The COVID-19 pandemic exposed a pressing need for improved science communication by illustrating how easily information can be misinterpreted to create confusion or spread misinformation. Science communication can make or break outbreak responses, yet only 1/3 of Americans believe scientists communicate effectively, and the population holds profoundly different views on science-based topics including climate change, evolution, nutrition and yes, vaccinations. ^{Reference Fischhoff1}

Scientists have mastered communication amongst peers through proposals, publications, and conferences. Discussions within the medical community come easily, as scientists expect colleagues to speak the same language; however, conversing with the public can pose unique difficulties. The advantage of a shared knowledge base disappears as translating complex scientific information into laymen terms is challenging. When they fail to address this gap, scientists appear disconnected and condescending.

The pandemic highlighted countless examples of poor scientific communication, beginning with the masking debate and escalating with vaccine alarmism. Officials initially advised against masking based on incomplete knowledge on the virus and how masks would affect transmission. As more data was generated, public health guidance changed accordingly. However, some people questioned subsequent mask mandates. This illustrates the vitality of teaching the public - including elected officials - about the scientific process and its constant evolution. Guidance changes not because initial recommendations were false, but because experts learned and adapted.

Similarly, poor communication directly impeded the national pandemic response by preventing the prioritization of a national testing strategy incorporating rapid antigen tests. Only recently, 18 months after the lockdown, did federal officials announce a rapid testing initiative. An early focus on PCR-based tests, trusted due to their high individual diagnostic sensitivity, clouded advocacy by experts including Mina et al. who argued rapid testing would provide a high-sensitivity national-level public health tool. ^{Reference Mina, Parker and Larremore2} Experts failed to impress the utility of rapid testing regardless of low individual sensitivity upon the public or governing officials.

Compounded by pre-existing doubts about vaccines based on misleading associations with autism and long-term health detriments, suspicion of government tracking devices, and unacceptable historical racism, alarmism severely interrupted America’s quest towards mass immunity. Previous vaccination campaigns demonstrated the value of community-level approaches in enhancing vaccine uptake, yet this approach was not initially taken. When the vaccine was originally released, a third of the American population expressed concern. ^{Reference Lin, Tu and Beitsch3} While some simply stated ‘if others get it, I don’t need to,’ others expressed deep fears - some were understandable and founded in reality while others were based on misinformation, and still other sets of people doubted the safety of a vaccine developed at such a rapid pace. These opinions were intensified in under-represented communities as individuals found it difficult to believe distant authorities asking for blind trust.

Overall, vaccine hesitancy hindered America’s recovery. Vaccinations plummeted after 50% of Americans were fully immunized. ^{Reference Broniatowski, Dredze and Ayers4} Recently, there was a massive Delta variant-associated case surge precipitated by the large unvaccinated population. Again, communication collapsed, with mixed messages such as respites of masking and social distancing followed by quick reinstatements.

The importance of science communication was similarly highlighted with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Accustomed to seeing ‘95% effectiveness’ on the nightly news regarding the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, many quickly determined that the JNJ vaccine, which was reported as ‘only’ 70% effective, was inferior. Prominently, Detroit’s mayor refused to accept a JNJ shipment. This could have been avoided by thoughtful communication. ^{Reference Broniatowski, Dredze and Ayers4} Although scientists are trained to express uncertainty when sharing formal results, the lay public needs a clear, contextualized message to avoid confusion and encourage action.

Similarly, the Astra-Zeneca vaccine was suspended by numerous countries after reports of clotting. The US similarly paused administration of the JNJ vaccine following 6 clotting cases - or 1 in 1 million vaccine recipients. Studies demonstrated that clots occurred at the same rates in recipients and the regular population, but prominent reporting of isolated incidents understandably generated fear. Although studies indicated the vaccines’ safety, this temporary pause and inconsistent communication produced intangible harm. Even if adverse effects are rare, salient stories lacking context unquestionably remain in people’s memories, increasing hesitancy for the vaccines in question, and perhaps any vaccines at all.

Although each of these situations created public health dilemmas, scientists had not necessarily acted improperly. They simply followed a conservative approach accounting for the existing facts. We can therefore ask ourselves: What are some solutions to improve science communication without sacrificing accuracy?

Partnership

Second, scientists must partner with the media to elevate educated, yet relatable voices. The traditional approach to publicizing scientific breakthroughs has been paternalistic. Experts dictate recommendations for people’s lives. This discourages public accountability and self-investment. Transitioning science from labs to communities requires collaboration with media, government, and public figures. In today’s age, social media outreach is equally important. People don’t like being told what to do; instead, platforms like Twitter allow experts to share thoughts in a relatable, personal manner - if approached correctly with evidence-based communication strategies.

Figure 1. A 3-step framework to improving scientific communication and increasing public responsiveness to scientific knowledge.

Modern science communication should prioritize engagement, as seen when the masking debate was modified to incorporate themes of social responsibility and selflessness. Later in the pandemic, experts increasingly focused on providing context to the public. For example, to reduce vaccine hesitancy, experts educated people on FDA testing and approval processes. They highlighted activities one could enjoy post-vaccination and contextualized the rate of adverse effects to reduce availability bias. For example, by comparing clotting rates after vaccination with those of contraceptives, reports of vaccine-related clotting and death appeared less scary. Contextualization improves compliance and trust. Looking ahead, this approach can facilitate social progress on key societal issues. Increased trust will inherently lead to public investment in research funding. ^{Reference Bucchi5}