How many people in your organization are contributing to public discussions of critical issues in science?
Equipping scientists and organizational leaders to communicate their own insights is critical to building trust and demonstrating that scientific research is indispensable.
The opinion media is perhaps the most effective way to share insights - it involves huge segments of the public in timely discussions about issues in science.
Fifteen years ago, the American Academy of Arts & Sciences issued a major report titled “Science and the Media.” Pulling no punches, it described what was, at the time, already seen as a longstanding problem of public distrust in scientific institutions:
Mistrust in scientists and/or the scientific enterprise has been noted elsewhere by many observers (Royal Society, 1985; House of Lords, 2000), leading some communications researchers to postulate that scientists are beginning to develop a culture of “institutional neurosis” (Bauer et al., 2007) about having lost the public’s mandate. The response has been the propagation of myriad schemes for harnessing the presumed power of glitzy advertising firms to “sell” science the way they might hawk a political candidate or promote a new clothing line (Nelkin, 1995).1
The authors went on to say that publicity-driven corporate communications, referred to as the “Madison Avenue-driven approach,” had a “dim chance of regaining public trust.” Instead, they urged scientific organizations to go beyond corporate communications to focus on building connections with the public, through dialogue.
In 2020 PLOS ONE published one of the largest studies of science communications practices at research institutes.2 Among 2,030 research institutes across eight countries (Brazil, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, UK, and the USA), they found only half had communications policies.
Half also depended on their larger institution’s central communications/PR team to communicate science externally. In reviewing the literature, the authors found evidence that “at the central communications level, communication of science serves the goals of public visibility rather than public engagement.”
For the record, I love generating media coverage for new science. It’s critically important for the news media to feature stories about scientific discovery. I also recognize the need — and the value — of good marketing at research organizations.
Marketing shouldn’t go away as a function. Nor should visibility and publicity go away as organizational objectives.
But, they also shouldn’t dominate the communications agenda at scientific organizations. And here’s why:
Scientific organizations are immense, invaluable stores of human knowledge. This knowledge is critical to understanding and solving many of our greatest societal challenges. Sharing this knowledge is critical to maintaining a baseline public understanding of science and its role in modern society.
Which means that it’s not corporate announcements, it’s not even new research findings, that most people need from scientific organizations.
It’s the insights.
What is an insight?
Scientific insights emerge from the knowledge and experience that researchers build over the course of their careers. Insights represent a point of view — a perspective — not just an explanation of facts or theory.
At my communications firm, Etalia, we use what we call the ATTUNE model to pinpoint valuable scientific insights. ATTUNE is shorthand for:
Applicable
Timely
Unique
If a point of view satisfies those three conditions, it’s an insight. By communicating it, we offer people a different perspective that they value right now.
Why communicate insights?
When a scientific organization equips its people to share their personal insights, they accomplish a slew of objectives all at once:
Insights expand the size of your potential audience. The potential audience for your corporate communications is small compared to the potential audience for your insights. Insights help people find the answers to problems. What do you think people want more, announcements or answers?
Insights demonstrate leadership by showing, not telling. Who sounds more like a leader: Someone who says they conduct world-class research? Or someone who shares their unique perspective on a critical societal challenge, informed by their research?
Insights are valuable. The world is awash in information, and information has no value on its own. You can think of insights as value added to information. They enlighten, demystify, clarify, give direction, paint the world in a new light—leaving people informed, able to make decisions or take action.
Insights build trust. By sharing what you’ve learned, more than what you’ve done, you communicate in service to others, inviting dialogue and laying the foundation for new relationships.
Insights are interesting. That’s because they involve informed opinion. As Alex H. M. Smith writes in his excellent book No Bullsh*t Strategy, “While facts are dull, one-dimensional lifeless things, opinions are more concerned with the way facts interact. The space between the facts, if you like. And that’s where insight is to be found.”
And yes: insights provide great marketing collateral. See marketing experts Bruce Rogers and Stephen Diorio in their white paper, Using Thought Leadership to Grow: “One original, compelling and well-supported insight can outperform an avalanche of content marketing.”3
You can find valuable insights at every organizational level.
In my consulting work, I help leaders overseeing some of the world's critical enterprises in health and science: a director-general, a surgeon-general, heads of state, CEOs of some of the biggest multinational companies. Our objective is often to pinpoint, develop and communicate their insights.
But you don’t have to be a household name, or steering a multibillion dollar enterprise, to communicate your insights —including through major news media. I’ve done the same work with early-career staff researchers, disease survivors, and individual faculty.
In fact, while executives and administrators often have a keen understanding of the strategic value of public relations, it’s often the people working deeper within the organization — on the front lines, in the trenches, however you want to think about it — who hold specific, concrete, nuanced insights that speak to realities and challenges on the ground. Insights that are innovative, often brilliantly defy conventional wisdom, and are relevant for large swaths of the public.
Imagine, for example, how insights from a pharmaceutical CEO would be different than insights from a scientist administering clinical trials and working directly with enrolled patients. Think about how a university president’s insights would differ from an admissions officer and how their insights would differ from a faculty or even student researcher.
None of their insights are necessarily superior to the others, because their value is entirely contextual. Their insights are simply different, complementary even, and when communicated they serve the needs of — and build connection with — different types of people.
That’s why it’s so important for scientific organizations to think expansively about their communications approach, and the opportunities they can gain by equipping people across the organization to communicate. It’s all the more critical at a time when health and science are experiencing seismic disruptions. Now is not the time for communications retrenchment. It’s time to exponentially expand engagement. To flood the zone with scientific insight.
When it comes to communicating scientific insights, the opinion media is unlike any other. It’s why heads of state and elected officials, CEOs, academics, and leading scientific and policy experts regularly publish Op-Ed articles.
Unlike traditional media, you are the author of the article, not a journalist. This means you get to lay out your own perspective. Because Op-Eds give you the equivalent of a full page or two, they’re ideal for communicating the nuanced insights that advance public discussion of scientific issues.
And the best part? Anyone can learn to write, publish and use Op-Eds to spark dialogue and deepen connections with people who have a stake in scientific progress.
If this resonates with you, I’d like to invite you to Etalia’s free upcoming training:
From Data to Dialogue: How Scientists Can Drive Change Through Op-Eds Wednesday, March 12, 2025, at 12 pm EST.
Click here for more information or to sign up directly through this form.
National Academy of Arts & Sciences. Science and the Media. 2010.
Entradas M, Bauer MW, O’Muircheartaigh C, et al. 2020. Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility? PLOS ONE.
Using Thought Leadership to Grow. 2015. Forbes Insights.
Ohhh, I just made the connection between your communications model and the title of your newsletter. Took me a minute. Smart!