An antibody can cost €3,000 and nobody blinks. Yet the writing that decides whether that research gets funded is often treated as an afterthought. Over the years, I've heard the odd comment that science communication is something 'nice' to have, but the real work, the research itself, is what matters most and that's where the focus should stay (especially when it comes to paying for something). And yes, without the research there would be nothing to communicate. What I think often gets overlooked is that science communication is a real skill that is fundamental to what we do as scientists, and it needs as much recognition as all other aspects of academia and research. You can discover the most interesting bit of science, but if you can't effectively put that into words, then it remains in your head alone. And that is such a loss to the whole community.
Science communication is not a 'soft subject', even though some might think it is. It is generally seen purely as a writing exercise: summarising key findings, maybe a pretty PowerPoint presentation. In my experience, that misses a really large part of it. The biggest thing a science communicator actually does is synthesise very complex data, and that is a skill in and of itself. You first have to read something very dense and complicated and actually understand it, and not just on a surface level. You need to really grasp the key underlying concepts. Having a good background in the subject matter is really important here, and it's why my PhD in molecular biology, whilst not intended for science communication purposes, has set me up well to tackle difficult material.
To give an example from my own background: the extracellular matrix is the network of proteins that holds our tissues together. In a paper, you'd write about LOX-mediated collagen cross-linking increasing matrix stiffness and promoting invasion. For a general reader, that becomes something closer to: tumours remodel the scaffolding around them, making it stiffer, and cancer cells use that stiffer scaffolding like tracks to move along and spread. You lose some precision, but the reader comes away understanding why it matters. Knowing which details you can afford to lose is the part that needs real expertise.
After that, you need to transform that information into something that someone without expertise might understand, whilst at the same time making sure the key messages and framing the researchers want to get across are kept. This is usually where the first snag appears with a client I'm editing and writing with. They want all the data kept in and I want most of it removed, leaving only the information that shows the overall message. We usually end up compromising somewhere in between, but it can be a challenge.
Once you've agreed what needs to go in, you then need to push it in the direction of the audience. You want it to work at the level of the reader, and that will be different each time. If it's for a news outlet, you're writing for a general audience. If it's for a funding body, you can assume some prior knowledge. There is also a difference in writing something that needs to win funding versus something for general interest. Effective science communication bridges those gaps and makes sure your data lands the way it needs to.
I strongly believe that research labs would all benefit from having their own science communication positions. It can't be expected that all researchers are also able to write, to know their audiences and to understand the ins and outs of a funding body. A dedicated person would save time on rewriting and resubmitting, because they could take the lead in making sure the lab's science is represented as well as possible. Students could learn from them how to present, how to edit and how to translate complex ideas: so many key skills that are indispensable to all career paths. Realistically, most labs can't fund a full post, and that's where bringing in external support can fill the gap.
So let's start pushing for communication to be better represented, and not just that, but properly funded. Let's begin allocating research money for writing, editing and translating, because without this, science stays in the hands of the researchers when it should belong to the world. Public money often pays for these studies, so we have a duty to make sure the findings are accessible across the board. Getting research out there can only lead to good outcomes: more collaborations, more interest and science moving forward.
If you'd like help communicating your own research, whether that's a grant, a paper or something for a wider audience, get in touch.
