What is science communication and why is it important at the IoPPN?

Science communication is everywhere today – from podcast episodes to Instagram carousels, TED Talks to viral TikTok videos. But its roots go far deeper than digital trends.

Back in the day, it wasn’t even called ‘science communication’. Depending on where you were in the world, it went by names like ‘popularisation of science’, ‘vulgarisation’ or even ‘public understanding or science’. The focus was to get experts to explain complex stuff to non-experts – usually in a one-directional, ‘we’ll teach you’ kind of way.

However, that model didn’t always work. It assumed people just needed more facts to understand science. But science isn’t just about facts; it’s about context, connection and credibility.

From there, science communication started evolving through different “generations.” First came the ‘deficit model’ (just fill in the knowledge gap). Then the ‘dialogue model’ (let’s actually listen to the public too). And now, we’re seeing a ‘participation model’, where communities are actively involved in shaping research itself. Think patient-led studies and projects grounded in lived experience.

At its core, science communication is the practice of sharing scientific research, discoveries and ideas with audiences outside of the scientific community. That could be policymakers, healthcare workers, patients, students or just anyone curious about how science fits into everyday life. It can take many forms: blog posts (like this one!), podcasts, infographics, videos, talks, news articles and even Instagram posts. There’s no one way to do it, which is what makes it so interesting.

So, why does science communication matter?

Because it bridges the gap between researchers and the wider public, ensuring that scientific knowledge is not confined to academic journals or specialist communities. By making complex information accessible, clear and engaging, science communication helps people understand how research relates to their everyday lives—from health decisions to policy debates to societal change. In a time of misinformation and rapid technological advancement, science communication also plays a crucial role in building public trust, promoting transparency and empowering informed decisions.

Why is science communication important at the IoPPN?

The IoPPN is a world leader in mental health and neuroscience research. Every day, incredible work is being done to better understand conditions like depression, psychosis, dementia, ADHD and so many others. But if this knowledge stays locked in academia or jargon-heavy papers, then what’s the point? The people who need this knowledge might never get to use it.

That’s where science communication comes in. At the IoPPN, it isn't an "add-on" to research. It’s a core part of it – a way of making science not just visible, but understandable and actionable.

The IoPPN comms team is led by Louise Pratt (Head of Communications). It consists of IoPPN Media Manager (Patrick O’Brien), Social & Digital Media Manager (Divyesh Mistry), Faculty Communications Manager (Robin Maginn), Communications Assistant (Anisa Haque), Senior Events Officer (Hannah Warren) and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre comms team (Franca Davenport, Alex Booth, Liz Morrow and Laura O’Neill).

Each IoPPN School also has one dedicated Communications Manager (Emily Webb for Academic Psychiatry, Milly Remmington for MHaPS, and Annora Thoeng for Neuroscience).

As student interns, we had the chance to meet with some of the people who make science comms happen and here’s what we learned from this dedicated team.

Making research clear and accessible to all

Divyesh Mistry, Social & Digital Media Manager, handles all things online — from the IoPPN’s website to its social media. He works closely with researchers to help them share their work in a way that’s clear, jargon-free (as much as possible), and accessible to everyone, including people who use screen readers or have reading difficulties. He’s especially focused on making sure what’s published online is inclusive and easy to navigate. From helping teams set up pages about their research centres to checking language choices, he makes the whole process less intimidating. One of his golden rules? “If I can’t understand it, no one else will.”

He also manages the IoPPN’s online presence to post updates as well as protect the faculty’s name and identity. For him, science communication isn’t just about saying something, it’s about saying it responsibly.

From research papers to newspaper headlines

Patrick O’Brien is the Media Manager — he works with journalists to share research with the wider public. In this role he takes dense academic papers and shapes them into stories that resonate with everyday people. Whether it’s writing a press release, crafting headlines or helping journalists understand new findings, Patrick’s goal is always the same: making it meaningful.

He’s also very aware that most people aren’t reading full articles or tuning into traditional news anymore, so he’s always thinking about how to adapt research into bite-sized, social media-friendly content.

One thing he emphasises: listen. Whether it’s to the audience, journalists, researchers or to what the science actually says — being a good communicator starts with paying attention.

Turning complex neuroscience into stories people care about

Annora Thoeng, Communications Manager for the School of Neuroscience, has a science background herself, which helps when explaining tricky topics like brain imaging or neurological research. She works closely with researchers to carefully translate their complex findings and make them relatable to the public.

Annora believes science communication is about more than just informing — it’s about engaging. She wants researchers to feel excited about sharing their work, whether through blogs, videos or public events. Her mantra? "Let me brag about you." She plays a big role in encouraging diversity and public involvement in research, especially around neurological studies.

The importance of internal communication

Robin Maginn, Faculty Communications Manager, focuses more on the internal side of things, making sure IoPPN staff across all departments are informed and connected.

Robin highlighted one key point: You can’t have strong external communication without strong internal networks. If researchers feel part of a collaborative, well-informed environment, they’re more likely to share their work with the world, and do it well. Working with the School Communications Managers, he helps guide researchers on how to get their work seen, and makes sure important information (like funding opportunities or events) gets to the right people.

The significance of it all

What stood out to us from all four conversations was how intentional and thoughtful the communication process is. From helping researchers at the very beginning of a project, to translating published findings into social posts, the IoPPN’s comms team makes sure science doesn’t stay stuck in academia. They help bring science to people clearly, accessibly and meaningfully. And in a world where misinformation spreads fast, that kind of communication is essential.

Challenges in science communication at the IoPPN

Despite growing recognition of the value of science communication, experts at the IoPPN highlight several challenges that complicate the mission of reaching wider audiences effectively – both within and beyond the institution.

One recurring theme is the complexity of translation – turning academic research into formats that are not only digestible but also engaging. As Patrick explains, research often arrives in the form of dense, technical documents that require significant adaptation before they can resonate with non-specialist readers. "Turning 20–30 pages of findings into a single page of bullet points is a task that demands both precision and creativity," says Patrick. Yet even the clearest outputs can fall short of reaching everyone, especially those who don’t naturally seek out scientific information.

Another challenge is striking the right balance between clarity and accuracy. Oversimplification risks distorting the science, while overloading people with technical detail can alienate them. Annora echoes this concern. She notes that while mental health research tends to be more relatable, areas like neuroscience require extra care – and often, a good analogy – to avoid either overwhelming or under-informing the audience.

Information overload is another critical issue. Communicators today are navigating crowded spaces – emails, posts and updates that all compete for attention. Robin emphasises the challenge of cutting through the noise, whether it’s getting staff to engage with internal announcements or ensuring that key opportunities reach the right people. He stresses the importance of proximity, noting that messages are far more effective when delivered through channels familiar and relevant to specific groups, rather than broad, impersonal broadcasts.

Meanwhile, accessibility and inclusivity remain essential but often under-addressed. Divyesh points out that science communication must account for neurodiversity and differing reading abilities. If there’s overreliance on using jargon, acronyms and text-heavy infographics, many potential readers would be unintentionally excluded. Updating these practices to align with accessibility standards, such as the Equality Act, remains an ongoing challenge.

Beyond institutional barriers, misinformation and the rise of unqualified science influencers has brought external challenges. Annora warns of the growing presence of TikTok ‘science communicators’ who lack the necessary expertise, contributing to a climate where audiences are bombarded with misleading claims. In response, she stresses the need for critical thinking and media literacy, both among communicators and the public.

Together, these challenges highlight that effective science communication requires cross-disciplinary collaboration and must evolve alongside changing digital landscapes. As science communication grows in relevance, addressing these gaps becomes crucial to ensuring that the life-changing research produced at the IoPPN truly reaches those it is meant to help. For the comms team, it’s more than a technical task – it’s a social responsibility.

As student interns with Milly, School of MHaPS Communications Manager, this experience has honestly been such an eye-opener for us. One big thing we’ve learned is that research doesn’t mean much if it’s not communicated well, and getting that communication right is definitely not a simple task. It’s a whole mission on its own, and we’ve really enjoyed being part of it.

We loved getting to work with different members of the team and seeing how everyone’s roles fit together like pieces of a puzzle. Creating content for the socials was another highlight: figuring out how to share the same message in different ways across LinkedIn, Instagram, X and Bluesky was super interesting (and trickier than we expected!).

We’re walking away from this internship with a deeper appreciation for the behind-the-scenes work that goes into making research accessible and engaging. It’s been such a valuable learning journey, and we’re so grateful to the team (a BIG shout-out to Milly!) for welcoming us in and supporting us every step of the way. Here’s to carrying everything we’ve learned into our future adventures!

Written by Anika Gogia and Brittany Zhao, BSc Psychology students and Communications Interns in the School of Mental Health & Psychological Sciences at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience.

All illustrations were drawn by Brittany Zhao.

Contact the IoPPN communications team at ioppn-pr@kcl.ac.uk.