Science communication has exploded since the COVID-19 pandemic. While Carl Sagan, PhD, MS, was the first household name in science communication, it took a long time for the field to gain traction. But with the advent of social media came a whole new platform for people to discuss their jobs, projects, and passions. It was a brand new way of exchanging information.
So when the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, it was a prime opportunity for those who worked in infectious diseases, public health, and medicine to step forward. It seemed the entire world was listening, and it demonstrated both the thirst and the need for people who could effectively communicate the science. Unfortunately, the natural experiment we all lived through during the pandemic revealed just how profoundly things can unravel when science communication breaks down.
Until recently, science communication had only been given lip service in academic circles. Most universities, while nodding at the idea that researchers should be working within communities to disseminate research findings, have never explicitly encouraged or supported the practice; it's not a skillset that is sought when hiring faculty and is not acknowledged in promotion. That has been to our detriment.
Essential Components for Science Communication Training
Scientific literacy and public trust hinge on the ability of clinicians and researchers to communicate clearly, compassionately, and credibly. Yet, medical training continues to treat science communication as a skill learned informally rather than one that is deliberately developed. Foundational abilities such as storytelling, audience analysis, and visual communication are essential for translating complex biomedical concepts into accessible, actionable information. Identifying audience needs and crafting conversations around these needs are indispensable for effectively engaging patients and non-experts alike. Science communication is not a "soft" skill, but rather how the public comes to understand, trust, and act on scientific and medical knowledge.
If we want trainees to build and use science communication skills in practice, institutions must make space for formal training in the curriculum. Further, institutions must provide support and recognize science communication work within promotion criteria. When full commitment is missing, science communication ends up scattered and inconsistent, treated as an optional extra instead of an essential part of being a well-rounded medical professional.
Communication Skills are Critical for Physicians in Training
The stakes for embedding science communication into medical education are at an all-time high. In 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said, "We need to stop trusting the experts." To add fuel to this fire, a study from Pew Research Center indicates that trust in expertise has not rebounded to pre-pandemic levels. The media ecosystem has become incredibly noisy and as such, it's difficult to know whom to trust and where to turn for good information. However, "A choice is not a choice when swamped with disinformation."
The glimmer of hope is that physicians remain in a place of cultural esteem: Trust in personal physicians remains high. So it is arguably more important now than ever before to be training our physicians in science communication. Preparing future health professionals to communicate effectively with broad audiences is a public health necessity.
There is a need to revise the traditional method of training -- or lack thereof -- in science communication. Clinicians and scientists need to be formally trained to navigate uncertainty and communicate with empathy, skills that are essential for countering misinformation and rebuilding public trust in today's fractured media landscape.
Paths to Science Communication Training
Now is the time for universities and academia at large to make science communication a part of graduate and professional training. While science communication is constantly changing with the media landscape, there are some basic pathways to start with.
Seminars/Science Communication Courses in Medical School
More institutions are beginning to offer seminars and courses in science communication, such as Vanderbilt, Johns Hopkins, and the State University of New York–Stony Brook. Requiring at least one such course in medical school would be a good way to introduce future physicians to the responsibility of communicating effectively with their patients.
Public Offerings
University-wide and even public offerings around science communication and effective ways to engage the public are a good way to connect with the broader university community. Universities sponsoring public events, even virtually, can help increase transparency and enhance trust.
Graduate Medical Education
Within graduate medical education there are various training requirements. Science communication could be one of those training areas with a certain number of hours dedicated to learning and thinking about science communication with patients throughout residency. Didactics, grand rounds, rotations, and adding science communication to scholarly activity requirements are specific areas to consider.
Creating an Experimental Space
Similar to trivia nights at local pubs and restaurants, having a monthly or bi-monthly evening where people gather to hear quick presentations in a public venue is another way to engage with the community. What might this look like in practice? When medical students, residents, fellows, and other trainees complete a research project, they then attend a "Pub Night" to discuss what they did and why it's important to a room full of local pub-goers. Questions and feedback can be provided while workshopping ideas and presentations. It's a unique approach to make the process of science and science communication more visible in the communities where we live and work.
Effective science communication requires training and practice. It also requires building trust, often through humanizing the people behind the science. Physicians continue to remain islands of trust in an ocean of confusion and conflicting information. Science communication is a part of their daily job. We need to start treating it accordingly.
Katie Suleta, DHSc, MPH, MS, is a public health expert and science writer specializing in epidemiology and informatics, with a focus on infectious diseases, graduate medical education, and Medicaid data. Aimee Pugh Bernard, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Immunology & Microbiology at the University of Colorado (CU) Anschutz School of Medicine and assistant director of the Human Immunology & Immunotherapy Initiative.
