If a researcher publishes their findings in a journal unknown to the average person, do they make a sound? Fortunately, novel science enters the world at an impressively fast rate. Once published, a study’s findings may be conversed about by the brightest minds from one end of the planet to the other. Unfortunately, however, hardly any of this science meets the grasp of the average person. One may argue that the average person does not gain or lose anything from being counted out of scientific conversations.
Yet, the world would undoubtedly see less suffering and experience greater technological advancement if more minds were involved in science. When I first decided to become a scientist, I didn’t do it for the one-of-a-kind work dynamic or the chance to discover something no one had ever seen before. I always felt like the whole world was conversing about something important, and I wanted to be part of that conversation. Once I joined a laboratory at my university, I realized that I was never part of the discourse because I was never invited. It goes without saying that I stubbornly forced my way in. Moreover, it is critical to understand that those who do not wish to become scientists are in just as much need of knowledge as those who do. This is of major concern given the recent changes in access to information, namely, the emergence of artificial intelligence. Today, it is becoming more commonplace for people of younger ages to explore their curiosity alongside large language models rather than other humans.
The problem is that the public tends to prefer receiving simple answers to complicated questions from an entity that speaks to them, not with them. If researchers don’t devise a new way of bridging communication between the public and science, artificial intelligence will. This is understandable given that if the public’s concern was to master the intricacies of their questions, they would be doing our job for us. Therefore, it is imperative that we scientists move forward with the intention to talk with (not to) the public and make complicated answers digestible. Here, I offer a set of practical approaches to implementing effective methods of science communication in the age of artificial intelligence.
Social media
Consider creating a social media presence. Although most people (me included) shy away from this approach to communicating information, it’s worth the try. Without the need to reveal your identity, creating an Instagram or X account focused on science topics can be a great start. Do you ever find that certain aspects of a research paper resonate with you, or address a concern you’ve always had? Disseminating that bit of information within the relevant context in a social media post is a form of effective scientific communication. The next time anyone online is researching about related ideas, they will land on your page and have the opportunity to comment. This way, you are not only providing representation for your topic but also inviting active discussion in a low-stakes setting. If creating an online presence feels like a burden of time, try repurposing your already existing notes into social media posts. You’ll be surprised at how impactful your perspectives may be, even if they’re just scribbles. In all, remember that unlike ChatGPT, your social media presence has the potential to foster a community setting where science can inspire and be shared.
Connecting with your community
Bringing science into the community counters the silos that form during research specialization. If the sub-specialties of our specialties are not rigorously experimented on, research ceases to expand. On the other hand, research loses its purpose when it is not actively discussed about in the real world. Connecting with your community does not necessarily mean engaging in elaborate, labor-intensive, organized scientific discussion.
Engagement can be as simple as offering a 15-minute Zoom presentation about your research to a class of high school seniors. Our community is filled with curious members of all ages and backgrounds who seek knowledge for practical sake. For example, new understandings of exercise physiology have recently been met with new questions from the public about how their bodies work. Indeed, rigorous science brings forth to the public an opportunity to ask important questions. Therefore, the job of a scientist is two-fold: to facilitate good science in the laboratory and in the community.
At the “Bodies and Bites” program in my neighborhood, graduate students and faculty guide elementary school students through hands-on learning activities about human physiology, anatomy, and biology. The fifth graders often stump me with questions that never seem to have an end. That is, until they do. If we do not continuously foster active discussions within our community, future generations will no longer have the space to be curious. Or their curiosity will meet the confines of artificial intelligence, where discussion is terminated at the closing of a tab. While all communities function differently, simply providing a space where questions and answers may be discussed offers the next generation of scientists the invitation they are searching for.
Setting intentions
If neither of these approaches to science communication appeals to you, that’s okay. Like all things, science communication starts with a specific intention. Consider setting an intention related to science communication whenever engaging with anyone about research. Aim to address questions such as, “How could the language of this conversation be modified to reach the average person?” or “What is the big picture of the problem I am discussing?” With these questions in mind, the subtleties of our research become placed within a larger context—one beyond the laboratory walls.
If you are a mentor, it may be helpful to rethink the way you engage with your mentees about communication. As research becomes increasingly specialized, a young investigator may be tempted to neglect the real-world implications of their work. With keeping “the bigger picture” at the forefront of your mind, you may find it easier to guide your mentees toward more creative and expansive thinking. Whether the student chooses to disseminate their findings to a general audience is not necessarily the goal here. The first step to transmitting an important connection between scientific findings and the real world is discovering it.
If you are a mentee, setting intentions related to science communication with your mentor may enhance your training experience. The enjoyment of funneling a science down to its most basic qualities sometimes prevents us from considering its broader relevance. For that reason, arrive at your check-in meetings with your mentor prepared with a question about how your current project aligns with the betterment of the world. If you find yourself troubled by the thought of asking such a broad, simple question, remember that the tenets of scientific training include specificity and complex thinking. Don’t be afraid to go outside your comfort zone. Put yourself in the shoes of those who are not scientifically trained, yet inquire about the same questions as you do.
In either case, if science communication is poor between researchers, then they find themselves in a similar position as the public. To elaborate, researchers—especially young researchers—may turn to artificial intelligence for guidance on connecting the dots between novel findings and real-world implications. While artificial intelligence has the capacity to assist with the creative process (e.g., brainstorming quickly), the unoriginal information produced often satisfies the user’s demands without bringing forth fruitful discussion between people.
Conclusion
The way in which we connect the world to emerging knowledge is boundless. You can start small by setting an intention or go big by creating an online page. Despite our enthusiasm, however, communicating scientific information in a digestible manner to the public is difficult. Moreover, to carry the weight of a responsibility you didn’t sign up for can be overwhelming, and it may also feel like there is no room left on your to-do list for anyone outside the laboratory. Amid a climate where science is constantly being threatened, all these factors become amplified. Ironically, this is when the public needs us the most. In an era when trust is being placed on artificially generated videos and text, the world seems to be simultaneously arriving at the same question: “What should I believe?” Thus, there is no better time than now to offer the world an invitation—big or small—into the scientific conversation.