Podcast: Engaging Diverse Audiences, Building Trust

"You have to get creative. You have to be willing to fail." - Meagan Phelan

Meagan Phelan, Communications Director, Science Family Journals,  American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) joins Nikesh Gosalia for an insightful discussion about the myriad challenges in science communication.

She discusses new developments in the science communication landscape and the vision of AAAS to ensure accuracy and integrity while communicating science to the public and news media.

The conversation goes into the new and ever-evolving areas such as AI in publication. There is a need to listen to the researchers and publishers and learn what the overall community feels about AI.

She emphasizes that scientists need to be comfortable with the fact that there is no final answer in science. If scientists can retain humility in communication, it will help build greater public trust in science and scientists. 

A collaborative effort between editors and authors to ensure originality and minimize errors will lead to less need for corrections after publishing. 

Listen to the podcast for an engaging and fascinating discussion on the present and future of science communication!

Links to the episode on the different podcast channels:

Apple Podcasts 

Spotify

YouTube

Google Podcasts 

 

Transcript:

Nikesh (00:07.406)
Welcome to Insights Exchange, the crossroads of ideas and academia. I'm your host, Nikesh Gosalya. Every episode I engage with the brightest minds and industry experts who are shaping the landscape of research and publishing. Get ready to be inspired, challenged, and enlightened as we explore the frontiers of knowledge together. This is where thought, leaders and ideas converge. Welcome aboard.

Today we are chatting with Megan Phelan, the go-to person for turning complex scientific research into stories everyone can understand. As the Communications Director for the Science Journals at American Association for the Advancement of Science, which is more famously known as AAAS, Megan not only brings cutting edge studies out of the lab and into the world, but she also connects scientists, decision makers, and everyday people.

Let's dive into her journey of making science exciting and understandable for all. Welcome, Megan.

Meagan (01:11.164)
Thank you so much for having me today.

Nikesh (01:14.618)
Great, so let's get started. The very first question that I have for you, how do you stay ahead of changes in the media landscape? And how has your approach evolved to adapt to the increasing saturation of information channels?

Meagan (01:31.676)
That's an excellent question. It's constantly on the minds of our team. Our team at AAAS is called the Science Press Package Team. We're always thinking about the media that we serve. Right now, we serve some 8,000 journalists around the world every week, giving them embargoed science content. And that in turn helps inform the science stories they cover.

Meagan (02:01.676)
is relationship building with them. And we find that works best when we do it one-on-one. So we will seek out reporters and set up calls with them. Every few weeks, we'll touch base with a different outlet and ask them how their reporting needs are changing. We'll ask them about the trends in science they're focused on covering differently. And maybe that means something like...

They're not going to cover a single study anymore, but they are going to focus on representing research in a space once they've seen several studies build to a climax. Our team heard that particular insight from several reporters a few years ago. It was a little scary to us at first, because our mission at the science journals is to communicate individual studies as they're about to publish to press. And we were hearing some journalists say,

single studies anymore. We are going to wait and try to represent a field more comprehensively once we've seen several studies speak into a finding. But our team sat back and thought about that, and we developed a way to update the press package we put forward so that it didn't just elevate new single forthcoming studies, but so that it...

tied new studies back to related research published in the last six months to a year in a way that was a helpful resource for reporters who wanted to do more of that trend coverage. So I think when it comes to staying ahead of trends and changes, we really rely on the reporters that we serve to tell us what they need. Then we go back and think about those needs and whether we can adapt what we are producing for them. That has been so helpful to us.

Meagan (03:47.536)
We've done that recently, something we're very excited about. It's brand new. Not many people know about it. Your audience will. We've gotten some data from newsletter creators who serve policy makers. And we're finding out that newsletters are really one of the most important ways that policy makers on both sides of the aisle, at least in the United States, get daily news. But we're also understanding that a lot of those policy-oriented newsletters

aren't connecting with science as much as the newsletter creators would like them to be. So our team thought about this for several months last year and we are launching at the end of this month a brand new press package called the Science Policy Pack and this press package will look across all six of the Science Family Journals and curate or bring in any of the research or insight that's policy related and put that forward.

to journalists working at Bloomberg newsletters, Axios newsletters, Guardian newsletters, making sure that they can see that science, think about including it for their audience, many of whom are policymakers who need to know where the science stands to make decisions. So we're always trying to stay ahead of the curve. And really the best tool for us to do this is to talk to the reporters we serve about what they need.

Nikesh (05:13.606)
That sounds very interesting. And your insights into staying ahead of changes in the media landscape are really fascinating, which brings me to another crucial aspect, which is balancing broad coverage with scientific accuracy. So in today's media landscape, how do you balance the need for broad coverage with maintaining the scientific accuracy and integrity of the research being communicated?

Meagan (05:40.804)
Yeah, very important question. Our focus at the Science Family of Journals and at AAAS more broadly is really, it's accuracy, it's integrity. And so there's no one there behind our team saying, did you see 54 stories in the news media about that paper on quantum mechanics?

we get much more excited about a really sophisticated story that accurately represents the research. So the science press package team makes accuracy the focus. And for those who don't know, what we do for the journalists we serve is write a 250 word summary of the research that goes in an embargoed online press package for journalists to see. And that helps them understand immediately how that work.

advances the field. Our 250 word summaries really try to clarify that even more than perhaps the paper's introduction might do. We also tried to speak to the limitations of the work in our summaries. We think that is very, very important. And of course we highlight the implications, but with context, you know, how near are these implications or not? Sometimes we, in the spirit of accuracy, we will even recruit from authors, videos, or statements.

that help clarify what the research does not say. So, this is an interesting potentially health or medical related finding in a large animal model, but it doesn't say anything yet about what this will look like in humans. So we take extra care to state limitations. We go so far as to recruit assets that really clarify how far the work is from actual application. And there's no pressure on us to earn the most coverage.

but we celebrate the best coverage.

Nikesh (07:37.758)
Got it. And before I move to the next question, Megan, because you mentioned about the 250 word summary or the use of videos, I just thought I'll get your quick thoughts on. So what we've been seeing as an organization and under one of our brands, which is Impact Science, is the increasing use of alternate formats. It could be videos, it could be infographics, it could be plain language

Nikesh (08:07.602)
So there are just a few of those as examples. But do you see a similar trend as well, Megan, where the use of these alternate formats is just going to become more and more important and all of the trends are moving in that direction perhaps, where we've got researchers who are Gen Z millennials, one bite size content, all of us, whether we like it or not, we are consuming content on the go. And so I just thought, I'll get your quick.

thoughts on do you think that's the direction we are heading to where we will eventually go beyond the journal article and probably every article would have one of these alternate formats.

Meagan (08:47.768)
Yeah, but you know, our goal on the science press package team is to serve the journalists who are writing these thoughtful explanatory pieces about the studies. But you are right, we're moving in a direction where maybe a thoughtful news article about a study or the study itself is not what people are going to be looking for. They're going to be looking for the plain language summary, the video. One of the ways that we've started to explore alternative kind of formats.

is by encouraging our authors to write social media posts on LinkedIn and ex, formerly Twitter, about their work in their own voice. So this would not be a stuffy post in the format of an abstract, but this would be something that started with the idea of why this particular scientific question was interesting to them and why they pursued it and what they found.

In particular, on LinkedIn, we've had a lot of luck when we've encouraged authors to do this because they're able to share what they learned through the journey of doing that work that can be a resource to their other colleagues, which I think plays particularly well on LinkedIn. So we are also mindful that video is important. We have a plan in the new year to chat with the reporters at outlets like the Associated Press who are becoming much more video-focused.

So we can think about how to recruit the right video for different news outlets who want to render that instead of a story. But we have to figure out what that video is. It's not talking head. It's going to be some kind of action in the lab. Sometimes that action footage is hard to get. If you're a social scientist, maybe that's harder to get. If you're showing some aspects of neutrons, protons, that's a harder thing to do.

but we are committed to exploring how to recruit the best video across disciplines and getting that video to the outlets that we serve. We know that's important. It's just going to take a little study.

Nikesh (10:56.11)
Absolutely, yeah. Thank you for that, Megan. Do you think the role of science communication has evolved over the last few years? And if yes, how do you think has it evolved? And then how has your team adapted to meet the changing needs?

Meagan (11:16.644)
Yeah, it's a great question. It makes me think about a piece that Ed Young, a science writer a lot of people may be familiar with, wrote early in COVID, where he talked about how science writers were no longer tasked with simply communicating about a new finding in a paper, let's say, but in COVID, where the pandemic brought everything together, science, policy, decision-making.

community. Science writers were tasked with tying science to the stakes that decisions around science have for all of us. I think that that's something that the journalists we talk to are saying they feel more now. So their work is difficult. They are not just communicating what a new science paper says, but how that might affect policy and people in a community. What the stakes are for...

citizens who make decisions around that particular science. So it's something that we think probably slows down the pace of the journalists we're serving. As the individual studies come out, we think that they're not as inclined to run to cover one or the other, simply to provide a news article that communicates new information, although that's very important. That inspires and delights the soul.

And that's very important. We know that it is and journalists tell us that, but we think the shift is that journalists who are aware of this challenge, this burden they have to communicate more thoughtfully about science and all its implications, they're operating at a different pace. And so what we can do in response is collect more feedback from the authors that we are working with about their own thoughts on.

how the science they are doing serves humanity. We can gather quotes and insights and really make it a point to talk about the human side of science with our authors so that can be represented to our journalists. And that's something that we're trying to do more actively.

Nikesh (13:23.402)
got it. And since we are talking of evolution of science communication, one will of course have to bring up the biggest evolution of recent times, AI or more specifically generative AI. So as AI becomes more prevalent in academic publishing, what challenges do you foresee in effectively communicating research findings in a way?

that resonates with both the scientific and non-scientific audiences.

Meagan (13:54.456)
Yeah, it's a huge question. I can share, there are a lot of ways into this question. Let me start here. There are tools, AI tools that science family journals use to help us in our processes. So we are very focused on research integrity. Just yesterday we announced that we'll be using an AI tool to help check accuracy of images, cells, gels.

we'll be looking for duplications and manipulations. And this would be before publication. And it's really an author service because sometimes these things are mistakes. And if authors can correct them ahead of publication, it helps them. It helps everybody not to have to watch a paper be corrected after publication, which can sometimes be a long and dramatic process. So there are ways that AI is helping us.

Of course, there are papers that we publish that talk about the potential of AI in different scientific disciplines. We also have papers that we publish on AI that talk about the limitations of AI, let's say in the medical, the clinical space. So we're thinking about it in a lot of different contexts. We are, of course, receiving submissions that include AI large language model generated text. We recently updated our policies around...

what authors can do in the way of using large language models. It was for all of last year true that they couldn't use large language models at all. And now they can use them to generate text if they're very clear about how and where they did that. I do think that the editors who are reviewing the submissions now that possibly include this LLM generated text have some questions about

what this will mean. It's possible that when the large language models are used, they're synthesizing information beautifully. It's also possible that they're introducing errors. So we have a lot of questions about, well, the editors have a lot of questions about what this is gonna look like for them. So I think we're excited about AI overall, but it is both a boon and a potential challenge for us.

Meagan (16:13.976)
and we're watching it on all fronts. We are asking the reporters we serve if and how they're using large language models. I haven't heard a lot of feedback from any reporters we've talked to yet that they're using it for much more than let's say, idea generation for social media posts is what I've heard most consistently, I would say.

Nikesh (16:33.206)
Yeah, no, I agree with you, Megan. I think we are seeing the same as well. There are two different perspectives where publishers and societies are exploring using some of these automated tools to improve efficiency, to increase maybe the speed of publication. But at the same time, researchers themselves are still quite skeptical, are still quite wary about using it, considering that it could lead to some backlash. So yes, I think the space is evolving continuously, like you said.

And you briefly mentioned research integrity, and that brings me to another critical dimension, which is maintaining public trust. Recently, we've seen a huge spike in a lot of fraudulent practices, the evolution of paper mills. And I think in the whole process, publishers themselves have been.

the victim of a lot of these kind of bad practices. Recently, I know that science announced the use of tools to check the veracity of images and text, like you mentioned. Across the industry, I think in most conferences, this is pretty much the main theme. How do we solve this issue together? According to you, what are some of the major issues that you see as far as research integrity is concerned?

Meagan (18:00.373)
Mm-hmm. Well, I think the paper mill issue is one that we're hearing a lot about, and it's probably very concerning to a public who looks in and wonders how journals operate. And here's what I'd like to say about how science handles this. A lot of what we've seen in the paper mill space is derivative of how journals handle peer review.

And a lot of it has been associated with this idea that there will be special issues of a journal and guest editors will be brought in to handle the special issues. And I'm sure in some cases that works very well, but we've also seen that it has really contributed to the paper mill problem. Science has made the choice not to bring in guest editors. So when we were running special issues, our in-house editors, and this is at all of the science family journals, including Science Advances.

we've made the choice to lean on our editors and their expertise, and that is a choice that we've made. It might mean that it's harder to put together the special issue, but it upholds the, it's one of the ways you can avoid paper mill papers and uphold the integrity of the work. There are a lot of choices that we make day to day, week to week, month to month that might mean our work is harder, but the integrity is upheld. I'm very concerned about

the general public looking in and seeing research be updated and corrected. And they're having the impression that every time that happens, that means there was some fraud, or there was a scientist who was trying to pull the wool over our eyes. This is something I talk to our editor-in-chief a lot about. And one way that we are trying actively to...

help the public understand that updates to the scientific literature don't always mean there was fraud or dishonesty at play, is by when we publish a paper from an author group who's published with us a few years ago, and their next paper, their new one here, updates, advances, corrects somehow that past work. We are reaching out to those authors and asking them to talk about how this is the process by which science works, this is expected, this is not.

Meagan (20:22.624)
reflection of an error they made or a problem, they're excited about the update. So we're trying to gather their first-person feedback about that. We include that in our Science Press package so that the press can see that and hopefully communicate that message as well. Science being updated and corrected is the process we want. There is uncertainty. It always exists. We're comfortable with that uncertainty. We go and explore it, and we try to improve things over time.

This is good, this is good for science and the public and for the advancements we all want to best serve our daily lives.

Nikesh (20:58.87)
Absolutely. And I know you've already covered some bits in your response, Megan, but do you think there is anything other than some of the points that you've mentioned that we as a community, we as an industry can do to address the challenges in this era of misinformation? And specifically, do you think there are any steps

that we can take to enhance transparency in science communication.

Meagan (21:31.14)
Yeah, I think I'm going to come back to this uncertainty point because it's something I really want to work on with Holden Florp, our editor-in-chief this year. I think that we need to do as much as we can when we're supporting scientists who are communicating their work to help them be incredibly comfortable talking about uncertainty as inherent to.

the science that we're working on. As humans, we crave certainty. We want an answer, but it's just not going to be possible in so many cases to have a final answer, and that's okay. And the journey of improving our understanding of a particular topic is really important, and we want more young people to come on that journey and help support that journey with new education and new tools. So I know that when I talk to people who are skeptical of science, they...the scientists will come out and say that this is the final answer and then later we see that it's changed. Why can't they speak with more humility about this or just say, you know, we're 74% certain. I think that doing more of that kind of communication would really help a public whose trust has weakened a little bit in the scientific endeavor and I think we're well positioned to help our authors do that. We've seen some examples of that in the last year which is great.

Nikesh (22:53.486)
I think that's a fantastic point, Megan. And I think just on that, there was just another example that came to my mind. I think the use of tools, when we've developed some automated checks, and when we talk to maybe a few publishers and societies, the expectation right at the beginning is that, can this solve every problem for us? Can this be 100% accurate? And my personal opinion and my conversations with a lot of publishers and societies is that, I...

You know, we can't guarantee anything. This is a tool which helps you save some time. It gives you some indicators, and you will still need perhaps a human layer to make sure that, you know, yeah, we make it as accurate as possible. Nothing can be 100%. Nothing can be, like you said, you know, certain, but there's definitely some brilliant tools out there which are giving you some indicators, and it helps you save time. It helps you identify trends.

Would you agree with that opinion that maybe hybrid solutions is the future and not that maybe we have this false expectation that technology is just going to come in and solve every problem for us?

Meagan (24:05.816)
Yes, I love that. And that's how we framed our rollout of having adopted Proofig, the image checking tool. It is very much a tool that our editors will use, but then they will also apply their expertise, the human eye. And that's critically important. And I think it's also very reassuring to authors. They want to know that it's not just the tool making the decision here. There are trusted, longstanding expert editors who are involved. I think it's very much a hybrid situation, as you say.

Nikesh (24:13.061)
Yes.

Nikesh (24:36.25)
Got it. Continuing the theme of the importance of building trust between the scientific community and the public, a key set of stakeholders of this trust are the policymakers. Engaging with policymakers is vital for the impact of scientific research. I know that, you know, AAAS has done a lot of work and has a lot of forums and, you know, a platform where you engage with very high-profile...

policymakers as well. Just from your perspective, can you share some insights into how you facilitate effective communication between the researchers and the policymakers considering the very, very different needs of both the groups?

Meagan (25:21.208)
Yeah, absolutely. So I'm for complete transparency, I'm on the science side, but I engage with AAAS colleagues, for example, in our Office of Government Relations, our local science engagement network, and various other programs who are policy facing. I know that in particular, the AAAS local science engagement network has done some terrific work in the last two or three years, what they are doing now.

is identifying scientific experts working on key topics that are really important in particular regions. So you know climate change in the south. They've identified young experts who are good communicators who will go in and engage with policy makers on these topics and are well positioned to answer their questions. We also have the science and technology policy fellowship program which has been around for decades and is perhaps our most well known policy interfacing program.

Since you've mentioned AI, in the last six months, Congress was hungry for experts in that space as they've been developing regulations, and the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Program was able to, incredibly quickly, gather a group of some six experts in AI who are now positioned in different parts of Congress and are advising on key aspects of AI development and regulation.

AAAS continues to take a lead in listening to what policymakers need in the way of scientific advice and then identifying thoughtful experts who can communicate well and dispassionately on these topics. They will place them on the hill. For our part, working on the science side, you might see our editorial page sometimes. It can be provocative in its messages.

the messages that we know policymakers read. And that's good, that's what we want. The insights pages of science should be a conversation starter. So that's happening. We publish policy forums, perspectives, editorials, and newly something called expert voices, which all speak to policy and key topics. And for our part,

Meagan (27:44.024)
As I've mentioned at the top of the show, the science press package team, we've not really been engaging with the journalists who serve policymakers before. We've been engaging with journalists who write about science and maybe they're writing about science for the interested public or other scientists in other fields who wanna read about science they're not doing. But through the policy pack, we will be getting our science and commentary in front of the newsletter creators who...

daily are reaching policymakers and we're really excited about that and we're setting up a vehicle to collect feedback from these newsletter creators about what they decide to cover, the responses they get to the stories that they cover that are based on science. We're eager to learn, you know, what they're hearing policymakers and other audiences who read their content say so that can help us and to continue to engage with the policy audience and provide more of what they need.

Nikesh (28:44.226)
In crafting media responses and editing press packages, what are the essential elements you focus on to ensure accuracy and accessibility?

Meagan (28:56.undefined)
Yeah. So the 250-word summaries that we write at New Research are really well-liked by reporters. We often, we've checked with them over the years. We've said, would you, are you just as happy that we write these 250-word summaries as opposed to longer, in-depth press releases on new papers? Writing the 250-word summaries, of course, lets us write a little bit more each week than if we were to do a press release on paper. And they love it because

The summaries are the writers first goal in writing them is to communicate how the work advances the field and sometimes that's hard to decipher by reading the paper and then you have insight into implications and then you have insight into limitations and it's very important, it's hard to write short. Writing 250 words is not easy but it forces you in order to communicate all the essentials of that 250 word summary to really.

study and understand the paper. And the way that it works on my team is, we have four writers, I have another editor, my editor and I work with the writers. At the top of the week, we have a meeting that's called five bits. Each writer has to answer five questions about each of the studies that they're writing. They report out to me or the other editor. We take a look at the content together and make sure that their answers to those five questions are right. We then proceed to the point where they're writing

the summary, I check it, the editor who handled the paper checks the summary, and together this ensures that what we're putting out is accurate, it's not overhyped. And over the years I think we've, I've been working at the Science Press Package for 10 years and I'm perhaps happiest to report that in that time we've only had one error and it was a

a numerical error, something a reporter pointed out, a number in our summary didn't line up with a number in the paper and we were able to fix that pretty quickly. But otherwise our processes mean that what we're putting out is well checked and accurate every week, which is incredibly important.

Nikesh (31:04.378)
Wow, that's really impressive. Crafting media responses to press packages is an art, especially when one has to tailor strategies for studies in different sciences. Are there any particular challenges or nuances you've encountered when tailoring strategies for studies in the physical, biomedical, and life sciences within the science family of journals?

Meagan (31:31.236)
Yes, I think that our biggest challenge is some of the research that we publish in our basic research journals, like Signaling and Science Immunology, while incredibly important, and the foundation for strategies that could improve our health and improve our understanding of who we are and how we function, some of these studies are less appealing to the journalists that we serve. So...

a challenge is simply that there has been less interest. But at AAAS and the Science Family, we believe that it's incredibly important for the public to understand how basic research serves the foundation of scientific progress and innovation. So we really would like the reporters that we're reaching out to, to get as excited about these studies as we do. So we think that there's work for us to do. We...

connect with authors of some of the more basic research we publish to ask them about, you know, other interesting aspects of the work, like personal stories, their own decision to continue along in a field, maybe that's been little funded, or where they've had a lot of challenges to overcome. Sometimes there are stories there that we can elevate to press that are interesting to them, and also allow them to cover that basic research.

There are other surprisingly newsworthy elements that, as we call them in those basic research studies, sometimes they will feature an incredibly international collaboration. And that's the kind of thing a reporter might like to cover. Or maybe they will involve an unusual geography or an unusual sample size. So to help the basic research we're publishing be covered, we will work with our authors to look for and unearth these surprisingly newsworthy elements so that those can also be pitched.

to and shared with reporters who are thinking about covering science. And doing that has helped this basic research be covered more often than it might be if we were just putting the basic research finding forward to the press.

Nikesh (33:40.814)
Got it. And do you think there might be a danger of only, for lack of a better word, glamorous signs being noticed?

Meagan (33:55.096)
Yeah, I do. I think that the danger is that, you know, when the studies about a new dinosaur bone or a new

Meagan (34:07.944)
space discovery are picked up. They're immediately exciting. They capture our imagination. But what about the long standing long suffering work of a cell biologist in a lab that one day leads to, you know, a medication that helps all of us. That process is very important, we think for the public to understand, including so they can be encouraged to fund basic research. So we are

very committed to communicating not only research from science and science advances, which is, you know, the space and the archaeology and the social science that could immediately, you know, grip the attention of most people, but we are committed to communicating research from science immunology, science translational medicine, science signaling, and to developing strategies to elevate surprisingly newsworthy elements in those studies.

It's just so important for the public to be behind basic research.

Nikesh (35:11.618)
Absolutely. Engaging with global authors comes with unique challenges. What advice do you provide to authors to effectively communicate their research in different cultural contexts?

Meagan (35:27.672)
Yeah, well, I think some of the experience we've had most in this space is with authors who are in a country and will say, I can't imagine that reporters outside of my own country would be interested in this work. So I, you know, will not. Maybe I'm going to just stick to doing a press release or media interviews in the language, my first language and

We absolutely understand that it's a lot of work to do communication in another language with other assets, but we have seen reporters have so much joy or authors have so much joy and satisfaction when their coverage expands geographically more broadly because they've worked with their press office and made an effort to have a news release in English when they've

gone ahead and engaged with reporters outside of their own country. I think one of the places where we've seen this most is in Japan. And now we have a group of press officers at major universities there who are very actively working to support their authors in doing English language releases. And ensuring that they understand the importance of taking media interviews with reporters in other countries.

We have a survey that we issue to authors two weeks after they published with us where we asked them about how media interactions went. And so often authors outside of the US and Europe will say, I was so surprised with the geographic range of coverage and the interest that working with SIPAC brought from reporters all around the world. And it made for a busy week for me to have to be available to them and responding to them.

but it really helped elevate my work to other people, potential collaborators, or clarify misconceptions about my work. And so I'm really glad I did it. So we generally encourage all the authors we're working with who are the corresponding authors and the media-facing authors, no matter where they are, to be ready to engage with a global media group. And we routinely hear that benefits them.

Nikesh (37:52.85)
Got it. Is there a success story that comes to your mind, Megan, where global author engagement led to increased visibility and accurate representation of a scientific study in diverse international media outlets?

Meagan (38:13.036)
Yes, we had a science signaling paper that was looking at a target for medulloblastoma. This was a few years ago, and the authors were from all over the world. I remember that the paper was quite technical, but when our team looked at the paper, we were shocked by the number of institutions that had collaborated on it. It really struck us as...

quite a high number of institutions globally. And we reached out to the corresponding author and said, this looks like quite a collaboration. Is this something you'd want to comment on and elevate? And she said, actually, yes. This collaboration is very special. And it ultimately, even though you're not necessarily seeing that in this paper, which is just about the first steps of our work, this collaboration is positioning us to develop a drug for medulloblastoma much more quickly.

And we said, could you tell that story? Could you be ready to tell, to even pitch that story to an academic-led news site you may be familiar with? And it's called The Conversation. It lets researchers tell their stories in their own voices. And in this case, these authors pitched a story about how international collaboration led to, can lead to faster drug development. And it mentioned their science signaling paper, but it ultimately broadened the context a bit.

And that story led to pick up from ABC Nightly News, and it led to international news coverage. This was for an incredibly technical niche science signaling paper, and the visibility globally was very high because the authors had broadened the context of their paper. They had talked about how the group they were working with came together in a special way, and this is just...

a really important thing for researchers who are motivated to find drugs that will help us do. So that's one of my favorite success stories in that vein.

Nikesh (40:19.014)
Wow, that's really inspiring. Shifting gears a bit, I'm curious about your observations on how authors' expectations are changing. In what ways have you seen the expectations evolve in response to shifts in the media landscape?

Meagan (40:41.404)
So here I think I go to our author feedback survey. Again, authors whose papers we highlight in the science press package receive a survey from us two weeks later. We ask them questions about accuracy of media coverage, geographic range. We ask them if media coverage helped them hear from collaborators. I think what I've seen is that COVID had an effect because during COVID.

Reporters and they would tell us this, reporters who might have covered seismology or archaeology were now being asked to cover health. And so a lot of the research that might normally have been covered on seismology or archaeology wasn't covered and authors were surprised and disappointed and we understand that. And when we would hear that, we would go back to the authors and say, maybe there's more that can be done here. I know the embargo is lifted.

I know coverage isn't quite what you wanted. You could still pitch to the conversation. We really like, we've seen great success when authors pitch there. They love working with the editors at the conversation and their stories are often widely syndicated. Or we would encourage the authors if they'd been disappointed by coverage to get on social media. And we saw that they had good success there. But I think the biggest change in author expectations has.

has really just been authors' observations during COVID. And I think it's better now that some of the research they thought would be covered wasn't. And that was a derivative of reporters changing their own beats. And we're back to a better place, but that was a notable change and authors felt it.

Nikesh (42:23.174)
Got it. What are some key principles you consider when developing communication strategies to ensure that scientific research is effectively conveyed to diverse audiences?

Meagan (42:38.912)
Yeah, so we're thinking more about diverse reporter audiences. We are right now, our team has a special Twitter that's it's called SciPack ES, and it's set to it reaches journalists and scientists and really anyone in Spanish speaking countries. It highlights research that is led by

Spanish language investigators or that has implications for South America in particular. We have heard that this effort that we do fills a real gap and Spanish language reporters and Spanish speaking investigators are very happy that we're doing it, but we would like to expand and launch similar kind of efforts to curate content and highlight.

investigators from different regions for Africa, India, and elsewhere. And it just takes time. So we, we are trying to set up for the year ahead, someone on our team to do this for Africa, because we have, we publish quite a bit of research that has implications for Africa and where researchers are based there. And we know from talking to reporters that, um, when we, I, we highlight investigators from regions where they are.

it makes a total difference in their likelihood of covering the work. And this is information that it's out there, it's in the paper, you can see an author's affiliation, but it's not easy to find, they're busy. So we're hearing that if we could do more work to elevate, you know, when investigators are from key regions doing work that affects those regions, it would really change the landscape of what reporters would cover. So we've done a little bit of that. Like I've said for...

Spanish language regions and now we'd like to do it for Africa and other places around the world. So that's a goal for 2024.

Nikesh (44:44.382)
Got it. How has your experience with the Fulbright Scholarship influenced your approach to science communication, particularly in understanding and addressing international perspectives?

Meagan (44:59.9)
Yeah, I did a Fulbright in Valencia, Spain in 2008. And I went to a lab that was bringing in all the samples of dolphins and whales that were being killed off by a virus, Mormilla virus. This was happening up and down the Mediterranean. One lab was gathering samples. They were trying to figure out why this virus had resurfaced. And I went to do communication about the results. And I think that the...

experience affected me in the following way. You know, it was, as Fulbrights are, it was an incredibly independent endeavor. I was the only person in the city of Valencia. I had come up with this idea to help elevate the findings of this lab and I was able to do it. However, I could conjure would be a worthwhile way to do it. And so you have to get scrappy.

You have to get creative. You have to be willing to fail. And that is absolutely the approach that I bring to the Science Press Package team. When I started, we only had three journals. All we, we had a very reactive approach to the Science Press Package. We would put minimal assets up in our embargoed press package, let reporters come to us, let reporters come to authors. Now we are absolutely encouraging our authors to get out there in different ways.

We're helping them be more proactive and creative in communication. And that's leading to better and different media placements. The Fulbright experience really emboldened me to be creative. And I'm so glad that we have the support to do that on the team. It's the reason that we're launching Policy Pack this month and that we've done a lot of other things on behalf of our authors. And that the authors have seen success from that in visibility for their work.

And thank you for asking me about it. It was really special to go on the full.

Nikesh (47:02.29)
No, thank you for sharing that, Megan. And I love the fact that, you know, obviously all the aspects that you spoke about, but one of them, you know, willing to fail. And that's so important because I think, as we all know, we just have so many of our own inhibitions, which stops us from really doing so many things, which probably are not as big or as daunting as it's.

Meagan (47:11.781)
Yes.

Nikesh (47:29.186)
really turns out to be. So, you know, that was really very practical. And just building on that as a benefit to our listeners who would like to learn from your experience and gain some practical advice on navigating the space from research to effective research communication, what would be one or two tips that you would have?

Meagan (47:53.1)
I think I like to go right to the source and ask them about why they're studying, why they're so excited to be working on the research topic that they're working on, because letting them tell you that story in their own words automatically elevates your own excitement, interest, and capacity and willingness to study that work too.

It's really important to know why someone is 100% behind something. And they're often surprising insights that come from that. So go to the source, ask them why they're studying this, why it's so important to them, and take something from that. And then I think just continue. The other thing I would say is just build the muscle that is.

reading a scientific paper. Like a lot of people say that seems like a daunting task, right, to read so many scientific papers. Our writers are reading eight of them a week. And it is, it is. But if you can just say, I'm going to build this muscle, just like I do pushups and burpees and other exercises, I'm going to build some proficiency in this. It can be really enjoyable. And it's really important to read the whole paper. I just, I really believe in this, especially in this age of all kinds of shortcuts.

So, and we've seen over time that our writers have built this muscle and they can do it well and it's not daunting, so I encourage the pursuit of that. I will encourage it for my own children as well.

Nikesh (49:30.014)
That's brilliant, thank you, Megan. And just kind of building on that, another question that just came to my mind. I know that a few years back, there was a survey done where I think a lot of researchers expressed that they maybe don't even know how to use Twitter to its full potential. They would struggle writing those 100 odd characters as well. As more and more young researchers,

get involved in science communication, what would be your advice to them about communicating their science?

Meagan (50:08.612)
Yeah, I actually have a part-time position at Gettysburg College in South Central Pennsylvania, and I work with science majors who want to do science communication, and this is a question that I get a lot. Because a lot of them, I think, want to get on social media and start to have a presence where they're talking about science, but they don't know how to do it, and it is daunting. I get it. What we've seen work really well, though, is when researchers get on social,

and convey their excitement about a topic and they can get geeky, they can get nerdy, and niche, they just have to be committed to it. So I would say, don't be afraid to get online, get out there and share what you're most excited about and that could be a really obscure aspect of the scientific corner that you're studying, that's okay.

but commit to it. Just do a little bit consistently. So maybe that's every day or five days, just a little bit, commit to it. And people will start to know you as the, you know, the Cilia person or the robotic actuator person. And when you're doing it, you know, be human about it. You can insert some humor and also incorporate visuals. Doesn't have to be a lot every day, just a little bit. And put the real person behind it. People like to see the real person.

And then just learn to listen to your audience, see what kind of feedback they're giving you. We've seen this work really well for a lot of researchers.

Nikesh (51:45.806)
Wow, I love the fact that you're able to share these practical tips and your advice in such a natural way. And it's just, you know, kind of straight from the heart, Megan. So, you know, it's really good. And I really appreciate that. And just building on that, I promise this is the final piece of advice that I'm asking you to share. But how do you advise industry stakeholders to best support the authors in their interaction with

reporters, especially when it comes to reaching beyond echo chambers and engaging with diverse audiences.

Meagan (52:22.432)
Yes, it's a great question. And I want to come back to uncertainty. I think that industry stakeholders who are supporting authors want to not, oh, are we still on? Can you hear me?

Nikesh (52:42.298)
Yeah, I think I lost you for a brief moment, Megan, but you were just saying, let me come back to uncertainty.

Meagan (52:51.864)
Yes, okay, so if industry stakeholders can get behind the idea that scientists who communicate constantly about both what they found and what they're unsure about, if they can support them in that and embolden them in that, that is going to pay such dividends for these scientists in the long run who are trying to build trust and interest in their work in their field. So

Don't let it be something you shy away from. Develop strategies around it and how to do it. This is what we know, this is what we're not sure about. These are the steps we might take to explore questions in the future. Come back to us and you'll see us working on this. This is how we would want young people who are interested in the field to get involved. There's a lot of excitement around the uncertainty piece and the next step piece. So even though it seems counterintuitive.

I think the industry stakeholders can support communication around uncertainty and doing it well and doing it creatively. I think that's the future of science communication done right.

Nikesh (53:53.97)
Fantastic. And one final question, Megan, just as a huge benefit to all our listeners.

Shirish Raut (53:59.562)
Sorry, Nikesh. Nikesh, sorry to break you there. Megan, we lost you on the beginning of the last answer, the last question. So we will need to do that again just to be safe. So can you start from the top of your response? Nikesh, can you repeat your last question and then we'll go from there. Sorry about this.

Meagan (54:08.345)
Okay.

Nikesh (54:19.742)
Show.

Nikesh (54:23.886)
No, that's fine. So yeah, just the last piece of advice from you, Megan. How do you advise industry stakeholders to best support authors in their interaction with reporters, especially when it comes to reaching beyond echo chambers and engaging with diverse audiences?

Meagan (54:49.436)
I want to come back to uncertainty on this. I think that it can be a topic that industry stakeholders might be inclined to shy away from, but there's actually so much to unpack in the uncertainty space that can bring audiences in and help them understand and get excited about the process of science. So I would encourage industry stakeholders to help researchers they're supporting say, this is how I'm gonna talk about this. So.

This is what we know, this is what we found, and this is what we don't know yet. And these are the steps we might take to explore it. And you know, it would be incredible if young people interested in the field of science in this field could get involved in this way, because that could really help us explore it and stay in touch with us reporters, come back to us, because probably in a year, a year and a half, we'll have more information on this piece, which is Uncertain Now. We look forward to talking to you. And so there.

are ways to set that up that can benefit the researchers' future connections with reporters and the creative support from industry stakeholders that can really be fertile grounds. And I think it's the future of the way to do science communication right.

Nikesh (55:58.174)
Thank you. Thank you so much for that, Megan. And one final question, which will benefit all our listeners, how do you keep yourself updated in the field of science communication or scholarly publishing as a whole?

Meagan (56:14.332)
That is a great question. And the best thing that I've come up with is to follow certain science reporters and scientists on X. And then I get updates every time they post. That's just one small way to do it. I also try to check certain websites like scientist news team does a fantastic job covering really important inflection points in scientific research and policy landscape. But.

I think that I'll never feel fully caught up. I also love to just get together with colleagues and ask them, you know, what have you been reading? I'll even ask our CEO, Sudha Parikh, you know, what have you seen recently published that's gotten you excited? So just staying curious is very important as well.

Nikesh (57:02.722)
Absolutely, I love that, Megan. I fully agree with you. I think there was a phase when I would feel there's just so much to read and I just don't have enough time. And then when I changed my way of maybe gaining knowledge, that helped me a lot. So, you know, we've all very thankful, of course, that COVID's over and we've got this opportunity to meet people once again, conferences are back, and just a mix of all of these things.

is really helpful because I don't think you know just one form of consumption is going to really help you and so yeah that was really useful.

Meagan (57:41.996)
I agree, yeah.

Nikesh (57:45.786)
Well, that wraps up this insightful conversation with Megan Phelan. We've journeyed through the intricacies of science communication, from staying ahead in the dynamic media landscape to the delicate balance between broad coverage and scientific integrity. We also spoke about alternate formats and how they made communicating complex ideas simpler. Megan shared valuable perspectives on engaging policymakers, building trust in an era of misinformation and tailoring strategies for studies across different sciences. Megan, thank you so much for sharing your wealth of experience. And to our listeners, stay tuned for more episodes that unravel the fascinating world of academic research on insights exchange. Until next time, keep exploring the frontiers of knowledge.