2025/08/18 by Thomas J. Sanger · 1 voice
Social Sciences · Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · #Climate Change Communication and Perception #Genetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
paper · doi:10.1093/icb/icaf149
openalex publication_date 2025/08/18 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/31
The scientific enterprise of the United States is facing challenges on a scale that many living scientists have never encountered. After nearly a century of bipartisan support, the prominence of American science is threatened by dramatic cuts to the federal budget, political interference, and special interests. Although portions of the American public may be generally aware of these challenges, many are not well-versed in what the forthcoming changes mean for future advances in knowledge, our health, the environment, and the economy. Most training in science has focused on communicating the technical details of our methodology and findings to other scientists. Disparate training opportunities and few incentives for outward-facing communication have made many scientists poorly trained to combat the increasingly loud, well-funded, and hostile anti-science movement. In this Editorial, I highlight the differences in how scientists communicate with one another compared to how other professional communicators reach their established audiences and continue to grow those audiences. By describing 5 high-order strategies of effective communication, I aim to lower the barriers for fellow scientists to experiment with new communication opportunities that will reach wider audiences. At a time when anti-science propaganda is running rampant, scientists and their professional organizations should dedicate increased effort toward communicating with new audiences at local, regional, and national levels.