Santiago Gisler

Science communication has never been more visible—or debated—in our society. TikTok videos teach us about black holes, and blog posts discuss vaccines and climate change. We’re all trying to figure out how to communicate science in ways that connect. But how do we know we are doing it right? That is where evidence-based science communication comes in.

Science communication has become more than merely explaining scientific concepts to the public. It now also serves as a foundation for science-based policymaking. It builds public trust, combats misconceptions, promotes equity and inclusivity in science, and even shapes political narratives. I also see science communication as a powerful tool to democratize science and engage the public to participate in discussions that matter in our society.
Science communicators carry a heavy responsibility, but I believe we are up to the task. Still, as with any great responsibility, we should ask ourselves if our communication strategies take us closer to our objectives, whether to inform, persuade, engage, or entertain our audiences.

Luckily, recent developments in science communication have brought greater attention to both its practice and its underlying research, the science of science communication. Yet, paradoxically, researchers and practitioners in science communication rarely interact, and when they do, the dialogue is limited or ineffective. This invisible wall between research and practice weakens our ability to refine how knowledge is shared and limits the impact of our efforts to truly engage diverse audiences.

Along my professional path of communicating science to the public and increasingly more to science communicators, I stumbled upon a concept that has a decent chance of turning this tide around: evidence-based science communication.

Why do we need evidence-based science communication?

Based on my interactions with science communicators, I have concluded that we often start from self-actualizing needs. Science communicators I have spoken with absolutely love storytelling and realize they could combine this passion with their affinity for science. There is something special about sharing important knowledge through storytelling, and getting noticed online can be pretty sweet. Still, maybe that is just my vanity kicking in.

But that feeling of immediate hormonal gratification eventually settles into homeostasis. Sooner or later, some of us will start questioning our impact. Are we actually reaching our audiences and making a difference?

Comedy can be an attention-grabbing and funny approach to science communication. But does it really lead to critical thinking or does it distract from the systems responsible for pollution? [Source: Author]

The infotainment vector we once chose to convey climate change information may clash with our objectives to persuade the audience to think critically about pollution. While humor and charisma can attract attention, they may oversimplify complex issues, or worse, leave the audience entertained but unchallenged. Even the hero’s journey template we use for all our content may fail to resonate with our readers from a different culture. And our well-meaning appeals to recycle and live green may not even reach the actual climate thieves, those whose lifestyle choices directly impact our nature and future.

More than ever, today we need to accommodate multiple parameters when communicating science. Each demographic, topic, and objective requires specific and intentional considerations. Just as researchers diversify and tweak their methods depending on context, science communicators should acknowledge that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to communicating with impact. We should also admit that we probably didn’t coincidentally choose the optimal science communication approach when we first started—out of self-interest.

I’m on a mission. I want to motivate science communicators (and researchers) to apply evidence-based science communication for increased impact and engagement.

Evidence-based science communication extends beyond merely maximizing impact. Applying empirical knowledge enables us to design intentional communication that responds to audience needs, encourages inclusive dialogue, enhances public understanding, and makes scientific knowledge more accessible. It can diversify who gets heard and how, and guide our communication to go beyond purely intuition or charisma. When done right, it can even support conversations with decision-makers.

But the value of evidence-based practice isn’t just in what it achieves; it is in how it helps us build a system that can be improved, learned from, and held to higher standards. Just like evidence-based research or medicine, science communication should be something we can test, adapt, and document so others can build on what works and understand what doesn’t.

While evidence-based science communication can help us get the most out of our content, it is also important not to let it stifle our creativity. We can think of it the same way we think of approaches to other fields that deal with public wellbeing, like evidence-based research and medicine.

Evidence-based practices resemble each other

It may seem odd today, but even evidence-based medicine faced criticism during its rise to acceptance in the 1990s. Critics called the approach dangerous and accused it of suppressing clinical freedom. Yet evidence-based medicine encouraged doctors to base their decisions on existing data and reliable interventions rather than merely intuition or tradition. It strikes a balance between individual expertise and empirical evidence from peer-reviewed research.

We can approach evidence-based science communication similarly, where science communicators balance individual experiences with empirical evidence from science communication research.

Take storytelling as an example. Everyone and their dog promote storytelling in science communication these days. These recommendations started circulating in the SciComm spheres after Dr. Michael Dahlstrom argued that science communicators should use storytelling strategically in his famous 2014 publication. Dahlstrom presented examples of storytelling historically, as a means to exchange knowledge, and more currently, in mass media and science.

But while most science communication courses swear by the Pixar model or the Hero’s journey as excellent templates, we have limited knowledge about how to use these techniques in science communication. We know very little about their effectiveness compared with other storytelling methods. Researchers acknowledge that we need more work to optimize storytelling in science communication while maintaining accuracy and remaining compelling.

Evidence-based science communication can highlight nuances when we inform our audiences.

For example, infotainment-styled storytelling, leaning heavily on humor and the narrator’s personality, can help us introduce the general public to science. But it can reduce the perceived seriousness of urgent topics, such as climate, compared with documentary narration styles. Their impact can also differ based on the audience’s culture or first language.

Approaching science communication more empirically may help reduce immediate rejection of scientific facts based on ideological, political, or cultural beliefs. The disentanglement principle separates facts from messages that challenge audiences’ rooted beliefs. It recommends neutral messaging that emphasizes common and familiar goals.

These are only a few examples of how a scientific, evidence-based approach to science communication can align with our objectives as science communicators. They are not some rigid rules that science communicators must adhere to. However, they can inform us of the best practices for our particular objectives. We can then incorporate evidence-based knowledge to complement our current strategies, without necessarily replacing them.

How do we get there? A mutual process

That’s all fine and dandy. But the million-dollar question remains: How do we get to an improved yet balanced, evidence-based science communication landscape?

Researchers and science communicators often ignore each other’s needs, creating a double disconnect. Improving science communication requires a mutual relationship between science communicators and researchers, breaking down the invisible wall between the two to simplify their direct collaboration. The same authors also suggest diversifying the current research methods to include long-term and experimental research.

I recently called for a scientific investment in science communication where science communicators start collaborating, challenging each other, and adapting to new knowledge. A scientific investment means we treat science communication the same way we treat science. We critically evaluate the current research, analyze other communicators’ approaches, and support each other to reach objectives. This also means being mindful and honest about the current state of science communication, including its less flattering features.

We need dedicated spaces and communities that motivate such collaboration to make this vision actionable.
I aim to create that with Ivory Embassy, a place where science communication becomes more scientific by connecting researchers and practitioners. That doesn't mean limiting science communication to academia. Instead, we want to create better opportunities for both sides to learn from each other.

I often picture today's research and practice of science communication as separate bubbles, barely overlapping. What if we merge these bubbles, like a Venn diagram, through intentional actions: reading recent science communication literature, comparing empirical findings with real-world communication, or exchanging knowledge with researchers to bridge theory and audience needs? We build a rapport between research and practice, for example, through online education, seminars, and journal clubs, creating a shared space where knowledge and experience flow more freely between both sides.

Science communication strategies should bridge research (R) and practice (P), while actively involving the audience, recognizing their cultural contexts, amplifying diverse voices, and building genuine community engagement. [Image concept: Author; Source: The Experimentalist]

Researchers can learn from practitioners' hands-on experience with diverse audiences, helping them to refine communication methods for real-world applications. Practitioners, in turn, can use evidence-based insights to improve the accuracy and long-term impact of their messaging.

We build a community for professionals who care about the future of science communication. Just as science-focused platforms bring researchers and communicators together to discuss new findings, we want to do the same—but for the communication process itself.

So, whether you’re a communicator or researcher in science communication, I invite you to share your experience and knowledge with peers (hopefully at Ivory Embassy). It will benefit the perception of science communication, but more importantly, it will improve science, public engagement, and society.

Ultimately, it’s all about continuous, intentional, and informed adaptability. I think that should work.