Abstract:
As misinformation spreads rapidly online, fostering trust in science requires an ecosystem-wide approach to scientific communication. This panel explores how open science (OS), transparent research practices, and collaborative communication across institutions, media, and the public can strengthen the integrity and accessibility of scientific knowledge. Panelists will discuss how coordinated efforts can better connect science and society, how OS can help counter misinformation, and what strategies can ensure that credible scientific information reaches audiences beyond the academic circle.

Summary of Conversations

The discussion centered on developing a coordinated, ecosystem-wide approach to disseminating trustworthy information in an era of rapid misinformation. A core theme was the critical distinction between peer-to-peer scientific communication and public-facing science communication, necessitating different skill sets and modalities. Institutions bear a shared responsibility: academia should integrate practical communication training ; publishing should enhance transparency through tools like open peer review and simple language abstracts ; and public engagement centers must foster early curiosity and trust in the scientific process through engaging, hands-on experiences. Effective public messaging requires moving past technical jargon and abstract facts to utilize analogies and storytelling , and crucially, framing science to resonate with the specific values and everyday concerns of diverse public audiences. The ultimate success of the effort depends on partnerships relying on the diverse strengths of all stakeholders.

Take Away Messages/Current Status of Challenges

• The proliferation of misinformation poses a significant and escalating challenge, making the transparent communication of trustworthy science more critical than ever before.
• Integrating dedicated science communication courses into university science programs faces institutional barriers due to an internal focus on “hard science” and the perceived difficulty of fitting interdisciplinary training into rigid curricula.
• A persistent confusion exists within scientific communities between rigorous scientific communication (peer-to-peer reporting) and effective science communication (public outreach), leading to insufficient training in public engagement skills.
• The use of specialized technical jargon in research often renders complex scientific findings unintelligible to the general public, and specific terms like “theory” are easily misinterpreted and dismissed as mere speculation.
• A traditional “deficit model,” which involves lecturing the public from an “ivory tower” position, is actively counterproductive as audiences generally resist being talked down to in a condescending manner.
• A fundamental disconnect exists in values, as scientists prioritize academic rigor, while public audiences prioritize how scientific issues directly impact their livelihoods and daily lives.
• Ineffective or “bad” science communication carries the significant risk of doing more harm than good, potentially eroding, rather than building, the public’s essential trust in science.
• Collaboration between necessary ecosystem partners is often hindered because the infrastructural connections (“the arrows”) between researchers, publishers, and public centers are frequently unmandated and unfunded.

Recommendations/Next Steps

• Establish mandatory, embedded science communication courses across all university science programs to ensure that every undergraduate science student develops core public outreach and engagement skills.
• Formally adopt the “engagement model” for public outreach, positioning scientists and public audiences as equal partners in a constructive dialogue to foster mutual understanding and trust.
• Strategically frame all scientific messaging to align directly with the core values and practical concerns of the target audience, ensuring the information resonates and demonstrates its relevance to their lives.
• Replace technical jargon and complex explanations with accessible language, evocative analogies (e.g., water wheel metaphor), and compelling, dynamic storytelling arcs to convey the “gist” of the science without distortion.
• Publishers must fully embrace Open Access and enhance article accessibility by mandating open peer review and promoting supplemental tools like simple language abstracts, graphical summaries, and explanatory video abstracts.
• Funders and institutions should recognize public engagement centers as critical knowledge mobilization partners, supporting the creation of safe, joyful, and hands-on environments to build foundational trust in the scientific process from an early age.
• Foster cross-sectoral collaboration between researchers, publishers, and communicators, acknowledging and relying on the complementary strengths of each entity to build a resilient and coordinated communication ecosystem.
• Publishing houses should expand author workshops to include training provided by professional science communicators, directly equipping researchers with the essential skills required for public-facing communication.