Welcome!

This blog is where we share stories, announcements, and insights from around the iGEM community.

How Good Science Communication Can Reshape the Academic World

How Good Science Communication Can Reshape the Academic World

Hassnain Qasim Bokhari
iGEM Community

Written by: Félicités Rapon, Mounia Boudjedri, Saleem Ullah
Edited by : Ankita De, Gokul Bhaskaran, Nayera Nasser

The Birth and Evolution of Science Communication

Science communication (SciComm) emerged from a fundamental need: To share scientific knowledge not only among researchers, but with society at large (“Science Communication Is How Society Talks about Science,” 2022). From the earliest civilizations where knowledge was transmitted orally and then in written form, to the digital age of today, humanity has benefited from centuries of scientific legacy. This legacy shapes not only how we learn, but also how we see and interpret the world (Rasekoala & Orthia, 2020). 

Democratisation of Academic Science Communication 

Communication between scientists has always been part of academic practice, reinforcing the perception of an inward-looking and exclusive academic world. With its jargon and technical terminology, academia has created an ever-widening communication gap between itself and the public (Hutchins, 2020). In response, efforts to disseminate scientific knowledge within society began to emerge, notably during two pivotal periods: the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment (Abt, 2006; Yeoman, 2024).

These two periods saw the advent of printing in mid-15th-century Europe and the vast project of the Encyclopedia (1751-1772), which aimed to ensure that people ‘became better instructed’ (Diderot, 2002). The Encyclopedia combined high-quality scientific texts with illustrations of anatomical, botanical or zoological specimens (Longreads, 2019). Specimens collected abroad by wealthy individuals were initially exhibited in “cabinets of curiosity”, reinforcing the elitist status of institutions such as the Royal Society and European Academies of Sciences founded in the 17th century. These developments, particularly the spread of printing and the rise of scientific institutions like the Royal Society, helped shape new forms of knowledge sharing, including the creation of the world’s second peer-reviewed journal (1665): Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (Yeoman, 2024). Over time, these private collections evolved into what we now call ‘public’ natural history museums, expanding scientific access to wider audiences (Abt, 2006).

Academia’s Challenges in 21st-century Science Communication 

One might assume that academia has since struck to reach a balance between communication among experts and outreach to society. However, at the dawn of the 21st century, within a globalized world with powerful technologies, and pressing challenges such as climate change and emerging infectious diseases (Yeoman, 2024), the academic community has come to realize the limits of a paternalistic, top-down communication that assumes a lack of knowledge in society. Such a dynamic contributed to growing public skepticism towards academics (“Science Communication Is How Society Talks about Science,” 2022).

While academia plays a central role in advancing science communication, it should not shoulder this responsibility alone. In fact, science communication is reshaping academia itself. To be effective, science communication must be rooted in a mutual dialog between academia and society, based on transparency, trust and inclusion. To see what this looks like in practice, we can turn to a range of recent initiatives that expand access to science and foster meaningful public participation.

Pathways that Expand Access and Participation

Open-access platforms such as The Conversation highlight the upside of effective SciComm: By translating peer-reviewed research into plain language, the platform reached millions of readers in 2020 alone. Likewise, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s concise, data-driven briefings in the United States during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic showed how clear messaging can inform policy and sustain public trust (Goodman, 2023).

Citizen science projects push the model further by turning audiences into collaborators. Zooniverse, an online platform that hosts large-scale research projects for community review, has enabled volunteers to help classify galaxies, discover exoplanets and analyze wildlife data (Zooniverse, 2024), while Foldit, an online puzzle game that crowdsources protein folding solutions, saw players solve the structure of a key HIV protein that had puzzled researchers for years (Aleks Krotoski, 2010).

Risks and Ethics in the Digital Age

Social media, however, cuts both ways. On X (formerly Twitter), accounts like @DopeLabs bring rigorous science to users who rarely access academic journals. Yet the same algorithms that amplify credible sources also spread misinformation. During the early pandemic, unverified claims about hydroxychloroquine went viral (Schwartz, Boulware, & Lee, 2022), and a 2023 audit found that 40 % of medical videos on TikTok contained false or misleading information (Micich & Cross, 2023).

Universities are increasingly working to integrate communication and public engagement into their degree programs. One example is Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Science Writing Program, that embeds communication training within Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) curricula. Still, many faculty members see outreach as a distraction because tenure metrics reward publication counts over public engagement (Reincke, Bos, & Marc, 2024).

Commercial partnerships raise further ethical questions. Neil deGrasse Tyson’s collaboration with PepsiCo drew criticism that corporate sponsorship could compromise scientific objectivity. Commentators argue that robust ethical frameworks are essential to prevent such deals from eroding public trust (Strange Notions, n.d.).

Defining Shadowlands in Science Communication

The concept of Shadowlands, as introduced in the article from Geoscience Communication (Krause & Brutschin, 2024), refers to spaces where scientific voices, especially those from marginalized or underrepresented communities, are overlooked or excluded. These gaps in visibility and recognition contribute to asymmetries in knowledge production and public understanding. Building more inclusive science communication requires intentionally highlighting and integrating these hidden narratives.

During the 1980s, scientists were encouraged to share more scientific information with the public, based on the assumption that Shadowlands emerged due to a lack of information sharing. However, further research revealed that Shadowlands often arise from "practices which are not clearly defined and may be harmful to the science being communicated or for the science communicators themselves" (Krause & Brutschin, 2024). These practices can undermine both the integrity of the science and the well-being of those attempting to communicate it, perpetuating gaps in public understanding and trust.

Inclusivity in Action:

In recent years, science communication initiatives have increasingly taken root in regions outside traditional high-income countries, with growing networks in Latin America, Africa and Asia. iGEMers are helping bridge that gap by building communities rooted in local needs and global collaboration. In Latin America, iGEMers recently organized a regional synthetic biology meetup in Spanish to share the platforms and opportunities available for the LATAM community to engage in the synthetic biology ecosystem.

Meanwhile, SynthAfrica, an iGEM Community project, is working to bridge biology knowledge gaps across the African continent, with a focus on region-specific challenges. With the potential to transform areas like medicine, agriculture and industry, the community is also creating new spaces for dialog and connection. Moreover, Biota Talks, another project launched by iGEM Ambassadors for Africa, serves as a platform where people interested in synthetic biology can stay updated, exchange ideas and engage in meaningful discussions in Arabic. 

Beyond iGEM, master’s programs in science communication also play an important role in making scientific knowledge more accessible, and in teaching how to achieve accessibility goals. These programs not only train individuals interested in scientific fields but also target students interested in journalism and communication, who might not necessarily come from scientific backgrounds. They equip learners with the tools to effectively translate complex scientific concepts for broader, non-specialist audiences. 

Notable institutions offering such specialized programs include: Stony Brook University in the United States, which offers a master’s in science communication focused on narrative techniques and public engagement; and, Imperial College London, in the United Kingdom, known for its interdisciplinary approach that integrates science, media and policy. By combining communication theory with scientific literacy, these programs empower future science communicators to bridge the gap between researchers and the public, fostering informed dialog and making science more accessible across diverse communities.

​​Evolving SciComm: Toward a Multidisciplinary and Inclusive Future

Built on multidisciplinary dialogue and firmly rooted in society, science communication, and the academic community that supports it, is evolving to help shape a more inclusive and informed future. As Professor Massimiano Bucchi observed in a 2021 interview with All European Academies (ALLEA, 2022), science communication is “how society talks about science.” This perspective reminds us that as society evolves, so too does science communication and with it, academia itself.

References

From Idea to Impact: Highlights from the 2025 Venture Creation Lab

From Idea to Impact: Highlights from the 2025 Venture Creation Lab

Related Posts