Scientists who engage with the public may have goals about influencing policy or behavior. But they also need to think about the short-term objectives that will help get them there.
Reports of facts' death have been greatly exaggerated. Effective communication jettisons the false dilemma in favor of a more holistic view of how people take in new information on contentious topics.
Millions of Americans believe brown cows produce chocolate milk? The way the media reported this factoid raises questions about science literacy – but different ones than you may think.
Does science have an answer to science denial? Just as being vaccinated protects you from a later full-blown infection, a bit of misinformation explained could help ward off other cases down the road.
Popular programming that focuses on science tends to not actually be all that popular. Bringing in new audiences who aren't already up to speed on science topics is a challenge.
What is the point of science knowledge if you are not likely to use it once you leave school?
Are we in a race against climate change? Or is it a war? How does thinking of the past or the future affect your support for the science? Researchers are learning how metaphors and context matter.
Now that we're in a post-truth world, a timely report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine highlights evidence for what works and what doesn't when talking about science.
Broader goals like building trust, fostering excitement about science and influencing policy decisions don't necessarily just fall into place when researchers focus only on describing their work.
Nobel Prize-winning science is almost by definition arcane and complex. While these esoteric fields have their moment in the spotlight, does it matter if the rest of us understand?
The pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and woo spreading across the world wreaks havoc on those that buy into it.
Just having a national curriculum for science doesn't solve all of our problems.
We view school science as largely a practical subject, but pupils must understand the language of science – which is often very different from every day language – if they are to excel.
Universities may be facing a crisis of relevance but a growing number of academics are tackling this issue head on.
Critics of controversial science like GMOs and cloning often invoke the myth of Frankenstein to highlight the dangers of new technology. But these critics may overlook the moral of Shelley's story.
Making science 'sexy' leads us to keep looking in the wrong place for the things science could do for us.
A bill before congress would create a science laureate position akin to the poet laureate for poetry. But some science stars are already essentially doing the job now.
Most science communication appeals to those who already love science. It's harder, but important, to reach out to the disengaged too.
There is a wealth of science communication going on, but it's still not enough.
Our nation’s future depends on the quality of its thinking and its leaders. As such, science must be at the core of our national discourse.