Science Communication Workshops

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘆...𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁! 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳? If anything, the world today is in turmoil. We can’t even go a few hours without breaking news flooding in. It might be a major policy change from a global leader, the eruption of new conflicts, revolutionary innovations, or reports of tragic events halfway across the planet. The world has become more unpredictable than ever. So, how does our brain respond to this constant uncertainty? Research tells us that ambiguity—not knowing what the threat is—triggers stronger negative emotions than fear itself. Our brains struggle more with "what ifs" than with clear risks because the lack of clarity makes us feel powerless. 𝗔𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗴𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘆 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀. This insight is crucial for marketers, communicators, and anyone who reaches out to people. 𝗨𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 "𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲" 𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀—𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗿. When the world feels uncertain, people slow down, avoid risks, and become more cautious in their decision-making. How do we communicate effectively in this kind of environment? Here are some key takeaways for cutting through the noise and connecting meaningfully: 1. 𝗕𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁. When things are uncertain, people crave clarity. 2. 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆: Highlight aspects of your message, product, or brand that convey reliability, consistency, or security. Reinforce ideas that make people feel anchored amidst chaos. 3. 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲: Acknowledge the uncertainty and emotional strain they're experiencing. 4. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: Avoid abstract promises. In uncertain times, audiences want clear steps they can act on to improve their situation. 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀: • 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘆 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱: Remember that your audience's attention is limited during times of upheaval. Strike the right balance between brevity and value. • 𝗦𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁𝘆: Avoid overwhelming your audience with too much information; clarity is your best friend. • 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲: Consistency in messaging is often more potent than one-off campaigns. The more you deliver on your promises, the more trustworthy you become. • 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲: Use empathy as a lens for crafting every piece of communication. Read more here: https://t.ly/1pmVj #neuromarketing #appliedneuroscience #emotions #uncertainty  

Translating health science into understandable and clear health advice isn’t easy, especially on social media. And it’s not about what algorithms want us to do to engage their users. It’s about how people think. In the past three years, the World Health Organization worked on a project with Meta, using their Brand Lift Study tool to test how different kinds of message framings, built on behavioural science theories, affect how people perceive risk and act on it. In the paper below, we highlight a measles vaccination experiment in which we targeted parents of young children. We compared two types of messaging: - Verbatim: fact-based and precise “1 in 1,000 children who get measles will die.” - Gist: essence-based and emotional “Some children who get measles will die.” Both are accurate, but they communicate risk differently. Here are a few reflections from the process: - We need to design social media public health campaigns with behavioural science lenses, not just communication instinct. - We need to evaluate impact beyond likes and shares; focus on understanding and intention. - We must keep messages evidence-based but human; clarity matters as much as accuracy. What matters most isn’t how much information we share, but how people make sense of it. Small shifts in framing can change how people understand risk and how they act on it — which is the ultimate objective of public health communication. WHO project team: Simon Williams Elena Altieri Mohamed Gulaid Giselle Miguens Lisa Menning Karin Stein, MD, MScPH

Bad news is like fish. The longer it sits, the worse the whole situation smells. The Dilemma: A high-stakes launch is on the roadmap. Your team has brilliantly de-risked the plan, securing the most critical milestone ahead of schedule. Rock-solid work. But... they also know the full scope won't make the original date. And leadership? They haven't been told yet. The temptation to stay silent is powerful. The logic is seductive: "Let's not raise a flag until we have the perfect solution," or "Let's wait for a 'better time' to deliver this news." Here’s the counterintuitive truth: Waiting is the riskiest move you can make. Transparency without all the answers isn't weakness; it's a strategic advantage. A Better Way: Proactive Transparency Escalation isn't failure; it's a tool for alignment and trust-building. You don't need a perfect solution. You just need to own the narrative. My playbook for this conversation: 💪 Lead with the Win: Start with the good news. "We've secured the most impactful part of the launch and will deliver it early." 💪 State the Reality, Simply: Be direct. "This smart pivot means the subsequent phases will be delayed." 💪 Show Proactivity: Demonstrate control. "We are actively re-planning the remaining milestones." 💪 Own the Next Step: Provide certainty on communication. "We will share a full, revised plan with you by next week." When you do this, you're no longer delivering "bad news." You're delivering a reality-checked, responsibly managed plan. You're treating your leaders like partners. Surprising your leadership is a risk you can't afford. Building their trust is an asset you can't put a price on. Don't wait until the house is on fire. Be the leader who points to the smoke and says, "I've got this, and here's the plan." – 👉 Follow me, Rony Rozen, for more real-world insights on tech leadership. 

Under the microscope, tissues and cells look complex and beautiful. But without context, their story can be hard to follow, much like the science behind them. That’s why I’m so passionate about accessible science communication. In biotech and life sciences, breakthroughs like gene editing and cell therapies are extraordinary. But if they’re hidden behind technical language, we miss the chance to inspire, build trust, and show their real-world impact. At Thermo Fisher Scientific, I’ve seen how storytelling can unlock that understanding. We tell stories about the researchers, patients and innovators behind science to bring discoveries to life, use formats like podcasting to make complex topics approachable to spark curiosity beyond the lab, and social media to turn small scientific details into moments of wonder for a broad audience. The communicator’s role is to help people see both the beauty and the meaning behind the work so that people can feel connected to it. The most successful science communicators are shifting their focus from complexity to clarity. 💡 They translate research into stories that resonate with non-scientists. 💡 They highlight the why behind innovation, not just the how. 💡 They use plain language without sacrificing scientific accuracy. When we make science more accessible, we don’t dilute it. We amplify it. And in doing so, we bring more people into the conversation, which is where real impact begins.

In my experience, when I ask leaders to identify risks within their operations, the response ranges from discomfort to defensiveness. There is a view that acknowledging risks is an admission of weakness or failure in managing a business. In reality, this perspective can limit the organization’s growth and adaptability. When leaders equate risk identification with ineffective management, they miss the reality that risks are inherent in every business. No organization operates in a risk-free environment. The courage to recognize and talk about risks demonstrates not only self-awareness but also a proactive approach to navigating uncertainty. It is a myth that naming risks is a sign of bad management. Instead, actively managing your risks supports a culture where risk empowers 1) growth/revenue, 2) cost containment, and 3) brand/reputation. A proactive leader views risk not solely as a threat to be mitigated. They see risk as a path to innovation and transformation. A transparent risk discussion: 1️⃣Uncovers growth options 2️⃣Anticipates shifts in the market to proactively respond to disruptive uncertainty 3️⃣Sustains a culture of transparency and resilience to develop creative solutions When risk is viewed as an opportunity, it becomes a catalyst for progress rather than a barrier to success. Leaders who encourage open risk discussions build organizations that are agile, adaptable, and prepared for disruption. By shifting the narrative from risk avoidance to strategic risk-taking, leaders can turn challenges into competitive advantages. What is your perspective? #RiskManagement #Strategy #Leaders Inside Edge Risk Advisors LLC

All Roads Lead to Rome: Why Ignoring Probabilities is the Real Gamble! I haven’t encountered another term in risk management that is so emotionally, philosophically, and psychologically loaded as probabilities. As I have recognized an increased amount of posts about cyber risk quantification lately, I am kicking off with the following cyber risk example: “𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 5% 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘤𝘺𝘣𝘦𝘳-𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬.” This statement provokes many questions, such as: • Why do we know it is exactly 5%? False accuracy is at play! • Can we derive the 5% based on data, or is it just an expert guess? • Shall we avoid numbers and use qualitative scales instead?    The truth is that objective probabilities for most risks are unavailable. Companies operate in uncertain environments where rules and probabilities may change quickly. In cybersecurity, organizations lack large samples of repeated, identical data breaches, making fixed probability estimates misleading. So, should we give up using probabilities? Far from it. The only alternative to the unavailable “objective” probability is changing the fixed probability assumption (5%) to an uncertain probability statement. Expressing uncertainty unambiguously as a dynamic probability distribution is a game changer, such as: “𝘉𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 3 – 8% 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘤𝘺𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘶𝘱𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦.” The key is accepting that no "true" probability exists and that the 3-8% probability is a current belief based on best available information rather than a fact. This is superior to avoiding probabilities, as all companies must make decisions based on uncertain information. Relying on gut feeling lacks systematic reasoning, and companies cannot improve their estimates as new information is available. By using numbers (3-8) and notation conventions (%), probabilities are no longer subject to interpretation like verbal scales (“𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩,” “𝘭𝘰𝘸"). All probabilities in corporate risk management are subjective, but avoiding them is no option (except for some rare risks), and neither is it to pretend that we know objective probabilities. By using probability distributions rather than fixed probability, we acknowledge our uncertainty and can update probabilities as new information becomes available. I have added a simple chart showing the fixed probability (red dashed line) versus the range of probabilities approach (yellow curve). The yellow curve is dynamic as it is continuously updated with new information. Doesn’t sound too bad? Institut für Finanzdienstleistungen Zug IFZ Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts

A few years ago, while I was still practicing law, I was sitting in a conference room with a CEO whose company was heading into a very public, very complicated situation. The lawyers were around the table. The bankers were sharpening their pencils. The financial advisors had already circulated their models. Before the meeting started, the CEO looked at me and said, almost offhandedly, “I don’t understand how all of this is going to land.” I asked what he meant. He said, “I understand the legal strategy. I understand the financial strategy. What I don’t understand is what our employees, our vendors, our customers, and our lenders are going to think while we’re doing it. And if we lose them, we lose it all.” That comment stuck with me. What he was really saying was this: I am about to make the right decisions on paper, and I am worried about how to keep all of the company's stakeholders on side as it all plays out in the real world. In situations like that, companies are surrounded by incredibly smart professionals. Truly the best of the best. Lawyers making sure the process is airtight and navigating legal landmines. Bankers structuring capital solutions. Financial advisors focused on liquidity and cash management. Everyone is doing exactly what they are supposed to do. But to do it right, someone has to be responsible for managing the space in between. Communications experts focus on what employees will understand when they see a headline without context. How customers react to uncertainty. How vendors behave when silence creates anxiety. How quickly a narrative hardens before the facts are fully known. This conversation with this CEO made it all click for me. Communications is not something you do after decisions are made. It is one of the things that determines whether those decisions work at all. In moments of uncertainty, silence is not neutral. It is interpreted. And once others start telling your story for you, you are no longer managing risk. You are reacting to it. When companies understand that early, they preserve value, maintain control, and build trust with their stakeholders. Clear, intentional communication reduces risk and positions a company to succeed. In moments of business stress, communication is not messaging. It is leadership.

Early in my career, I thought I had arranged the perfect media event. Reporters confirmed they were minutes away. My client had flown in and was prepped for multiple interviews. Then a potato truck spilled on the highway. The news crews covered the potato story instead. I was left standing in an empty parking lot with a very disappointed business leader. At the time, it felt like a disaster. In reality, it was one of my best early lessons in communications: • Present scenarios, not certainties. Stakeholders need context: "Here's our plan, here's what success looks like, and here are the variables we're monitoring." Explaining potential pitfalls upfront isn’t pessimism, it's professional credibility. • Own what happens next. When plans collapse, stakeholders look to you to lead. In this case, it meant helping the leader pivot to customer communications while I worked to secure individual follow-ups with the reporters. • Client trust is built in the hard moments. How you respond when things fall apart often matters more than whether the original plan succeeds. Working together under pressure defines the relationship going forward. Communications professionals aren't hired to eliminate uncertainty. We're hired to lead through it. What’s your go-to move when your communications strategy gets blindsided?

For centuries, the way we communicate science has remained remarkably consistent. Since the 17th century, when scientific societies emerged during the scientific revolution, researchers have recorded their hypotheses, methods, and results in written articles for others to read and build upon. But now, we’re in the digital age—a time when sharing knowledge can be faster, more dynamic, and more accessible than ever. One format leading this evolution is video. At the University of Utah, my colleague Dr. Feng Liu from our Materials Science & Engineering Department founded Coshare Science, an innovative platform for sharing science in video format. This platform allows researchers to present their original studies or review articles through peer-reviewed, DOI-registered videos. Even better, these videos are searchable and accessible on platforms like Google Scholar, making them a credible and impactful way to share findings. I recently had the opportunity to contribute to this exciting new medium with a video review on generative machine learning for discovering new materials. It’s an exciting frontier, and I hope more scientists embrace this modern way to communicate their work. Check out my video and learn more about this platform here: https://lnkd.in/eMBrzkbd What do you think about video as a tool for sharing research?

Tired of spending hours crafting presentation videos for your research papers? The Show Lab at National University of Singapore just dropped a game-changer on Hugging Face Paper Pages: Paper2Video! This innovative work introduces PaperTalker, a multi-agent framework that automatically generates full academic presentation videos directly from your scientific papers. Imagine: slides, synchronized subtitles, synthesized speech, and a talking head – all generated with AI. PaperTalker tackles the unique challenges of research communication, from dense multi-modal inputs to coordinating all presentation elements. It even optimizes slide layouts with a novel tree search visual choice and uses parallel processing for efficiency. What's more, they've released the Paper2Video benchmark and specialized metrics (PresentQuiz, IP Memory) to truly measure a video's effectiveness in conveying scholarship and boosting author impact. To showcase its power, they even used Paper2Video to create a presentation video *about itself*! This incredible meta-demonstration is a testament to the system's capabilities. Huge congratulations to the Show Lab team for this practical step towards automated research communication! We're thrilled to see such high-impact work openly shared on the Hugging Face Hub, making it accessible for the entire AI community. Check out the paper, code, dataset, and the amazing demo video here: Paper on Hugging Face: https://lnkd.in/e6tfRJ8h Dataset on Hugging Face: https://lnkd.in/eUMRdxMv GitHub Code: https://lnkd.in/euPsxsSu Watch the Meta-Demo Video: https://lnkd.in/eEv43jX9