Hanaa Hariri

As scientists, our job consists of two main parts: doing the science (i.e. conducting research using the scientific method), and sharing the outcome (or communicating our scientific findings). Effective communication is becoming increasingly relevant for a successful career in science. Yet, for a while the term “scientific communication” was vague enough to be cautiously approached by some, and openly ridiculed by others. What is so unique about scientific communication? How is it different than communication in any other discipline?

For scientists, scientific communication means writing papers and grant proposals, and giving presentations to broad audiences of differing scientific backgrounds. However, defined broadly, scientific communication is more than that. Essentially, it involves explaining scientific information to anyone, anywhere. However, being able to communicate beyond the boundaries of scientific specializations is not trivial as it sounds.

Historically, scientists have recognized the efficiency gained from speaking the same language and understanding one another. As Michael Gordin writes in his book Scientific Babel: “If you are interested in what it would be like to live in a world with one language of communication, you should look to the natural scientists.” Gordin recalls the geopolitical events that took place after World War I that greatly contributed to English becoming the universal language of science. However, he argues that in order to reach large populations of scientists, the majority of whom are non-native English speakers, the language used in scientific communication became more standardized and devoid of culture-specific references. As a result, scientists spoke English that sounded different than the language familiar to the general public. So, how do we reconcile this drift and overcome this language barrier?

In his book Houston, We Have a Narrative, Randy Olson believes that underlying this problem is the lack of narrative in scientific communication. Scientist-turned-filmmaker Olson argues that Hollywood, and only Hollywood, can alleviate this problem, and rescue science and “culturally detached” academics. However, contrary to Olson’s belief, most scientists understand the importance of narrative in our profession. Admittedly, we may not always clearly see our stories or be able to effectively narrate them. Yet, we know that the audience, whoever they may be, need to be mindfully escorted through complex and exciting new territories to which they can connect. While failure to do so in Hollywood might ruin movie night, in science it may have detrimental consequences on society and the world. If we think about all the conflicts between science and politics, ethics, and religion (gene editing, vaccination, global warming, and nuclear energy to name a few), the urgency for scientists to become better storytellers becomes crystal clear.

Fortunately, scientists are-at their core-problem solvers. Today, an entirely new discipline called science communication is committed to creating opportunities where principles and strategies that guide effective communication are taught and promoted. Additionally, a number of resources and training programs dedicated to improving science communication, and making science more accessible to everyone are provided by organizations such as the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, the Committee for Postdocs and Students (COMPASS), and iBiology.

Hanaa Hariri, PhD, is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Cell Biology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.