Elizabeth Holmes (second from left to left) was found guilty of conspiracy and investor fraud in her business, Theranos, after overloading science behind her work.Credit: Nic COURY / AP / ALAMY
The sharing of scientific discoveries requires as much care as to discover them, a fact that I did not fully appreciate before moving from the academic world to public relations. The missteps in communication – whether intentional or not – can undermine confidence and even harm the reputation of whole fields.
I started working in scientific communication as a postdoctoral scholarship holder in the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH), and I spent time at the Office of Policy and Communications at the National Institute of Nursing Research in NIH. When the Pandemic COVID-19 closed non-urgent research on the NIH campus, I decided to start exploring careers in communication. I took a position to support medical and scientific communications for medical research programs led by Congress, which finances American biomedical research. In 2021, I went to public relations by an account role in an agency called Lifesci Communications, in New York; A year later, I moved to specialize in scientific narration at Syneos Health Communications, also in New York.
In public relations, we feel how people perceive a company or a product, working on many communication platforms: websites, press releases, social media and more. In my role, I focus on creating a convincing story to help biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies to communicate their scientific approach to investors, media and consumers. For me, distilling complex subjects in the resonant messages is a welcome challenge.
Whether it is a customer to explain why the science behind its treatment is unique or to fight against the disinformation of vaccines, I found that the temptation to distort, inflate or otherwise of the threshing data is always present, just like the dangers which result from it.
Consider Theranos, the biotechnological start-up in Palo Alto, California. The daring affirmations of society on the blood test revolution aroused public interests and investors, but its refusal to recognize technical limitations or to share transparent data has led to one of the most notorious scandals of science and technology. In the end, the company was closed in 2018 and the founder Elizabeth Holmes was found guilty of fraud in 2022.
“Blood, sweatshirt and tears”: Building a network for black scientists
The repercussions have left the scientists wondering if the advantages of other scientific innovations had been too inflamed, and many called for evaluation by more rigorous peers before funding new businesses. This training effect shows the challenges of poor communication – it can undermine public confidence in legitimate breakthroughs, rotate the facts in fiction.
The temptation to “sell” is present in the scientific communications industry, in which the pressure of standing out could overshadow the responsibility of communicating with integrity. Conclusions of occurrence, cherry selection data or the pretension of proof that evidence does not yet support a fast way to financing or recognition. But these shortcuts have a cost: eroded confidence, skepticism concerning future work and, in some cases, damage to the reputation of an area.
Kisha Greer works in public relations, helping companies honestly and ethically communicate their scientific approach.Credit: Julia Johnson photography
The Leranos lessons are clear: media threshing and secret are a dangerous combination. But how can scientists avoid these traps and communicate their work in a responsible manner? Here are some strategies to sell science without crossing the line in spin.
Define realistic expectations
Science is intrinsically exciting; It offers new possibilities and solutions to pressing challenges. But this excitement should never be done at the expense of honesty. Research is rarely infallible, and modify it by exaggerating its impact or by minimizing its limits can turn around, leading to disappointment and skepticism when the complete image emerges.
A way to define realistic expectations is to ask you: “If this declaration was withdrawn from its context in a title, would it still represent research?” This exercise makes it possible to identify too wide or optimistic sentences, which should be replaced by a precise contextual language such as “research at an early stage” or “preclinical results”.
Another approach is to highlight scientific journey rather than simple destination. Instead of saying: “Based on the first clinical data, this treatment could cure cancer,” highlights the next step forward: “early clinical data suggest that this processing has the potential to improve results for people with cancer. To explore this more, we have launched a phase II study to better understand its effects and expect to see the first results by the end of next year. This declaration highlights progress while recognizing that research is underway.
Clear communication guarantees that the public includes the iterative nature of science. Research is evolving. Define the realistic expectations of the start fosters trust and the enthusiasm that will last beyond the initial titles.
Know the needs of your audience
A message that resonates with a group could fall flat with another. The adaptation of communication to your audience is essential.
For example, if you write a subsidy request for research on STEM cell responses to brain trauma (TBI), focus on feasibility, potential impact and measurable objectives to show how the work could fill a gap in TBI treatments. When you present your results at a scientific conference, highlight the methodologies and technical details underlying your results. Discuss, for example, which imaging techniques have been used to follow the integration of stem cells and quantification strategies for stem cell responses.
If, instead, you communicate to the general public, focus on the reason why your research is important to society and what people can expect accordingly. Avoid boring them with too much technical details. This may require simplifying your message, so that more people can understand it: “My research explores how the brain can be cured using its own cells to repair damage.”
By aligning your message with the needs of your audience, you can prevent misunderstandings and make sure that the most relevant information has come. Clear and targeted messaging strengthens credibility, creating a base for long -term commitment.
Use data transparently to establish confidence
Transparency is more than an ethical responsibility; It is the foundation of confidence. People respect honesty, especially when it includes uncertainties and setbacks.
The data is at the heart of science and must be used in a thoughtful and generously used way to support your points. The highlighting of only favorable results can give a biased image of research, which led the public to overestimate its impact. Instead, aim for a balanced view, showing both support and contrasting data and recognizing all limits.
When you prepare to present data, I often start by asking: “What is the most important to remember and what context does the public need it to fully understand it?” For example, if a study on Parkinson’s disease has shown positive results in a small sub-group of participants with a light neurocognitive decline but mixed results in the global study group, develop your messaging to reflect this variability.
Underline how the results added to the scientific understanding of the disease. Rather than focusing only on the positive results found in the sub-group, this approach provides the context necessary to position the study as an important step without overestimating its immediate implications for people with Parkinson.
Such transparency strengthens confidence with your audience and amplifies the impact of your science.