Think. Build. Heal. Also, tell the story.

Do you remember the moment you decided to become a scientist, engineer, or health professional? Maybe it was while gazing at the stars with your grandparents on a summer night. Maybe it was while building a volcano in grade school, volunteering at a nature center, or seeing a loved one's life transformed by a new treatment. Maybe it was not a single moment, but rather a gradual pathway with a series of experiences. However it happened, one thing is likely true: your decision was grounded in a deeply human experience. You chose science because it interested you and touched life, yours or someone else's. There's a beautiful harmony in that, because science is the study of life and the world around us. It's woven into the human experience, not separate from it. Many of us in science understand this, but we are not always effective at conveying this perspective to our families, friends, neighbors, and the public. That's a loss, not just for science, but for all of us. Because science exists to serve: to make our world better, our communities safer, and our families healthier, thereby enriching our lives with greater access to art, music, and the many other joys of the human experience. At a time when access to critical research and patient care funding is changing, when institutions are being restructured, and when trust in science is wavering, the gap between what we know and what others perceive carries real consequences (1–3). There are likely many ways to help bridge this divide. But here's one small, meaningful place to start: let's simply show up as people. As neighbors, family, and community members, each of us has a story that brought us to science and a hope that science can continue to enrich everyone's lives. Let's be ambassadors and storytellers of scientific discoveries in our fields—not just through facts and findings, but through shared human values and experiences. This strategy reflects insights from the learning sciences, which emphasize the value of a person-centered approach to science, technology, engineering, and medicine (STEM) outreach. Encouraging individuals to connect with STEM through relatable personal stories and real-world industry examples has been shown to boost K-12 student engagement and foster motivation to pursue STEM careers (4). Across age groups, narratives capture attention by engaging emotions and imagination, making information easier to process and more meaningful (5). Because people often gravitate toward content that aligns with their existing beliefs and because the perceived truth of a topic does not always shape reactions, storytelling in science is considered a powerful tool for overcoming these biases (6). By creating emotional and cognitive involvement, narratives can achieve the level of audience connection that traditional science communication frequently struggles to deliver (7). Still, while recognizing the unique strength of narratives, it helps to understand why audiences may respond to the same scientific message in such different ways. Many of the reactions that shape whether information feels convincing, confusing, or dismissible grow out of well-documented cognitive patterns that influence how people process new information. Motivated reasoning research shows that individuals often rely on cognitive processes that favor the conclusions they already prefer, selectively accessing beliefs and strategies that allow those preferred conclusions to feel justified (8). Selective exposure research similarly demonstrates that people tend to seek information that reinforces their existing attitudes, especially when digital environments give them more control over what they see, even though they do not always avoid opposing views outright (9). Work on cultural cognition offers an additional lens, showing that individuals interpret scientific information through the values and identities of the groups they belong to, which helps explain why facts alone often fail to change minds (10). At the same time, trust building can be especially challenging in misinformation-rich environments where false claims continue to shape judgments even after correction, where factual backfire effects are rarer than commonly assumed, and where inoculation-style interventions have shown promise in boosting resilience against misinformation (11–13). The question then becomes how we can use stories in our everyday interactions to break through these barriers, counter misinformation, and help people make sense of the science that shapes their lives. We offer the advice below as scientists, engineers, and health professionals who use science every day and continue to be in awe of new scientific discoveries. As a scientist, your passion and excitement are boundless; you can inspire younger people to pursue a STEM career and help anyone, of any age, connect science to everyday life. In your neighborhood school and broader community, the next generation of innovators is watching the moon, climbing trees, falling down, and asking every question possible. Why can I sometimes see the moon during the day? What makes certain trees grow better than others? What happens to my skin after I scrape it? Freely engage with the curiosities wherever you meet them: in your day-to-day life or in a volunteer organization that relies on scientists to teach and mentor. Be patient, joyful, and silly. When your niece brings you slime to play with, you can mention to her that it's a polymer and it's viscoelastic (or “sticky stretchy”) and then have the patience to explain what those words mean. When you’re helping your friend's child bake a cake, tell them about the chemical reaction between the lemon and the baking soda that produces a gas that makes the cake fluffy. Trust that your excitement and knowledge, once picked up by them, will continue to ripple through their friends, family, and broader communities. Those ripples of curiosity we help create are often carried forward through the stories people remember and share. Research in science communication reinforces this observation. Narratives are one of the ways people naturally make sense of the world, and studies show why they work so well. They can increase interest, engagement, and comprehension, helping people understand and remember scientific ideas more easily than traditional logical explanations (14). A meta-analysis of narrative studies also found consistent persuasive effects, with stories shaping beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and even behaviors in meaningful ways (15). When science is shared through stories that feel connected to real people and real situations, it becomes easier for those ideas to take root and continue spreading. Research indicates that authentic, hands-on activities are also effective in sparking interest in science, particularly among K-12 students (16). For adults, who often learn through free-choice experiences, such as watching documentaries, visiting museums, reading magazines, or exploring online resources, similar principles apply (17). Evidence suggests that while formal education predicts self-reported science and technology knowledge, it is not as strong of a predictor as participation in free-choice learning experiences (18). Therefore, instead of relying solely on formal conversations with the people in our lives, scientists can encourage family and friends to engage in these informal learning opportunities and even join them in activities, such as museum visits or documentary viewings. Equally important is fostering bidirectional conversations, rather than one-way lectures, about these experiences, similar to how people talk about sports or current events. This practice helps integrate science into everyday life and positions it as a natural and engaging part of the social fabric (19). As an engineer, you are constantly contemplating how to build a better world. You recognize that your unique skill set allows you to define and solve problems that, while initially daunting, have the potential to enhance human life. Good engineers are good listeners. Work to engage users and stakeholders in the design process; don’t just build for them, but build solutions “with” them. Understand the limitations of your own knowledge, biases, and assumptions, and work with experts outside your own field who can augment and complement your skill set. Ensure that you are working with communities in mutually beneficial ways and that you are centering your user throughout the design process. Take the time to ask: Why are some steps currently done in a certain way? What constraints are involved? Who should be involved in the design process? Engaging the broader community in the design and development of the products, services, and systems that drive our world will create buy-in and trust in engineered solutions. This advice aligns with ongoing efforts to integrate participatory design and co-design practices into engineering curriculum and practice. Participatory design and co-design methods are both human-centered design approaches that actively involve the communities and individuals who are affected by or will use a product, system, or service in the design process itself (20). Instead of treating users as passive recipients of technology, participatory design emphasizes engagement with marginalized and/or underserved populations, helping to dismantle potential power dynamics between the “designer” and the “designed for” (21, 22). Emerging work suggests that both participatory and co-design methods not only build early stakeholder buy-in but can also result in innovative and technologically advanced solutions, such as buildings with enhanced functional complexity and transparent AI systems (23–25). These ideas also reflect what long-standing community-based participatory research efforts have taught us about working with communities. At the heart of this approach is a clear recognition that power shows up in many forms, including who makes decisions and whose knowledge is valued. Partners in this work emphasize that knowledge itself is a form of power and that naming expertise wherever it exists, sharing information openly, and acknowledging historical inequities all matter (26). They also note that building trust requires more than good intentions. It means working together to create operating norms that support open communication, mutual respect, and shared decision-making, because these practices help address the lack of trust and unequal power relationships that often stand in the way of progress (27, 28). If engineers bring this same mindset to their design partnerships, they can likely strengthen the process and create solutions that reflect the lived experience, priorities, and strengths of the people most affected. As a health professional, you may feel hesitant to bring broader conversations about science into your patient interactions. But the truth is, those conversations are already happening. Patients often arrive having done their own research, bringing questions about new therapies they’ve read or heard about. These moments offer a valuable opportunity not just to clarify facts but to engage in thoughtful dialogue. Sharing insights about scientific studies, including their strengths, limitations, and the importance of ongoing research, can help build trust and reinforce the idea that medicine is constantly evolving in response to new evidence. Rather than limiting a conversation to something like, “We’ll plan to treat your high blood pressure with a medication called amlodipine,” you can more explicitly highlight the role of science by adding that: “Based on research involving many people, this medication is expected to work for you. Science is not always one-size-fits-all, but it helps guide our decisions. I’ll walk you through what that means for you and our plan for monitoring your blood pressure.” By weaving these narratives into everyday care, we not only inform but also empower patients to see themselves as partners in a shared scientific journey. More specifically, narrative communication has been shown to influence health behavior and decision-making through several well-studied mechanisms. These include reducing counterarguing, increasing engagement, and helping health information feel more personal and memorable. Narratives also support observational learning and shape perceptions of what is normal or expected in a given situation (29). In clinical settings, these same mechanisms help explain why patient-centered stories and the ways clinicians bring scientific evidence to life through narrative can meaningfully enhance understanding, motivation, and trust (30). Narrative perspectives also align with the well-documented literature on shared decision-making (SDM), which highlights the importance of clear communication, partnership, and patient involvement. SDM is defined as a collaborative process in which clinicians and patients engage in joint deliberation to make informed healthcare decisions (31). This approach integrates a discussion of the best available clinical evidence and scientific data with the patient's unique values, preferences, and contextual factors. In clinical settings, SDM is increasingly recognized as a critical component of patient-centered care, with empirical evidence suggesting its positive impact on the development of trust within the physician–patient relationship (32). Furthermore, the impact of SDM extends well beyond the traditional patient–physician dyad. Increasingly, SDM is being designed and implemented through interprofessional healthcare teams that include providers across multiple disciplines and levels of care (33). This collaborative model helps promote better integration of services, break down professional silos, and strengthen continuity of care (34). Moreover, SDM is not confined to the patient alone; families can play an active role even when the patient is neither incapacitated nor a minor (35, 36). Recognizing and incorporating family perspectives ensures that decisions reflect the broader context of patient values and support systems, ultimately fostering more holistic and sustainable care outcomes (37). As scientists, engineers, and health professionals, we often see ourselves as contributors to society through our work in advancing knowledge, solving problems, and improving lives. But we are also members of that same society, shaped by its systems and challenges. Our relationship with science is not fixed; it evolves with our experiences, both professional and personal. Consider the story of a parent who spent her adult life in STEM academia. When her first child was diagnosed with a rare, complex genetic condition, she encountered aspects of healthcare and education systems that she had never needed to navigate before. Through her interactions with other caregivers, she gained new perspectives on how people engage with science-informed systems in their everyday lives. These conversations were shaped by shared hopes, concerns, and a deep desire to advocate for their children. Her commitment to science remained strong, but her understanding of its role in people's lives became more nuanced. She recognized that the values often emphasized in professional spaces, such as precision, innovation, and achievement, must be complemented by compassion, inclusion, and a recognition of diverse lived experiences. Similar eye-opening experiences happen when doctors or other healthcare workers become patients themselves (38). Going through illness from the patient's perspective often uncovers gaps in communication, empathy, and system design that were not seen before. These experiences can increase appreciation for patient-centered care and stress the importance of SDM and trust (39). They remind us that knowledge does not protect us from vulnerability. Humility and listening are important in every interaction. As our lives unfold, we all encounter moments that challenge our assumptions and expand our understanding. These moments are not separate from our scientific and clinical work. They are part of it. They remind us that science is not only something we practice in our professions but also something we experience in our lives. By embracing this, we can help ensure that science remains relevant, trusted, and responsive to the needs of all people. As STEM professionals, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to advance knowledge in ways that serve both the research community and society. It's helpful to revisit that purpose from time to time and reflect on what it means for us to meet society's current needs—recognizing that the path forward may not always be straightforward and that communicating our role is part of the challenge. In the 1800s, James Clerk Maxwell formulated the theoretical equations that predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves, which were experimentally confirmed later that century by Heinrich Hertz (40). Neither was driven by commercial application. Instead, both were compelled by a desire to understand the natural world. Yet, their discoveries laid the foundation for one of the most transformative technologies of the 20th century: Guglielmo Marconi's wireless telegraph, the precursor to modern radio communication (41). History is full of such stories of foundational scientific breakthroughs that quietly seeded world-changing innovations like GPS, AI, the internet, and life-saving vaccines (42,43) . Unfortunately, most of society remains unaware of these origin stories, and thus, many people fail to assign the same value to basic science that scientists instinctively do. They overlook what Abraham Flexner so powerfully called “the usefulness of useless knowledge.” In today's rapidly evolving world, it is not enough for scientists to make discoveries. As we work with other disciplines and sectors, we must also be good listeners and become storytellers. We must embrace our humanity and own personal vulnerabilities as we share the journey of scientific exploration, the wonder of curiosity-driven research, and the limitless possibilities it unlocks. By leading with our humanity and sharing stories, we enable society to see not only what science accomplishes but also why it truly matters. The authors thank Alison Boland-Reeves for her editorial input and assistance with the editing of the manuscript. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. All authors are members of the New Voices Program at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The content of the manuscript reflects the authors’ views and not the views of their institutions or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.