Recently, I got into a heated discussion with a colleague who felt I’d written about a fossil discovery that was not worthy of attention. They believed the author was only interested in self-promotion and the fossil was of no scientific importance. My reasons for covering it were simple: I thought it was a story the public would find interesting, and more importantly it provided an opportunity to broaden out the subject for readers.

In my colleague’s opinion, however, these were the wrong reasons. They explained the story was not worthy of attention, no matter what the public thought. It is up to us as scientists to tell the public what they should find interesting.



There’s no doubt certain areas of palaeontology grab public attention, regardless of the quality of the research or broader significance of the fossils. Just adding the word dinosaur transforms any headline into clickbait. But do the public really need guidance on what to think about science?

‘Sue’, the largest, most complete, and best preserved T rex fossil yet discovered, at Chicago’s Field Museum. It’s easy to enthuse people about Tyrannosaurus rex. Photograph: Tim Boyle/Getty Images

“It’s hard to tell people what they ought to think!” says Deborah Cohen MBE, the editor for BBC radio science. Having worked as a science editor for almost 30 years, Cohen has seen science communication in the media transform. “We have to assess the scientific importance of stories. Occasionally, we go for the biggest or smallest or so on, but really we want our stories to have scientific significance. So something that changes the way we understand the history of life, or that we weren’t expecting, or it fills in a gap in our knowledge or the fossil record - all the best stories help us to better understand the history of life.”

If a good piece of research fails to catch public attention, you could blame the scientists for failing to come up with a “hook” to promote it. But as anyone who works on fish, insects or plants will tell you, there’s only so much you can do to pimp your research to lure in the press. It’s a foregone conclusion by the mainstream media that the public isn’t interested in these topics. But surely it is up to talented writers to bring out the amazing tales that lie behind all scientific research?

Fossil fern leaves (Asterotheca miltoni). It’s an uphill struggle to get fossil plants into the press. Photograph: Mark Schneider/Getty Images/Visuals Unlimited

“There’s more than a million scientific papers published each year,” says Professor Richard Butler of the University of Birmingham. “We can’t expect journalists and the public without specialist knowledge to filter the significant papers from the routine.”

Like other conscientious researchers, Butler encourages his students to evaluate the best way to share their findings. This includes online articles, dissemination via social media, and more conventional communication.

“We do put out occasional press releases,” says Butler, “but we try to reserve this for publications that we feel are particularly significant scientifically, and likely to be of interest to the general public.”



There is increased recognition of the importance of science communication across the disciplines, particularly as much research is funded with public money. Science communication can take many forms. While media publicity is perhaps the most visible, it is not necessarily the most effective avenue for science communication.

Butler adds: “I’m a bit sceptical [of media coverage]. I think the engagement can be very superficial, and I think face-to-face engagement via public talks, museum exhibitions and so on are much more rewarding and beneficial. It’s easy to get a lot of coverage for palaeontology stories, particularly on large fossil reptiles, but I think there’s a risk that we trivialise the subject by putting out too many press releases.”

There are other reasons why some stories get attention while other do not, explains Anna Lacey, the producer of the BBC radio series CrowdScience. “A good image can make all the difference, so that’s why feathers, footprints and big complete skeletons tend to get picked up. If a journalist has to launch into a whole load of background and some esoteric explanation for why this new find is a big deal, then chances are it won’t get commissioned.” For anyone working in the media, there is a constant balance to be struck between reporting new science, and hitting topics the public is already curious about.

The crowd is unmoved by a person wearing a dinosaur suit during a cricket match in New Zealand. Photograph: Mark Baker/AP

So, could all the attention given to less scientifically important discoveries diminish the impact of more significant publications? In other words: are overblown press releases acting like the boy-who-cried-dinosaur?



“In our department we’re all very interested in palaeontology,” Cohen says, “but I have noticed that our colleagues in other departments are sometimes a little less enthusiastic. Sometimes the news desk will say ‘oh no, not another dinosaur discovery’ … So it goes to show we can’t assume there’s an insatiable appetite.”

It’s obviously important that science has a good story, but problems arise when those who do the reporting can’t recognise hype. Without wider context, buzzwords thrown in to jazz up an otherwise poor piece of science catch the eye of journalists. Conversely, press releases on amazing advances may not stand out to journalists because their topics require more effort to communicate.

This is undoubtedly where writers and journalists with a scientific background are invaluable, as they are less constrained by preconceptions of public interest – or a desire for clicks – and are motivated instead to find a way to share what they inherently know are fascinating scientific advances. No one will ever be interested in the subtler streams of palaeontological research if no one takes the time to enthuse about them.

While media attention can be an effective form of science communication, it can also be an avenue for self, rather than scientific, promotion. Repeated attention given to a few individual researchers often has more to do with their success at networking with journalists than their expertise.

Journalists are often short on time, and may turn to the same few names for comment simply because they know they’ll get a friendly soundbite. Such individuals are happy to comment even when their expertise lies elsewhere. Being quoted is often more important than directing journalists to colleagues who know more on the topic. This can have a negative impact of public perception of what a scientist looks like, as many of these go-to-faces also fit the white male scientist stereotype.

Stereotypes are reinforced by repeatedly seeing the same faces in the media, for example this stock image entitled: ‘Handsome scientist looking at x-ray.’ Photograph: Wavebreak Media ltd/Alamy

“We like to go to primary sources,” says Cohen, “but if we find that person is not good at explaining the science in simple terms, we might turn to a co-author or someone else in the field. Whoever it is must be good at communicating.” She added: “But to be honest, palaeontologists are generally excellent communicators.”

Perhaps all press is good press, but it’s clear that getting your research to hit the headlines is not always straightforward – nor is it always desirable. While there is no doubt that certain discoveries need no help catching the eye of a commissioning editor, the onus lies with scientists to evaluate the best way to bring their research to a wider audience. Writers with scientific training play a vital role in balancing sensationalism, and counterbalancing those personalities who may enjoy the limelight just a little too much.

“We are in a competitive landscape and have to intrigue people with stories of human discovery,” says Cohen, “but when the scientific importance is less obvious it’s up to us to find clever ways to get people interested. It’s up to us to make it interesting.”