At The Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, located at both Stanford University and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, scientist-communicators are hosting events like stargazing parties and Noches Astronómicas — conversations in Spanish sharing research discoveries and what it’s like to be a scientist. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, researchers and communicators are connecting with audiences on Instagram by filming ninety-second-long videos about topics like quantum mechanics or radioactive isotopes and connecting them to blockbuster films like Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania or The Martian. What do these efforts (and others like them) have in common? Both communicate about basic research, also called discovery, curiosity-driven, or fundamental science. And both draw on a nascent but growing body of insights about communicating basic science.

Basic research underpins the innovations that power the global economy, advances our understanding of the universe and ourselves, and contributes to shaping society. Yet it has been rare to see basic research command much attention, practice, or scholarship in science communication.

Our organizations, The Kavli Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, are a private foundation and a public (federal government) agency, respectively, that fund basic science and support scientists exploring the frontiers of research. Our organizations also care deeply about the relationship between publics and the sciences we fund. In December 2020, we launched the Science Public Engagement Partnership, or SciPEP, a limited term public-private partnership, to dive into basic science communication headlong [Borchelt, Sawyer & Smith, 2022; Sawyer, Church & Borchelt, 2021]. We’ve surfaced quite a few insights on our explorations. But the journey is far from complete, which is why we were so pleased that the Journal of Science Communication put out a call to collect more ideas and scholarship in this area.

What do we mean by communicating basic science? For us, it is a focus on communication of research for which applications are neither a guarantee nor the point. It is also communication by the scientists who conduct such research, communication professionals, and others. It is about making meaningful connections between that research and publics. This “basic science communication” work requires an ecosystem of professionals—scientists, communication professionals and trainers, and social science scholars who study communication and public engagement.

It’s worth noting that basic science communication is a wide-open field: two 2021 reports we commissioned concluded that the body of social science scholarship on basic science communication and engagement is very limited [Besley, Peterman, Black-Maier & Robertson Evia, 2021; Newman et al., 2021]. However, the registrants for two SciPEP virtual conferences numbered over 3,400 and came from around the world; clearly, a sizable and enthusiastic community wants to learn more about basic science communication and test new ideas.

It’s also worth noting that while SciPEP’s learnings are laser focused on basic science communication, we understand that advancing all fields of science and science communication is not possible without centering justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Many groups have been excluded from engagement with basic science [Dawson, 2014, 2018; Judd & McKinnon, 2021]. Their communities have been exploited and their contributions to humanity’s body of scientific knowledge marginalized [Graves, Kearney, Barabino & Malcom, 2022]. Those barriers are ongoing [Volpe, Klein & Race, 2022]. As has been said by many experts, including at SciPEP’s 2021 conference, engagement and partnerships with marginalized groups must focus on relationship building that advance at a pace commensurate with the level of trust.

Our work through SciPEP has led to the following new insights about audiences’ relationship to basic science, as well as the needs and interests of those who communicate basic research:

  • Setting concrete, actionable goals is indispensable for basic science communication and engagement [Besley & Dudo, 2022]. This exercise requires that communicators think beyond the ideas of sharing information with audiences or eliciting wonder. They must determine the change they want to see in others (or themselves) that results from efforts to communicate and engage. Certain communication goals, like encouraging young people to pursue science majors and careers, may play to the strengths of scientists focused on basic research [Besley & Dudo, 2023]. We suspect that articulating any communication goals tends to be more challenging for scientists whose focus is basic research, compared to applied scientists. [Budenholzer, Sawyer, Borchelt & Smith, 2023; Hendricks & Fond, 2023].

  • Understanding emotions that concepts evoke in audiences can help communicators develop strategies to connect with them. In the U.S., scientists and non-scientists feel differently about science [Volpe, 2023]. Publics surveyed largely equate science with hope; they are more payoff-minded and see science as a path to better lives. Scientists, however, feel more joy; they are more process-minded and love the work they do. The hope/joy divide appears to be more pronounced when comparing publics with scientists focused on basic research [Newman et al., 2019]. This suggests that communicators of basic science need to work diligently to learn their audiences’ interests in and feelings about science before they embark on a communication venture.

  • Curiosity is a valuable currency for sparking initial connections with audiences. It is a top motivator for interest in science among adults in the U.S. [Volpe et al., 2022]. However, research suggests there’s no universal way to prompt a jaw-dropping reaction in audiences. Awe, which many communicators try to elicit because they feel it can generate curiosity about science, is a learned emotion that emerges from repeated exposure in one’s culture and lived experience [Silva Luna & Bering, 2021]. Beyond curiosity, wonder, or awe, fostering connections to people’s non-science interests or removing barriers around belonging and identity for marginalized communities might be needed to bring about lasting connections to science [Volpe et al., 2022].

  • Make science relevant for audiences, as it is a mainstay of science communication strategy. Relevance for basic science is often assumed to be synonymous with utility—identifying and talking about potential applications of the work—but it is so much more. Understanding the full nature of relevance is especially important for communicating basic science [Feliú-Mójer, 2022]. Explaining potential applications is key when communicating to certain audiences, such as policymakers [Persons, 2019]. But this utilitarian framing is only one way to connect with audiences. It can alienate would-be communicators who see it as antithetical to the nature of basic research. Moreover, this framing is limiting from a conceptual standpoint. Relevance is connection with people—their interests, concerns, cultures, identities, and more.

  • Distinguishing basic research from applied research may not always be useful [Hendricks & Fond, 2023]. Surveys in the U.S. suggest that few scientists do basic research exclusively. Furthermore, the term “basic science” may not be familiar to many audiences. Providing additional context about the nature of the basic research can equip non-scientists to provide their opinions about it [Funk & Strauss, 2018], though they may not give unconditional support [Tyson, Kennedy & Funk, 2021].

We are grateful to the Journal of Science Communication for pursuing this special issue. To use a basic science communication metaphor (and with apologies to Star Trek), SciPEP has probed our solar system and a bit of our galaxy, but we know a whole universe exists out there. We have more questions than answers, and we are appreciative of the community of experts eager to find answers, and to boldly go where no basic science communicator has gone before. We acknowledge that the community has more ideas than funding opportunities and test spaces to pursue them – but we see this changing. We see a path forward that involves forging more partnerships between scholars who study science communication and practitioners of basic science communication.

We would like to thank the editors and the entire team at Journal of Science Communication, as well as all contributors to this special issue, for their hard work. Get ready. Get set. Go explore the expanding universe of basic science communication!

References

Besley, J. C. & Dudo, A. (2022). Strategic science communication: a guide to setting the right objectives for more effective public engagement. Johns Hopkins University Press. doi:10.56021/9781421444215

Besley, J. C. & Dudo, A. (2023). Basic scientists’ views about potential engagement goals: project report. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/R4AQ5

Besley, J. C., Peterman, K., Black-Maier, A. & Robertson Evia, J. (2021). The (very limited) evidence base for basic-science-specific science communication in key communication journals. Report for The Kavli Foundation as part of the Science Public Engagement Partnership. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/UECXN

Borchelt, R., Sawyer, K. & Smith, B. (2022). Charting a path for public engagement in basic science: a prospectus. Report for the Department of Energy Office of Science and The Kavli Foundation as part of the Science Public Engagement Partnership.

Budenholzer, L., Sawyer, K., Borchelt, R. & Smith, B. (2023). Science communication training: what is needed for basic science and basic scientists? Synthesis report of a SciPEP workshop. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/P7S9R

Dawson, E. (2014). “Not designed for us”: how science museums and science centers socially exclude low-income, minority ethnic groups. Science Education 98 (6), 981–1008. doi:10.1002/sce.21133

Dawson, E. (2018). Reimagining publics and (non) participation: exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science 27 (7), 772–786. doi:10.1177/0963662517750072

Feliú-Mójer, M. (2022). Advancing inclusion through culturally relevant science communication: a perspective from Puerto Rico. JCOM 21 (07), C04. doi:10.22323/2.21070304

Funk, C. & Strauss, M. (2018). Majority of americans believe it is essential that the U.S. remain a global leader in space. Retrieved March 27, 2024, from https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2018/06/PS_2018.06.06_space_FINAL.pdf

Graves, J. L., Kearney, M., Barabino, G. & Malcom, S. (2022). Inequality in science and the case for a new agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (10), e2117831119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2117831119

Hendricks, R. & Fond, M. (2023). Basic and beyond: next steps on the path to effective and meaningful science communication. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/4YJW7

Judd, K. & McKinnon, M. (2021). A systematic map of inclusion, equity and diversity in science communication research: do we practice what we preach? Frontiers in Communication 6. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2021.744365

Newman, T. P., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Chen, K., Qian, Y., Cate, A. & Middleton, L. (2021). Assessing the scholarship of public engagement with basic science. Report for The Kavli Foundation as part of the Science Public Engagement Partnership. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/K93CJ

Newman, T. P., Volpe, C., Lindenfeld, L., Besley, J. C., Dudo, A. & Leavey, N. (2019). Assessing scientists’ willingness to engage in science communication. Retrieved March 27, 2024, from https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/alda-center/_pdf/WillingnessToEngage.pdf

Persons, T. M. (2019). Our new “science & tech spotlights”. Retrieved June 4, 2024, from https://www.gao.gov/blog/2019/10/03/our-new-science-tech-spotlights

Sawyer, K., Church, M. & Borchelt, R. (2021). Basic research needs for communicating basic science. doi:10.2172/1836074

Silva Luna, D. & Bering, J. M. (2021). The construction of awe in science communication. Public Understanding of Science 30 (1), 2–15. doi:10.1177/0963662520963256

Tyson, A., Kennedy, B. & Funk, C. (2021). Gen Z, Millennials stand out for climate change activism, social media engagement with issue. Retrieved March 27, 2024, from https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2021/05/PS_2021.05.26_climate-and-generations_REPORT.pdf

Volpe, C. (2023). Communicating about basic science: evidence-based recommendations for more effective communication with the public about basic scientific research. Report for The Kavli Foundation as part of the Science Public Engagement Partnership. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/3K6YU

Volpe, C., Klein, E. & Race, M. (2022). Americans’ motivations for and barriers to engaging with science: executive report. Retrieved March 27, 2024, from https://astc.nelmediadev.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Slide-deck-Engaging-with-science-webinar.pdf

About the authors

Keegan Sawyer, Ph.D., is the Project Director of Science of Science Communication on contract with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science. She is a boundary spanner with knowledge, passion, and skill for integrating scientific knowledge, broader expertise, and lived experiences to nurture a healthier people and planet.

E-mail: keegan.sawyer@science.doe.gov

Brooke Smith is the Director of Science and Society with The Kavli Foundation. She is a dedicated philanthropy leader, strategist, and catalyst in forging connections between science (the people, processes, and products) and society.

E-mail: bsmith@kavlifoundation.org

arrow_drop_up