Science Friday
Hosted by Flora Lichtman
As funding for US science is slashed, a science photographer and researcher takes a hard look at how scientists communicate their work.
2,943 words · 4 speakers
Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
WNYC is supported by Bayer. Science is about asking questions, testing, trying again. It's not easy, but it's relentless. It evolves, and that's why science delivers. Learn more at sciencedelivers.com.
Science Friday is supported by Dell. Gifts mean more when they have the power to unwrap more of who you are. This Black Friday, give a gift that goes beyond the box. The Dell XPS 13 laptop. It's the thinnest, lightest XPS laptop yet, with a long battery life, beautiful design, and powerful performance with Intel Core processors. The XPS laptop unlocks more of what you love. Plus, at dell.com, you'll find perks like Dell Rewards, fast free shipping, and flexible financing, and big savings on monitors and accessories. Head to dell.com/deals. That's dell.com/deals.
I'm Flora Lichtman, and you're listening to Science Friday.
Today in the show, bringing the public into science. Whose job is that?
There's no line item asking, well, what have you done lately with communicating to the public? It ain't there.
I don't have to tell you that it is a precarious time for US science. Federal funding is being slashed, career scientists laid off, and researchers are considering leaving to work abroad. On top of that, public trust in science and experts has declined. So for a lot of scientists, it's a time of reflection. What are we doing wrong? What should we be doing differently? And to quote David Byrne, "How did we get here?" Joining us with a perspective on these big questions is Felice Frankel, a science photographer and a research scientist in the Department of Chemical Engineering at MIT. She's also the author of the upcoming book, Phenomenal Moments: Revealing the Hidden Science All Around Us, out this fall.
Felice, welcome back to Science Friday.
Wonderful, wonderful to be here. Thanks, Flora.
You wrote me and you suggested we have a conversation about how, in your opinion, the research community has failed in bringing the public into our world. I am very interested in that, too, obviously, it's what I do for a living. So I want to start there. In your view, how has the research community failed the public?
Yeah, it's a really important question. And it's possible some of my colleagues will not agree with me, but I'm going to give it a shot.
Well, I like that. It was a way to start. Yeah, let's get into it.
For the most part, when I gather young researchers on campus for a workshop in graphics, what we do is we look at the way they are visually representing their work. And then when we get into the conversation, I then ask them, well, how would you say this to the non-expert? All of us out there, including myself, by the way. And for the most part, there's not really an interest in that exercise. That's what concerns me really deeply. And it has to do probably with the culture of research and how one advances, in fact,
in positions in science and engineering.
Like, there's no incentive to be good at that?
Exactly. That it's not rewarded. For example, to get tenure, there's no line item asking, well, what have you done lately with communicating to the public? It ain't there. And in my opinion, it should be an integral part of their education and the process of advancing, but it's not. Even the journals really consider graphics tangential.
Right. And of course, we know graphics are a gateway for people to understand.
Absolutely. It's a way of making it accessible and frankly, less frightening. I mean, even with a picture, for example, it's not to say that you can say everything in that one picture, but it's a portal to engage the non-expert and also those out of your field to ask questions. And we're not doing that.
You know, I've talked to many scientists who say it's not only that they aren't rewarded for being good communicators, they're actually penalized for engaging effectively with the public.
Yeah.
I mean, I think I've heard this in particular from younger researchers, from researchers who are underrepresented in their fields, from women who say that if they make something sound comprehensible, people think the work they're doing is not sophisticated.
I'm afraid you're right, that there is something to that, especially frankly, within the science community. When your graphics appear polished, some people will actually question, are you covering up for the data because you're making it look pretty cool? Well, looking pretty cool is okay in my mind, as long as we're being honest in the look, as long as we represent it. But this should be part of the researcher's education.
Before we get there, do you think that this is changing? Do you think, do you think that younger researchers think about this differently?
No question about it. And I'm delighted that you brought that up because I've been on campus for 30 years, count them, 30, and I absolutely have seen a change, no question. That, look, I'm one of the older people on campus. So when I say older, I don't take that as an admonishment. What I'm suggesting is the folks that have been doing this stuff for many, many years are not necessarily open to speaking to a larger audience or
To engage in graphical thinking. It's not easy, but it is becoming clear to me that the younger generation gets it.
What are they doing differently?
Well, they wanted to look communicative. That's what we do in our workshops is they want to discuss the fact. For example, how much information should I include? I mean, the bottom line is all the researchers want to include every piece of data, graphically or numerically, because they want to show that they've done the work. And I get all that. But in the end, when you put so much into whatever you're working visually on, you can't see what in the world you want to see, you know? It's not communicative.
You have to edit.
Yeah. You have to edit, edit, edit. And that's the first thing I ask them when we look. Let's say we look at their figure draft. And then the first thing I say is, what do you want me to see? And secondly, what can you edit out? And that takes thinking. It's not trivial. It's, there is no question in my mind that it advances your thinking as a researcher. You've got to figure out a hierarchy of information. You have to figure out, does this go over here? Or does it go over there? And in the end, the process itself clarifies the science in your own head.
Yes, of course. If you can translate it into a way that anyone can understand and absorb, it means you've got it really clear in your own mind.
I believe that, but it's not, it's not part of their requirement.
Yes, I mean, we're seeing this change. You know, our team is coming across more pitches because younger scientists are on social media, explaining the research that they do themselves. Do you see that too?
Absolutely. And I mean, I'm the old, old class who still is not into social media too much. But when I do see something well done, it's very exciting.
Can you explain your job a little bit? What do you do as a science photographer?
Great, yes. So what happens is the researcher will get in touch with me. They will say, we have a paper accepted. And then we sit down together to try to come up with a potential cover submission. And so the beauty of this for me personally is that I do have a science background. So what I do is sit down and invariably, which is the best part, the researcher will take out a pencil and paper and literally start drawing what they think is a way of communicating the research. And in that process, not only do I get it,
but they are clarifying their own thinking about what it is that we want to say in that figure or in the cover submission.
You know, I worked in TV and in video and, and doing science videos. And I found that scientists often capture these amazing visuals, things we've never seen before with our eyes and that they're underutilized. And I wondered what your perspective was on that.
Well, it, it is true, most of the researchers, the way they think is about capturing the image for their colleagues, for journal submissions. They are not thinking about how this is going to appear to the non-expert. That's where we're missing. It's about communicating in an engaging way. And it's not about changing the data. It's just applying techniques that work, but they don't do it.
You said it when we started, you know, maybe you're all, all your colleagues wouldn't agree with you on this. Talk to me about the disagreements. I, I want to understand what scientists are thinking about this moment and how scientists are sort of, you know, battling it out or disagreeing about. The role of scientists in public engagement, the what responsibility scientists have to engage the public? Talk me through that.
I I'm I'm going to say I'm embarrassed by this, but I'm not seeing an encouragement at all to speak to the non-expert.
Even now?
Even now, yes, even now. And and maybe, and this is not an excuse, but it one of the things that I realize is that this is an issue of time. These kids, and they're all kids to me. These these kids spend who knows how many months or years on a particular aspect of their research. And what their time involves, not only just doing the research, by the way, but also submitting to journals because it's also a measure of advancement. And so making a graphic becomes secondary.
It actually is done the last minute. I say to them, I will bet you that when you go to an article and read it online, you first read the title and the authors. Then you probably go to the abstract. And then I bet you you go to the figures and they all agree. The figures are an essential part of how they read an article. However, it's always the last thing that they put time into. It's mostly the text. And I also think that the journals do not help in this way.
The journals, for the most part, again, I'm going to get into trouble, but I'm OK about that, that the editors are mostly text driven. And the graphics people get the stuff after everything else. It's not a collaboration. I think the visual should be a collaboration with the text.
After the break, dreaming big about solutions to this problem.
I would love for there to be an administration that has a separate office devoted to getting the public to understand, frankly, where the money is going.
Don't go away.
Hey, Flora here. We're wrapping up Science Friday's fiscal year on June 30th, and we could use your support. I know I don't need to tell you. It is a tenuous time for science and for public media, and we are relying on donations from our listeners more than ever. We're aiming to raise $40,000 to close out our budget. And with your help, I know we can do it. So if Science Friday is valuable to you, if you rely on our reporting to make sense of the world or just give you a little joy, please consider going to sciencefriday.com/donate to make a donation. It's fast, easy, secure, and any amount you can swing will help sustain us in this critical moment. Thank you. We have said it before, and we really mean it.
Science Friday can only continue with your support. That's sciencefriday.com/donate. Thank you.
Science Friday is supported by PBS, presenting Going Wild. If you love learning about the natural world and meeting the scientists who help us understand it, be sure to check out the new season of Going Wild with Dr. Ray Wynn Grant. It's the chart-topping and Webby Award-winning podcast from the folks at Nature on PBS, now with a video companion series. In this season of Going Wild, host acclaimed wildlife ecologist Dr. Ray Wynn Grant heads out into the field to explore the animals, people, and stories that make nature worth saving. Stops include a hibernating black bear den in Arkansas and an underwater shipwreck site off the Florida coast. If you're looking for a place to start, check out the season's debut episode, where Ray joins beloved biologist and influencer Jordan King in the Florida Everglades
to learn about his unlikely journey into science and how to study a wetland when it's not very, well, wet. So don't miss out. Follow Going Wild with Dr. Ray Wynn Grant on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. WNYC is supported by Bayer. Every day in America, science delivers, not just in the headlines, but in the moments that matter most. Science is a journey, one of curiosity, persistence, and progress. It's about asking questions, testing, learning, and improving again and again. Science delivers harvests that feed families, tools that help farmers grow more with less, and new ways to protect land for generations to come.
Let's keep asking, keep testing, keep discovering, so science can keep delivering. Learn more at sciencedelivers.com.
Support for Science Friday comes from the Heising Simons Foundation. Unlocking knowledge, opportunity, and possibilities. More at hsfoundation.org.
What do you think we as science journalists need to be doing better?
I love that question, and it's pretty simple. I think you have to ask for more visuals.
I'm a radio show, so.
Well, let me say this. I will bet you, as a journalist, to become more educated in a particular subject would welcome a visual expression of what this story is about. The New York Times does a wonderful approach on this. Today, for example, I saw a very clear graphic explaining what kind of funding is being diminished.
Yeah, I saw that, too. That was great.
Wasn't that good at work?
It was good.
It taught you something as a journalist. I'm sure it added to your knowledge. If it were just plain text, you wouldn't have imagined the numbers, the quantitative elements of how the research figures are changing. You got something from that graphic. I think journalists should engage their own minds into the graphics and the visuals.
I love that. Yeah. Anything else you think that science journalists could be doing better?
Well, I might be getting too personal and you'll tell me. But I would like science journalists to take people like me more seriously. That it's not just making pretty pictures. That when I create a final submission, a lot of thought has gone into it and a lot of knowledge based on my conversations with the researcher. I'm not second class. I believe that people like me
are not taken seriously.
You know, I think that's how the public feels. To be honest. That they should be taken seriously, too.
Good for you. Absolutely. Amen to that.
Before we let you go, if we think about solutions to this, you know, let's dream big. What would move the needle? What do you think needs to happen?
I do think about this and what I would like to happen is not going to happen because of what we're living through right now.
I would love for there to be an administration that has a separate office devoted to getting the public to understand frankly, where the money is going.
A government office, you mean?
Yeah, national, federal, exactly. I had wonderful communication with one of the science advisors on the previous administration's advisory committee. She's a Nobel Prize winner and I said, here's what I'd love you to bring up to in your meetings. How about creating a national effort in visual communication, et cetera, et cetera? And she said, Felice, I feel the same way. We're not doing a good job. We're not doing a job. But that's not my task. That's not why I was put on the advisory committee. There needs to be an interest in the administration nationally to understand
the value of engaging the public and even the scientists themselves in communicating research. But there will be someday an administration that will understand the importance of using visual tools to engage the public in science and to understand that there's a reason why getting back to vaccinations. There is a scientific reason why we are encouraging this. But as I said, it ain't going to happen today.
We can, I think we can, and it's our responsibility to think big.
Boy, oh, boy. I wish you were right.
Thanks, Felice, for this conversation. I appreciate it.
It's a pleasure. Thank you so much.
Felice Frankel is a science photographer and a research scientist in the Department of Chemical Engineering at MIT. She's also the author of the upcoming book, Phenomenal Moments: Revealing the Hidden Science Around Us, out this fall. Thanks for listening. If you like the show, rate and review us wherever you listen, or just go straight to guerrilla marketing. Take a friend's phone and subscribe them to this podcast. Please help us get the word out about Science Friday. Today's episode was produced by Dee Peterschmidt. I'm Flora Lichtman. Thanks for listening.
Page updated November 3, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated