Comment: What’s harming science is a failure to communicate

Scientists need better public engagement to show the broader impact and value of their work.

By Sheldon H. Jacobson / Tribune News Service

It has become a point of discussion and lament amongst science researchers that science is under attack. What was once considered a noble undertaking appears to be under attack by the current administration, as federal funding at numerous other universities are being threatened.

Yet the situation faced by science researchers did not occur in a vacuum. In truth, many were complicit with and contributed to the current state of affairs.

Though science researchers have been viewed with skepticism for some time, the covid pandemic forced some into a public position that they were ill-prepared for. In general, making time-constrained, real-time decisions in public view exposes how imprecise and messy scientific research can be, even when the final products may come out clean and elegant.

ADVERTISEMENT
0 seconds of 0 secondsVolume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
00:00
00:00
00:00
 

An implicit assumption that science would get public health interventions and policies right the first time was both unrealistic and naïve. Non-pharmaceutical interventions like social distancing and face masks were viewed as inappropriate, perhaps even contradictory by some, with politics contributing to many decisions. The result was a precipitous drop in confidence in science, particularly biomedical research, and the people who conduct it.

Science touches everyone’s life. The smartphones that people rely upon, the medications that their physicians prescribe, and the vehicles that they travel in are all products of scientific research and technological advances.

Science plays a critical role in improving the well-being and comforts that we all enjoy. Without government support from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation (NSF), many advances would never have occurred, or if they did, would have taken much longer to be revealed. Examples include 3D printing, the internet, and LASIK surgery, to name just a few. Numerous Nobel Laureates trace their foundational research back to support from NSF and other government agencies.

The problem faced by science researchers is not with what they do, or even how the work benefits society. As the covid pandemic demonstrated, it is how they communicate their findings and processes with the public.

As social media has grown into a pervasive source of siloed news and unvetted information, the need for better communication from within the science ecosystem, and stronger touchpoints between scientists and the population, has never been greater.

Working in biomedical, science, or computer research laboratories demands intense focus. The popular television sitcom, “The Big Bang Theory,” illustrates the peculiar nature and idiosyncrasies of science researchers. Such personalities are ubiquitous in academic, industry, and government research labs, even as the television program exaggerated their personality quirks.

Yet staying in a cloistered research environment carries risks. NSF’s Office of Legislative and Public Affairs showcases the value of NSF-supported research and the benefits accrued by taxpayer dollars. NSF also requires that all proposals address societal benefits, labeled Broader Impacts. One such example is Public Engagement, defined as “Increasing public scientific literacy and public engagement with STEM.” The problem may be the implementation of this ideal and its translation into practice.

Science researchers are incentivized by what it takes to get their research funded. This has been my personal experience as a person who has received numerous NSF grants during my career as well as while working as a NSF program officer making decisions about which proposals would be funded. The Broader Impact components that provide the path of least resistance are typically followed. When researchers ignore the public engagement component, the schism between academic research and the public grows wider. If researchers hold an attitude of “someone else will do it,” then often “no one will do it.”

Achieving a critical mass of science communicators is necessary during these volatile and rapidly changing times. Such efforts should demand attention across both social and traditional media. They demand attention via podcasts, reaching people across all sectors of society. Even having science researchers join programs like the Joe Rogan Experience podcast would be worthwhile.

Naturally, not all science researchers are prepared to tackle such endeavors. Some will remain confined within their research labs, doing good work and advancing science for the greater good. In the current environment, some will move elsewhere, as funding sources dry up domestically.

Yet more researchers are needed to embrace public engagement. Without such efforts, science researchers will continue to face headwinds that will make it harder to justify their very existence and livelihoods.

Indeed, in today’s environment, doing good work with societal benefits may be necessary, but not sufficient.

Moreover, if science communication by scientists does not occur, the void is invariably filled by those less qualified, and perhaps, with agendas that may undermine good science. This occurred during the covid pandemic, when alternative treatments and cures were put forward, all of which proved to be ineffective. It is also true today with the indisputable public health benefits of vaccines.

It is said that the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second-best time is today. It is time for science researchers to plant a forest of trees in the domain of public engagement.

Tearing down the barriers between science research and the public is necessary to ensure that such advances can continue into the foreseeable future. Science communication is critical to build bridges that shine a bright light on how and why science makes sense. Scientists are heroes in the current “war on ignorance,” ensuring that new knowledge will make our nation and the world a better place for all.

Sheldon H. Jacobson is a professor in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He uses his expertise in risk-based analytics to address problems in public policy. He can be found on X at @shjanalytics ©2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Friday, May 16

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Sarah Weiser / The Herald
Air Force One touches ground Friday morning at Boeing in Everett.
PHOTO SHOT 02172012
Editorial: There’s no free lunch and no free Air Force One

Qatar’s offer of a 747 to President Trump solves nothing and leaves the nation beholden.

The Buzz: What do you get for the man who wants everything?

If you’re looking to impress President Trump, better have a well-appointed luxury 747 on hand.

Schwab: Taken for a ride by the high plane grifter

A 747 from Qatari royals. Cyrpto-kleptocracy. And trade ‘deals’ that shift with Trump’s whims.

Saunders: Saudi visit puts Trump’s foreign policy on display

Like it or not, embracing the Saudis and who they are makes more sense than driving them elsewhere.

Harrop: Democrats’ battles over age ignore age of electorate

Party leaders should be careful with criticisms over age; they still have to appeal to older voters.

Comment: Trump’s break with Netanyahu just keeps widening

His trip to the Middle East, without a stop in Israel, is the latest example Trump has moved on.

The Washington State Legislature convenes for a joint session for a swearing-in ceremony of statewide elected officials and Governor Bob Ferguson’s inaugural address, March 15, 2025.
Editorial: 4 bills that need a second look by state lawmakers

Even good ideas, such as these four bills, can fail to gain traction in the state Legislature.

FILE - The sun dial near the Legislative Building is shown under cloudy skies, March 10, 2022, at the state Capitol in Olympia, Wash. An effort to balance what is considered the nation's most regressive state tax code comes before the Washington Supreme Court on Thursday, Jan. 26, 2023, in a case that could overturn a prohibition on income taxes that dates to the 1930s. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File)
Editorial: What state lawmakers acheived this session

A look at some of the more consequential policy bills adopted by the Legislature in its 105 days.

Liz Skinner, right, and Emma Titterness, both from Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County, speak with a man near the Silver Lake Safeway while conducting a point-in-time count Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2024, in Everett, Washington. The man, who had slept at that location the previous night, was provided some food and a warming kit after participating in the PIT survey. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: County had no choice but to sue over new grant rules

New Trump administration conditions for homelessness grants could place county in legal jeopardy.

Comment: A bumpy travel season for U.S. tourists, destinations

Even with a pause in some tariffs, uncertainty is driving decisions on travel in and out of the U.S.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Thursday, May 15

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.