In an era marked by complex scientific challenges, the ability to communicate scientific knowledge responsibly is no longer optional for researchers/practitioners; it is integral to the ethical practice of science itself. Researchers, educators, and practitioners are not only tasked with generating knowledge but also with ensuring that it is understood, interpreted, and applied in ways that benefit society. Yet communicating science varies depending on the audience, purpose, and context. Crucially, the goals, methods, and ethical obligations associated with scientific communication (i.e., expert-to-expert) differ from those of science communication aimed at non-expert audiences (such as public). Overlooking these differences can have serious implications for public trust, policy decisions, and democratic engagement with science.
This workshop is designed to explore these distinctions and equip participants with both conceptual frameworks and hands-on skills for responsible, ethical science communication across diverse audiences. One foundational objective of the workshop is to clarify the differences between scientific communication and science communication.
Scientific communication typically involves highly technical discourse among researchers. It is governed by norms such as peer review, precision, technical language, and methodological detail which are intended to support reproducibility and scholarly evaluation (Kelly et al., 2014). In contrast, science communication encompasses a broader set of practices aimed at making scientific knowledge accessible and meaningful to non-scientific audiences, including policymakers, educators, community groups, the general public, and children (Potochnik & Jacquart., 2025; Campos, 2022; Katherine et al, 2020). These practices often require simplification, narrative framing, and translation of technical concepts into language that resonates with everyday experiences. Recognizing this distinction matters because conflating these modes can lead to inappropriate assumptions about audience knowledge and relevance, potentially diminishing effectiveness or even causing harm and mistrust (Intemann., 2023). Therefore, ethical communication is vital to gain public trust.
Ther workshop will focus on real-world challenges of communicating to diverse audiences. Audiences differ not only in their baseline scientific knowledge but also in their cultural contexts, values, motivations, and informational needs. For example, a community affected by environmental risk may prioritise practical consequences and local relevance over mechanistic detail, whereas policymakers may need succinct, evidence-based impact projections to inform decisions. At its core, ethical science communication requires balancing clarity with accuracy, avoiding oversimplification.
Recent scholarship on ethical considerations in public engagement highlights risks such as reinforcing inequalities, overstepping boundaries of consent, or inadvertently marginalizing certain groups if engagement practices are not carefully designed (Garcia Iglesias et al., 2024). Others call on science communication trainers to actively promote inclusive, culturally responsive, and representative practices (Callwood et al., 2022). In fact, ethical reflection is essential in science communication precisely because it occupies a space that is neither purely scientific nor purely journalistic, and thus requires careful deliberation about responsibility, trust, and societal impact (Medvecky, 2017).
To bring these ideas into practice, the workshop will be highly interactive and experiential. Participants will engage in hands on exercises designed to deepen their understanding of audience analysis, ethical decision making, and message adaptation. Due to time restrictions within the conference, this workshop will begin with a brief framing introduction (10 minutes) outlining the conceptual distinctions between scientific communication and science communication, followed by facilitated small-group activities (20 minutes). Participants will be divided in two groups, (a) group 1 engaging in audience-based role-play exercises practice communicating a scientific concept (e.g., gene editing, climate risk) to multiple audiences such as peers, journalists, affected communities, and policymakers by adjusting language, framing, and providing appropriate evidence and (b) group 2 will work through ethical dilemma simulations (e.g., balancing simplification with integrity, handling uncertainty responsibly) using guided prompts and case scenarios. Each activity will be supported by clear instructions, and facilitator input, to ensure consistency and depth of engagement. The session will conclude with a plenary reflective discussion (10 minutes), where groups share insights, compare approaches, and collectively identify key principles for ethical and effective communication across contexts.
Attendees of this workshop will leave with several tangible benefits. First, they will develop an understanding of the differences between scientific communication and science communication and how these differences shape goals, methods, and ethical responsibilities. Second, participants will gain practical tools for audience analysis, enabling them to adapt communication strategies to the knowledge level, concerns, and motivations of diverse audiences. Finally, they will enhance their ability to recognize and address ethical dilemmas in communication, fostering greater responsibility and trustworthiness in their work. By grounding communication practice in both evidence and ethical reflection, this workshop aims not only to improve individual competencies but also to contribute to a broader culture of responsible science communication. Building on this conference delivery model, the workshop will be transferable into institutional settings through a flexible, modular format. The same structure can be expanded into longer sessions or integrated into existing doctoral training programmes, staff development initiatives, or research integrity training. In institutional contexts, activities can be tailored using discipline-specific examples, organisational case studies, or live projects brought by participants, thereby increasing relevance and immediate applicability.
Facilitation can be undertaken by trained academic staff, research integrity leads, or professional services teams, supported by a workshop toolkit (including slides, case materials, and facilitation guidance) developed from the conference version. Additionally, the reflective and discussion components can be extended into ongoing communities of practice or embedded within professional development frameworks, ensuring that the workshop not only functions as a one-off intervention but contributes to sustained capacity building in ethical science communication.
References
Callwood KA., Weiss M., Hendricks R., & Taylor TG. (2022) Acknowledging and Supplanting White Supremacy Culture in Science Communication and STEM: The Role of Science Communication Trainers. Front. Commun. 7:787750. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.787750
Campos, R. (2022) Including younger children in science-related issues using participatory and collaborative strategies: a pilot project on urban biodiversity JCOM 21(02), N07. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21020807
Garcia-Iglesias, J., Beange, I., Davidson, D. Goopy, S., Huang, H., Murray, F., Porteous, C., Stevenson, E., Rhodes, S., Watson, F & Fletcher-Watson S. (2024) Ethical considerations in public engagement: developing tools for assessing the boundaries of research and involvement. Res. Involv. Engagem. 10, 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00617-8
Intemann, K. (2023) Science communication and public trust in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 48(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152244
Katherine, NC., Menezes, S., Matsuda, SB., Moore, A., Mosley AN, & Newsbury BM. (2020) Science Communication Demands a Critical Approach That Centers Inclusion, Equity, and Intersectionality. 5 Front. Commun. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00002
Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2024) Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. EJIFCC. 25(3):227-43.
Medvecky, F., & Leach, J. (2017) The ethics of science communication JCOM 16(04). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16040501
Potochnik, A., & Jacquart,M. (2025) Elements in Public Engagement with Science Public Engagement with Science (series). (Published online by Cambridge University Press). https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/public-engagement-with-science/75DDD696358F09860520A323F699D934 (Accessed on 20th January 2026)
Walter, D., Ophir, Y., Jamieson, PE., & Jamieson, KH. (2025) Public perceptions of AI science and scientists relatively more negative but less politicized than general and climate science, PNAS Nexus, 4(6). https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf163
Zils, L., Metag, J., & Schäfer, MS. Long-term media effects on public attitudes toward science in Switzerland: A panel survey of the Swiss population. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251400658