Rethinking how we communicate science in a polarized world

If the pandemic taught us anything, it's that knowing the facts isn't always enough. Charts, data, and scientific consensus, while vital, didn't always change minds about vaccines, masks, or climate change. Something deeper was missing: trust, connection, and understanding.

That's exactly what a team of leading researchers argues in a paper published in [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)]. Titled "An Agenda for Science Communication Research and Practice," the article offer a way to rethink of what it means to communicate science in the 21st century.

The key point of the article is that science communication needs to move beyond simply telling people the facts and toward listening, collaborating, and co-creating knowledge with the public.

The authors start with a simple but unsettling observation: our communication environment has changed faster than our ability to adapt. The internet and social media have given rise to echo chambers and "filter bubbles" that reward outrage and misinformation. At the same time, politics in the United States has grown more polarized than at any point in decades. Science, once viewed as a neutral arbiter of truth, has increasingly become entangled in cultural and partisan battles.

Think of how debates over vaccines, climate change, or artificial intelligence often split along ideological lines. In 2000, about half of both Democrats and Republicans said they had "a great deal of trust" in scientists. By 2022, that number had dropped to 28% among Republicans but climbed to 53% among Democrats. When science itself becomes politicized, simply providing more data rarely bridges the divide.

This "corrosive amalgam," as the authors call it, challenges not only scientists but the very institutions meant to support evidence-based decision-making.

The researchers describe two broad ways that scientists and communicators have historically tried to reach the public. One model is the dissemination model, that is, the traditional, top-down approach: scientists share facts, data, or corrections in the hope of improving public understanding or correcting misinformation. It's the model that drives public service announcements, classroom lectures, and many news stories about science. Then, there is the participatory model. This newer, bottom-up approach emphasizes dialogue and engagement. It sees science communication as a two-way street, where scientists learn from the public just as the public learns from scientists.

The authors argue that while dissemination has its place, it often fails in today's environment of mistrust and polarization. "You can't get rattled; just make sure you stick with the science," Dr. Anthony Fauci once said. But as the paper points out, simply "sticking with the science" doesn't always work when audiences are skeptical not of the facts, but of the institutions and values behind them.

Let's see why "top-down" isn't enough. Top-down science communication assumes that public misunderstanding stems from a lack of knowledge, a "deficit" that can be fixed with better explanations. But this assumption, the authors say, overlooks how people actually form beliefs.

Take climate change. For years, communicators tried to increase public concern by emphasizing the overwhelming scientific consensus. Yet decades of polling show that while Democrats became more worried, Republicans often moved in the opposite direction. The divide widened, not because people didn't know the facts, but because those facts became entangled with political identity.

Or consider COVID-19. The United States entered the pandemic ranked as the most prepared nation on paper. Yet it suffered some of the world's worst outcomes, partly because of inconsistent and confusing communication. Early messages about masking and vaccines shifted rapidly, eroding trust even as scientific understanding evolved.

These examples reveal a deeper issue: when people feel that scientists don't listen, or worse, that they look down on them, they tune out.

So what does a participatory approach look like in practice? Instead of treating communication as the final step of research, something done after discoveries are made, it brings the public into the process from the start. This could mean inviting local communities to help shape research questions, working with citizen scientists to collect data, or hosting open dialogues about emerging technologies like AI or gene editing.

The paper highlights how participation can address four major communication challenges. First, uncertainty. Involving the public helps people understand that uncertainty is part of science, not a flaw in it. Being transparent about what scientists don't know can build long-term trust, even if it causes short-term discomfort. Second, politicization: when scientists engage with people across political and cultural lines, listening with humility rather than lecturing, they can bridge divides and depolarize conversations. Third, values: science isn't value-free. Recognizing that moral and cultural values shape policy decisions allows for more honest, inclusive discussions about how research affects people's lives. Fourth, infrastructure: building networks between scientists, community organizations, funders, and communicators ensures that science communication is proactive, not reactive. Waiting for the next crisis isn't enough.

Still, participation isn't a cure-all. The authors warn that too often, "community engagement" becomes a buzzword for token involvement, scientists showing up once to check a box rather than forming lasting partnerships.

True participation, they argue, requires moving from transactional relationships ("we ask you what you think") to transformational ones ("we work together to solve shared problems"). It means valuing local knowledge, not just expert knowledge. It also demands inclusion of groups who are often left out of science, those with less time, fewer resources, or deep mistrust of scientific institutions.

Doing this well takes time, humility, and funding. As the authors note, many current engagement projects reach only the "already interested." The harder work lies in involving those who feel excluded or alienated from science altogether.

One of the most important points of the paper is that science communication itself should be treated as a science. For decades, communicators have relied on intuition or marketing tricks rather than research-backed strategies. During crises like COVID-19, this meant improvising messages instead of drawing from a tested evidence base.

The authors call for more systematic study of what works, and what doesn't, in engaging different audiences. They also urge funders and institutions to support this work as seriously as they fund laboratory research. After all, the most groundbreaking discovery has little impact if it isn't understood or trusted by the people it affects.

At the heart of this agenda is a simple shift in mindset: from persuasion to partnership. Participatory communication asks scientists to practice intellectual humility, to admit that expertise alone doesn't guarantee wisdom, and that communities often hold valuable knowledge about how science fits into daily life. It also asks communicators to recognize that trust must be earned through listening and respect, not just credentials and data.

If you want to learn more, read the original article titled "An agenda for science communication research and practice" on Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences at http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2400932122.