Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
How can science communication sustain informed public dialogue during an era when academia and institutions in general are under mounting pressure from multiple societal forces? In this paper, we reflect on where science communication fails, and how to improve structures and incentives to strengthen public understanding, trust, and democratic dialogue. We identify four non-exhaustive aspects that we consider particularly insightful for developing recommendations targeted at three distinct stakeholder groups: media and educators, academia, and policymakers. Our perspectives and recommendations aim to improve science communication to foster citizens’ resilience against circulating misinformation, encourage science communicators to reflect on their responsibility, and help shape policies that address the root causes of misinformation. In cooperation with German Center for Research and Innovation New York
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fendt et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: