Scientific research can never exist in a bubble. Effective communication of your research to other scientists (inreach) and non-scientists (outreach) is as important as the findings themselves. While scientific publications and talks remain the primary methods of scientific inreach, they have been less successful for scientific outreach. In an attempt to bridge this communication gap, some scientists have stepped out of their labs and into the world of social media armed with facts and figures, engaging dialogue, and of course, science memes. For some, this has been a step out of their comfort zones, while for others this new protocol has been fairly easy to master.
For the most part, social media has delivered on its promise as a quick and easy way to build and connect with a global community of like-minded researchers. What has been equally satisfying are the unending science puns and a sense of community. However, there is something more to be gained from social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, that goes beyond just scientific connectivity and inside jokes. Unlike scientific networking platforms such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu, social media allows researchers to reach out beyond their peers to a broader and more diverse audience of non-scientists.
There are numerous public dialogues on social media that scientists can positively contribute to with their experience and expertise. Most recently, there have been booming conversations on the internet around the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Given the historical precedent of scientific misconduct towards racial and ethnic minorities (read the Tuskegee Study and the case of Henrietta Lacks), government distrust, and the growing anti-vax movements, the public is eager to engage in transparent conversations around vaccines with politicians, companies, and the scientists themselves. The distrust is partially eliminated when ethnically and racially diverse experts talk about vaccine awareness, and promote health and safety guidelines. While the burden of effective science communication shouldn’t lie entirely on the shoulders of minority group scientists, their voices are a powerful tool in building public confidence in scientific research. To this end, social media is an exceptional tool since platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and even TikTok are free and easily accessible to everyone.
Despite easy access, there are certain limitations to scientists using social media to engage with non-science folks. Good, accurate science is complex, and it's difficult to distill years of research, intricate correlations, and competing hypotheses in character-limited tweets without using scientific jargon. Additionally, once the bite-size pieces of research (a figure or a study conclusion) are out in the world of social media, how they are interpreted and used by the audience can be out of scientists’ hands. There have been innumerable cases where figures and statistics have been misinterpreted, scientific half-truths have been propagated, and study conclusions twisted to fit one’s preconceived notions. Moreover, non-scientists may not be able to grasp the concept of cutting-edge scientific research, where old scientific claims are often revised or set aside to make way for newer conclusions supported by more robust evidence.
Alternatively, social media can also forfeit accountability for the scientist as well, since Tweets and Facebook posts are not peer-reviewed and rarely subject to scientific scrutiny. In some situations, professional ethics have been breached through posts publicly criticizing colleagues, or more gravely, by those sharing private patient information. There have also been situations where researchers have suffered professional ramifications for sharing unpopular political opinions via social media. Social media, at its essence, is personal. It can be difficult for scientists to balance its use for sharing personal, private, or political views and as an extension of their professional careers.
So, how can we, scientists and scientists-in-training, optimally use social media to our professional and personal advantage? For starters, utilize it for its wide and immeasurable connectivity to reach an audience you otherwise may not have access to. While it is an excellent opportunity to expand your scientific network, be mindful that it can turn into a scientific echo chamber. You run the risk of reinforcing your research biases when you continually engage with like-minded scientists with similar research interests. Instead, be open to connecting with a variety of audiences from different institutions, or ethnic, social, and political backgrounds. Sexual, gender, racial, and ethnic minorities have invaluable and irreplaceable perspectives to bring to the scientific conversation and research, so be a good listener and amplifier for these voices. Also, remember that what goes on the internet stays on the internet forever so, be careful about what you are posting and sharing online. Keep proprietary data, patient information, and unvalidated results out of your posts. Lastly, keep those science puns coming!
Types of social media scientists: Which one are you?
The No-Nonsense Networker: You will only tweet results you have validated thrice. Jokes and memes are beneath you. Jargon exists for a reason (so does Google). Trolls and armchair scientists beware! It is your mission to obliterate their scientific falsehoods in the comments section of any and all CNN news reports. Thank you for keeping us all in check!
The Niche Humorist: You have a folder of memes and puns ready to deploy at a moment's notice. You scour threads, waiting to chime in with well-timed one-liners. Your wit is razor-sharp, but only really appreciated by ten other people (at best). You had a meme go viral once but yeah, it’s no big deal. Thank you for giving us a laugh!
The Humblebrager: You’d like to start your post by thanking your PI, labmates, that one postdoc, fellow grad students, and maybe a tech (but no one ever really thanks the techs). A couple of run-on sentences later, you’ve convinced us all about how YOU could not be the best in your field of work if not for the support of those around YOU. YOUR most recent NATURE publication, YOUR newest grant, YOUR fancy award! It is probably all true, and we’re all honestly just a little jealous. Thank you for inspiring us!
The Perpetual Complainer: You remember the internet exists only when things aren’t going your way. Your feed will convince the most bright-eyed optimists that science is governed by Murphy’s law. You and your followers see science for what it is - a ceaseless trudge of unsuccessful experiments, negative results, inconsiderate labmates, long-overdue grants and submissions, unpolished presentations, mycoplasma contamination, delayed orders, failed cloning, non-specific antibodies... Thank you for keeping it real!
The Lost Cause: You joined Twitter in 2010 and are the proud owner of two Twitter accounts. And no, they aren’t separate personal and professional feeds. That new account was meant for all that grad school memeing but you never followed through. Your last retweet was in reference to a 2013 CRISPR paper (yeah, that one). It’s ok. Twitter isn’t for everyone. Thank you for increasing our follower count anyways!
Follow the CAMB student newsletter on Twitter and Facebook. We would love to hear what you think about our articles.