often gets the short end of the stick
here, and rightly so. If I can reach millions of people with an ani-
mation on YouTube or an appearance on a popular TV show, the
question of whether face-to-face communication would be an
alternative doesn’t even arise. Online information, brochures and
flyers or even podcasts use communication channels that are open
to hundreds or thousands in the online community. Especially in
the case of primarily factual information dissemination (current
state of research or ongoing projects), generally accessible infor-
mation channels suitable for the masses are well suited.

When it comes to trust, the situation is somewhat different. Here,

a balance has to be struck. When it’s about gaining the trust of
influential stakeholders – such as donors – interpersonal, direct
communication is probably worthwhile. There is also no substitute
for face-to-face communication when it comes to finding new part-
ners in research or business. And one last practical tip: Beside the
use of video conference systems for daily communication, compro-
mise formats such as video or audio productions are particularly
worthy of attention. If researchers present themselves in a video
on YouTube with an exciting topic in good
picture and sound quality, many
aspects of face-to-face communi-
cation are conveyed in addition to
the factual information. This can be
very helpful, for example, when
recruiting new team members
for your own research group.

73
 Website

%
C hannels of science communication

E M I LY I V E R S E N

What is the purpose of a website? In most cases, it is a central infor-

mation hub. In the case of a research institution, it should contain
everything from news, videos and infographics, to brochures, con-
tact details and more. While social media has changed the way we
use websites – it is of ten used as a tool to drive people to a web-
IV.

by

site or to engage with audiences – websites continue to hold their

ground. If you need information from an organisation, where is
the first place you would look, knowing that you are likely to find
what you need? Probably the website. Websites are a must for
institutions.

But if you want to make a website for a smaller project, always

remember: There are billions of websites in the world. Why should
anyone look at yours? So a crucial question is: Will you be able to
attract people to it? If you need to attract them to your site via
social media, how much content will you create? Enough in the long
run to create and maintain a following? These are questions you
should ask yourself before creating a new website. In some cases,
the answer will be: A website is probably not the solution. But there
are certainly many good reasons for creating a website.

Websites can seem static – and for certain projects or objec-

tives, this is perfectly fine. But for institutions, it is important to
keep them engaging, otherwise why have one in the first place?

74
A regular flow of new posts and images on the site helps with this.
As an added bonus, websites with regular updates are rewarded
28.
with better search engine rankings. What else is important?
Functionality and design. If the website is frustrating to navigate
or hard to read, it will not matter how often new content is added.

This brings us to first impressions: We make assumptions when

we see things for the first time. If you don’t know an organisation
or project, what assumptions will you make if the website looks
like it’s 20 years old? Probably not good ones. Unless an institu-
tion or organisation has a history going back several centuries,
with a pantheon of scientific celebrities: How a website looks and
feels matters! If a new website looks old-fashioned (e.g. there is
no mobile version or the design is outdated), it can harm its rep-
utation. The look and feel of a website should always be kept up
to date.

A website is never finished – it should evolve like the organisation

or group it represents. This means ongoing maintenance, which
costs time and money but is a worthwhile investment.

Functionality is just as important as design. This includes a clear

menu and a good search function. As an exercise, try browsing your
site as a “persona” – a person with a specific background looking for
specific information. Try to do this for all types of visitors you want
on your website. Try to map their journey – is it quick or slow, and do
they find what they need? Larger institutions usually have a team
of people who ensure everything we have covered here is taken
care of. For smaller institutions or groups, there are many template
options that will allow you to create a nice-looking basic website.
Either way, think about what areas you can influence – things as
small as keeping contact details up to date or a monthly newsletter
can already make a big difference.

75
 Social media

“Social media” refers to digital platforms, tools

C hannels of science communication

and applications that enable people to create and

share content in various formats (text, image, video,
audio) in online communities. It has become a stan­
dard way of modern communication.

What makes social media different from traditional media is the

social aspect. Compared to traditional media (TV, radio, news-
ASWIN LUTCHANAH

paper), social media of fers interactivity, providing instant and

continuous feedback over time. This makes it both powerful and
frightening. The more engagement a publication gets, the more it
will reach a wider audience.

There is an additional layer of work as you become your own con-

IV.

by

tent distributor. Cutting out intermediaries may sound exciting

and easy. But it is harder than you might think. You will quickly hit
a wall that will prevent your content from achieving the success you
expect. It takes a few minutes to create an account, but way more
time to build a community and keep their attention.

Social media is a marathon. To get the results you want, you need
to acquire the skills that intermediaries have: the editorial skills
to create and distribute the relevant content to the desired audi-
ence and to build a bridge between what you want to share and
what, how, when and where your audience wants to hear it. Not
everyone can devote that level of energy to making it a success.
Do you want to spend more time doing your research, or commu-
nicating about it on social media? The example of dating fits well
when talking about social media. Imagine going on a first date with
someone. Imagine that person telling you every single detail about
themselves. If you get too much information in one go, you might
quickly get annoyed. Would you go on another date? Probably not.

76
Social media publishing is like a first date for your content. You
want to attract the attention of your audience, get them to click
29.
on a link, watch the full video, like, share, repost or comment. You
will then have to monitor so that you don’t miss anything, seize an
opportunity to engage in a conversation, right a wrong or provide
additional information. Failure to do this can be harmful to your
image and lead to a bad buzz.

In a world of infobesity (information overload), where a dancing cat

gets more attention than almost anything else, you need to stand
out by adding value with quality content. To start of f, develop a
social media strategy before creating social media channels.

Consistency will help you retain the attention of your audience.

Quality content will keep your audience engaged. Posting regu-
larly, but not too of ten, will maintain the relationship with them
without boring them (making them feel spammed).Ask yourself
the 5Ws to create a social media strategy: Why, Who, What, Where
& When?

Get inspiration from others. Is it best to have your own new social
media channels, or to use your organisation’s existing channels?
Multiplying channels can lead to a dilution of content distribution.
Some keys to social media success are: investing time, invest-
ing more in visual content, building your community, identifying
ambassadors and letting your channels breathe.

Recommended reads:
◆ Cinelli et al. (2022), Promoting engagement with quality communication in social media. PLoS ONE 17(10):
e0275534. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275534
◆ National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (2018), What Works Engaging the public through
social media. https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publication/what_works_
engaging_the_public_through_social_media_november_2018.pdf
◆ European Comission (2020), Social Media Guide for EU funded R&I projects. https://ec.europa.eu/
research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/grants_manual/amga/soc-med-guide_en.pdf
77
 Channels of social media

Setting up a social media appearance can be overwhelming. There

C hannels of science communication

are so many channels to choose from. Popular ones include Twitter,

LinkedIn, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.
Each social media channel has its own unique features (although
they tend to copy each other), best practices, rules and user base.
Your social media strategy will help you have a clearer idea of
which channels to use. Choose those that best fit your strategy
and the objectives you want to achieve. Consider the audience of
ASWIN LUTCHANAH

the platform to ensure that it has the right demographics to help

you reach your goals. Consider how much time you want to devote.
In the beginning, when building a community, you will need to
invest more time. This is a steep process. Consistency and regu-
larity are key. Work out your ideal frequency. Don’t be spammy.
Don’t post five times in one day and then go silent for four weeks.
IV.

by

You could post once a week, every week. Consider your resources.
Do you have the personnel and skills to invest in the platform?
Some video-based platforms like TikTok and YouTube require
more resources to create content. Social media platforms change
quickly. You need to keep up to date with the latest features to take
advantage of them and accelerate your “road to success”.

Fill out all your profiles and check regularly that they are up to date.
A complete profile conveys professionalism and shows that you are
active on the platform.

Visuals are very important on social media. They attract atten-

tion and encourage engagement. Use the right ones. Check the
required dimensions for each platform (profile, cover photo, feed,
link). Using the right dimensions will optimise your content and
make it more effective.

78
Be authentic! Do not use language that is not yours. Show your
achievements rather than telling what you can do. Use your key-
30.
words to have an impact on your audience, but don’t use/overuse
buzzwords. Always think about your followers and what they will
gain from your publication. Don’t make it all about you. Remember
that social media is about social contact, and people love to con-
nect with other people rather than brands and/or organisations.
Have the personal touch that makes your brand/organisation more
human.

Your voice is your mission statement and your tone is the execution
of that mission. The same content will be disseminated differently
depending on the audience and the platform. You need to tailor
your content to the platform and audience. You need to connect
with your audience to keep the sparkle in their hearts. They will
love you more and engage with you more.

Diversify the types of content to take full advantage of the plat-

form. Think about providing content at the right time and the ideal
frequency. Adapt your posting strategy as your channels grow. Use
the platforms’ analytics to help you. Experiment to fine-tune your
strategy. As your community grows, the effort needed for commu-
nity management will increase: respond to comments and private
messages, and interact with your
audience.

Consider paid campaigns to pro-

mote your page/content to
potential followers and grow
your community. Inf luencers
and micro-influencers are also
opportunities you can explore
to reach your target audience.

79
 Videos

Moving image content is part of the standard in science communi-

C hannels of science communication

cation. Researchers and institutions that don’t have decent video

content and aren’t represented on YouTube today are simply not
up to date. People’s media behaviour has changed significantly
over the past two decades. Among 14- to 29-year-olds living in
Germany in 2021, 59 per cent use video platforms such as YouTube
frequently or very frequently [34] to obtain information about sci-
ence. This makes it the number one channel within this group.
Other video-based social media channels are currently reinforc-
ing this trend. If people want to gain a rudimentary understanding
DIRK HANS

of how a particle accelerator works or how to fight viruses, they

look for information on the web – and sometimes directly on the
websites of relevant institutions such as CERN or the WHO. If a suit-
able, often internally produced video clip is found there, it is readily
IV.

by

clicked on. It promises to summarise the most important informa-

tion in a reasonably entertaining way. The term “edutainment”
applies to video formats perfectly.

Of course, there are not only good videos – there are also terribly
bad ones. Worse still, there are very well-made videos that distort
facts and deliberately misinform. These videos are highly problem-
atic when they encounter a credulous audience. As serious players
in science communication, there is not much we can do about this
except to produce even better videos and counter them.

It is often said that a video should not be longer than two minutes,
otherwise no one will watch it. This is utter nonsense! If people
are really interested in something, they may spend days reading
a book about it or watching an hour-long documentary. The idea
that science communication must always work in tiny chunks
is misleading. But it makes perfect sense to reduce the amount
of information, to focus and to allow for cognitive connectivity.
Content must be presented purposefully. Structuring a story in the

80
 right way is good work. Sometimes two minutes is enough for a
video clip highlighting a research project or presenting a new sci-
31.
ence institution. Other times, you give it 15 minutes, or even more.

And, of course, there are some technical challenges to in-house

video production, even though more and more people are gain-
ing experience of using mobile phones for it or even small video
drones. There is a reason why professional video productions are
often produced with teams of three or more experts (camera, edit-
ing, etc.): the quality improves. But unfortunately also the price.
Producing nice material with a small budget is an art. Feel free to
try it yourself. But be aware that there’s a fine line between sym-
pathetic authenticity and image-damaging clumsiness. But if you
have good video material, use it! Don't hide it in the far recesses of
your website. Link it to other media, such as via QR codes in bro-
chures or on posters. Use your social media channels to promote it.

Last but not least: Good video footage of scientists presenting

themselves and their work is an excellent way to attract the atten-
tion of journalists, who – especially if they work for TV – look for
experts who are comfortable in front of a microphone and a
camera.

Use of online channels for

information on scien ce and research
af tsbarometer 2021
Wissensch
Results from the German
₆₀ ₅₇
₅₀ news media websites or libraries
₆₆ ₆₄ ₄₈
YouTube or similar video platforms
₄₀ ₄₁
₃₅ Wikipedia
₃₃ ₃₁ ₃₃
₃₀ ₂₉
₂₃
Websites of scientific institutions
₂₀ ₁₉ ₂₁
₁₈
₁₅ ₁₆ ₁₆
₁₄
Podcasts
₁₀ ₉ Facebook, Twitter and
₆
₀ other social media
₂₀₁₈ ₂₀₂₀ ₂₀₂₁
(adapted from [34])

Recommended reads:
◆ Hayes R. & Grossman D. (2006), A scientist’s guide to talking with the media, Chapter 5: Mastering the
interview. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0813538587
◆ von Campenhausen J. (2014), Wissenschaf t vermitteln, Kapitel 12: Wissenschaf tler ins Fernsehen,
Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19361-8

81
 Podcasts

GO!
C hannels of science communication

The number of science communication podcasts has grown expo-

nentially since 2010 [35]. Most are aimed at a public audience. The use
of video to produce a vodcast has peaked and declined again, which
suggests that people listen to podcasts while engaged in other
tasks that require them to see what they are doing. The majority of
science podcasts are hosted by scientists, with the aim of building
trust among the public and getting people interested in science [36].
LISA BURKE

The decentralised nature of podcasts allows for the democratisa-

tion of information [37], although it also means that engagement
metrics are hard to tabulate. Of the natural sciences, chemistry is
the most underrepresented, but podcasting has also proved to be
IV.

by

effective for niche subjects and for young people too. Students rate
podcasts as a better way to revise than textbooks [38].

Podcasting is relatively easy to test as a science communication

tool, as it is easy to get started and not much equipment, produc-
tion or editing are required. What’s more, you can also reach a
global audience and receive instant feedback via social media – it
becomes a two-way dialogue, which can build trust. It should be
noted that podcasting will put you in the public eye and you there-
fore have a corresponding responsibility. Posting and replying on
social media also takes more time than many people expect, as
does preparing a podcast, of course.

Science podcasts come in a variety of styles: monologues, infor-

mal chats, professional science news, panel shows and comedy.
Indeed, humour is a very ef fective way to convey scientific infor-
mation. Most produce weekly, and about half add show notes and
hyperlinks.

82
How to start your own podcast 32.
Start by defining your concept and audience. Research your compe-
tition and look for an underserved niche, be it a topic, an age group,
a location or a language. Podcasts are often affiliated with an
organisation, rather than being totally independent. And around
a quarter have external financial support [35].

Each show needs a general structure and tone. You can establish a
relationship with your audience fairly quickly through social media
and refer to any interesting comments each week (weekly being
the most common “drop” rate).

Podcasts are generally conversational and not overly scripted. Even

if your audience is knowledgeable, it’s best to explain acronyms, for L.O.L.
example, when using them for the first time, as people from out-
side of your field, language or region might be listening.

The technology required doesn’t have to be too complex. You

should invest in a good microphone and headphones. Then think
about how to soundproof your room like a studio. Some hosts liter-
ally record in cupboards or under blankets!

There are many (often free) editing tools. When editing, leave nat-
ural gaps in speech and don’t remove all “mistakes” or it will sound
unnatural.

There are a number of podcast hosts which will get your podcast
onto Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts. It’s important
to launch on one of the main platforms in order to reach a global
audience, but also for metrics.

And finally, it’s time to publish (aim for the same time each week for
a good rhythm). Use social media and websites to promote your-
self, your guests and your department.

Recommended reads:
◆ MacKenzie L.E. (2019), Science podcasts: analysis of global production and output from 2004 to 2018.
R. Soc. open sci. 6: 180932. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180932
◆ Quintana D.S. & Heathers J.A.J. (2021), How Podcasts Can Benefit Scientific Communities.
Cell Press, Trends in Cognitive Science 25(1):3-5. https://doi.com/10.1016/j.tics.2020.10.003.
◆ Yuan et al. (2022), Listening” to Science:Science Podcasters’ View and Practice in Strategic Science
Communication. Science Communication 44:200-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211065068 83
 Print materials
C hannels of science communication

Millennials are the first generation to grow up being alarmed

about global warming. They are also the generation that has seen
the internet and digital communication emerge and develop at an
OLIVIER MARQUIS

astounding pace and challenge the communication tools of the 20th

century, especially print.

Just as the music industry has been challenged by streaming

giants, the print industry has suf fered and had to adapt to these
changes. More responsible solutions, such as FSC-certified paper,
IV.

by

have emerged and become interesting alternatives. Content has

also evolved and been redesigned. Texts are shorter, brochures are
thinner, and more attention is paid to graphics and illustrations.

Print is no longer the preferred primary solution, but it stands out

from digital and makes sense when it can add value. Good com-
munication must awaken our senses. And here, paper has some
advantages over digital. The smell or touch of an old book or
scented paper will provide sensations that digital can’t yet match.

Print can also be a good choice for certain target audiences.

Although it is certainly no longer the first choice for a young audi-
ence, paper is still appropriate for niche communications and
makes recipients aware of its importance. This is why it is still
widely used in the luxury sector. A personal invitation to a pre-
mium event, a publication or a beautifully illustrated book remain
must-haves. Printed articles are becoming collectors’ items that
can be produced in limited editions and personalised through dig-
ital printing.

84
In the 21st century, now that letterbox advertising is finally becom-
ing obsolete, it is no longer a question of handing out flyers at trade
33.
fairs. Instead, print and digital media work well together to leave
an impression on visitors. To avoid regular reprints, printing a QR
code on a neat, minimalist flyer is an excellent option. It redirects
viewers to a web page where the texts can be easily updated and
which can accommodate different types of digital media (videos,
podcasts, animations, etc.).

At a time when many companies are talking about going “paper-

less”, digital is not yet able to meet all communication needs. Print
remains a relevant tool in the communication plan if it offers added
value compared to digital. Its use must therefore be considered. It
must be well thought-out and adapted to its target audience. In the
end, the media evolve, but the ABCs of communication remain the
same.

85
 Science comics
C hannels of science communication

Popular science books and comics are excellent examples of pop-

ularised science communication. This article will focus on science
SERGE HA AN

comics and cartoons. Whereas comics refer to longer stories, car-

toons usually consist of single-panel illustrations. Here, the term
science comic will refer to both comics and cartoons with scientific
content or a scientific message.
IV.

by

The increasing use of animated comics in scientific TV shows

and documentaries illustrates that this medium is generally well
received by many viewers. Science comics are also being used
increasingly in science education and public engagement activi-
ties. They are particularly appealing to children and teenagers and
may therefore be an ideal tool for stimulating interest in science
among this audience. There is also evidence to suggest that, in par-
ticular, teenagers with a low science identity (see Essential 13) are
more likely to continue learning about a scientific topic if they have
learned about it from a comic rather than an essay [39].

Science comics come in many shapes and sizes, from single panels
to entire graphic novels. They combine written and visual commu-
nication and can embed the scientific content into a compelling
story with strong visual metaphors that still leaves room for own
thoughts and imagination. Comics can convey scientific informa-
tion either entirely as part of the story, or by adding the information
as extra blocks of text or diagrams that are not part of the story and

86
appear as an insert or digression [40]. In the case of the former, it is
important to ensure that the story is understood in the intended
34.
way by the reader so that the scientific content or message
(intended inference) is conveyed. The latter strategy may increase
the scientific content but also has the potential to break the flow of
the story. Care must therefore be taken to ensure that the reader
understands how this additional information relates to the story.
The relation between the text and the pictures proves crucial for
the correct transmission of information. None of these elements
are isolated and they only make sense in their mutual context. In
science comics, the link between text and pictures can be affected
by the scientific content of the text. It can therefore be useful to
draw attention to visual elements in a speech bubble to incite the
reader to make the connection between text and image [40].

Storytelling and character development are crucial. In the same

way that a good storyline stimulates interest and encourages read-
ers to develop their own questions about a topic, a poor storyline
can be confusing and lead to misinterpretations when filling in the
gaps. Furthermore, developing compelling and relatable charac-
ters will also engage your audience. Read up on storytelling and do
not hesitate to seek help from experts, both for the storytelling and
the visuals.

Finally, a word of caution. It is inherent in comic book production

to take advantage of powerful visuals and metaphors. However,
think twice about how you portray science and scientists as there is
a high risk of reinforcing existing stereotypes. Of course, this cau-
tionary advice is not only applicable to science comics but to every
visual science communication effort.

Recommended reads:
◆ Farinella M. (2018), The potential of comics in science communication. JCOM 17 (01), Y01.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17010401
◆ Tribull C.M. (2018). Sequential Science: A Guide to Communication Through Comics. Annals of the
Entomological Society of America, 110, 2017, 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/sax046
◆ Friesen et al. (2018) Communicating Science through Comics: A Method. Publications, 6:38.
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6030038 87
 Press releases

The press release is one of the most widely used communication

tools and the classic interface between science and the media. It
is intended to arouse the interest of journalists and
C hannels of science communication

provide them with ideas for their stories.

Media coverage (e.g. TV reports or newspaper

stories) provides an opportunity for researchers
to generate more awareness of their activities – from other
disciplines, funding agencies, industry, potential donors or
students. Being present in the media can lead to new contacts,
B R I T TA S C H L Ü T E R

even influence scientific citations of findings, and increase the

chances of funding. Press releases that generate media coverage
are therefore an indirect tool for engaging in dialogue with the
general public – of ten with the aim of promoting understanding
and trust in research and research institutions. The news may be
about important research findings, grants or awards. However,
IV.

by

to stand a chance in the daily competition for attention, the press

release needs to deliver a message that is relevant to a broad
audience and is easy to understand. Think about the purpose of the
text, as well as the news content: Can you say it in simple terms in
30 seconds? Always remember that you are addressing a large lay
audience. You therefore need to tailor your story to that audience.

Incidentally, it happens every day at larger research institutions

that scientists ask the communications department to produce
a press release and the communications experts immediately
realises that the topic is not of interest to the media. In such
conflict situations, communications professionals of ten have to
compromise, as they don’t want to overwhelm journalists, but they
don’t want to upset the scientists either. The solution is often to
produce a news item for the university’s or research centre’s website.
The news is published without the push procedure of sending out
press releases.

88
A professional style, illustrations and a well-chosen occasion and
timing will greatly increase the chances of media response to press
35.
releases. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee of publication, but
you should be prepared for follow-up questions from journalists
and even critical coverage. If you are a researcher and part of a
research institute or university, seek advice from your institution’s
press office as early as possible.

Writing a press release is a unique style of communication with

clear rules and reduced jargon. In the first few sentences, the text
must answer these questions: Who? What? Where? When? Why?
How? It is very important to put the most relevant information first,
then add important details and finally background information,
according to the principle of the inverted pyramid (see diagram).
In most cases, the text is the product of a collaboration between
the researcher and the press office, in which both contribute
their expertise and make compromises, sometimes af ter tough
discussions. The final text is sent out by the press office to selected
media or international news distribution platforms. However, even
if you offer the media a great topic with beautiful visuals, success
is still not guaranteed. If the Queen dies on the same day, you don’t
stand a chance!

Recommended reads:
◆ Kwok R. (2018), Press ahead. Public information of ficers can help scientists to share their research more widely.
Nature 560: 271-273. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05896-2
◆ ESA press release guidelines: https://esahubble.org/about_us/scientist_guidelines/

89
 Press invitations and
conferences

What researcher doesn’t dream of making a groundbreaking sci-

C hannels of science communication

entific discovery and publishing it in a prestigious journal af ter

years of hard work? So why not have the institution’s press office
quickly call a press conference to announce to the assembled press
members how the discovery came about and what the future
implications of the discovery will be for the research discipline, the
institute and, of course, the researcher’s own career?
PAT R I C K M I C H A E LY

However, press conferences are a double-edged sword and there is

a clear risk of failure. Journalism has changed a lot in recent years
and journalists rarely have time to leave their desks. It is therefore
vital that press conferences are only held if they are really relevant
to the journalist and if the press conference is of real value to them.
There is no guarantee that a press conference will be a success.
IV.

by

Many factors have to be taken into account and not all of them can
be directly influenced. What do you do if a member of the press
can’t make it because of their schedule, or worse, doesn't want to
come because they’re not interested? Is it necessary to send out a
press kit? Couldn’t you have left it at that anyway?

Press conferences are fairly laborious. They have the character of

an event because many people have to be involved, from the head
of the institute to the hall technician. The organisational effort is
therefore relatively high.

90
However, a successful press conference is always beneficial to the
host institution. The presence of a reasonable number of repre-
36.
sentatives from the press ensures a guaranteed response from the
press, unlike a press release that is simply sent out and has to com-
pete for attention with many other stories in the newsroom. The
press conference also provides an opportunity to place the pro-
ject presented in a wider context and to allow various participants
– such as the director of the institute, project partners or even polit-
ical representatives – to have their say. Very often, after the official
part, personal statements are taken that enhance the topic.

If the spokesperson has good contacts with the press, this can help.
But some scientists have also cultivated their contacts with the
press beforehand and have been able to arouse their interest in
the project. In any case, it is important to consult with the spokes-
person well in advance.

The decisive factor, however, is probably that the topic presented

has sufficient relevance to the press and that the press confer-
ence of fers clear added value. This could be the groundbreaking
research itself, or the presence of a high-level politician who is
using the project as an opportunity to explain their research pol-
icy. If it is too obvious that the event is just rehashing or repeating
what has already been announced in detail in the invitation, it will
not be interesting enough for many members of the press. In this
case, a concise press release will suffice.

So think twice before calling a press conference. But don’t be afraid

to make contact. It is always in the interest of journalists to publish
a good story.

Recommended reads:
◆ World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. (‎2017)‎. Strategies used by journalists during
interviews or press conferences: World Health Organization vaccine safety supporting document.
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/345934

91
 Events
C hannels of science communication

There are a wide variety of event formats: Award ceremonies,

SONIA R AMOS

conferences, trade fairs, festivals or even a fireside chat can be

considered an event. Typically, more than two people would be
expected to attend an event, but it can involve thousands or even
hundreds of thousands. Events can take place on site or in the dig-
ital space.
IV.

by

The central aspect of many events, especially when they take place
on site, is the facilitation of interpersonal communication: Meeting
in person creates an emotional and physical connection, as human
interaction is at the core. This of fers enormous advantages,
since trust can be built up here in particular. Successful events
are status-laden: An institution that is able to stage outstanding
events can greatly increase its esteem with relevant stakehold-
ers. Successful events leave a lasting impression. Sometimes, the
pleasant and extremely interesting evening is still talked about
years later. This is where events clearly stand out from other tra-
ditional media.

But where there is much to gain, there is usually much to lose as

well – and this is exactly the case with events. The amount of work,
pressure, energy and dedication that goes into putting on a suc-
cessful event is of ten underestimated. When everything runs
smoothly, this effort is usually not seen or appreciated.

92
A failed event, on the other hand, can damage an institution’s
image for years to come. A minister or major sponsor who had to
37.
deliver a speech to a half-empty auditorium with a faulty micro-
phone is unlikely to be very forgiving. Another major danger lurks
in invitations: Forgetting people who are particularly important –
or at least think they are – can lead to lasting diplomatic upheaval.
It is therefore essential to avoid inadvertently overlooking particu-
larly powerful stakeholders.

In conclusion, a well-planned event is like a masterpiece painting:

Every detail counts. From the choice of venue to the content, food
and entertainment, everything should be carefully considered to
ensure a memorable experience for all participants. And if your
research centre is publicly funded, make sure that the costs stay
low and you follow the rules. Otherwise, you could find yourself in
trouble for wasting taxpayers’ money.

Besides all that, it is essential to ensure that you don’t get bogged
down in this multitude of details, at the risk of pulling out a few
hairs and having some sleepless nights in the process... event
planning doesn’t have to be all work and no play. On the contrary,
injecting a little fun and creativity into the planning process can
make it an enjoyable experience for everyone involved. So, if you’re
planning an event, take your time, pay attention to the details, and
don’t forget to have some fun along the way.

93
 School lab
C hannels of science communication

T H I E R R Y M E Y R AT H

Among the many extracurricular learning places, school labs play

a particularly important role. Generally affiliated with a university,
a research centre or a science museum, such labs of fer hands-on
learning experiences for entire school classes or individual stu-
dents, with a general focus on the STEM disciplines (i.e. science,
IV.

by

technology, engineering and mathematics). The first labs emerged

in the 1990s and were founded by dedicated individuals with the
main aim of promoting interest in natural sciences, rather than
being initiated by education policymakers or education scientists.
Since then, the number of labs has risen sharply and there are now
more than 400 school labs in Germany alone [41].

School labs come in various forms. Their offerings can differ from
lab to lab, ranging from one-of f events to full-day workshops
that are held on a daily basis and must be booked in advance.
The content covered generally includes relevant topics from the
STEM disciplines, although some labs are also dedicated to social
sciences and humanities. In addition, the topics are often aligned
with the school curriculum and complement the school lessons.
All school labs share the common mission of getting children and
young people interested in science. This is achieved by follow-
ing an enquiry-based learning approach and allowing visitors to
experience science in a hands-on way through independent exper-
imentation. Transferring knowledge by involving participants in

94
experimental activities is a central pillar of all school labs. Another
common aspect of the labs is to provide an authentic approach to
38.
science in an appropriate environment, such as a professionally
equipped laboratory. Personal contact with experienced scien-
tists and researchers who supervise the students during their visit
adds to the authenticity of the learning experience. Besides pro-
viding learning opportunities, school labs also convey a modern
image of science and technology and their role in today’s society.
Furthermore, they provide an insight into scientific activities and
careers, thereby encouraging young people to take up STEM sub-
jects and studies, thus helping to address the general shortage of
skilled workers in these fields. By supporting and complementing
schools in providing professional orientation, the school labs also
assume a social and economic role.

Overall, the concept of school labs has proved to be very successful,

and they are often so popular that they are fully booked for months
or even years in advance. School labs present an authentic out-of-
school learning environment with a hands-on approach to science,
and various studies have suggested that they have the potential to
increase students’ interest in STEM (e.g. [42,43]). A visit to a school lab
is therefore an enriching experience for students and a valuable
addition to regular school lessons.

Recommended reads:
◆ Itzek-Greulich et al. (2017), Ef fectiveness of lab-work learning environments in and out of school:
A ­cluster randomized study, Contemporary Educational Psychology 48, 98-115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.09.005
◆ Garner N. & Eilks I. (2015), The Expectations of Teachers and Students Who Visit a Non-Formal Student
Chemistry Laboratory, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11:1197-1210.
https://doi.org/10.12973/EURASIA.2015.1415A
◆ Euler M. & Schüttler T. (2020), Schülerlabore. In Physikdidaktik - Methoden und Inhalte, 127-166,
Springer Spektrum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59496-4_5
95
 Science slam
HEY!
C hannels of science communication

At a science slam, young scientists present their own research

projects in entertaining and engaging talks and attract a diverse
audience: young and older people, students, as well as non-­
JULIA OFFE

academics, science nerds and slam fans. The idea comes from the
poetry slam, an event that has been popular throughout the world
since the 1980s. In a poetry slam, young writers take to the stage
and read their own texts. Time is limited to five minutes, and the
IV.

by

audience gets to vote on whose performance they liked the best. A

science slam is similar: Typically, about six young scientists present
their own research projects, the time is limited to ten minutes, and
the audience gets to vote. That sounds easy…

But it can also go wrong: If you plan an afternoon event, you only
recruit the slammers from your own institute, and you have a
random member of staff moderate and serve still water in the insti-
tute’s lecture hall, you will fail with this format.

The key to a great science slam is the choice of venue and modera-
tor. The venue should ideally be a music club, a bar or a theatre. The
moderator should engage the audience, create a good atmosphere
and ask for lots of applause for the slammers, without talking too
much or trying to take centre stage. To get the audience to actively
engage with the topics, the scoring system should encourage dis-
cussion: Sets of voting cards are distributed to the audience, and
af ter each presentation, the moderator asks the card holders to
talk to their seat mates for a couple of minutes about how many

96
points they would like to award to that particular talk. The fact
that the audience (not a panel of experts!) forms the jury ensures
39.
active engagement of the audience with science and creates an
interactive, lively atmosphere. At the same time, it encourages the
slammers to present their research in a way that is understandable
and entertaining to a general audience – because even if there are
a lot of young academics in the room, a biologist might have trou-
ble understanding the research of a legal scholar.

Furthermore, the moderator should also make it clear to the slam-

mers that the voting system is there to engage the audience, that
it can never be completely fair, and that it says nothing about the
quality of their research and certainly nothing about them as a
person. The atmosphere among the slammers should NOT be com-
petitive. Prizes should be kept simple (books, chocolate, cups, etc.).
And remember: A preparatory workshop in which the slammers
get creative together and help each other to get the best out of
the performances helps a lot with team building. In a science slam,
everything is allowed: props, presentations, experiments. It is not
one of those formats that tries to make the performance as diffi-
cult as possible for the scientists instead of looking for what’s best
for the audience.

Recommended reads:
◆ Niemann et al. (2020), Science Slams as Edutainment: A Reception Study. Media and Communication
8:177–190. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i1.2459
◆ Hill M.B. (2022), The New Art of Old Public Science Communication - The Science Slam. Routledge.
ISBN 9781032000794

97
 Science shows and festivals
W H AT one-of f events can
do
that schools can’t
C hannels of science communication

The lof ty goal of science festivals and shows is to get as wide an

audience as possible interested in science and perhaps convince
some younger visitors to choose a career path in the sciences.
However, some critical voices claim that these events are preach-
ing to the converted and are unable to make a lasting impact. Sure,
they aren’t the only ef fective method. But in the following, we’ll
offer some reasons for why these events have their place in society.
JOSEPH RODESCH

Although science festivals and shows have been around for a while,
they are still growing in popularity all over Europe. These events
have become a hotbed for innovation, where researchers and sci-
entists can showcase their work to a wider audience. However,
science festivals are no longer just about natural sciences. In a lot of
IV.

by

science festivals, researchers in the humanities and social sciences

are making big efforts to design workshops in their field to ensure
that everyone can get involved.

Science festivals and shows can also help to break down negative
perceptions of science in society. Many people still see science as
dif ficult, boring or inaccessible. By showcasing the exciting and
practical applications of science in everyday life, these events can
help to dispel these myths and promote a more positive image of
science.

While it is true that many visitors already have an above-aver-

age interest in science, you can try to invite a broader audience by
inviting whole school classes on dedicated days, for example. It’s
also important to remember that these events are not just about
reinforcing what people already know. They are an opportunity to
present the latest scientific advancements and to show that science
is a field in constant evolution. In addition, many festival booths or
show experiments exhibit common scientific concepts in new and

98
exciting ways, demonstrating great creativity and innovation. This
is crucial for maintaining public engagement and ensuring that
40.
society continues to see science as an exciting and relevant field.

Science festivals and shows of fer a dif ferent type of learning

experience than schools. They of fer a more relaxed and informal
atmosphere where visitors can explore science at their own pace
and in their own way. This can be particularly important for reach-
ing those who may not excel in traditional classroom settings or
who feel intimidated by science. Furthermore, by combining sci-
ence with fun and positive emotions, trust in science and scientists
can potentially be established, which is crucial in a world where sci-
ence is a key tool for solving complex societal and environmental
problems such as climate change.

99
 Science centres and museums
y: FROM wonde
r room s
unlocking curiosit
ased interaction
TO phenomenon-b
C hannels of science communication

JULIEN ME YER & GUILL AUME TR AP

The history of science museums and science centres dates back to

the 16th century with the emergence of cabinets of curiosities. In
these hodgepodge collections of disorganised rarities, the desire
to disseminate knowledge to a wider public was born. The idea
IV.

by

gained further traction during the 19th century: The upheavals of

the Industrial Revolution meant that natural sciences and tech-
nology gradually became more prominent as they increasingly
influenced people’s daily lives. This resulted not only in the first
world’s fair, the Great Exhibition of 1851 in London, but also in the
emergence of natural history and science museums.

To this day, these temples of science house enormous collections

representing the diversity of flora and fauna and of technological
and scientific achievements. As well as being on display to the pub-
lic, they are the backbone of original research.

Science centres only emerged in the second half of the 20th cen-
tury, with the Exploratorium in San Francisco often being regarded
as their pioneering archetype [44], although it borrowed many inno-
vative features from precursor European institutions (Urania
Berlin, the Deutsches Museum Munich, the Children Gallery of
the Science Museum London, the Palais de la découverte Paris [45]).
Unlike traditional science museums, science centres prioritise

100
visitor engagement with natural phenomena and technological
principles through the presentation of hands-on exhibits and inter-
41.
active activities.

Science museums and science centres both pursue an educational

purpose. As places of informal learning [46], their primary goals are
to engage, educate and inspire the public about science and its rel-
evance to everyday life. Through engaging exhibits, interactive
workshops, live demonstrations and educational programmes,
science museums and centres aim to foster scientific literacy and
critical thinking and to nourish the visitor’s curiosity about the fun-
damental principles that govern the world.

Comparing the ways in which knowledge is communicated in

both types of institutions, it can be seen that the boundaries are
blurring: In recent years, numerous museums have embraced
interactive exhibits as an integral component of their educational
approach. Conversely, the principles of museum pedagogy and sce-
nography have found their way into the communication strategies
of many science centres. However, their didactic concepts still rest
on two different foundations: the preservation and display of origi-
nal collections on the one hand, and the immersive experience (see
illustration) of phenomenon-based exhibits on the other.

Apart from their collections and exhibitions, the success of science

museums and centres often depends on the personal interaction
of visitors with scientific mediators, who act as the missing link
between the of ten deep and complex scientific phenomena and
the public. Rather than being as exhaustive and precise as possi-
ble, their goal is often to spark emotions and inspire curiosity when
interacting with visitors, while still being scientifically accurate [47].
In this sense, while science museums and centres strive to capti-
vate audiences, it is crucial to ensure that they don’t become mere
playgrounds where lab coats are handed out as dress-up costumes,
leaving little room for scientific depth.

Recommended reads:
◆ Falk J.H. & Dierking L.D. (2011), The museum experience, Howells House. ISBN: 0-929590-06-6 ;
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315417899
◆ Schiele et al. (2015), Science communication today-2015 - current strategies and means of action, Presse
Universitaire de Nancy. ISBN: 978-2814302365
◆ Wagensberg J. (2007), Cosmocaixa: The Total Museum: Through Conversation Between Architects and
Museologists, Sacyr. ISBN: 978-8461126248 101
 80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
15-24 25-34 35-44

I E N T I S TDAY
S C T E D TO
IGH

E R LAB
E N TT O W N
A ISK
R

2022
 10 0

80

60

40

20

35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ overall

HO T TOPIC S

42. Competition in science communication 104

43. Bad science & misrepresentation 106

44. Fake news 108

45. Science Media Centers 110

46. Engaging with policymakers 112

47. Risk communication 114

48. Crisis communication 116

49. Animals in research 118

50. Ethical perspectives 120

51. AI in Science Communication 122

 Competition in science
communication

It is said that competition is good for business. Whether science

is a business or not, competition exists, and hardly any other dis-
cipline benefits as much from it as communication. Doing good
science and talking about it seems to be the formula for success.
Accordingly, communication activities are booming, especially in
highly competitive situations. Of course, the new cluster needs a
fancy website accompanied by social media, the study programme
ELISABE TH HOFFMANN

must now be sung about on TikTok, and rehearsing for a press photo
can sometimes take hours, especially for collaborative projects.
H ot topics

Meanwhile, the introduction of alternative metrics for assessing

the performance of academics has strengthened communication
at the individual level as well: A higher “social impact”, as measured
by Twitter retweets and likes, for example, may help in the com-
by
V.

petition for a professorship. In the best case, the public benefits

through more and better information, more creative formats and
new opportunities for participation.

Unlike in corporate marketing, however, competitive or “strategic”

communication in science also has undesirable side effects. It can
be tempting to exaggerate results, conceal failures, and understate
risks. At the individual level, it can reward braggarts.

Most people are very good at seeing through product advertis-

ing. They know that the sugar content of their breakfast cereal is
only listed in small print on the box, and that they don’t automati-
cally get a buzz just because the slogan promises it. With science,
it’s a dif ferent story – the claims are expected to be true. In sur-
veys on possible reasons for not trusting science, citizens cite its
potential dependence on funders as the most important reason [34].
Competitive communication makes precisely this dependency vis-
ible. It can be damaging. Just one example: It is not without reason
that the German PR Council, the self-regulatory body for the PR

104
profession, recently issued its own guideline on science communi-
cation. Between 2019 and 2022, three research institutions or their
42.
communications agencies have been reprimanded.

So what can be done? Ignoring competition is not helpful. Good sci-

ence communication is like good science: self-critical and reflective
at a high level. It considers all the consequences of its actions, and
the more ef fective they are, the more carefully it acts. In case of
doubt, this means foregoing a snappy headline, a cool picture or a
new channel, even if others are already using them.

Recommended reads:
◆ Medvecky F. & Leach J. (2019), An Ethics of Science Communication, Palgrave Pivot Cham.
ISBN: 978-3-030-32116-1 ; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32116-1

105
 Bad science and
misrepresentation

Science aims to generate new knowledge with the utmost care

and methodological rigour. Unfortunately, misrepresentation of
research results and the publication of bad studies or false infor-
mation also occur in science. This is a major challenge for science
because it undermines trust. How do these “mistakes” happen?
J E A N - PA U L B E R T E M E S

Mistakes leading to misinterpretations happen at different levels

H ot topics

At the level of science: “Publish or perish” describes the pressure on

scientists to publish a lot because, unfortunately, their quality as
researchers is still too of ten measured solely by the number of
papers they publish. This leads some scientists to publish study
by
V.

results that wouldn’t stand up to peer review in so-called preda-

tory journals – journals that claim to be serious academic journals
but don’t provide peer review or editorial services. This is called bad
science. In the worst case, these “bad studies” are picked up by the
media. Even if only a small fraction of researchers choose this path,
the damage to the scientific community is great. But even serious
scientists can make more or less intentional mistakes. To increase
the likelihood of being accepted by journals and picked up by the
media, scientists may be tempted to make their research results
more positive than they are, either through exaggeration or spin.
A correlation may sometimes be turned into causation, a finding in
animal experiments into a confirmed finding in humans…

At the level of communications departments: Further errors can occur

when study results are translated into press releases, either by the
journals themselves or by the scientific institutions. A 2014 study
found that the majority of press releases about selected medi-
cal trials contained exaggerations [48]. Social media posts also run
the risk of contributing to misrepresentation, such as through

106
oversimplification. Science communicators, sometimes urged by
their superiors, therefore have an important responsibility to check
43.
claims carefully before publishing.

At the mass media level: The media can also contribute to the misrep-
resentation of research findings, such as by using oversimplified
language, avoiding complexity, exaggerating and sensationalising.
One study showed that this is much more likely to happen when
exaggeration has already occurred at the level of the press release [48].
Such exaggeration can be damaging, as it can create false hope,
spread fear or destroy trust in science, for example.

Manufactured doubt: Finally, science can be deliberately misrepre-

sented through manufactured doubt or fake news (see Essential
44). The term “manufactured doubt” is used when known facts and
empirical evidence are deliberately altered to promote an agenda,
of ten to make a company or a whole industry appear in a better
light. The manipulated version of the facts is very close to the truth
but difficult to identify as a lie [49].

Recommended reads:
◆ Goldacre B. (2008), Bad Science, fourth Estate, London, ISBN: 978-0-00-724019-7
https://archive.org/details/bad-science
◆ Sumner et al. (2014), The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press
releases: retrospective observational study. BMJ 349:7015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7015
◆ Goldberg R.F. & Vandenberg L.N. (2021), The science of spin: targeted strategies to manufacture doubt with
detrimental ef fects on environmental and public health. Environ Health 20, 33.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00723-0
107
 Fake news,
misinformation and
disinformation
Fake news is a phenomenon that has proliferated rapidly in recent
years with the growth of the internet and social media. It poses a
major challenge to our democracy, journalism, science and science
communication, among other things. According to “The Debunking
Handbook”, fake news is “false information, often of a sensational
nature, that mimics news media content”. More commonly used
J E A N - PA U L B E R T E M E S

terms are misinformation (“false information that is disseminated,

regardless of intent to mislead”) and disinformation (“misinforma-
tion that is deliberately disseminated to mislead”) [50]. A scientific
H ot topics

study has shown that false information spreads much faster on

social networks than true information, and tends to reach a lot
more users. The reason for this doesn’t seem to be the algorithms
themselves, but mainly psychological reasons: People share false
by
V.

news more than truths. [51]

Of course, disinformation is not just limited to science. But science

is vulnerable. Science can easily be misused to lend credibility to
disinformation and to deceive people. During the pandemic, we all
saw how disinformation can spread doubt and mistrust about sci-
ence, or even lead people to use dubious methods or drugs with
no proven benefit to protect themselves. Disinformation is also
fuelled by social bots. One study found that a quarter of the tweets
they analysed about climate change came from automated social
media bots, many of which sent climate denial messages. [52]

An important question for the readers of this book is: Is it a duty of

science communication to fight misinformation, disinformation and fake
news? It’s certainly not an easy task. Fake news headlines are often
snappy, shocking, highly emotive and very catchy. The information
and the outrage are immediately burned into the reader’s memory.
When science communication then tries to set the record straight,
it is much more difficult. Nuances have to be added, false claims

108
corrected, possibly complex phenomena explained. This takes
time and often isn’t as memorable. If it goes wrong, the fake news
44.
is remembered, the correction is not.

About 10 years ago, there was a certain fear among debunking

experts that trying to debunk fake news could backfire: By repeat-
ing the false claim while debunking it, you make it even more
prominent. But recent studies suggest that this backfire effect isn’t
as strong as first thought, and debunking is actually very ef fec-
tive when done properly. For example, it helps to stop people from
spreading misinformation [50].

But how do you debunk properly? Again, the Debunking Handbook

provides some advice: Ideally, recipients of misinformation should
be stopped from blindly believing it in the first place. This might
be achieved by explaining the argumentation strategies used by
manipulators, in order to make people immune to it. But once mis-
information is out there, what should you do? First, check if the
information is worth debunking. If only a few people have noticed
it, why make it more prominent by debunking it? But if it’s worth
debunking, then do it: First “state the truth”, then “point to the mis-
information (but don’t repeat it, once is enough)”, then “explain
why the misinformation is wrong” and finally “state the truth
again” [50]. A common problem is that debunking often only reaches
the “already converted”. Although it is very challenging, science com-
municators should therefore try to reach out to audiences outside
the “science bubble”.

Recommended reads:
◆ Lewandowsky et al. (2020), The Debunking Handbook 2020.
https://doi.org/10.17910/b7.1182; (https://open.bu.edu/handle/2144/43031)
◆ Dietram A. & Krause N.M. (2019), Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. PNAS 116:7662-7669.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805871115

109
 Science Media Centres VALIDATE
SUPPORT CONNECT
UNDERSTAND
REVIEW EXPLAIN
DOUBLE CHECK
TRANSLATE IDENTIF Y

Journalism about science faces two main barriers. One is that

modern science is intrinsically complex and organised into a multi-
tude of disciplines, making it difficult to evaluate domain-specific
expertise from the outside. The other is that new scientific knowl-
edge often runs counter to public opinion, so journalistic education
must first find a receptive non-scientific public.

Because modern societies rely on robust scientific knowledge and

VOLKER STOLLORZ

reputable expertise for individual and collective decision-making,

Science Media Centres (SMCs) have been created as new interme-
H ot topics

diary organisations between science and journalism, with the sole

mission of independently informing public debate and discussion
on the major issues of the day by injecting evidence-based science
into headline news, with a focus on journalism (SMC Charter 2022).
by
V.

The idea of Science Media Centres was first born in the UK in

2002, but today there is a whole family of independent organisa-
tions, such as the Science Media Centre Germany, founded in 2015.
Operated by science journalists, it helps journalistic media and ulti-
mately the public to access the best science more easily. Each SMC
has a different organisational and funding structure, but they all
work proactively with journalists to find third-party expert com-
mentary on relevant scientific discoveries under embargo, to
provide credible expertise and scientific commentary on break-
ing news, or to provide context for complex or controversial
public issues such as nuclear energy, embryo research or artificial
intelligence.

To gain the trust of journalists, an SMC must remain independent

of science PR and science communication departments in order to
provide a useful, free, honest brokerage service when science hits
the headlines. To do so, SMCs create databases of knowledgeable
scientific experts to connect them with journalists on deadline,

110
with the ultimate goal of helping to get more relevant science and
credible researchers into news stories. Recruitment is done mainly
45.
by checking websites, scientific databases and bibliometric tools,
but researchers at least at postdoctoral level who are willing to
engage with SMCs are welcome to submit a CV. The international
network of SMCs exchanges local scientific expertise on topics rel-
evant to other publics.

Research on the impact of SMCs on science and journalism so far is

rare. For example, Rödder (2020) sees the British SMC as an entirely
new, distinct organisational form of science communication that is
not subject to the logic of larger media organisations such as sci-
ence journalism, nor to the logic of larger science organisations
such as science PR. Broer and Pröschel (2022), on the other hand,
describe the German SMC as a “broker of resilient knowledge, trust,
and scientific values".

Recommended reads:
◆ SMC (2022), Guiding Principles for Science Media Centres (SMCs):
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SMC-Charter-003.pdf
◆ Broer I. & Pröschel L. (2022), Knowledge broker, trust broker, value broker: The roles of the Science Media
Center during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies in Communication Sciences 22:101-118. https://doi.
org/10.24434/j.scoms.2022.01.3070
◆ Rödder S. (2020), Organisation matters: towards an organisational sociology of science communication.
Journal of Communication Management 24:169–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-06-2019-0093
111
 Engaging with policymakers

Politicians have the authority to make decisions that af fect soci-

ety – decisions in areas that are of ten complex, high-tech or
research-intensive. With a view to evidence-based decision-mak-
ing and the societal impact of science, it seems worthwhile for
researchers to share their knowledge with policymakers. The pan-
demic has shown that close interaction between science and policy
can be fruitful, but that it also presents many challenges. So what
do you need to bear in mind when engaging with policymakers?
J E A N - PA U L B E R T E M E S

First consider who is really the best person to engage with. The
members of parliament themselves, or will the impact be greater
if you target the staff behind the scenes? Or is your local mayor the
H ot topics

best person? Or a politician known for their commitment to a par-

ticular issue?

Secondly, it is crucial to focus on the needs of policymakers.

by
V.

Researchers and politicians work on very dif ferent timescales.

While many research projects run for one or more years, politicians
often have to react very quickly to current events. If a politician has
to prepare a speech on an issue or is working on a piece of legis-
lation, they may need scientific input on the issue – now or very
soon, not in a few months. And while researchers are experts in a
particular field, politicians often have to deal with a wide range of
different issues. This makes it crucial to be on-point and relevant to
the politician, otherwise you are likely to get ignored.

Thirdly, don’t be naive. It is not the role of scientists to make polit-

ical decisions. Nor is it the role of politicians to do exactly what
scientists tell them to do. Ideally, politicians can take the scien-
tific evidence on an issue into account before making a decision.
But they also have other parameters to consider: budgetary con-
straints, their party’s political agenda, economic and social issues,
and even ideology. Also, in many cases, the scientific evidence is
not that clear-cut, so science cannot dictate what exactly should be
done from a political perspective. Or, the same scientific evidence

112
allows for dif ferent policy solutions. For example, to slow down
a pandemic, epidemiologists and virologists may say it would be
46.
beneficial to vaccinate as many people as possible with a safe and
effective vaccine, if available. But how do you ensure that enough
people even want to get vaccinated? By providing transparent
information, or by legally forcing them to? This is a political ques-
tion – or, in scientific terms, a psychological or sociological question
– and dif ferent parties may have dif ferent solutions to it, even if
they are based on the same scientific evidence.

Lastly, it is crucial to be aware of the role you want to play when

engaging with policymakers, and that there is a risk of being “used”
for political reasons. You can take a very neutral position, simply
explaining the data: what is known, what is not (yet) known. Or you
can be more specific and offer options or recommendations. If you
focus too much on the data alone, you may not really be respond-
ing to the needs of policymakers and you risk being ignored. If you
lean too far towards making recommendations, you may leave
your neutral role and interfere too much with the policymakers’
role. In the book “The Honest Broker”, the author explain different
roles in policy advice.

Policy advice can be seen as a specific form of science communi-

cation for a specific target audience. There are many structures
that specialise in policy advice, often staffed by former scientists
or journalists. Examples include the research services of many par-
liaments or governments, whole networks of policy advisors (e.g.
EPTA) or specialised NGOs, or even universities with dedicated pol-
icy advice offices.

Recommended reads:
◆ Pielke R.A.Jr. (2012), The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics; Cambridge
University Press. ISBN: 9780511818110, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818110

113
 Risk communication

Humans are poor at accurately assessing risks (and opportu-

nities) [53]. We tend to focus intuitively on the biggest accident
we can imagine – and overlook the daily hazards that are much
more likely to occur. Just one example: Think of large-scale
research facilities such as a nuclear research reactor: There is,
of course, a danger that a very fast military jet could crash into
the reactor and release large amounts of radioactivity. Or that
HANNES SCHLENDER

genetically modified organisms might escape from a high-se-

curity laboratory. The probability of these things happening is
not zero – but it is very low, at least in times of stable social
H ot topics

conditions.

Of course, society reacts very differently to different risks:

What is worse, a higher probability of a serious risk, or a very
by
V.

low probability of a catastrophic risk? There is no right or wrong

answer to this.

The role of risk communication is to think through such sce-

narios before they occur. You need to develop strategies to
provide appropriate information about these risks. You need
to inform stakeholders about (a) the likelihood of occurrence,
(b) the impact in the event of an emergency and (c) precau-
tionary measures, and you need to (d) develop plans for crisis
communication – i.e. for the event that the risk event actually
occurs. However, the focus must not be exclusively on unlikely
worst-case scenarios [54]. Those responsible for risk communica-
tion must also consider the much more likely complications and
accidents: What about the fire in a laboratory building near the
nuclear research reactor? The tragic and fatal work accident
in the reactor building that has nothing whatsoever to do with
radioactivity? All these things can happen – and they are much
more likely to happen than a plane crash.

114
Those who develop strategies for crisis communication within
the framework of risk communication need a broad focus:
47.
employees, neighbours, authorities, partners and the media
all belong on the list of potentially affected people and insti-
tutions [55].

Comprehensive, easily understandable and accurate infor-

mation must be available to them at all times. Good risk
communication also builds personal, trusting contacts with key
people in this circle of relevant stakeholders. If the worst comes
to the worst, they are the basis for effective crisis communica-
tion. Precisely tailored messages must then be communicated
professionally by pre-defined contacts at any time of the day
or night. Only with such a broad approach can the real risk in
risk communication be minimised: the surprise in the event of
an emergency.

SCIENTIS T
SIGHTED TODAY

C AU T I O N
ENTER LAB
AT OWN
RISK
RESEARCHE
C R O S S IN G ! R

Recommended reads:
◆ Adams J. (2011), Not 100% sure? The ‘public’ understanding of risk. In Successful Science
Communication: Telling It Like It Is. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511760228.009
◆ Ruhrmann G. & Guenther L. (2017), Katastrophen- und Risikokommunikation. In Forschungsfeld
Wissenschaf tskommunikation. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12898-2_16

115
 Crisis communication

Faked research results, an explosion in the chemistry lab, improper

animal testing, data thef t or workplace bullying – any incident
in the scientific community can become a crisis that happens
unexpectedly, leads to instability and criticism, and threatens
operations, personal and institutional reputation, or even health
and life. You don’t want a crisis, but it can’t be ruled out.

The goal of crisis communication is to minimise the perception of

B R I T TA S C H L Ü T E R

an incident as a crisis and thereby help to manage and overcome

the incident. This does not mean lying or hiding grievances, but
H ot topics

trying to stay operational and prevent a situation from escalating

further. Because crises create an immediate need for information,
this calls for quick action. The key is to communicate proactively
and with a single voice, thereby controlling the interpretation of
by
V.

the incident. If an issue is likely to be reported in the media, you

should be the first to break the news. Those who stay silent will lose
control and trust. Competitors, the media or politicians will fill the
vacuum with their own version of events.

Even if the expected crisis never happens, institutions should plan

for the worst. This is mainly the responsibility of the management.
Ideally, a university or research institution will have a crisis manual
with protocols, roles and messages for the scenarios most likely to
occur and most damaging to its reputation. Well-trained teams,
checklists, pro-forma statements and pre-designed websites are of
great help. If you are a researcher and a crisis occurs, contact your
institution’s press office early, utilise their expertise and develop a
plan together: How can the crisis be managed? What are the poten-
tial threats? What questions are likely to be asked, and what would
your answers and arguments be?

116
In an actual crisis, you should cooperate with the management
but should also expect support. Crisis communication is a team
48.
effort. The press office needs to be involved, statements need to
be agreed and a spokesperson needs to be nominated. The spokes-
person needs to keep a cool head and a calm tone: Stick to the facts.
Depending on the case, consider taking legal advice. Do not specu-
late or publicly accuse third parties. If false rumours are circulating,
correct them promptly. Make it clear that the problem is being dealt
with and say what remedial action has been taken or is planned.
Show empathy towards those af fected. Always inform internal
staff first and keep all relevant stakeholders updated. There is a lot
to do and to keep in mind – but remember: You’re not alone.

Recommended reads:
◆ Coombs W. T. (2021), Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing and Responding. Sage.
ISBN: 9781483322674
◆ Swedish Emergency Management Agency (Ed.) (2008), Crisis Communication Handbook. NRS Tryckeri,
Huskvarna. ISBN: 978-91-85797-11-0 (download: https://www.msb.se/RibData/Filer/pdf/23992.pdf)
◆ Gigliotti R.A. (2019), Crisis Leadership in Higher Education: Theory and Practice. Rutgers University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvscxrr0 117
 Animals in research

Animal testing in research has been a controversial and passion-

ately debated topic in science and science communication for many
decades. And just to be clear: Researchers do not enjoy killing ani-
mals. Great ef forts are being made to reduce or replace animal
SERGE HA AN & MICHÈLE WEBER

experiments where possible. But in certain cases, animal testing is

considered to be of great value and ethically correct.

To be able to discuss this topic as a scientist – regardless of whether

your research involves animal experiments or not – you need to be
aware of how it is perceived by society. There are many people who
H ot topics

have no problem with animal research as long as the control mech-

anisms work and the aims are noble (see illustration). Others are
not OK with it and would accept the consequences, and others are
even militant. Public perception can vary from country to coun-
by
V.

try and change over time. If the research you are communicating
involves animal testing, you should prepare your communication
around this work accordingly.

Do some background research/reading: (i) If you head a commu-

nications department, you need to ensure that a communication
strategy around this topic is in place. (ii) If you are a researcher, you
need to align your communication with the institution’s communi-
cation strategy. (iii) Know how animal testing is regulated in your
institution/country and be familiar with the 3Rs (replace, reduce,
refine). (iv) Research some facts, figures and myths. For example,
cats, dogs and non-human primates account for 0.2 per cent of
animals used for research in the EU (2019) [56] and animal experi-
ments for cosmetics have been banned in the EU since 2010. (v)
Understand public opinion and be aware of different perceptions.
For example, in the US, 60 per cent of men in a survey said they sup-
port the use of animals in research, but only 35 per cent of women
said the same [57]. There are significant cultural differences regard-
ing what is considered necessary for animal welfare. And empathy
towards zebrafish or dogs also varies widely.

118
 Prepare your communication: (i) Focus on research results rather
than the technical approach. (ii) Be prepared if the topic comes up
49.
in an interview with a journalist. Check if your institution has a ded-
icated webpage or fact sheet that you can refer to. (iii) Put things
in perspective: Many animals are killed for food/hunting/cloth-
ing or in car accidents. (iv) Avoid getting involved in lobby/opinion
debates (for/against animal testing). (v) Consider the factual and
emotional side. (vi) Mention the 3Rs principle.

There is more and more proactive communication around this

topic, as the research world has recognised that it can only rectify
the false images and misconceptions that the public might have
by being more open and transparent. Eight European countries
have now signed transparency agreements to communicate more
openly about animal research.
the US
in the UK and
dic al purposes
of animal re sear ch for me use of animals
c ac cept ance I can accept the
Publi earch as long as
tion in scientific res
al experimenta research pur-
I can accept anim dical research it is for medical
is for me is no alternative
so long as it poses and there
Mori, UK)
100% purposes (Ipsos (Ipsos Mo ri, UK )

80%

Acceptance of animal
research dif ference 60%
100% on ani-
Medical testing
acceptable
by age mals is morally
(Ips os Mor i, (Gallup; US)
40%
80%
UK, 2018)

20%
60%
2020 2022
2016 2018
2012 2014
2008 2010
40% 0% 2004 2006
2002

I can accept the use of

animals in scientific rese 20%
arch
as long as it is for medical
research purposes and
there is
no alternative
I can accept the use of0%
animals in scientific rese 15-24 25-34
arch as 35-44 45-54
long as there is no unnecce 55-64 65+
ssary overall
suffering to the animals
and
there is no alternative
(Data source [58]: Ipsos Mori (UK) and Gallup (US))

Recommended reads:
◆ https://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk
◆ https://www.animalresearch.info/en/
◆ https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/

119
 Ethical perspectives

Ethics is the systematic study of the rules, beliefs and values that
determine human behaviour in a given social context and the
attempt to derive specific principles to support decision-mak-
ing. These principles are usually referred to as ethical theories [59].
Dating back around 2,500 years, it is probably one of the oldest
scientific disciplines. Applied ethics also plays a key role in aca-
demia: Today, a significant portion of research projects must be
approved by an ethics committee before they can be carried out,
taking into account the potential for harm to individuals and entire
OLIVER GL ASSL

populations. Consequently, ethics is also important in science com-

H ot topics

munication – and as science communication draws from numerous

disciplines, relevant ethical challenges should also be discussed
from various perspectives [60]:
by
V.

One perspective is that of the ownership of knowledge: Given that

research significantly shapes our world and can have a major
impact on the life and autonomy of individuals, the public has
a right to be informed about research activities and results in an
understandable way. This is particularly important in democratic
societies, which rely on informed decisions by their members [61, 62].
But open access to any kind of knowledge can also be problematic:
Should the public be informed in an easy read on how to build a
biological weapon just to respect the principle of common knowl-
edge ownership [60]?

Another angle to consider is the potential societal impact of sci-

ence communication: The science of science communication has
become a well-established discipline that has yielded numer-
ous instruments to make science communication more effective.
Institutions and companies invest considerable budgets, as they
have understood its potential to support their mission [62]. Science
communication has become an influential element in modern
societies, constantly catalysed by ever-developing new forms of

120
electronic media – the communication of research results increas-
ingly determines political discussions and decisions. However,
50.
communication about a specific research result could also compete
with institutional or individual interests of the communicating
party. Irrespective of the source of funding, whether public or
commercial, the communication of scientific findings carries the
potential to adversely impact future financial support: Research
is characterised by uncertainty of outcome [63, 64], which poses the
risk that a research result may interfere with the objectives of the
funding party. The decision of what to communicate and what not
to communicate is therefore already ethically charged.

Finally, the style of communication should consider the recipi-

ents’ human integrity: Conveying complex content to lay audiences
requires simplification, contextualisation and framing, which
increases the risk of message bias (e.g. towards a desired effect) [62].
Being aware of the challenges in the competitive field of science,
the science communicator should nonetheless strive to commu-
nicate in an unbiased, truthful and accurate way while respecting
the harm limitation principle [60], which is best achieved in institu-
tions where such a culture is well established. As a basic principle,
science communication should support human integrity and avoid
any kind of harm or stigmatisation of individuals or populations [1, 60, 62].

Recommended reads:
◆ Medvecky F. & Leach J. (2017), The ethics of science communication. JCOM 16(4):E.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16040501
◆ Cormick C. (2019), The science of communicating science: the ultimate guide. CSIRO Publishing.
ISBN: 978-1486309818
◆ Clarke M. (2009), Ethics of science communication on the web. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 9:9-12.
https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00096 121
 AI in science communication

This article was generated in January 2023 using the prompt

“write 3000 characters on the use of artificial intelligence in Science
Communication” … feel free to rechallenge the bots over time.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of

H ot topics

science communication in recent years, transforming the

chat GPT

way we share and disseminate scientific knowledge. From

analyzing data to predicting future trends, AI is helping sci-
entists and science communicators to understand complex
by
V.

information and communicate it to diverse audiences. In this

article, we will explore the various ways AI is being used in sci-
ence communication.

One of the primary applications of AI in science communication

is data analysis. AI algorithms are used to analyze large datasets,
enabling scientists to discover patterns, trends, and relationships in
the data. This can help researchers identify new scientific insights
and communicate their findings to the wider public. For instance,
AI can be used to analyze large sets of medical data to identify pat-
terns and potential treatments for different diseases. This analysis
can then be presented in a way that is accessible and engaging to
the general public, providing them with valuable information on
the latest medical research.

Another important application of AI in science communication is in

natural language processing. This involves the use of AI algorithms
to understand and analyze human language, enabling computers
to interact with humans in a more natural and intuitive way. This

122
is particularly useful in science communication, as it allows for the
creation of chatbots and other AI-powered tools that can answer
51.
questions and provide information to the public. For instance,
a chatbot could be designed to answer questions about climate
change, helping people understand the science behind the issue
and the potential impacts of global warming.

AI can also be used to create more engaging and interactive science

communication content. For example, AI-powered virtual reality
(VR) and augmented reality (AR) experiences can provide users
with an immersive and interactive learning experience. This could
be used to create virtual labs where students can conduct experi-
ments, or to simulate scientific phenomena that are difficult to
observe in the real world. This type of content can be especially
useful for engaging younger audiences, who are more likely
to be interested in interactive and visually engaging content.

Finally, AI can be used to analyze and predict audience

behavior and preferences. This is particularly useful for sci-
ence communicators, as it enables them to tailor their content
to specific audiences. For example, AI algorithms can be used
to analyze social media data to understand what types of science
content people are interested in and how they engage with it. This
information can then be used to create content that is more likely
to be shared and engage with a wider audience.

In conclusion, AI is transforming science communication by en­­

abling scientists and communicators to analyze and understand
complex data, create engaging and interactive content, and tailor
their messaging to specific audiences. As AI technology continues
to evolve, we can expect to see even more innovative applications
of AI in science communication in the future. However, it is impor-
tant to note that AI should always be used in a responsible and
ethical manner, with a focus on promoting scientific accuracy
and promoting public understanding of science.

123
 RE F E RE NC E S

[1] Autzen C. & Weitkamp E. (2020), 22. Science communication and public relations:
beyond borders. In Science Communication, De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 465-484.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255522-022
[2] Schäfer M.S. et al. (2020), 4. Analyzing science communication through the lens
of communication science: Reviewing the empirical evidence. In Science Communica-
tion, De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 77-104. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255522-004
[3] Russell N. (2010), Communicating Science. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN:9780521113830
[4] Akin H. & Scheufele D.A. (2017), Overview of the Science of Science Communi-
cation. In The Oxford Handbook of The Science of Science Communication, Oxford
University Press. p. 25-33. ISBN:9780190497620
[5] Hendriks F. & Kienhues D. (2020), 2. Science understanding between scien-
tific literacy and trust: contributions from psychological and educational re-
R eferences

search. In Science Communication, De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 29-50. https://doi.

org/10.1515/9783110255522-002
[6] Betz G. & Lanius D. (2020), 1. Philosophy of science for science communication
in twenty-two questions. In Science Communication, De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 3-28.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255522-001
[7] NGSS Lead States (2013), Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states
(vol. 1, The Standards). The National Academies Press. http://www.nextgenscience.
org/next-generation-science-standards.
[8] Siry C. et al. (2018), „Doing Science“: Erwerb von Kompetenzen im naturwissen-
schaftlichen Unterricht der École fondamentale. Bildungsbericht Luxemburg 2018,
pp. 140-141.
[9] Wai J. (2023), Rethinking science education. Science 380:351-351. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.adh9225
[10] van Gerven et al. (2018), Authenticity matters: Children look beyond appear-
ances in their appreciation of museum objects, International Journal of Science
Education, Part B, 8:325-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2018.1497218
[11] Åkerblom D. & Lindahl M. (2017), Authenticity and the relevance of discourse
and figured worlds in secondary students’ discussions of socioscientific issues, Teach-
ing and teacher education 65: 205-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.025
[12] Saffran et al. (2020), Constructing and influencing perceived authenticity in
science communication: Experimenting with narrative. PLoS ONE 15(1): e0226711.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226711
[13] Breuer S. (2012), Über die Bedeutung von Authentizität und Inhalt für die
Glaubwürdigkeit von Webvideo‐Formaten in der Wissenschaftskommunikation, in:
Öffentliche Wissenschaft und neue Medien: Die Rolle der Web 2.0-Kultur in der
Wissenschaftsvermittlung. ISBN:978-3-86644-844-5
[14] Jensen et al. (2008), Scientists who engage with society perform better academical-
ly. Science and Public Policy 35: 527–541. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X329130

124
[15] Ecklund et al. (2012), How academic biologists and physicists view science out-
reach. PLOS ONE, 7:e36240. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036240.
[16] Mannino et al. (2021), Supporting quality in science communication: insights
from the QUEST project. JCOM 20, A07. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20030207.
[17] Rose et al. (2020), Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communica-
tion. PNAS, 117: 1274–1276. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1916740117
[18] Oreskes N. (2019), Why trust science? Princeton University Press.
ISBN:9780691179001
[19] Pew Research Center, Sept. 2020, Science and Scientists Held in High Esteem
Across Global Publics. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/
sites/16/2020/09/PS_2020.09.29_global-science_REPORT.pdf
[20] Archer et al. (2015), Science Capital: A Conceptual, Methodological, and Empiri-
cal Argument for Extending Bourdieusian Notions of Capital Beyond the Arts. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching. 52 : 922-948. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21227
[21] Vincent-Ruz P. & Schunn C.D. (2018), The nature of science identity and its role
as the driver of student choices. IJ STEM Ed 5, 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-
018-0140-5
[22] Mendick H. & Sheldrake R. (2016), Transforming Science Engagement: The
impact of the British Science Association’s work, report. https://www.google.com/
url?q=https://www.academia.edu/34224663/Transforming_Science_Engagement_
the_impact_of_the_British_Science_Associations_work
[23] Fähnrich et al. (2021), RETHINKING Science Communication Education and
Training: Towards a Competence Model for Science Communication. Front. Commun.
6:795198. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.795198
[24] PCST network: Worldwide database of programmes and courses in science
communication from Public Communication of Science and Technology. https://
www.pcst.network/teaching-forum/science-communication-programmes-and-cours-
es/
[25] Pérez-Llantada C. (2021), Genres and languages in science communication: The
multiple dimensions of the science-policy interface. Language & Communication 78:
65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.02.004
[26] Nation I. (2006), How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?
Canadian Modern Language Review 63:59–82. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59
[27] Martínez A. & Mammola S. (2021), Specialized terminology reduces the
number of citations of scientific papers. Proc. R. Soc. B. 288:20202581. https://doi.
org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2581
[28] Rakedzon et al. (2017), Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with
the public and science communication educators. PLOS ONE 12:e0181742. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181742
[29] Kerr et al. (2021), The effects of communicating uncertainty around statistics on
public trust: an international study. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.27.21264202
[30] van der Bles et al. (2019), Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and
science, Royal Society Open Science 6:181870. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181870
[31] Dhami M.K. & Mandel D.R. (2022), Communicating Uncertainty Using Words
and Numbers, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 26:514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tics.2022.03.002
[32] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1021459/umfrage/anzahl-der-vis-
its-pro-monat-von-youtube/
[33] Siggener Kreis, Siggener Impulse (2021), Bilder in der Wissenschaftskommuni-
kation. https://www.wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Ueber_uns/
Gut_Siggen/Dokumente/220223_Siggener-Impuls-2021.pdf

125
 [34] Wissenschaftsbarometer, Wissenschaft im Dialog/Kantar, https://www.wis-
senschaft-im-dialog.de/projekte/wissenschaftsbarometer ; the graphics for article
11 (page 31) and article 31 (page 81) were translated to English and colours were
adapted to the used graphics style (CC BY-ND 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nd/4.0/).
[35] MacKenzie L.E. (2019), Science podcasts: analysis of global production and
output from 2004 to 2018. R. Soc. open sci. 6:180932. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rsos.180932
[36] Quintana D.S. & Heathers J.A.J. (2021), How Podcasts Can Benefit Scientific
Communities. Trends in Cognitive Science 25:3-5. https://doi.com/10.1016/j.
tics.2020.10.003
[37] Yuan et al. (2022), “Listening” to Science: Science Podcasters’ View and Practice
in Strategic Science Communication. Science Communication 44:200-222. https://
doi.org/10.1177/10755470211065068
[38] Evans C. (2008), The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast
revision lectures in higher education. Comput. Educ. 50:491–498. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.016
[39] Spiegel et al. (2013), Engaging Teenagers with Science Through Comics.
Research in Science Education 43:2309–2326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-
9358-x
[40] Boy B. & Buchner H.-J. (2021), Comics in der Wissenschaftkommunikation oder:
R eferences

Wie informativ sind Informationscomics? In Intention und Rezeption von Wissen-

schaftskommunikation, Herbert von Halem Verlag, pp127-156. ISBN:9783869623146
[41] Bundesverband der Schülerlabore e.V., Lernort Labor, http://www.lernort-labor.
de/
[42] Glowinski I. & Bayrhuber H. (2011), Student labs on a university campus as a
type of out-of-school learning environment: Assessing the potential to promote stu-
dents’ interest in science, International Journal of Environmental & Science Education
6:371-392. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ959426.pdf
[43] Thomas C.L. (2012), Assessing high school student learning on science outreach
lab activities, Journal of Chemical Education 89:1259–1263. https://doi.org/10.1021/
ed200320g
[44] Falk J.H. & Storksdieck M. (2005), Learning science from museums. Hist Cienc
Saude Manguinhos 12:117-43. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702005000400007
[45] Bergeron A. & Bigg C. (2019), Built in Thoughts Rather than Stone : The Palais
de la découverte and the 1937 Paris International Exposition. in Behind the Exhibit:
Displaying Science and Technology at World’s Fairs and Museums in the Twentieth
Century. (Artefacts Studies in the History of Science and Technology, Volume 12)
Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. ISBN:978-1-944466-22-0 ; https://smithso-
nian.figshare.com/ndownloader/files/17609480
[46] Schirrmacher A. (2019), North American World’s Fairs and the Reinvention of
the Science Museum in the 1960s. in Behind the Exhibit: Displaying Science and Tech-
nology at World’s Fairs and Museums in the Twentieth Century. (Artefacts Studies in
the History of Science and Technology, Volume 12), Smithsonian Institution Scholarly
Press. ISBN:978-1-944466-22-0 ; https://smithsonian.figshare.com/ndownloader/
files/17609480
[47] Trap G. (2011), Le spectacle de la Nature : Sur la mise en scène de la Nature dans
l’acte de médiation scientifique, Actes des JIES Chamonix 31:1-12.
[48] Sumner et al. (2014), The association between exaggeration in health related
science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. BMJ
349:7015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7015

126
[49] Goldberg R.F. & Vandenberg L.N. (2021), The science of spin: targeted strategies
to manufacture doubt with detrimental effects on environmental and public health.
Environ Health 20, 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00723-0
[50] Lewandowsky et al. (2020), The Debunking Handbook 2020. https://doi.
org/10.17910/b7.1182 (https://open.bu.edu/handle/2144/43031)
[51] Vosoughi et al. (2018), The spread of true and false news online, Science
359:1146-1151. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap9559
[52] Marlow et al. (2021), Bots and online climate discourses: Twitter discourse on
President Trump’s announcement of U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement,
Climate Policy, 21:6, 765-777. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1870098
[53] Rossmann C. et al. (2017), Risikokommunikation. In: Bundeszentrale für gesund-
heitliche Aufklärung (BZgA). Leitbegriffe der Gesundheitsförderung und Präven-
tion. Glossar zu Konzepten, Strategien und Methoden. https://doi.org/10.17623/
BZGA:Q4-i103-1.0
[54] Gigerenzer G. (2020), Risiko: Wie man die richtigen Entscheidungen trifft. Pan-
theon Verlag, ISBN:978-3-570-55442-5
[55] Ruhrmann G. & Guenther L. (2017), Katastrophen- und Risikokommunika-
tion. In Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation. Springer VS. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-658-12898-2_16
[56] European Commission: Report on the statistics on the use of animals for
scientific purposes in the Member States of the European Union and Norway in 2019.
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/SWD2019_Part_A_
and_B.pdf
[57] Pew Research Center (2014), Opinion About the Use of Animals in Research.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-7-opinion-about-the-
use-of-animals-in-research/
[58] Data sources for the figures were: Ipsos Mori, UK: office of life science (2018); https://
www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-05/18-040753-01_ols_
public_attitudes_to_animal_research_report_v3_191118_public.pdf and Gallup, US:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1681/moral-issues.aspx
[59] Crane, A. & Matten D. (2010), Business Ethics. 3rd ed., Oxford University Press.
ISBN: 9780199564330
[60] Medvecky, F. & Leach J. (2017), The ethics of science communication. Journal of
Science Communication 16(4). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16040501
[61] European Commission (2020), COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS - On the European democracy
action plan. Available under https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PD-
F/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0790
[62] Cormick C. (2019), The science of communicating science: the ultimate guide.
CABI. ISBN:9781486309818
[63] Erhardt D. (2011), Hochschulen im strategischen Wettbewerb. Gabler Verlag.
ISBN: 978-3-8349-7114-2; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-7114-2
[64] Clarke M. (2009), Ethics of science communication on the web. Ethics in Science
and Environmental Politics 9:9-12. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00096

127
 Authors

Askwall, Cissi; Coordinator, Swedish Research Council. She coordi-

nates the development of a national scicomm and research news
platform in Sweden. Cissi is also President of the European Science
Engagement Association, Board member of Örebro University, and
former Secretary General of VA (Public & Science).

Bertemes, Jean-Paul; Head of Science in Society, Luxembourg

National Research Fund (FNR) and chief editor of science.lu. He
has a background in chemistry, German literature and as (science)
journalist (e.a. GEO, Die Zeit). Jean-Paul is responsible for public
engagement events, (social) media formats, training and funding.

Bromme, Rainer; was Professor of Educational Psychology at the

University of Münster from 1995 to 2017. He is currently a sen-
AUTHORS

ior professor there and a corresponding member of the Bavarian

Academy of Sciences and Humanities. As project leader he is
investigating how trust in science is changing on and through the
internet.

Burke, Lisa; Independent broadcaster in Luxembourg, co-cre-

ated RTL Today and has a weekly chat-show. Lisa studied Natural
Sciences at Cambridge University specialising in chemistry, worked
at Sky News for ten years covering news, plus science reporting. She
regularly moderates science, tech and space events across Europe.

chatGPT; OpenAI. The Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer is

a large language model-based chatbot developed by OpenAI and
launched on November 30, 2022.

d’Agostini, Arnaud; Head of Marketing & Communication at

Luxembourg Institute of Health (LIH); He is an executive-level
marketing and communication expert with over 20 years of inter-
national strategic experience within the biomedical research and
health sciences publishing/media sectors.

128
Glassl, Oliver; Project Manager Curriculum Design, Faculty of
Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Luxembourg;
He is deeply involved a number of SciCom projects such as the
DESCOM project (Doctoral Education in Science Communication) and
the science comic project LUX:PLORATIONS (sciencecomics.uni.lu).

Goossens, Didier; Head of Communication at the Luxembourg

National Research Fund (FNR). With a passion for (science) com-
munication and a background in journalism, Didier is responsible
for developing and implementing strategic communication plans
to engage diverse stakeholders.

Haan, Serge; Professor for Biological Chemistry, Faculty of Science,

Technology and Medicine, University of Luxembourg; Serge has
extensive teaching experience and is leading a number of SciCom
projects such as the Doctoral Education in Science Communication
(descom.uni.lu) and the science comic LUX:PLORATIONS.

Hans, Dirk; Lecturer in science communication at universities

in Germany and Luxembourg. Originally a marine biologist, Dirk
worked for many years as a TV-journalist (WDR, Quarks) before
heading several communication departments. With his agency sci-
enceRELATIONS he supports international research.

Hof fmann, Elisabeth; Head of communication at the University

of Cologne. She has a PhD in literature and is a co-founder of the
Siggener Kreis, a German think-tank for science communication.
Elisabeth was chair of the board of the German Association of
University Communication from 2008 to 2014.

Iversen, Emily; Digital Communications Manager at the

Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR). After completing her
Masters in Journalism and Media Communications, Emily worked
in a range of public relations positions in London, UK, before join-
ing the FNR in 2015.

129
 Lutchanah, Aswin; Digital Hybrid Social Media Manager,
Communication Department, University of Luxembourg. With a
decade in Social Media Management and a Master's in Computer
Science, he specialises in the intersection of digital media, commu-
nity management, creative writing and digital marketing.

Marquis, Olivier; Head of Communication at the Luxembourg

Institute of Science and Technology (LIST). Olivier is a former jour-
nalist and a communication expert with 20 years of experience in
the Science and Technology sector.

Meyer, Julien; Head of Scientific Mediation and Audience

Development at the National Museum of Natural History in
Luxembourg. He holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics. Notably, he has
spent many years working as a Scientific Mediator and Project Lead
at the Luxembourg Science Center.
AUTHORS

Meyrath, Thierry; University of Luxembourg. He is a team mem-

ber of the Scienteens Lab, the student lab of the University
of Luxembourg. Thierry has a PhD in mathematics and is the
main responsible for the activities the Scienteens Lab of fers in
mathematics.

Michaely, Patrick; Director of the National Museum of Natural

History since 2022 after having led its communication department
since 1996. Biochemist by training, former newspaper corre-
spondent and exhibition curator. Patrick emphasises the central
role of natural history collections in the study of biodiversity and
evolution.

Of fe, Julia; Science Communicator and science writer. She has a

PhD in molecular biology and has been organising science slams
across Germany for more than 10 years, often on behalf of compa-
nies or institutions (scienceslam.de). In Hamburg, Julia also helped
organise the March for Science.

130
Pertuy, Juliette; Head of Communication, Luxembourg Space
Agency. She is a determined & creative innovator with a back-
ground in Marketing. Juliette’s experiences range in various fields
of activities, from the financial sector to heading the communica-
tions department of the Luxembourg Institute of Health.

Ramos, Sonia; Event & Communication Manager at the

Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR). She is in charge of
major events, such as Researchers’ Days, Science Festival and
the FNR Awards Ceremony. Before joining the FNR in 2012, Sonia
worked in one of Luxembourg’s leading communication agencies.

Rodesch, Joseph; Science Communicator at the Luxembourg

National Research Fund (FNR) and author/producer of different TV,
web and radio formats. Best known for performing experiments on
TV as Mr Science for the past 14 years, Joseph now runs a new science
talent show for young people called Take Off.

Saraga, Daniel; Founder of Saraga Communications, he works as

a science communication specialist for academic, research and
innovation actors in Switzerland and Luxembourg. Daniel was pre-
viously a researcher in quantum physics, a journalist, and head of
science communication at the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Schlender, Hannes; Biologist, journalist, moderator and mediator.

Former head of communications at two German Helmholtz cen-
tres. With his agency scienceRELATIONS he supports international
research. Recently he is running a citizens' dialogue programme on
the dismantling of a nuclear research reactor.

Schley, David; Deputy-Director of Sense about Science, an inde-

pendent charity that advocates for the public interest in sound
science and evidence. David has a PhD in Mathematics. His work
ensures science and evidence are used appropriately in public life
and that people are empowered with knowledge.

131
 Schlüter, Britta; Head of communications, University of
Luxembourg. A graduate in journalism and senior communications
specialist with extensive experience in print journalism, corporate
and science communications. Britta is consulting in the fields of
communication strategy, media relations, crisis communication
and speechwriting.

Siry, Christina; Professor in Learning and Instruction, Department

of Education and Social Work, University of Luxembourg. Her
research interests are in early childhood science education and the
related area of teacher education for science. Christina is director of
the SciTeach Center (sciteach.uni.lu).

Stollorz, Volker; Managing Director of the Science Media Center

Germany gGmbH. The multi-award-winning science journalist
is a biologist by training and has worked for renowned German
newspapers such as "Die Zeit", "Die Woche" and the "Frankfurter
AUTHORS

Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung".

Trap, Guillaume; Coordinator & scientific advisor for the Fondation

Jeunes Scientifiques Luxembourg. Guillaume holds a PhD in astro-
physics and was notably scientific mediator at the Palais de la
découverte, before serving as the initial scientific conceptor & sci-
entific director of the Luxembourg Science Center.

Weber, Michèle; Multilingual Science Communicator at the

Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR), with a PhD in
Immunology. Michèle has a long-standing experience in writing,
editing and presenting science to a range of target audiences via
the web and media, and at events.

Weisskopf, Markus; Science communicator and science journal-

ist. Since 2022, he has been editor at Table Media's Research.Table.
Previously, he was Managing Director of Wissenschaf t im Dialog
(WiD) from 2012 to 2022 and President of the European Science
Engagement Association (EUSEA) from 2016 to 2020.

132
Wilmes, Sara; Research specialist in science education at the
University of Luxembourg. She holds a PhD in Science Education.
Sara’s research explores collaborative teacher education for sus-
tained changes in science teaching in multilingual contexts. She is
coordinator of the SciTeach Center (sciteach.uni.lu)

Yeoman, Kay; Professor in Science Communication in the School of

Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia. She led a programme
of linking UEA to local secondary Schools and providing opportu-
nities for pupils to get involved in research. Kay runs training in
Science Communication for students.

Ziegler, Ricarda; Head of the Evaluation Department, National

Institute for Science Communication, Germany. Before that, the
political scientist worked at Wissenschaft im Dialog (WiD). Ricarda
directed the science survey Wissenschaftsbarometer and built up the
Impact Unit for evaluation in science communication.

133
 Partners
This book project was financed and managed by

the Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine

of the University of Luxembourg
and
S P O N S O R S & PA R T N E R S

The Luxembourg National Research Fund

Project team :
Jean-Paul Bertemes, Oliver Glassl, Serge Haan, Dirk Hans,
Céline Lecarpentier, Nicole Paschek

134
THANK YOU !

Finally, we wish to thank all the authors for their valuable and
much appreciated contributions to this book.

We thank the contributing Research Luxembourg partners:

Luxembourg National Research Fund, the University of

Luxembourg, the Luxembourg Institute of Science and
Technology, the Luxembourg Institute of Health as well as
the Scienteens Lab and SciTeach Center of the University of
Luxembourg

and our other partners: the National Museum of Natural History,

the Luxembourg Space Agency and the Fondation Jeunes
Scientifiques Luxembourg

135
May the science BE with YOU