Cut out the jargon when communicating basic science – Report

A groundbreaking new report provides valuable guidance in a field that turns out to have been substantially overlooked – communicating fundamental research.

The report, Insights and Practical Considerations for Communicating Basic Science, marks the culmination of a five-year study conducted by the Science Public Engagement Partnership (SciPEP), a collaborative effort between the Kavli Foundation and the Department of Energy (DOE) in the United States.

Sharing basic research

The SciPEP journey began in 2019 at a science communication summit at Stanford University in California in the US, where participants spotted a critical gap in the field. While plenty was known about communicating applied science, like research about climate change or vaccines, there was little guidance on effectively sharing basic research with lay audiences. This observation led the foundation and the DOE’s Office of Science to their partnership.

The DOE, as the largest funder of physical sciences in the US, had a vested interest in the field. And the Kavli Foundation, a major funder of basic research in fields such as neuroscience, nanoscience and astrophysics, was well-placed to contribute to this effort, representatives told University World News.

“We want to use our resources in the best way we can, so we needed research to tell us the best way to communicate,” said Allison Eckhardt, acting director of communications and public affairs at the DOE’s Office of Science.

Brooke Smith, the director of science and society at the Kavli Foundation, added: “We wanted to catalyse a conversation about discovery science so that it is more represented in conversations about science communication.”

Scant research in the field

Initially, SciPEP aimed to curate existing evidence on basic science communication and transform it into practical resources. However, a comprehensive literature review revealed a surprising scarcity of research in this field.

“Less than 5% of articles substantively focused on basic science were found in a survey of approximately 2,300 articles in four major science communication journals,” the report states. An analysis of roughly 1.5 million articles in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) journals, found only 43 “involving communication of basic science”.

This discovery prompted a shift in strategy. SciPEP embarked on a mission to generate new insights. They held in-depth discussions with science communication experts, engaged social scientists to understand public perceptions and motivations, and hosted two international conferences virtually – attended by over 1,000 participants from more than 60 countries – to explore how to improve the communication of basic research.

Old and young attended

This multifaceted approach culminated in the ‘Insights’ report as well as a special issue of the Journal of Science Communication dedicated to the topic, both presented at a symposium held in South Africa on 18-20 November 2024.

The Communicating Discovery Science Symposium, hosted by the Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST) at Stellenbosch University (SU), provided a platform to share SciPEP’s findings.

“I’m very happy with the diversity of the participants here – a mixture between experienced researchers, some of whom have been working in this field since the previous century, and young practitioners whose enthusiasm is contagious,” Dr Marina Joubert, associate professor in public engagement with science at CREST, remarked. Her comment drew chuckles from the crowd.

Holding the symposium in Africa was a deliberate choice, reflecting the commitment of both Kavli and the DOE to promoting science communication globally. “Most of these conferences, even when they’re international, tend to be in the Global North. We wanted to help bring some balance,” Smith said.

Eckhardt said: “There’s so much good science taking place in the Global South, and we need good science communication from here to ensure the rest of the world takes note.”

Key insights from the report

• Terminology: One of the key areas addressed in the report is semantics. It says that ‘basic’ science is also known as ‘fundamental’, ‘curiosity-driven’ and ‘discovery’ science, but warns that these terms “may not be familiar to your audience”. Professor Bruce Lewenstein of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York state, argues that “as an historian, I know the label of ‘basic’ science (and the contrast with ‘applied’ science) does not describe a real distinction in science”.

The report advises against “saying that basic research has no application”. Instead, it encourages communicators to focus on the exploratory nature of discovery science, highlighting its potential to lead to unexpected breakthroughs and innovations. Ultimately, terminology “is less important than tailoring your message and medium to serve your strategic communication goals and objectives. It’s okay to just call it ‘science’. You don’t have to qualify it with ‘basic’ all the time”.

• Support: 88% of adults in the US polled in 2022 agreed that “scientific research that advances knowledge deserves federal government funding, even if it brings no immediate benefits”. This finding challenges the assumption that the public is mostly interested in the immediate applications of science.

• Differences: Survey data indicates that, while the public tends to associate science with ‘hope’ for a better future, scientists often experience ‘joy’ in the process of discovery, itself. Communicators need to be mindful of these different perspectives and tailor their messages accordingly.

• Wonder: In his presentation at the symposium, veteran US science communicator Rick Borchelt, a key player in SciPEP, drew a compelling analogy: “A total solar eclipse does nothing for you in terms of utility. It doesn’t provide a health benefit, doesn’t put food on the table. Yet it dominates the news cycle for months because it sparks awe, wonder and curiosity.”


Rick Borchelt, Image: SCPS Photos/Ernest Birkenstock

He argues that, while we can’t always rely on such rare and spectacular events to spark interest in science, we can learn from them. “We can do the same things for all the kinds of discovery science that we do. We may not be as successful, we may have to struggle a little harder, but we can do it.”

• Relevance: Dr Mónica Feliú Mójer, the director of public engagement with science at the non-profit organisation Ciencia Puerto Rico, stressed: “Making basic science relevant involves more than just demonstrating its potential usefulness. It requires weaving scientific concepts within the context of people’s everyday lives and in their experiences.”

• Goals: The report highlights the importance of goal-setting as a first step in basic science communication. Professor John Besley, a social scientist at Michigan State University in East Lansing, emphasises that “goals specify the desired behaviours a communicator hopes to prompt in a specific audience”. By clearly defining their communication objectives, scientists can develop more impactful strategies and measure their success.

• Practical advice: The report reminds communicators that “there is no one-size-fits-all solution to science communication, regardless of whether the context is in the basic or applied sciences”. Each communication effort requires careful consideration of the audience, the message, and the desired outcomes.

The report contains this handy tip: “You don’t need to plan a new engagement or communication strategy alone. Consider partnering with a social scientist or evaluator who could study and even publish about your work.”

Challenges acknowledged

The report acknowledges the hurdles scientists face in communicating their work. A lack of support and incentives for science communication can be a major barrier for scientists. “Discovery science communication suffers from all the problems that regular science communication suffers from, only more so. There are fewer resources, less institutional support, less infrastructure,” Borchelt said.

“We need institutions that provide us with resources, sustainably over time,” Professor Mike Schäfer of the University of Zurich in Switzerland said.

Professor Nox Makunga, a plant biologist at SU, offered a candid account of some of the obstacles she encountered on the way to becoming an award-winning science communicator. “When I started with science communication, I was just doing it on the side. It was as if you’re just doing it for the love of it, it did not count towards a promotion,” she said.

However, she noted a positive shift in recent years. “Nowadays, it’s become quite important because, when you apply for a grant, you’ve got to say something about your science communication.”


Professor Nox Makunga, Image: SCPS Photos/Ernest Birkenstock

Collaboration the way to go

The report offers a hopeful way forward. “Science is cool,” Professor Michelle Riedlinger of Queensland University of Technology in Australia, editor of the Journal of Science Communication, reminded symposium participants before calling for “more research-inspired practice and practice-informed research” in science communication.

Dr Sara K Yeo, who specialises in science and risk communication at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, US, concurred: “We have more questions than answers, so collaboration is the way forward. We need more joint efforts between research and practice in science communication.”

For Borchelt, SciPEP represents a “capstone” for his 40-year career in science communication. He sees the project as a significant step forward in the field. “This is many times more research on basic science communication than existed five years ago. This is not the end of the line but a down payment for the future.”

The report concludes with a call to action, urging the science communication community worldwide to build on SciPEP’s findings and continue exploring the nuances of communicating basic science. “If you’re doing research on basic science communication or engagement, publish to grow the body of literature and share your work in jargon-free ways with practitioners.”