Until recently, a career in science communication did not inspire many people. Carl Sagan popularized it, but most attributed its popularity to Sagan's “once in a generation” mind and personality. In 2025, though, science communication is booming.
We no longer believe scientists should be locked away in a lab, their daily activities never seen nor spoken of except in esoteric journals hidden behind paywalls. For years, researchers, scientists, and academics alike have discussed how to engage more openly with the public about their work. It’s hard, though. People train for a long time to work in a really specific area that is difficult to explain to people who haven’t. But that’s no excuse, especially now.
A seismic shift has occurred, attributable to many social factors. Carl Sagan may have popularized the idea that you can be a famous scientist; however, a case can be made for the internet, social media specifically, and the COVID-19 pandemic having an outsized impact on our expectations of scientists and science communication. You no longer need a nationally syndicated television show to get your message out to a lot of people
Communicating Science
It’s been a steep hill to climb. Scientists have needed some persuading. According to a 2014 Pew Study,
“A majority of AAAS scientists say it is not too or not at all important for career advancement to have their research covered in the news (56%), and 77% say it is not too or not at all important for career advancement to promote their findings on social media.”
Obviously, not all scientists felt this way; a whole other 44% and 23% claimed the communication aspect was at least somewhat important. A 2015 editorial in mBio, the journal of The American Society for Microbiology, specifically calls out the importance of science communication.
“Scientists must communicate about science with public audiences to promote an understanding of complex issues that we face in our technologically advanced society. Some scientists may be concerned about a social stigma or “Sagan effect” associated with participating in public communication. Recent research in the social sciences indicates that public communication by scientists is not a niche activity but is widely done and can be beneficial to a scientist’s career.”
While I would argue that communicating science has always been essential, we’ve had to drag scientists into the venue, kicking and screaming.
The Birth of Science Influencers
While people on the internet talked about science before COVID-19, the pandemic supercharged the space. Suddenly, people who studied pandemics, infectious diseases, and public health were talking on social media to explain their backgrounds, what they do, and why it’s important. I was one of the many.
Social media was no longer just for the latest dance trends and sales pitches. Instead, it was the new outlet for science communication, and with it came people prepared to meet the moment and share the importance of their work. As with any technology, though, there are drawbacks.
The Drawbacks
Two problems specifically: competing in the attention economy and grifters playing in the science communication space.
The shift to the attention economy means science communicators compete with anyone, everyone, and everything else online. Social media has leveled the playing field for good and for bad. In this world, where it is easy to connect quickly with a lot of people, everyone starts screaming for attention. When everyone is screaming, it’s difficult to break through the noise.
Breaking through the cacophony is a skill; some people are better prepared than others. Scientists are largely untrained in public relations or communications. We don’t have a lot of celebrities to help draw attention to us. It’s yet another skill set that needs to be honed over time. Taking a complex topic and distilling it into digestible components is a skill. Drawing attention to that information is a totally different skill. Being social media savvy, tech know-how, and charm are skills not stereotypically associated with scientists.
Then there are the grifters - people posing as science communicators who are, in fact, selling you something. That might be a literal something (e.g., books, supplements, essential oils, diets, etc.) or selling you bad information to propagate a larger narrative. These fake science communicators can be very difficult to spot; they look legitimate and often have the social media savvy, tech know-how, and charm largely lacking in the space.
How do you know that the information you are getting is good? How do you know it’s not misinformation? It’s vital to assess science communicators.
What To Look For
There is no foolproof way to ensure you follow someone who provides good information. While not comprehensive, below are some steps to follow and questions to ask. Here is a quick way to gut-check yourself before clicking “Follow” or “Share.”
- Are they an expert? – Checking credentials is a good first step. Do they have a relevant degree? If they have unfamiliar initials after their name, search those initials to see what they stand for and how they are obtained. Knowing a bit about someone’s training can help you assess if they are speaking out of turn. After all, you don’t want to get advice from a computer scientist on nutrition. That would just be silly.
- Evidence. – Do they provide a body of evidence for their recommendations? This means going beyond cherry-picked studies. Do they consistently cite high-quality studies like meta-analyses and RCTs in people, not lab rats? If the answer is no, or they’re a big fan of scaring people using mouse studies, I recommend moving on.
- Relevant job. – Do they hold a position relevant to the information they share? If not, have they ever?
If you answered “No” to any of these questions, they may not be a credible source of information. Be skeptical about who you engage with and, more importantly, the information you share.
The rise of sci-fluencers has revolutionized how we consume science, but with great influence comes great responsibility. Not everyone in the space is here to educate—some are here to sell you pseudoscience wrapped in a lab coat. The burden is on us, the audience, to vet our sources, ask the right questions, and reward those who prioritize truth over clicks.
I would be remiss if I didn’t plug some of the people doing this work and fighting the good fight. First, my shameless plug; you can find me here at ACSH and @dr.katiesuleta. These are some of the science communicators I follow. They are a good starting point for people looking for reliable information.
Biomedical Science
Katelyn Jat - Your Local Epidemiologist
Food Nonsense
Danielle Shine - danielleshine.dietitian
Build Up Dietitians and their Facebook Group
Critical Thinking Connoisseurs
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe
Melanie Tracek King – thinkingpowers
Busting Beauty Myths
Dr. Michelle Wong – lab muffin beauty
Wellness Woo
Jonathan Stea – Dr_Jonathan_Stea
The article has been updated to include Build Up Dietitians who were inadvertently left out.
Katie Suleta, DHSc, MPH
Katie Suleta is a regional director of research in graduate medical education for HCA Healthcare. Her background is in public health, health informatics, and infectious diseases. She has an MPH from DePaul University, an MS in Health Informatics from Boston University, and has completed her Doctorate of Health Sciences at George Washington University.
