Science Communication: New ways to reach citizens and policy-makers in the post-fact world

Science Communication:
New ways to target citizens and
policy-makers in the post-fact
world
Included: Tool Box for
the practice of Science
Communication
Aguado Sánchez. J.
2017

This publication is a report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and
knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process.
The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the
European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might
be made of this publication.
Contact information
Name: Darren McGarry
Address: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Westerduinweg, 3. 1755 LE Petten, The Netherlands
Email: Darren.MCGARRY@ec.europa.eu
Tel.: +31 22456-5278
JRC Science Hub
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc
JRC108673
Petten: European Commission 2017.
© European Union, 2017
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents
is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39).
For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be
sought directly from the copyright holders.
How to cite this report: Aguado Sánchez, J., Science Communication: New ways to target citizens and policy-
makers in the post-fact world, European Commission, Petten.
All images © European Union 2017, except: [Front page, image i], 2015. Source: [Carlton Connect Initiative];
[page 5, image 2], 2003. Source: [The Atlantic magazine]; [page 8, Macfarquhar and Rossback, image 3],
2017. Source: [The New York Times]; [page 10, image 4], 2017. Source: [IFLA]; [page 13, Marissa Sternberg,
image 7], 2017. Source: [One Spot]; [page 13, Erin Schell, image 8], 2010. Source: [The New York Times];
[page 14, image 9], 2017. Source: [Paradoxoff Planet]; [page 14, California Department of Water Resources,
image 10], 2011. Source: [NASA]; [page 14, image 11], 2015. Source: [WWF France]; [page 14, NOAA/NASA
GOES Project, image 12], 2005. Source: [Popular Science]; [page 14, © Jon Spaull, image 13], 2017. Source:
[Climate Outreach]; [page 14, Jeff Cappella, image 14], 2014. Source: [Resource Media] ; [page 14, René
Spitz, image 15], 2011. Source: [Climate Outreach]; [page 14, Spencer Thomas, image 16], 2006. Source:
[Climate Outreach]; [page 15, Marissa Sternberg, image 17], 2017. Source: [One Spot]; [page 16, image 19],
2017. Source: [The Science of Storytelling]; [page 16, Marissa Sternberg, image 20], 2017. Source: [One
Spot]; [page 17, image 22-23], 2015. Source: [Ethos3]; [page 18, image 24], 2013. Source: [Vippal/CIPPEC];
[page 18, Dr Anusha Panjwani, image 27], 2017. Source: [CaSE report UK]; [page 23-25, Compass, image 30-
33], 2017. Source: [The Message Box Workshop]; [page 33-34, John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky, image
36-38], 2011. Source: [The Debunking Handbook].

i
Contents
Abstract ...............................................................................................................1
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................2
1 Introduction......................................................................................................3
2 Why should we trust science?..............................................................................4
2.1 Science communication ................................................................................5
3 Post-Truth era: How is affecting us?.....................................................................8
3.1 What is the Post-Truth? ................................................................................8
3.1.1 Problems ............................................................................................9
4 A new era for science communication.................................................................11
4.1 Storytelling ...............................................................................................11
4.1.1 Narrative storytelling..........................................................................12
4.1.2 Storytelling with images .....................................................................13
4.2 Data Visualisation ......................................................................................15
4.2.1 Data Visualisation and Infographics......................................................15
4.2.2 Video ...............................................................................................16
4.2.3 Presentations ....................................................................................17
5 Science and Policy ...........................................................................................18
6 Map of expertise..............................................................................................20
7 TOOL BOX ......................................................................................................21
8 Conclusions ....................................................................................................36
References .........................................................................................................37
List of abbreviations and definitions .......................................................................40
List of figures......................................................................................................41
Annexes .............................................................................................................42
Annex 1. Infographic of Collaborative Community Expert......................................42

1
Abstract
Science communication is the key for the future of science. The world is living in a post-
fact world where the fact-checking and agility of answers from the scientist are becoming
vital for policy decision-making. Citizens are also a piece of the puzzle of science; the
effectiveness and the engagement of our research will shape futures society.
The scientific community is taking a step towards the creation of new connection models
and tools to reach policy-makers and citizens. These current methods are moving
towards the path of storytelling and data visualisation, which in practise, all scientist and
communication teams should learn how to do. Emotions and visuals are becoming more
popular in the XXI century. Learning how to work with it will make the role of science
essential again.
Therefore, this report provides a tool box with new ideas on how to develop the
competences and skills of professionals. Examples include: how to create a message box
and infographics, how to debunk myths and how to engage with media and other
stakeholders. Science communication doesn’t start at the end of a project; it’s part of the
whole process (beginning till end).

2
Acknowledgements
First, I would like to thank the Joint Research Centre for the opportunity that gave it to
me. Thanks to this job experience, I got new scientific, policy-making and european
values knowledge.
To Darren McGarry, for all the time spent in this project. For reviewing and analysing the
material of the research and giving new ideas to go on. Also, as a team leader, for
spreading the ideas to the science communication networks, bringing back the feedback.
To Serah Van den Brink, for the research support, the review of the draft and her
friendship at the centre.
To Ricardo Blanco Rodríguez and Cristina Vázquez, for all the support and advice in the
creation and develop of the report.
To Kevin Kok-Hang and Emre Ozcackmak for the debates, open opinions and friendship
during their time in The Netherlands.
To all scientists inside the house and outside for their time for interviews. All of them
have been considerate and helpful in the investigation.
Finally, but not least important, to all JRC C.7. Energy and knowledge team of Petten.

3
1 Introduction
“Science is the key to our future, and if you don't believe in science, then you're holding
everybody back” - Bill Nye.
Science is facing new times where communication plays an essential role. Consequently,
the community needs to implement new tools to reach the citizens and the policy
makers. These last mentioned are in need of science-based facts which lead to new
policies. However, they should avoid the current problem of “fake news”.
The aim of this report is to present the current developments in science communication.
In addition, it presents new ways for the knowledge management team of the JRC−C.7.
Unit to communicate science.
This unit is evolving into an expertise community in which communication plays a key
role for a scientist. Their reports, presentations, conferences are changing towards new
practices to make a bigger impact. How is the JRC going to face the new world of
communications? Do they know what it implies? What tools are useful to reach and
engage with policy-makers and also European citizens? What is the role of the KM?
Figure 1. Collaborative Expert Community.
Source: Joint Research Centre. 2017.
At this point, the aim is to reach the targets shown above in order to create a
Collaborative Expert Community. To begin, the Interpersonal Skills, Synthesising
Research, Communicating Scientific Knowledge and Engaging with the public are the
starting point. Subsequently, they can move on to the other targets until the wheel is
complete.
However, before the process of reaching above shown targets can start, the following
questions need to be answered:
1. Is science today in crisis?
2. Science communication today.

4
2 Why should we trust science?
Why should we trust science? And what can science do? These are two questions whose
answer is complicated. Science’s crisis is real, different researches and comments of the
expertise are making aware that a new model for science and tools are needed.
Science finds itself under pressure from two major concurrent and intersecting crises:
One concerns public trust in the evidence […] the other, the governance of science and
the reproducibility of its results (Saltelli & Funtowicz, 2017). In this sphere we state of
and have three main protagonists, the citizens, the scientists and the politics. This report
will focus on the way science is today and how we can work towards a new era.
The relationship between science and society (citizens) is often represented in terms of
misunderstandings, gaps to be filled and bridges to be built (Bucchi & Trench, 2014).
This came because we have been communicating from a primarily deficit model (where
scientists try to fill those gasps) (Illingworth S. , 2017) and the well-known lack of
language, too technical for non-experts. One of the main ideas, after several interviews
with expertise, is that science education in the world should be indispensable since the
beginning of primary school until the end of the studies. This will help reports to be more
rationally than emotionally understood. Now media and public are in a world that follows
emotions rather than facts (post-truth), because at the time to reach the verity, no one
knows who are the true experts (Kahan, 2017). Citizens are key of the future science.
If we take a look to the politics globe, facts are no longer taken into consideration at the
time of policy-making decisions (i.e. Donald Trump’s “alternative facts”). The problem
arise when science becomes an instrument of profit and growth as opposed to an
instrument of evolution (Saltelli & Funtowicz, 2017). Politics are distrusting the scientific
method, as we see in everyday´s debates (climate change, vaccines, GMO…). Some
research has shown that the ideology plays an important factor in the decisions; even at
the time the facts prove their thoughts are wrong or different (Bosetti, et al., 2017). So,
how we can reach policy-makers and prove them that science is a tool in their hands that
can be helpful? How to make them trust in certainty? How can they bring scientific
knowledge to the citizens?
Finally the scientist have always being expected to “sell science” to the broader public to
strengthen social support and legitimation (Bucchi & Trench, 2014). The need to do this
is becoming more and more critical; especially if they are not provided with the
appropriate tools and knowledge on how to synthesize the research in a simple way.
“Science became victim of his own success […] by the exponential growth and hyper-
specialization” (de Solla Price, 1963). In addition, research centres have become closed
buildings with limited or no access to the public. Some people are claiming to change the
science centres and activities of engagement into research facilities, where scientists and
key actors from the general public explore together aspects of research that can truly
benefit from social, artistic, cultural and political ‘perturbations’ […] including the social
impact of research itself (Merzaroga, 2017). However, there are initiatives in which
science centres and public engagement with research centres want to fill this gap. By
bringing science to the public and making them part of it, with museums, science visits
and debates.
Although the point of view of Saltelli and Funtowicz (with all the facts) could sound
catastrophic, there are new voices that are willing to bring light to the science to change
the situation. Which is the most effective way? Science communication.

5
2.1 Science communication
Science Communication (SC) can be represented by ten keywords (Bucchi & Trench,
2014):
1. Popularisation.
2. Model.
3. Deficit.
4. Dialogue.
5. Engagement.
6. Participation.
7. Expertise.
8. Visible.
9. Scientist.
10. Scientific culture.
We should also add “new technologies” and “knowledge”.
Let’s begin with a story. In October 2003, The Atlantic, a long media magazine published
one article of investigation called “Will Frankenfood save the planet?” (Rauch, 2003).
Everything should be correct, but the name choice and the image associated, as Figure 2
shows, are considered one of the worst media science communications works. Why? The
article message was about a GMO research which concluded that there were no risks in
the producing of genetic modified aliments and that it could be a problem-solving system
for food supply. As we see, the drawing of a carrot converted into a Franken-carrot was
giving the opposite impression. The picture is no longer shown in the website.
Figure 2. Article – Example of a poor SC.
Source: The Atlantic.
The awareness of these problems declares that we should take care of the
communication and knowledge of scientist and media-communicators. How we
commence delivering good SC? Everything starts in the beginning of a project. All
projects should have a Commander’s Intent: A guidance to their objective (even if the
objective changes in the process of the investigation). It is shown in some methodologies
called Systematic Review (SR). This type of analysis takes time (sometimes years), but it
is a good way of filtering results and finding what is needed to be found in a research.
These are useful tools for the collation of scientific evidence (Rose, et al., 2017).
The process of science communication should start from the beginning until the end (and
after) of every investigation. Finding the KEY messages and deliver a public

6
engagement (even for policy) strategy should be an issue to all scientists. The influence
is such, that some actual scholarships are making mandatory the use of a minimum of
3% rate of the grant for public engagement (for a £10m project, £300.000 should be
spent) (Cookson, 2017).
The system of the SC is divided into three main stages:
— Scientific Literacy.
— Public Understanding of Science (PUS)
— Engagement with Science and Technology (PEST)
Why the use of public engagement? Because it’s a more open way for citizens and policy-
makers to understand the work and research of science. It also brings awareness, and
influences the world with the fact-based decisions. In the present, society feels excluded,
so the work is to make them play a role in the scientific & technologic system; or at least
attenuate their hostility. The way of engagement is based on the participation, with a
three way communication where scientist and public co-operate and give feedback from
each other (only with dialogue is a “two-way”). SC initiatives should work towards a
model based on dialogue between scientists and the public (Fischhoff & Scheufeleb,
2013). Horizon 2020 can be an example of the European Commission’s framework
programme of research and engage.
Excellent outcomes can be reached through using comedy, art or even poetry
(Illingworth S. , 2017). As seen in science museums (like NEMO, London Science
Museum…), monologues (The Vig Ban Theory) or even at some bar events (Science
Cafés). These are few ways of reaching targets. We also should embrace the digital world
by going beyond the face-to-face to implement a digital strategy. What about using
Twitter, Facebook or even YouTube to interact? This can be also tools to give added value
to your one-to-one events.
Practical advice (Illingworth S. , 2017)
Development of initiatives:
 What and why are you trying to communicate?
You should have your KEY messages and a clear idea of the topic. And, you should ask
yourself for the aim of this communication. What will you consider successful?
 Who are you communicating to?
This means the TARGET. It’s really important, because it’s not the same to communicate
to school kids than politics. Things as the language, examples or ideas change towards
the public.
 What type of activity are you using?
There are many, like traditional journalism (newspapers, radio), live events (panel
debates, workshops, festivals, public lectures) and online interactions (infographics,
blogs, websites, videos…)
 Is there a chance for a two-three way of dialogue? (1
)
 Have you spoken to your institute?
They may give you ideas, network, planning or even the material to make the
engagement more efficient. Also the funding can be an asset.
 Have you tested your initiative?
Asking some experts, science communities or beta-test your ideas can be a good way to
develop your communications and reach more public.
(1
) Three way dialogue: When in a two-way dialogue the “practical engagement” is included.

7
Moreover, art is getting into account at the time of SC building. Visual culture is
becoming an increasingly prominent part of our cultural identity in the 21st century
[Rodríguez-Estrada, Spencer, 2018]. Because of that, we must integrate researchers into
the process of creative creation by giving them examples, workshops and trainings.
Visual elements such as data visualisation, infographics, videos/animations and
presentations are decisive at the time of simplifying the data of the research. In
example, some science museums are integrating art in their expositions (like Bos
Natuurhouse – Netherlands (2
)).
However, without the correct language none of this is possible. The lack in language (too
technical, only for experts…) and journal-writing techniques are being criticised, but at
the moment no one came with the answer to this problem. One way, forgotten by time,
was the ecolacy. Ecolacy is an approach from Garrett Hardin that summarized the
rational thinking in “literacy, numeracy and ecolacy”. Literacy means what is being said,
numeracy means quantifying the problem and ecolacy goes on an extra step to ask the
questions ‘so what’ and then ‘what?’ In a present time, this questions should be made in
the start of the project.
Finally, new voices are asking the science community to take a role into the
communications by “becoming more vocal with the advice and guidance, using
experience to help people to navigate through the turbulent times for science in society
and building a strong civilization” (Rose, et al., 2017). They should be aware that in this
moment, were post-truth facts and fake news are the daily media income, there are
obstacles that they will face.
Scientists are trained to be critical thinkers and sceptical observers. The confusion over
who to trust in the digital era and the attacking of the evidence-based arguments has
taken the community by surprise. Although there are sites, such as The Conversation,
where academics write evidence-based stories and gives different points of view in public
debates (Johnston, 2017).
Science Communication should be delivered by scientist, communicators and even the
public (citizen’s science). More debates and research should be made, but also actions to
start into the practice of it. In my research I could see many discussions, but not
answers or even key point to solve the problems we are facing. At the end, the investing
in communications is a formula that will bring more knowledge, understanding and better
future for the world.
(2
) www.natuurmuseumbrabant.nl/bos

8
3 Post-Truth era: How is affecting us?
3.1 What is the Post-Truth?
Post-Truth
Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in
shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief
In 2016 the Oxford’s Dictionary choose ‘Post-truth’ has the word of the year (3
). At the
same time, the sound of new words as “fake news” or “alternative facts” is everywhere.
All of them are in the same package.
Let’s give an example:
Do you think the next sentence is true or fake? ‘Marijuana Contains "Alien DNA" From
Outside Of Our Solar System, NASA Confirms’ (Hale, 2016). If you read the content, you
may know that IFLScience created it to see the repercussion in the web. With 167.200
web page shares we can say it became viral, but the question is, how many people don’t
know it’s fake? A report says that 59% of all the links shared in social networks are not
click/read by the public (Gabielkov, Ramachandran, Chaintreau, & Legout, 2016). And to
complete the scenario, an average of 46% of European citizens follows news on social
media (Newman, Fletcher, Levy, & Nielsen, 2016).
One of the main examples that are being used is Donald Trump. With his way of telling
stories – not caring about facts – he is getting the attention of many people that actually
believe in the “alternative” facts (climate change, immigration rates…) that he
communicates. Other example is the ‘Brexit’ campaign, full of inexplicable data that,
after the election, was debunked by the experts and Fact-Check websites.
For this report, we found 2 main journals:
— From ear candling to Trump: Science Communication in the Post-Truth World (Costa,
2017)
— Post-Normal Science in Practice (J.Dankel, S.Vaage, & Sluijs, 2017)
“In the post-truth world, facts don’t matter anymore and truth seems irrelevant […] it is
part of a worrying trend, of the increasingly generalized tendency to disregard facts,
ignore logic, and to embrace magical thinking” (Costa, 2017).
So, what is the role of the science centres? Linda Conlon, CEO of the International centre
of Life, published an article asking the centres to help the public to recognise truth in the
post-truth era, making it a ‘key issue’ for all of them. From research centres to
museums.
The Figure 3 shows how a fake new is made:
Figure 3. Flowchart of fake news creation.
Source: The New York Times.
(3
) www.en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016

9
3.1.1 Problems
In times were internet is open to everyone and information is flowing from one corner of
the world to the other, opinions and critics can be upload and spread within seconds.
There are many problems that the science communication is facing nowadays:
— Science answering/Fact checking goes slow.
— Citizens, journalists and policy-makers are not educated to search for facts.
— Everyone (thinks) is an expert.
Is everyone an expert?
In an information that creates a debate in an arguable topic ‘people tend to select the
facts that correspond to the view of the group to which they belong’. And because of the
over-saturation of information the opinions are ‘sustained by many facts, thoughts, and
reasons’ (besides they can be not true). There is a need for more facts and evidences to
change the opinions.
Conclusion 1: ‘A lot of knowledge provides a stronger foundation for our biases to take
hold’.
Conclusion 2: NO. Not everyone’s an expert.
One of the biggest problems/concerns seen in the European context is in the next
presidential elections. The doubt of how fake news is going to affect them is not yet
calculated. So, to confront these alternatives, the EU is taking the race and started a
research action and the mapping of this way of communications. We can find relevant
information in the EU Research Service (4
) or in the past conference ‘EU for Facts’ hold in
Brussels with a panel of experts. This annual conference was an occasion to bring
together experts, policy-advisors and scientist to find the conclusions of the post fact
world and answer the question “What science can do?”
The scientific world have moved tabs and created webpages that checks the facts or, at
least, gives advice as shown in Figure 4. You can find information in:
 PolitiFact (5
) − 10 years makes them one of the references in fact-checking.
 Fact Check (6
)
 The Conversation (7
)
Also some examples of the best post-truth labs: Google lab, Facebook lab & Buzz Feed.
(4
) www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/TD_Truth_Media_PublicSphere.pdf
(5
) www.politifact.com
(6
) www.factcheck.org/scicheck
(7
) www.theconversation.com/uk

10
Figure 4. How to spot fake news.
Source: IFLA.

11
4 A new era for science communication
Science has not stop evolving: It is creating new tools and debating new ways of
communication. Most of the references in the Science Communication (SC) research and
applicability are in the United Kingdom. We will see it in the map of expertise that is
being built by the JRC-C7 Knowledge team and that can be found in the chapter 6.
A new era for SC has become, an era where we must face the actual communication
tools by improving, teaching and getting to use them. And to rethink and create new
ones. Debates and a change in the thinking of the science by society is needed as fast as
possible. If not, the short-term consequences can be more cuts in the I+D+I budgets (as
we have seen in the past financial crisis) and less understanding of the importance of
research/facts in the world’s decisions.
Actual tools that are being develop and are resulting into interesting ways of
communication are the Storytelling, the Narrative storytelling and the Presentations.
There are plenty more, but this research focused into this three aspects.
4.1 Storytelling
To understand storytelling you can see the 5 minute debate presentation (8
) video of Bill
Nye against the creationist ideas of Ken Ham (since 22’30’’). What did he say in 5
minutes? He started with a story about his grandfather; used a well-known TV series to
compare the differences in science; made questions to the public
(participation/engagement!); used the Grand Canyon as example of the life and to
explain how floods happen; and finally, he ended answering the big question with a
simple KEY statement (‘Is Ken Ham creation model viable? No, is not’)
A book recommendation: A short history of nearly everything (Bill Bryson)
These two examples can be good for foreseeing storytelling and the public engagement
as vital for our research and ideas in science. One of the main changes should be made
in the peer-review journals. Without taking the scientific knowledge from them, they
need to use alternative ways of implementing the research into the society, making it
simpler to understand. This “old way” of peer-review methodology should develop into a
new way of communication (as seen in Figure 5). In the next chapter we are going to
show the narrative and image storytelling separated, but both of them should be
together for a more effective communication.
‘Storytelling is knowing your punchline, your ending, knowing that everything you’re
saying from the first sentence to the last is leading to a singular GOAL’. (Stanton, 2012)
Figure 5. Lack of (focused) dissemination.
(8
) www.youtu.be/z6kgvhG3AkI?t=22m30s

12
Short STORYTELLING guide
#1 Don’t commentate; describe.
#2 Use sensory information (by focusing on
smell, touch, sound and feelings).
#3 Fill your stories with emotion.
#4 Edit, Edit, Edit! (Is that important to say?).
#5 Don’t throw in spoilers! (Chronological order).
4.1.1 Narrative storytelling
Think in what you want to communicate. With what language. The methodology involved.
Make a summary. And then, think about who you want to reach. “For reaching targets,
the best idea is to create stories on different platforms. Don’t multiply your story across
media. Instead, divide it into stand-alone pieces and disseminate those in the
appropriate channels”. (Cunha, 2017)
Some keys for your writing can be found in the Figure 6 and in the journal “Narrative
Style Influences Citation Frequency in Climate Change Science” (Hillier, Kelly, & Klinger,
2015)
Setting – A successful narrative relies on a consideration of time and place. The reader
wants to know where and when something is happening. Abstracts were gleaned for a
mention of either time or place.
Narrative Perspective – The role of the narrator distinguishes stories from other forms
of communication. A first-person narrator is a typically stronger narrative presence than
a third-person narrator. In-text reference to the narrator through pronouns such as “I”,
“we”, and “our” was assessed to quantify narrative perspective.
Sensory Language – Language that appeals to the senses or emotions can be used to
create a connection with the reader to the work. As defined by the authors, this includes
narrative expressions of “emotions, attitudes, beliefs, and interpretations.”
Associations – The logical ordering of a narrative through the use of conjunctions to
connect words and phrases results in prose with momentum towards a conclusion or
completion. Common techniques to assist with the communication of phenomena beyond
human scale include developing metaphors or other comparisons to link the phenomena
to something understandable within human scale. (Dahlstrom, 2014)
Connectivity – The use of words or phrases that create contextually explicit links within
a narrative, makes a sense of “connectivity” either through repetition or references to
previous statements. The authors also note that “logical linkages” were also considered.
Appeal – There is the question, of course, of why do we care? What is the point of this
work? A narrative must include some form of commentary, evaluation or “landscape of
consciousness.” Does the work make an appeal or clear recommendation?
Some examples of narrative storytelling are:
 Van Gogh Museum (digital storytelling) (9
)
 U.K Energy Consumption guide (10
)
 More Digital Stories (11
)
Figure 6. Storytelling guide.
(9
) www.vangoghmuseum.nl
(10
) www.evoenergy.co.uk/uk-energy-guide
(11
) www.digitalstories.wellcomecolection.org

13
4.1.2 Storytelling with images
“A picture is worth a thousand words”
This sentence has been recorded since 1911 and is still valid
today, but it can go beyond. The way we use images to explain
our research and our story behind it is also an important fact.
Not all pictures are valid for our presentation. Images should be
well pick by factors that we use to forget:
Public target, topic discussed and our main goal.
We could talk about facts in our brain system that makes us
give different meanings and feelings about a single image as we
can see in Figure 8. This is a tool that is more effective than the
only Text (T) usage, showed by Figure 7. Images (I) are
more remembered than the words in this visually focused world.
A mix of them can be the key (T+I).
Figure 8. Images and brain perspectives.
Source: The New York Times.
“Nonetheless, not all visualisations are effective ways of communicate […] One of the
most frequent (issues) is that communicators of science tend to emphasize the written
discourse, with any visual material being added only as an extra ingredient” (Estrada &
Davis, 2014)
There are seven main tips at the time an image pick comes:
1. What is the purpose? Who is the audience? What are the key messages (goal)?
2. Don’t assume others will react to a picture or video the same way you do. Test visuals.
3. Pair your pictures with words for highest impact and to cement them deeper into your
audience’s memory.
4. Make sure your images match your message.
5. Use genuine, not generic pictures & tell new stories.
6. First impressions matter! Invest the most in the first picture your audience sees.
7. People relate to people in pictures. Choose your subjects carefully.
(Beers, et al., 2013) and (Rancourt, 2017).
Source: One Spot.
Figure 7. Brain time process.

14
Everybody knows that images from Figure 9 are obsolete:
Figure 9. Old climate change images.
Source: Paradox Planet. Source: NASA.
Source: WWF France. Source: Popular Science.
Some new examples, like the Figure 10, are using the storytelling:
Figure 10. New ways of storytelling with images.
Source: Climate Visuals, 2017.

15
Figure 12. Data Visualisation Infographic.
There are multiple places where we can see different storytelling with pictures [1, 2, and
3] This images take time to be found, but can make the difference at the time of creating
an infographic, a video or a presentation. We will discuss this in the following point.
4.2 Data Visualisation
4.2.1 Data Visualisation and Infographics
Book to read ---> Information is Beautiful (David McCandless)
Figure 11. Visual content data.
Source: One Spot.
How do we get knowledge? Reasons why visuals are important (look also Figure 11):
— Research synthesis. We are drowning under a tsunami of knowledge (in-house and
external knowledge). Visualisation is a big part of the answer to this challenge.
— It is an efficient way to communicate. Grabbing the attention with an image is
effective.
— Visualisations make it possible to be to the point of the message.
As we see in the Figure 12, we have
many ways of projecting our data &
research. The most important thing
at the time of making/including
visualisations is to give answer to: Is
it going to give more value to my
report? So What? You can look at the
toolbox to find the way to ask for an
infographic.
We need to remember that
infographics are visuals that tell a
story. Infographics are shown that
are more effective in terms of long-
term memories (Ozdamli,
Kocakoyun, Sahin, & Akdag, 2016).
This can be a tool to reach policy-
makers and public engagement.

16
The Triangle: In every work the
Scientist – Communicator –
Graphic Designer are in the need
to work in team to create the
layout. Communication between
the three components of this team
should be a work-flow, so
misunderstandings will not happen.
If you still think that visuals are not
important, take a look to Figure 13.
4.2.2 Video
Figure 14. Video Data Infographic.
Source: One Spot.
Videos can also make a difference at the time of presenting a project (as show in Figure
14). There are multiple ways of making videos: 3D/Virtual Reality, Animation or Films are
some of them.
Besides is not easy because it needs further preparation (idea, script, making off, post-
production) nowadays we can watch multiple channels about science that, in creative
ways, are trying to reach citizens & policy makers.
Check out these channels: Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell (12
), Minute Physics (13
) or the EU
Science14
. What about making your own weekly research YouTube video? You can look at
this handbook that will help you when you decide to go for a Do It Yourself video (15
).
You will have to answer simple (but effective) questions: What will it look like? Who will
film it? What camera/equipment to use? Where to film? What should I edit? And, where
do I upload it?
(12
) www.youtube.com/user/Kurzgesagt
(13
) www.youtube.com/user/minutephysics
(14
) www.youtube.com/channel/UC1lhGQ0C_OOlaS1rbxlXM5Q
(15
) www.onthinktanks.org/resources/the-power-of-film-do-it-yourself-the-talking-head/
Source: The Science of Storytelling.
Figure 13. Visual infographic.

17
4.2.3 Presentations
Presentations are the main source for giving information by
scientist to citizens and policy-makers. So it is essential to engage
the people with our words and slides.
The long/one-way presentations are dead. A two-way dialogue is
evolving into the three-way communication where the participation
(citizens talking with each other as well as talking back to science
and institutions) is decisive (Bucchi & Trench, 2014). We are seeing
that people wants to be part of the story and the experience.
New ways of presentations:
PETER KUCHÁ {20* images x 20* seconds}
As their motto says: ‘The art of concise presentations’. In this kind of presentations you
only have one slide that will last 20 seconds. The idea is to have a fast/brief display.
Presenters need to prepare a compact show (16
).
3MT (3 Minute Thesis)
The University of Queensland in Australia is making a contest where PhD researchers
need to explain their thesis in only 3 minutes and for a general public (non-specialists)
(17
).
The main factors in presentations are the EDITING & SYNTHESISING.
These rules apply also to the data visualisation and the storytelling (at the end all are in
the same box). You will need to follow 5 tips and also feel confident (at the time you talk
to media, colleagues or citizens). Make your presentations stick to the minds (Borkin, et
al., 2013):
 Structure your content
 Use visuals
 Be picky (in your picture research)
 Don’t read the slides
 Be creative
Pro-Tip: Keep it short. After 30 minutes, the human’s brain gets distracted.
Figure 16. Presentation examples.
Source: Ethos3.
(16
) For more information and examples: www.pechakucha.org/
(17
) For some examples of the 3MT look the Vimeo recordings: www.vimeo.com/threeminutethesis/albums
Figure 15.
Presentations Logo.

18
Why they don’t hear us?
— Speed: they have to make decisions fast.
— Superficiality: they cover a wide brief.
— Spin: they have to stick to a decision, at
least for a reasonable period of time.
— Secrecy: many policy discussions have to be
held in secret.
— Scientific ignorance: few policymakers are
scientists, and don’t understand the scientific
concept of testing a hypothesis.
Figure 20. Policy-Evidence-Delivery.
Figure 18. Why they don’t hear us?
Source: CaSE report (UK).
Source: CaSE Report.
5 Science and Policy
How to reach policy-makers in an effective way so they trust the facts and researches at
the time of creating a new policy? This is the question of the million euros. Yet nobody
has the answer. By using multiple and different types of approaches, we can be a
difference to the policy-making process.
We need to abandon the linear-mechanical deficit (actual) model towards a new model
which recognises the emergent properties of the evidence interface with policy. Actions
should be based on rational thinking and scientific data (Zhao, 2017).
In Figure 20 we can see a graphic made by the
scientific advisors for the UK government in 2017.
With the work of evidence, delivery and politics we
can reach a successful policy. The improvement of
the use of evidence in policy-making should be a
priority. In the EU we find also reports that are giving
the tools. Science Media Centres, museums,
universities and public institutions should also
cooperate. The European Commission should be the
point of reference and the main traffic helper and
controller. Further investigation should be made.
Figure 17. Find the balance.
Questions to make to reach a policy-maker
 Why is this issue important or urgent? What information is necessary to understand the
issue?
 In which stage/s of the public policy process do we seek to influence through the policy
brief?
 Was a problem to be solved clearly identified?
 Is it possible to resume it in a few lines?
 Is there enough evidence to back up the relevance of the problem and the possible ways to
address it?
 How does the analysis made and/or the proposal submitted influence the different players?
Figure 19. Questions to make to policy-makers.
Source: Vippal.

19
WHAT THEY LIKE WHAT THEY DON’T LIKE
Teaching & learning material
Repositories of resources & practices
Information on networking establishments
Recommendations
Good practices
Literature reviews
Theoretical contributions
Empirical research findings
So, in our effort to make our work being an influence in policy-decision we need to move
in the same road as politics. This means: using their communication channels, creating a
network, using some game rules and finding the time and the space according to the
political sphere.
How to communicate? The policy-makers make use of:
— Text-based information: Short or brief documents like flyers or project reports.
— Media-based strategies: Internet, mass media, forums or newsletters.
— Face to face: Traditional fairs, conferences and seminars.
At the time of begin with the projects we should ask ourselves the way we want to
communicate and to whom. Policy-makers like to be informed since the early stage of the
project. We make them part of the process of creation and evolution of the project,
making them feel part of it. Also their main information sources (for project outcomes)
are people in their network, so it can be a good idea to invite them to face-to-face events
and rely on existing networks (such as the National Science contact points (18
) or the
Expertise map (20 6)).
One of the rules that have been developed is the MICE Rule (Mass media/Multi-Channel
strategy, Involvement, Clarity/Crucial information, Evidence). This guideline can make a
better approach to the political stage.
At the end we need to ask ourselves WHEN the time to reach them is:
1. Pay attention to the dissemination timeline
At the beginning of the project make a plan including all the actors you want to reach.
Also thinking in the language you need to use to make them understand and follow the
process. You can involve them with a role such as external observer” or “advisors” or
including them in a project board.
2. Create continuity and sustainability
Based on the active involvement your project can get into other project areas. And after
finishing it and if the results are satisfying it can be spread at a large scale.
3. Know the political time
It’s not the same to approach a policy-maker when in the country there is stability than
when some problems are in the actuality (non-government formation, terrorism…etc.).
Find the time to reach them and the place (it’s not the same to reach them in a science
fair than in a political speech).
(18
) www.scientix.eu/national-contact-points

20
6 Map of expertise
After research, we found necessary the creation of a map of expertise in Science
Communication. With this tool, professionals, museums, science centres and institutions
can find the people who can help them in different situations within a science topic.
The idea of bringing all together came after seeing that in conferences people needed to
network better, and getting to know the most prepared and active experts in the field of
SC. In this prototype we have the point of view in The Netherlands (Figure 21). The main
work, yet to be done, is to complete it in a European scale; and in a future create the
world connection.
This MAP (19
) reunites four main characters:
— SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS EXPERTISES
— SCIENCE CENTRES
— MUSEUMS
— UNIVERSITIES
The next step for the future is to connect with the company ECSITE to build common
relations into this project/tool and get the feed to complete the design (their database of
institutions is very complete). The ideal of the map is to not over-feed it with names and
organizations, only to take those who are really expertise. For the research, the
maximum idea for us was to find a top of 10 people and a top of 10 organizations;
making a total of 20 contacts per country.
One of the key problems we can face at the time of creating this picture is that we need
the confirmation and acceptance for showing the contact details of the expertise. But
with the right papers and searching for it, it should not be a problem.
In a personal opinion, the European institutions could take the position of those
companies who are mediators in the science scale and be the connection between them;
by creating a platform/network of professionals and institutions that will benefit not only
Europe but the reputation and brand of the institutions. Europe has the tools and
institutions (like the Joint Research Centre) to make it possible.
(19
) You can find the map in this link: https://setis.ec.europa.eu/Expertise-centres/
Figure 21. Example of the Map of Expertise.

22
THE MESSAGE BOX
This Message box is a tool to help scientist to filter the huge amount of
knowledge/information from the beginning of the project and from their research to focus
on the essential information. We are not talking about abstracts, because this tool can
develop more opportunities in communication.
You may see this box in many brainstorming activities with other questions or other
characteristics, this one is specially made for the science community. Build-up by
Compass (an American science communication company) the ideal of this part of the
report is to make the expertise and scientists build their own Message Box to deliver it to
the institutions and be an open source of information.
The box changes depending on the moment of our project. This tool can be used anytime
during (and at the end) of any investigation. It needs time, the right questions and the
well-thinking answers to be successful.
At the start of the project you need to think:
 Why I am doing this project?
 What are the objectives?
 What problems will bring?
 What benefits?
 Which solutions could be developed?
 To whom I will do it?
 What is the main goal?
After you answer these questions in the message box, you will find a clear path to start
your research. By being honest and focusing in the answers we can manage a better way
to communicate what we are doing.

23
The Message Box is evolving as your project evolves. Two months later it can be totally
different from the first box we made; there is no problem that the first results don’t
match the first ideas. Also as we are creating our research, we can use the tool for other
purposes, as the audience, the goal or the objectives. The titles can change.
Source: The Message Box Workbook.
At the end of your research/report it is a good way of synthesising in what we have been
working. By searching for the key messages and conclusions we will manage to make
communication about it more simple and effective.
Look at this example:
The ideal is to translate your research paper into the message box to distil your science.

24
The Issue
The Issue in the centre of the box identifies and describes the overarching issue or topic
that you’re addressing in broad terms. It’s the big-picture context of your work. This
should be very concise and clear; no more than a short phrase. It can change.
The Problem
Is the block of the broader issue that you’re addressing in your expertise area. It reflects
your work and expert knowledge. Think about your research questions and what aspect
of the specific problem you’re addressing would matter to the public. The Problem is also
where you set up the ‘So What’ and describe the situation you see and want to address.
The So What
Why are you doing the work? Why should the target (citizens-policy-makers) care? Why
are you talking to them about it? The answer to this question may change from audience
to audience and you’ll need to be able to adjust based on their interests and needs.
Remember that we are talking about two-way communication.
By asking yourself SO WHAT with respect to your project, you will summarize it more and
more, until you have one sentence that can describe all of it, the main essence of the
project.
The Solution
The Solution section outlines the options for solving the problem you identified. When
presenting possible solutions, consider whether the public can influence or act upon. And
remind yourself of your communication goals: Why are you communicating with this
community? What do you want to accomplish?
The Benefit
Here you list the benefits of addressing the Problem—all the good things that could
happen if your Solution section is implemented. This ties into the ‘So What’ of why your
audience cares, but focuses on the positive results of taking action (the ‘So What’ may be
a negative thing). If possible, it can be helpful to be specific here—concrete examples are
more compelling. Who is likely to benefit, and where, and when?

25
This tool can also be part of the start, ongoing and end of a report. When some job is
assigned to us, the project leader or HoU (Head of Unit) with the researchers should sit
down to elaborate hypothesis for their investigation and at the end, find the key
messages to spread into the communication channels.
The Message Box is a framework. As a basic way of making a systematic review
methodology this will also make you focus on what’s more important for your research
and for the future audience. It’s good at the times of writing down the paper,
presentation, meeting, interview… Also you need to keep this in mind at the time of
doing it:
 Support your message with data, but limit the number of ideas. Remember, the
human brain can only take in about three to five pieces of information at a time.
 Limit the use of numbers and statistics, but do include them if they’re visuals.
 Use specific examples, and make them memorable and quick to explain
(audience specific).
 Compare numbers or concepts with something most people can relate to,
including metaphors or analogies when possible. Put in perspective i.e. ‘This is
equivalent to the monthly kW use of 100 house bulbs’.
 Don’t use jargon/abbreviations.
 Lead with what you know, not with what you don’t know. Uncertainty exists,
and you need to be honest about the limits of your research and scientific
understanding.
 Remember: effective communication requires listening and truly engaging with
public in a two/three-way conversation (20
).
An example with some basic questions to make:
(20
) Three way dialogue: When in a two-way dialogue the “practical engagement” is included.

26
1/24 CALENDAR RADAR
The aim of this tool is to give the scientists the physical and online mechanism to collect
the essential events, projects, fairs, and political landscapes into a circular calendar. This
agenda can be personalized and will show 1 to 24 months period (also can be build up to
1-5-10 years). The idea is to have a common tool to divide the projects and to get an
interconnected space to prepare the future researches and events.
Source: EP Science Hub.
As we see in the Figure 1, the circle is divided into 6 portions, each one with one subject.
What can be perform is the dividing of the tool into as many projects as the scientist has;
and inside each project to organized the agenda of it.
Should be an online tool, making it easier to find, change and update. Each point can be
clicked to show a further info of the event and a join click button to share it with other
colleagues. If you need it physically, it can be printed.
Also one of the circle pieces can be a common piece (team), where the HOU or DG can
upload days that can be of interest of the unit.
To discuss:
 Create the website and the online tool
 Elaborate a database of common events (Days of interest)
 Contact the EU Parliament Research Centre to improve the tool into a scientist
way
 Make a survey with scientist thoughts and improvements

28
SCIENCE AND POLICY – THE MICE RULE
After knowing the WHAT and WHEN and the GOAL of our research, we need to follow one
rule that will change our investigation into facts to be addressed to the policy-makers.
Fill the data:
 In what stage of the project I am? Starting – Ongoing – Finalising
 Who is my target? _________________________________________________
 I have the KEY points of my research:
The MICE rule is a tool to help you in understanding and developing a strategy by
targeting the policy makers. Using the top synthesize data and this rule you could make
an influence in politics.
M (mass media and multi-channel
strategy):
Improve the use of mass media to reach the
general public, not only relying on the
Internet, which is of course the first means
of dissemination.
• Policy makers look at the mass media since they
need them to reach large audiences.
• Existing media haven’t disappeared because of
the Internet; they should be used in a more specific
way but they keep their high potential for reaching
masses.
I (involvement):
Stakeholder involvement at early stages of
the projects (policy makers at all level,
teachers, local communities, etc.).
• Policy makers are accustomed to consensus
raising processes, and in those, the involvement of
people is crucial.
C (clarity and crucial information):
Communication should be clear, mainly using
brief messages (better in native language)
and crucial evidence on which policy makers
can build their plans and measures.
• Policy makers need crucial information in order to
advocate certain measures and projects. Due to
time constraints they are often unable to read long
research reports but they still need relevant and
sound information.
E (evidence):
Dissemination strategies should
communicate clearly how theory and practice
can be bridged, for instance between
pedagogical theory and teachers’ practice.
• Policy makers emphasize that pedagogical theory
and research is not well bridged with teachers’
practice. This may depend on several factors but it
is important to shape the message in a way that
end-users understand how research outcomes can
be used.
• We should remember that the first players for
making changes possible are policy makers who
draw up reforms, set out rules, finance projects...
In this times we cannot fall into the “alternative
facts”, the future of decisions are in the true
evidence and facts.

29
INFOGRAPHIC REQUEST
Name of the project
_________________________________________________________________
Date: 02 February 2018
TIP: Will the visualisation give added value to your work, increase impact and
awareness?
☐ AUDIENCE? ___________________________________________________________
☐ MEDIA? _____________________________________________________________
(Press release, Social networks, Infographic, Video, Interactive tool…)
KEY messages (3 to 5 sentences) below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
+ LTT (Line To Take) in case of political sensitive information:
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Links to your data
Summary 
Conclusion 
Specific Data files 
(Approved) PPT Presentation 

30
DRAW YOUR IDEA
Some other points to be taken into consideration:
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
(Signature Coms. Team leader) (Signature of Head of Unit)

31
SCIENCE MEET MEDIA
It’s normal that when you go to conferences or lectures some media is asking questions.
Maybe you are lucky that they ask for a formal interview about your research or they
want to make an appointment. With this paper, you should be capable of meeting the
media and success in your sending message.
The majority of the public get their information about science from the media. The more
important the issue is, the more the public will be likely to hear about it. The good news
is that people trust in scientists and also you can get more sponsors, funding or
collaborations. But for most, it’s not easy, sometimes because they are afraid or they
cannot answer quickly. Some of the commons reasons for not engaging with the media
are:
 I am not an expert
 I don’t know the facts and don’t want to speculate
 It is political sensitive
 I haven’t read the report
 Media lies in the headlines
 I don’t have time today
 I don’t know how to talk with the media
But here are some tips and ideas to bring the communication into an opportunity.
The 3 main points
1. Never give an interview unprepared. Always take time to think about what you want to
say, the points you want to make, and the examples and numbers to illustrate and
support those points.
2. As the one being interviewed you have a lot of control over the course of the
interview. Using your examples, and simple techniques like 'bridging', you can steer the
interview in the direction you would like it to go.
3. Make sure that what you are saying is relevant to the audience looking at, listening to
or reading the interview. What does your research mean for them, why would they want
to know this, or in two simple words: 'So what?'
Before reaching the media or giving answers, you must have some key messages. This
can be divided into the GOAL, the TARGET group and the MESSAGE and the MEANS
(what media we use? Press releases, social media…etc.). If you have an answer for these
three topics, you are on the way.
For interviews or press conferences, it’s good to exercise the control and sympathy, by
preparing ourselves for the pressure and the questions that the journalists will ask. The
“bridging” technique is also a good exercise when media want to get away from the main
message.
No bridge example
- Interviewer: dummy question like: “Do you feel discriminated being the only woman
in the team?”
- Interviewee: bridge sentences: “We are a mixed team that comes up with creative
innovation, so I do not feel discriminated, and I can get along with all men”
- Interviewer: takes back the lead because there is no bridge “So you suggest that a
woman should work harder than men in the field of science?”
The interviewee answers the questions and does not bridge from the question to his/her
own story. The interviewer takes back the lead and continues with elaboration of the
strange question.

32
Bridge example
- Interviewer: dummy question like: “Do you feel discriminated being the only woman
in the team?”
- Interviewee: bridge sentences: “We are a mixed team that comes up with creative
innovation. Our innovation is breath-taking” continue interview about the innovation.
Or the interviewee can say: "I think my feelings about the group composition are not as
relevant as we're discussing the latest research at TU Delft. The research is truly breath-
taking". Continue interview about the innovation.
The interviewee takes the lead and the interviewer follows. This is how you can control
the direction the interview takes. Adding a concrete example makes your bridge even
stronger, which is why you want to have your scientists think about that before they give
any interview.
The So What
The ‘So-What’ question can help to get the relevance in a broader context clear. Keep
asking ‘so what?’ until the right level of explanation has been achieved. Scientists and
journalists communicate in very different ways and styles, and this simple question can
help to align the two and enhance the scientist's ability as a communicator.
As an example, a scientist is excited about the development of a new microscope. So
what? “Well this microscope is interesting for (fill in some obscure fields of science).” So
what? “Well, such developments make it easier to track cells in real time”. So what?
“This gives us insight into, for example, how cancer cells grow”.
Tips for interviews
1. There is no ‘off the record’!
2. Always know a standard ‘pitch’ or concrete statement to be able to deal with surprise
interviews or surprise questions.
3. Irrelevant questions: use the ‘bridge’.
4. Stay true to your own vision (give real examples).
5. Keep it simple, keep it short. And give Emotion.
6. Know presumptions about your field - stay informed on developments that might
influence your field!
If you have a Knowledge or Communications team, ask them. They will help you in the
developing of answers an LTT (Lines to Take) in case of political sensitive questions.
This tool was made thank to the Media Training from SciCom NL and the Science Media
Centre UK. Check out the websites of National Science Centres.

33
DEBUNKING THE MYTHS / PERCEPTIONS
Debunk: Expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief)
For the communication of any topic in science we will face some myths that have been in
the mentality of the people since long time ago. Getting those myths out from their brain
with the facts is difficult, but not impossible. But… a wrong communication will lead to
make those myths glue (backfire effects).
People build mental models of how the world works, where all the different parts of the
model fit together like a puzzle. Imagine one of those pieces is a myth. When you explain
that the myth is false, you pluck out that portion, leaving a gap in their mental model.
Source: Debunking Handbook.
At the time of talking about myths, we must understand that people are not computers,
giving them information without explanation or making it incomprehensible will not work.
MORE is not better.
When you mention a myth, you make people more familiar with it. But the more familiar
people are with a piece of information, the more likely they are to think it’s true. This
means you risk a “backfire effect”, reinforcing the myth in people’s minds.
There are several simple techniques to avoid the backfire effect:
— First, put the emphasis on the facts rather than the myth. Lead with the science
you wish to communicate rather than the myth. Unfortunately, most debunking
articles take the worst possible approach: repeat the myth in the headline.
— Second, provide an explicit warning before mentioning the myth. This puts people
cognitively on guard so they’re less likely to be influenced by the myth. An explicit
warning can be as simple as “A common myth is…”
— Third, explain the fallacy that the myth uses to distort the facts. This gives people
the ability to reconcile the facts with the myth.

34
An effective debunking requires:
• Core facts  A refutation should highlight the facts, not the myth. Present only KEY
facts.
• Explicit warnings  Before any mention of a myth, text or visual should warn that
the upcoming information is false.
• Alternative explanation  Any gaps left by the debunking need to be filled. This may
be achieved by providing an alternative causal explanation for why the myth is wrong
and, optionally, why the misinformers promoted the myth in the first place.
• Graphics  Facts should be displayed graphically if possible.
The SUCCES (21
) methodology
How to make the science stick? How fight the science denial?
 Simple: If you can’t explain your physics simply, it’s probably not very good
physics.
 Unexpected: Use the unexpectedness to take people by surprise.
 Credible: Ideally, source your information from the most credible source of
information available: peer-reviewed scientific research.
 Concrete: One of the most powerful tools to make abstract science concrete is
analogies or metaphors.
 Emotional: Scientists are trained to remove emotion from their science.
However, it can be decisive when we express our passion for science or
communicate how our results affect us personally.
 Stories: Shape your science into a compelling narrative (storytelling).
(21
) For more information, John Cook is an Science Communication’s expert in debunking [The
Conversation/G.M. University] www.theconversation.com/busting-myths-a-practical-guide-to-countering-
science-denial-42618

35
STORYTELLING
Storytelling is knowing your punchline, your ending, knowing that everything you’re
saying from the first sentence to the last is leading to a singular GOAL’. Stanton.
HOW TO FRAME
Your topic: ____________________________________________________
 One idea/need:
 Who is your audience:
 Why is this important to them:
 Goal:
 What medium will you use:
 Opening/Closing idea:
 3 key messages:
 Specific example:
Remember:
Purpose: Starts with one clear idea. Find your story (Why is this topic important to
others? Why should they care? And have a clear goal for your audience to think/do/say.
Topic: Tell it your way. Create a strong opening and closing idea. Use daily examples
and add images.
Complexity  Clarity: Simplicity does not take away the knowledge in a subject.
Know what language you need to use (think about the target). Convey the
importance, urgency and potential action needed.
Watch this TED talks to understand how storytelling is made:
— The clues of a great story (Andrew Stanton) (22
)
— Experiments that point to a new understanding of cancer (Mina Bissell) (23
)
Other examples of presentations can be the Peter Kuchá 20x20 or 3MT contest.
(22
) www.ted.com/talks/jamie_oliver
(23
) www.ted.com/talks/mina_bissell_experiments_that_point_to_a_new_understanding_of_cancer

36
8 Conclusions
The science’s crisis is a fact that we cannot deny. But besides looking how it evolves, new
voices are speaking to bring the chance and create new models of working and
communicating the knowledge science research. Science communication can be a
mechanism for the analysis and decisions of policy-makers, which later on, will make an
affect to citizens. It is necessary to train and improve the skills of scientist with
workshops, trainings, better conferences and by making and sharing networks. The
building of better relations between science, citizens and policy makers will create a fact-
based world in which science is a key competence.
It is also important for the scientist to know the direction of their work in the beginning
of it. Asking the “five Ws” (Why, What, Who, When and Where) and thinking about the
main goal is vital for the ongoing of the investigation. A planning and execution of a
project communications methodology should be made by the communications team, the
project leader and the investigators, so effectiveness in the creation and delivery
increases.
The communication of the results in a way that politics and citizens can be engaged has
brought a new era to science. With the visual, presentations and storytelling we can
reach more people and stick them to the fact-based ideas. With the examples given in
this report, the development of the skills and knowledge in the field of science
communication can be achieved. In addition, SC has many different topics, as animation,
social media, science art or other tools that can be useful. Work and research should be
made by the science community, building up stronger relations between the individuals,
museums, universities and research centres for the improvement of this matter.
The role of science communication is to be part of all the procedure in investigations and
to find the best way to spread the key messages of it. The importance of it cannot be
quantified, but the reality of the post-fact world is demanding us to take part in it,
improving the sharing of knowledge. Science is a process of discovery. Science is the
development of new ways to reach the world.

37
References
Atkins, J. (2016). The Importance of Storytelling in Science. PLOS. Retrieved from
http://blogs.plos.org/ecology/2016/12/30/the-importance-of-storytelling-in-
science/
Balvert, F., Vlasblom, J., & Meijer, R. (2017). Media Training in a Box. A guide for do it
yourself pop-up media trainings (1st ed., pp. 1-12). Delft: SciCom NL. Retrieved
from https://scicomnl.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/media-training-in-a-box-the-
guide1.pdf
Beers, A., Bromberg, H., Brotherton, D., Chameides, B., Fairfield, A., Goldberg, M., . . .
Russonello, J. (2013, April). Seeing is Believing. A Guide to Visual Storytelling
Best Practices. Retrieved August 2017, from Resource Media:
http://www.resource-media.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Visual-storytelling-
guide.pdf
Borkin, M. A., Vo, A. A., Bylinskii, Z., Isola, P., Sunkavalli, S., Oliva, A., & Pfister, H.
(2013). What Makes a Visualization Memorable? Massachusetts: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology; Harvard.
Bosetti, V., Weber, E., Berger, L., Budescu, D. V., Liu, N., & Tavoni, M. (2017). COP21
climate negotiators’ responses to climate model forecasts. Nature.
Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2014). Routledge handbook of public communication of science
and technology. New York: Routledge.
COMPASS. (2017). The Message Box Workshop. Retrieved from
https://www.compassscicomm.org/message-box-online
Cookson, C. (2017, July 6). Science communication: a graduate's guide to growth
industry. Financial Times, p. 6.
Costa, A. G. (2017, January). From Ear Candling to Trump: Science Communication in
the Post-Truth World . Spokes - ECSITE.
Cunha, R. d. (2017, April). Digital Storytellers. Spokes - ECSITE, pp. 2-4.
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with
nonexpert audiences. PNAS.
Davis, A. (2017). Science centres must help public recognise truth in post-truth era, says
Linda Conlon . Retrieved from Attractions management:
http://www.attractionsmanagement.com/detail.cfm?pagetype=detail&subject=ne
ws&codeID=332797
de Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little Science, Big Science...and Beyond. In D. J. de Solla
Price, Little Science, Big Science...and Beyond (p. 301). Columbia: Columbia Univ
Pr.
Debry, M., Lauritsen, X., Hernández, M., Panzavolta, S., Laval, D., & Brandorff, E.
(2017). Tool Kit. Reach Out: Improving Science, Technology, engineering and
Mathematics Education in Europe . Brussels: ECSITE.
Estrada, F. C., & Davis, L. S. (2014). Improving Visual Communication of Science
Through the Incorporation of Graphic Design Theories and Practices Into Science
Communication . SAGE Journals.
Ethos3. (2015). The science of memorable presentations. Retrieved from SlideShare:
https://es.slideshare.net/ethos3/the-science-of-memorable-presentations-
52677808
Fischhoff, B., & Scheufeleb, D. A. (2013). The science of science communication. PNAS,
1-2.

38
Gabielkov, M., Ramachandran, A., Chaintreau, A., & Legout, A. (2016). Social Clicks:
What and Who Gets Read on Twitter? . HAL.
Grahamites. (2015). Literacy, Numeracy and Ecolacy – Filters Against Folly in Investing.
Retrieved from Gurufocus: https://www.gurufocus.com/news/315620/literacy-
numeracy-and-ecolacy--filters-against-folly-in-investing
Hale, T. (2016, Julio 13). Marijuana Contains "Alien DNA" From Outside Of Our Solar
System, NASA Confirms. Retrieved 6 2017, from IFSL:
http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/marijuana-contains-alien-dna-from-
outside-of-our-solar-system-nasa-confirms/all/
Hillier, A., Kelly, R. P., & Klinger, T. (2015). Narrative Style Influences Citation Frequency
in Climate Change Science. PLOS ONE.
Illingworth. (2017). blablablablab.
Illingworth, S. (2017). Delivering effective science communication: advice from a
professional science communicator. Elsevier, 7.
J.Dankel, D., S.Vaage, N., & Sluijs, J. P. (2017). Post-normal science in practice.
Elsevier.
Johnston, E. L. (2017). Why speak? JCOM, 2-3.
Kahan, D. (2017). On the Sources of Ordinary Science Knowledge and Extraordinary
Science Ignorance. In K. Hall Jamieson, D. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele, The Oxford
Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (p. 512). London: Oxford
Library of Psychology.
Kirk, A. (2017, March 13). EU referendum: The claims that won it for Brexit, fact checked
. The Telegraph, p. 2.
Macfarquhar, N., & Rossback, A. (2017, June 7). How Russian Propaganda Spread From a
Parody Website to Fox News. Retrieved from The New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/07/world/europe/anatomy-of-
fake-news-russian-propaganda.html
Merzaroga, M. (2017). Science centres and science engagement activities as research
facilities: blurring the frontiers between knowledge production and knowledge
sharing. JCom, 1-4.
Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Levy, D. A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2016). Reuters Institute Digital
News Report. London: Reuters institute.
Nieminen, R. (2017). 'Radar' tool help EU policy-makers plan for the future. Retrieved
from European Parliamentary Research Service blog:
https://epthinktank.eu/2017/07/14/radar-tool-helps-eu-policy-makers-plan-for-
the-future/
OneSpot. (2017). The Science of Storytelling - Infographic. Retrieved from One Spot:
https://www.onespot.com/blog/infographic-the-science-of-storytelling/
Ozdamli, F., Kocakoyun, S., Sahin, T., & Akdag, S. (2016). Statistical Reasoning of
Impact of Infographics on Education. Elsevier.
Paul, A. M. (2012, March 18). Your Brain on Fiction. The New York Times, p. SR6.
Rancourt, M. (2017). Engage your audience. Storytelling techniques to communicate
your results., (pp. 1-31). Petten.
Rauch, J. (2003, October). Will Frankenfood Save the Planet? The Atlantic.
Rose, D. C., Mukherjee, N., Simmons, B. I., Tew, E. R., Robertson, R. J., B.M.Vadrot, A.,
. . . Sutherland, W. J. (2017). Policy windows for the environment: Tips for
improving the uptake of scientific knowledge. Elsevier, 1-7.

39
Saltelli, A., & Funtowicz, S. (2017). What is science's crisis really about? Elsevier, 7.
Sapolsky, R. (2010, November 14). This Is Your Brain on Metaphors. The New York
Times.
Shandur, M. (n.d.). The Science of Storytelling. Retrieved from Science for people:
https://www.scienceofpeople.com/the-science-of-storytelling/
SMC. (2015). Why engage with the media? Retrieved from Science Media Centre:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/SMC-Why-
Engage-2015.pdf
Stanton, A. (2012, February). TED. Retrieved September 2017, from The clues to a great
story: https://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_stanton_the_clues_to_a_great_story
Weyrauch, V., Echt, L., & Arrieta, D. (2013). How to communicate research for policy
influence.Toolkit No.1: First approach to research communication. Retrieved from
CIPPEC: http://www.vippal.cippec.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Guia-01-
serie-3-ingles.pdf
Zhao, J. (2017). Communication: Influencing policymakers. Nature, 173-174.

40
List of abbreviations and definitions
DG Director General
EC European Commission
EU European Union
GMO Genetic Modified Organism
HoU Head of Unit
JRC Joint Research Centre
KM Knowledge Management
LTT Line To Take
MICE Mass media, Involvement, Clarity/Crucial Information, Evidence
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technologic
NL Netherlands
PEST Engagement with Science and Technology
PPT Power Point Template
PUS Public Understanding of Science
SC Science Communication
SM Science Media Centre
SR Systematic review
UK United Kingdom

41
List of figures
Figure 1. Collaborative Expert Community. ............................................................... 3
Figure 2. Article – Example of a poor SC................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Flowchart of fake news creation. ................................................................ 8
Figure 4. How to spot fake news.............................................................................10
Figure 5. Lack of (focused) dissemination. ...............................................................11
Figure 6. Storytelling guide....................................................................................12
Figure 7. Brain time process. .................................................................................13
Figure 8. Images and brain perspectives. ................................................................13
Figure 9. Old climate change images.......................................................................14
Figure 10. New ways of storytelling with images.......................................................14
Figure 11. Visual content data................................................................................15
Figure 12. Data Visualisation Infographic.................................................................15
Figure 13. Visual infographic..................................................................................16
Figure 14. Video Data Infographic...........................................................................16
Figure 15. Presentations Logo. ...............................................................................17
Figure 16. Presentation examples. ..........................................................................17
Figure 17. Find the balance....................................................................................18
Figure 18. Why they don’t hear us? ........................................................................18
Figure 19. Questions to make to policy-makers. .......................................................18
Figure 20. Policy-Evidence-Delivery. .......................................................................18
Figure 21. Example of the Map of Expertise. ............................................................20

42
Annexes
Annex 1. Infographic of Collaborative Community Expert
Infographic CCE 1/3

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU
In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the
address of the centre nearest you at: http://europea.eu/contact
On the phone or by email
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this
service:
- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
- at the following standard number: +32 22999696
- by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact
FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU
Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa
website at: http://europa.eu
EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at:
http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe
Direct or your local information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact).

Science Communication: New ways to reach citizens and policy-makers in the post-fact world

Science Communication: New ways to reach citizens and policy-makers in the post-fact world

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Science Communication: New ways to reach citizens and policy-makers in the post-fact world

Similar to Science Communication: New ways to reach citizens and policy-makers in the post-fact world (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Science Communication: New ways to reach citizens and policy-makers in the post-fact world