Science Communication 2.0 — What It Means to Translate Research in the Digital Era
When I spoke at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, I shared the shift I see happening in how we share science. We’ve moved from one-way broadcasts to an era of ongoing conversation, process-sharing, and real-time engagement.
If you’re a researcher, communicator, or someone who wants to bring science closer to people who aren’t scientists, here’s what actually matters now and what you can do about it.
The shift from 1.0 to 2.0
Science communication used to be top-down.
Books, journal articles, and broadcast media created a ladder: you climbed it, published, and the public consumed. The digital era changes that.
Platforms and tools now let people reach wide audiences without the same financial gatekeeping, and increasingly, audiences want to see the process, not just polished conclusions.
At UMB I laid out three practical ways this plays out:
Reach is different. You can talk to more people than ever before, but you can only keep them engaged if you speak to what they care about.
Frequency matters. People want to come along as work happens, so show them the incremental progress, failure, pivots, and small wins.
Process beats perfection. Showing how you work invites others in and makes science feel more accessible.
4 commitments for science communicators today
These are ways I proposed to make SciComm 2.0 practical instead of aspirational.
1. Be audience-first.
Start by asking: who am I talking to, and what do they already know or care about?
That shapes your tone, the visuals, and even which anecdotes you use.
No matter who you’re addressing, the language must meet them where they are.
2. Show the process, not just the product.
People are excited by how things are made.
Do you ever find yourself watching timelapse videos of someone cooking, drawing, painting or something similar?
Whether it’s a short clip of data collection, a screenshot of your lab notebook, or a candid short video of your frustrating day of troubleshooting, sharing your process lowers the barrier to entry for others.
It shows them that scientific work is iterative and human.
3. Publish the minimum viable thing.
You don’t need a 60-minute lecture to start.
A 60-second clip, a one-paragraph explainer, or a simple thread that links to a transcript are all valid outputs.
Creating something small beats perfection paralysis.
4. Practice humility and iterative learning.
Be clear about uncertainty. If your message can change with new evidence, say so. Changing your mind is a strength in research; communicate it as such. That honesty builds trust.
Micro-assignments: Try this week
If you want to act on the talk, try one of these small tasks:
Record a 60–90s “what I’m doing today” clip and post it with captions.
Transcribe a talk or interview, then clip one useful line into a short social video.
Create a single-page “process” slide (Canva) that shows your workflow and share it in a post.
These are the kinds of exercises I’ll be doing alongside folks in the Creative Corner this year.
The recording of this event is available in the learning community.