CSSC Briefs
The CSSC Briefs take you inside the changing landscape of science communication. Each one explains a single study in plain language, so you can see how media shapes our grasp of scientific issues and apply those insights to your own work.
The more science people saw on social media, the more they expected scientists to speak up on politics, be warm and relatable, show their expertise, and engage with the public. And those who expected scientists to show competence and speak up politically trusted them more.
Science communication doesn't have to mean going viral every day. In a guide for Cell, we lay out six practices, from perfecting your elevator pitch to joining podcasts, that help scientists reach the public, each rated by how much time it takes and how far it can reach.
Only about 4% of science videos on TikTok used stitch, duet, or reply-to. But when creators did use them, scientists and influencers led the way, often to debunk misinformation. Pseudoscience used them too, and those videos got shared more.
When a news story said Black communities face the greatest climate risks, readers were less likely to believe climate impacts are unequal than when the story focused on poor or working-class communities. The backlash came mostly from White readers and people with more symbolic racism.
Being a scientist online is ongoing identity work. Scientists perform for an imagined audience, balance authenticity against oversharing, and women and minoritized scientists pay extra costs for their visibility.
Scientists who posted about rejections and setbacks were seen as more trustworthy, open, and kind than scientists who posted only successes, and their audiences became more willing to support science.
Vivid flood photos made flooding feel more threatening, and that sense of threat moved people toward collective political action on climate. Mentioning party positions weakened the effect.
People saw scientists as more authentic and more qualified than influencers. But among people who distrust experts, influencers were better at prompting action.
Scientists who shared personal details were seen as more likable but less competent. Simply being present on social media still improved how people saw them.
When a scientist joked about COVID-19 vaccines, people were less willing to engage and more skeptical of the vaccines. Humor that defies what people expect from scientists can backfire.
Trust in public health institutions was the biggest driver of partisan divides over COVID-19, and that trust became increasingly tied to party, especially after the 2020 election.
No briefs match both filters yet. Try clearing one.
Add the CSSC Briefs to a feed reader, such as Feedly, and each new brief appears there as soon as it’s published.
