Directly to the content Skip to maincontent Directly to the footer Skip to footercontent

Focus on science (communication)

Media Technology and Society Media Technology and Society Media Technology and Society

Focus on science (communication)

The way scientific research is communicated has changed dramatically over the past few decades. We explore the reasons behind this and the current challenges in the field

A post by Johannes Eckes and Josephine Franz

Friday, 25 December 2020

Science explains to us how the world works. Science communication translates this into a language everyone can understand. Since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, scientists and their expertise have been the focus of even greater public and media attention.

Around 100 years ago, in 1919, Albert Einstein succeeded in proving his theory of gravitational lensing. Whilst the findings themselves represented a groundbreaking revolution in physics, they had virtually no practical use for the average person. In fact, only a handful of people could even grasp the significance of Einstein’s research at that time.

Ignoring the inherent complexity and practical uselessness of his research, the press quickly picked up on Einstein’s findings and thus turned him into science’s first ‘superstar’.

In 2020, this story would be almost unthinkable without Einstein having a press and PR team of at least five people. But how did we get here? How did we go from scientists being viewed as obscure figures who constantly hide away in their laboratories to the same people being treated as the superstars of their time?

The reasons for the strong growth of science communication as a subcategory of journalism, PR and communication in general are simple:

1. There is more science taking place

With more science taking place in general, there are simply more topics to discuss. Furthermore, public interest in scientific research has surged in recent decades, giving rise to science journalism as a subcategory of traditional journalism.

2. There is more criticism of science

Over the past 150 years, the aims of scientific research have not always been for the greater good. Particularly during the Second World War, science was used to develop some of the most gruesome methods of killing people. From poisonous gases and German euthanasia programmes to new and deadlier weapons – particularly the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki – these are examples of science doing more harm than good.

Due to these missteps, scientific research is often viewed more critically by the public (and rightly so!). As criticism increases, there is also more discussion surrounding the public sphere of science and, consequently, a greater need for communication.

3. Communication legitimises

If a scientist does not publish their research, they might as well not have carried out any research at all. Particularly in times when attention is one of the most valuable resources for anyone communicating, publishing and publicly discussing research is essential for every scientist. Admittedly, not every scientist is a good communicator, but that is precisely why science communication exists.

Digitalisation is also changing science (communication)

As the internet has become increasingly widespread and popular, opportunities in science have also changed: knowledge is generated, stored, distributed and used differently today than it was 30 to 40 years ago. This has also transformed science communication. Most publications by scientists can be found online, and new channels and media formats now exist for sharing knowledge.

This creates new opportunities and challenges for scientists. They can network more quickly with other scientists (e.g. on platforms such as ResearchGate) or publish their results on various platforms such as social media or blogs (e.g. the blog of the scientist Lars Fischer). However, this also demands a great deal of time and provides critics with a target for attack through the presence and publication of results online. The pressure also increases when scientists compare themselves with their peers, for example by counting citations.

Science journalism as an intermediary between researchers and the public

Science journalism can be understood, on the one hand, as part of science communication and, on the other, as part of journalism. A science journalist gives science a voice, translates findings into accessible language, and brings together and contrasts the different positions of scientists. Science remains something of a niche topic in journalism and requires extensive research, which is often time-consuming. In terms of science communication, it is particularly important that scientists and journalists develop a mutual understanding of one another in order to facilitate effective cooperation.

Increased demand for information during the coronavirus crisis

Science and communication about it have received a particular boost from the coronavirus pandemic. Especially during the first few weeks of the lockdown, the news was dominated by the coronavirus issue. The public had a greater need for information and wanted to understand the reasons behind the outbreak of the pandemic. In the process, science also came into the spotlight, and virologists such as Christian Drosten, Hendrik Streeck and Alexander Kekulé suddenly became well-known figures in Germany who were regularly featured in the news.

In recent months, reporting on scientific findings has thus spilled over from the sub-sector of science journalism into the daily news. This has meant that findings have had to be adapted for a wider audience, which has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many scientists.

Drosten and the media: criticism of media coverage during the coronavirus crisis

The virologist Christian Drosten, in particular, criticised the fact that this translation of research findings in media coverage was greatly simplified and condensed, resulting in headlines and articles which, in his view, were no longer justifiable. This was one of the reasons why he launched the ‘Corona Update’ podcast in collaboration with the NDR at the start of the pandemic, with the aim of explaining new findings on the coronavirus in detail.

According to Drosten, there was also a strong tendency to personify him and other virologists. In this context, one of the impressions he gained was that the media were attempting to create a dispute amongst the scientists. At the same time, the public gained the impression from the reporting that the scientists were making the political decisions on how to proceed during the coronavirus crisis. These decisions were always made by politicians, who were merely provided with scientific advice.

Learning processes in newsrooms and amongst scientists during the coronavirus crisis

Drosten’s criticism of the media is understandable. In the reporting over the last few months, it has become clear that political journalism operates according to a different logic to science journalism. It often seeks to polarise, to present opposing positions, and frequently focuses on individual people, mostly politicians. In science, however, this logic does not apply: Here, the ‘controversy’ – or rather the discourse between scientists – contributes to the acquisition of new knowledge and is not driven by any ulterior motives. In the course of their coverage, newsrooms also had to constantly weigh up what they were reporting on and whose views they were giving voice to – often without any scientific expertise within their own ranks. Furthermore, the reporting once again makes it clear that today’s fragmented media landscape, unfortunately, thrives on oversimplification and exaggeration in order to attract attention.

What are the criteria for good science communication?

To conclude this article, we have compiled a short list of criteria to help identify good science communication. This list is by no means exhaustive, however, and can be expanded indefinitely based on other sources, many of which are listed below.

Good science communication…

  • remains faithful to the facts
  • highlights the boundaries and limitations of research
  • is self-reflective and critically analytical
  • conveys knowledge in a way that is appropriate for the target audience
  • sifts out the relevant information from the constant flood of new research
  • supports and promotes dialogue between science, politics and society

Further reading and recommendations on the topic:

Back to the project overview