On March 5, 2025, the current president of the United States made a claim about 'wasteful government funding' being spent on making mice transgender: a baffling claim to anyone with the patience and reservation to think about it. As proof, the White House's official website released information about transgenic mice, i.e. mice that have been artificially infused with genes from a different organism — undergoing hormone therapy as part of experiments for the treatment of Asthma, HIV, and even physical wounds. Of the claims made regarding transgender mice, no evidence was to be seen anywhere.

The conclusion, while crystal clear, leaves room for questions in my mind: Why is it that such an argument became a hot topic for people around the globe? Why was the lack of knowledge regarding science allowed to be weaponised for bigotry?

The inaccessibility of science has always been one of its biggest detractors. Today, whatever bleeding-edge technology exists typically functions to deliver answers regarding some high-concept theory. Science is moving further and further away from the realm of easy accessibility and, to make matters worse, scientists in their ivory towers rarely offer help. The language of science is one that is heavy with jargon, and rarely communicates well to anyone not well-versed in that field to begin with. Knowledge, thus, remains trapped in a bubble. But what makes matters worse is that this leaves knowledge open to be co-opted and warped to sell to the media and, by extension, the masses.

Take another example, one slightly more recent. The 'de-extinct' direwolves made headlines across the spectrum of news media. Everyone was too caught up in celebrating this incredible feat of science (or how adorable those pups look) to actually look into the science of how this was achieved. The pitch that was sold to these news outlets was that these were the same species of dire wolves that went extinct many years ago. However, the truth of these dire wolves being genetically modified variations of grey wolves was, while not hidden, kept at a distance from the limelight. It was only after the initial wave of excitement died out that people took to reading through the available data in order to come to a different conclusion: the science, while groundbreaking, was sold in a rather misleading way. 

Read more

The Case for Science Communication and Science Writing

The unifying factor for both the dire wolf and the transgender mice situations lies solely in how science, scientific development and study, and the accrued knowledge acquired through careful and laborious research have become a hotbed for misleading mass media coverage. Marketers, advertisers, and politicians are experts in the art of 'communication' — the fact that the thing they're communicating may be misleading is of no consequence to them. This is precisely why communicating science — the intricacies of it — by those well-versed in the science is crucial. Now more than ever, the heavy jargon of science needs to be made more comprehensible by storytellers and writers alike. The responsibility is simple, but it has crucial implications. Otherwise, we risk otherising everyone who isn't aware of the niche work presented within conferences and paywalled research journals.

The communication aspect of science is a skill that requires concentrated effort to ensure that the message is clear and safe from blemishes. This much we understand of the responsibility of science communication. But there is an additional factor at play here. While the niche factor of science makes it difficult to communicate, the financial barriers of academia act as a fortress, concealing any and all knowledge generated within their journals. Take Nature — the world's leading science journal — which costs upwards of EUR 185 for a year's subscription. No part of this money, or really any money paid to journals, ends up in the scientists' pockets. The publishers take all, and thus they continue charging exorbitant prices for crucial scientific knowledge.

Communication is a concept built around the idea of collaboration. When science is made inaccessible, either by the politics of academia or by simply being too niche, it alienates itself. Science has a duty to exist for the sake of a society that asks for help. Science communication builds trust between the scientific world and those who seek to benefit from it.

The problem now remains in the fact that our political systems seem to thrive in the dearth of proper communication of science between scientists and non-scientists. To tackle this, an effort must be made head-on. Communities of scientists and teachers have a responsibility to establish the necessity of science communication to the youth. Youth organisations have a similar role to play, hosting workshops and establishing clubs that promote said activity. Even at a professional level, the importance of science communicators cannot be understated. Be it for the development of science itself or in how it is utilised, there is no denying that the current era is one that absolutely requires their presence.

Raian is a poet, a student, and a contributor at The Daily Star