Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness www.cambridge.org/dmp Letter to the Editor Cite this article: Shah YB, Glatter R, Madad S. In layman’s terms: the power and problem of science communication. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/ dmp.2022.131. Keywords: communication; emergency preparedness; infection control; mass media; pandemics Corresponding author: Yash B Shah, Email: yxs049@students.jefferson.edu. © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. In Layman’s Terms: The Power and Problem of Science Communication Yash B Shah 1 , Robert Glatter MD 2 and Syra Madad DHSc 3,4 1 Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; 2 Department of Emergency Medicine, Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, NY; 3 Special Pathogens Program Office, NYC Health þ Hospitals, New York, NY and 4 Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA Abstract Improved policies for science communication are needed to ensure scientific progress in com- ing decades. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated massive gaps in science communication, ranging from masking and social distancing mandates to vaccination requirements. These obstacles compounded the pandemic’s tremendous inherent clinical and public health challenges. Although science made immense progress in understanding the virus and designing infection control solutions, society still remains within the pandemic due to flawed understand- ing, low responsiveness, and widespread misinformation on behalf of the public. Flawed com- munication plagues national responses not only to the pandemic, but also other long-standing issues such as climate change or nutrition. This Letter proposes a new protocol and framework for effective science communication, designed to educate experts in evidence-based communi- cation, improve public partnership through relatability and modern relevance, and increase empathy and trustworthiness to increase public cooperation. A defined protocol for science communication can ensure that evolving knowledge can tangibly benefit society. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed a pressing need for improved science communication by illustrating how easily information can be misinterpreted to create confusion or spread misin- formation. Science communication can make or break outbreak responses, yet only 1/3 of Americans believe scientists communicate effectively, and the population holds profoundly different views on science-based topics including climate change, evolution, nutrition and yes, vaccinations. 1 Scientists have mastered communication amongst peers through proposals, publications, and conferences. Discussions within the medical community come easily, as scientists expect colleagues to speak the same language; however, conversing with the public can pose unique difficulties. The advantage of a shared knowledge base disappears as translating complex scien- tific information into laymen terms is challenging. When they fail to address this gap, scientists appear disconnected and condescending. The pandemic highlighted countless examples of poor scientific communication, beginning with the masking debate and escalating with vaccine alarmism. Officials initially advised against masking based on incomplete knowledge on the virus and how masks would affect transmission. As more data was generated, public health guidance changed accordingly. However, some people questioned subsequent mask mandates. This illustrates the vitality of teaching the public - including elected officials - about the scientific process and its constant evolution. Guidance changes not because initial recommendations were false, but because experts learned and adapted. Similarly, poor communication directly impeded the national pandemic response by preventing the prioritization of a national testing strategy incorporating rapid antigen tests. Only recently, 18 months after the lockdown, did federal officials announce a rapid testing initiative. An early focus on PCR-based tests, trusted due to their high individual diagnostic sensitivity, clouded advocacy by experts including Mina et al. who argued rapid testing would provide a high-sensitivity national-level public health tool. 2 Experts failed to impress the utility of rapid testing regardless of low individual sensitivity upon the public or governing officials. Compounded by pre-existing doubts about vaccines based on misleading associations with autism and long-term health detriments, suspicion of government tracking devices, and unac- ceptable historical racism, alarmism severely interrupted America’s quest towards mass immun- ity. Previous vaccination campaigns demonstrated the value of community-level approaches in enhancing vaccine uptake, yet this approach was not initially taken. When the vaccine was originally released, a third of the American population expressed concern. 3 While some simply stated ‘if others get it, I don’t need to,’ others expressed deep fears - some were understandable and founded in reality while others were based on misinformation, and still other sets of people doubted the safety of a vaccine developed at such a rapid pace. These opinions were intensified https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2022.131 Published online by Cambridge University Press