It wasn’t until my fourth year of research in undergrad that I had a strange thought: Am I no longer part of the “general public?” It was an exciting thought — it felt great to be part of some exclusive club in which some of the smartest people were members. My mind was consumed by my research, so much so that I found myself analyzing data and working overtime in the lab instead of studying for my last few classes I needed to graduate. I wish that I had expressed this feeling to the primary investigator of my lab, as I think he would have put things in perspective and deflated my ego.

Scientists often speak of the “general public” as a group that is far removed from the academic circles that they belong to. Maybe it’s a post-doctoral associate complaining that the media picked up a paper she published and is completely misconstruing the results. It could be the primary investigator, explaining to undergraduate researchers that lowering the nicotine content in cigarettes could help the public quit smoking. This term often comes up in political discussions — why won’t the general public listen to scientists instead of politicians who have little to no scientific background? My explanation? Scientists have “othered” the general public.

In reality, there is no such thing as the “general public” except for in very specific contexts (i.e. vaccine developers are not the general public vs those who do not develop vaccines when one is speaking about vaccine research). What some scientists seem to have forgotten is that each one of us is a member of the “general public” in infinite contexts. My undergraduate research was in behavioral neuroscience, studying the addictive properties of nicotine and other chemicals in cigarettes. Although I am now studying bacterial and viral pathogens in an effort to develop vaccines, my scientific knowledge is still incredibly limited. I am in the general public when it comes to: research on cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, nanoparticles, phylogenetics, predator-prey interactions, computers, space, business, marketing, economics, art, and everything other subject that I have not studied extensively.

There are two dangers in separating oneself from the general public.

One: the public begins to feel as though they are being put-down. If scientists do not consider each citizen capable of learning and understanding science, the general public will feel slighted and therefore won’t listen to scientists! It is easy to become condescending when you have elevated yourself to an elite level. Our current administration has seemingly made it one of its goals to deny and prohibit science (climate change, vaccine safety, etc), making it more important than ever to build trust between scientists and non-scientists.

Two: scientists who have elevated themselves to this genius-only status will begin to forget that they themselves are not experts in every field of science. This leads to misinformation as scientists who are not experts on a subject incorrectly explain science topics. One notorious offender is Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Within the last year, he has taken it upon himself to explain and refute topics in biology. Keep in mind that DeGrasse Tyson has no expertise and very little background in biology. A couple of his tweets are shown below.

The biologists of Twitter almost immediately erupted with dissent. It is a known fact that copulation is painful for many species and not enjoyable (to the extent that humans enjoy it) for most. DeGrasse Tyson, when confronted with the facts from experts in this field, continued to argue that he was correct. In an interview with the Enquirer, DeGrasse Tyson defended his right to make up his own theories about biology.

“With regard to the sex, that was interesting because some biologists jumped on me claiming that it’s just false…. I take great joy in finding if I said something wrong, because then I’ve learned something. “But what happened in the case of the sex hurting and the species going extinct, biologists and people were quick to say, ‘Oh, he should stick to astrophysics.’ Well, why? Oh, because there are species where sex hurts and is quite painful…. “.. if they can’t find such a species, then OK, glad that all of this got put out there, but will people say, ‘Tyson’s actually right.’ Because they jumped all over the fact that in these cases one of the partners feels pain.”

Tweeting to his current 6.53 million followers about a topic he has done little to no research on and he himself has not worked hard to become an expert in, is irresponsible. DeGrasse Tyson has elevated himself to a higher level, presumably because of his fame and large following. If people trust him to explain all science topics, why shouldn’t he explain concepts he himself has never done research on? As one does on Twitter, biologist David Steen (@AlongsideWild) created a hashtag — #biologistspacefacts. Here are some of my favorites:

Although DeGrasse Tyson saw no harm in his tweets, the danger lies in the fact that he has great influence over the public. If he is saying that sex is enjoyable for all species, why would we listen to these boring biological experts who don’t have their own TV show?

Oxford Dictionaires made their word of 2016 “post-truth” in reference to its use by many stating that we currently live in a a society where facts don’t matter and people don’t look up the validity of news stories, claims by politicians, or tweets from TV scientists before sharing them. This causes fictitious stories (either through a news site or through social media) to go viral. The nature of science itself is gathering information and making theories based on data. Theories are only accepted until evidence is found that proves them wrong. Scientists are constant fact checkers, always searching for evidence that might disprove our theories and enable the development of new ones. Why then, would a prominent scientist who is aware of his great influence, purposefully tweet out his theory on sex without any scientific research to support it?

In the 21st century, social media is the easiest way to speak to large groups of people from every part of the world. Although Twitter is a site that many use to communicate the mundane happenings in their world, others use it to speak up about what is important to them. It provides an opportunity for the average American to have their voices heard in a concise manner. Scientists have the incredible opportunity to use Twitter and other forms of social media to educate the public on science! Many are already doing this, often very lightly and with humor. Some of my favorite examples of scientists on Twitter doing exactly this are below.

The reason that I enjoy these tweets in particular is that the tweets are accessible and engaging to non-scientists — the “general public.” In order to build trust and instill a love of science in those who are not currently scientist, science communication can not be full of jargon. If jargon is necessary, explain it! In an effort to help, I began tweeting about my research. Instead of tweeting about my “transduction of a strain to confer antibiotic resistance,” I tweeted an explanation of what bacteriophages are and how they can be used to edit genes. I also showed a video of one of my experiments to make it more accessible.

I’m still learning how to effectively teach science and make it exciting to my students, my friends and family, and my twitter followers. Staying humble and open to questions and criticism is the only way to improve.

It is not uncommon to see a thinkpiece stressing that all scientists must do outreach and teach science. I disagree. I think that scientists should only reach out to the “general public” if they are passionate about engaging the public and what is commonly referred to as “SciComm” (science communication). I believe that passionate scientists spending a few minutes each week to connect with non-scientists could recruit a whole new wave of curious minds, build trust between scientists and non-scientists, and combat this “post-truth” pattern of behavior we are seeing in the 21st century.

Scientists have the data to prove that climate change is real and that human activity has increased the rate at which it happens. Scientists have the data to prove that vaccines do not cause autism and never have. There are even scientists that have the ability to estimate crowd sizes at protests and presidential inaugurations. The only piece that is missing is the trust of the public that scientists know facts about the field they are an expert in better than non-expert TV stars and politicians. Scientists can engage the public not only to communicate their research, but also to encourage non-scientists to use the scientific method in everyday life to think logically, question everything, and to fact-check a news article, a tweet, or a press conference from our president. It is easy to feel frustrated in a time when the public seems to believe anything they see on Facebook while ignoring science. However, humility and the ability to find common ground with the “general public” is the only way we can change minds and get the truth out.

Special thanks to Sarah McAnulty for editing this article and to the scientists who agreed to have their tweets shared.