Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief

Convened February 24–25, 2025

Bolstering National Science and Technology Competitiveness Through Effective Science Communication
Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief

Ensuring the availability of clear, accurate, and accessible information can help broaden the reach of scientific advancements beyond experts to include policymakers, industry, and the general public and encourage the practical application and integration of these advancements into society. Science communication helps shape informed decisions, stimulate innovation, and build public trust in science and technology (S&T). It can also inspire future generations to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, strengthening talent pathways to drive progress for the United States. Ultimately, strong science communication improves the nation’s ability to adapt, thrive, and lead in a rapidly evolving global landscape.

While critical to translate impact from science to society and bolster national S&T competitiveness, pathways of effective communication across different sectors within and outside the U.S. research enterprise present challenges due to differences in institutional cultures and perspectives. The need for and challenges of cross-sector communication were considered in recent workshops convened by the Government-University-Industry-Philanthropy Research Roundtable (GUIPRR) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies). Building on these discussions, GUIPRR convened a workshop on February 24–25, 2025, in Washington, DC, to focus on the role of communication in national competitiveness, with a focus on public trust, economic and workforce development, policymaking, open science, and intergovernmental organizations.¹

In opening the workshop, GUIPRR co-chair Danielle Merfeld (Qcells) noted that the theme of the workshop builds on the mission of GUIPRR to develop innovative partnerships that accelerate technical advancement. At the core of achieving this mission is how scientific institutions communicate with each other and the public. Effective communication, she noted, is key to translating scientific impact into societal benefits and boosting national competitiveness.

FIRESIDE CHAT

A Vision for Reinventing Corporate Research Laboratories

GUIPRR co-chair Darryll Pines (University of Maryland) facilitated a conversation with Jeffrey Tsao (Sandia National Laboratories) on Tsao’s vision for a revival of the corporate research laboratory model that flourished at Bell and other industry laboratories in the 20th century. Tsao described his proposal for a network of rejuvenated corporate research laboratories as public–private partnerships that can shift the balance between industry

__________________

and other parts of the nation’s scientific enterprise for mutual benefit. Several years ago, he collaborated with Venkatesh Narayanamurti, who worked at Bell Labs earlier in his career, to co-author The Genesis of Technoscientific Revolutions.² Tsao has thought about how to operationalize their insights to develop new models, resulting in the working paper³ he discussed with the workshop participants.

A Revival

In explaining how he developed his vision, Tsao pointed to changes in the organization of the research enterprise and research communities. Pines asked Tsao about his motivations to re-invent what Tsao called “a new-old model.” Tsao noted that corporate research was the dominant source of research in much of the 20th century, but the center of gravity moved to universities after World War II. His vision includes looking at how to reconstruct new public–private partnerships that would enable the nation to harness corporations to do research on behalf of the public good in a competitive network of laboratories, which he referred to as “Bell Labs X.” Corporations would host and share in some of the costs, but most of the funding for research for the public good would come from philanthropies and government agencies. The motivators for a corporation or a mission-driven laboratory would be some mutual benefit—some of the research would benefit its own goods and services, while additional funding would produce more knowledge for the public good in many fields, including pharmaceuticals or education, he said.

Tsao said he hopes to build community for the idea and invited feedback and participation from workshop attendees.

Discussion

A participant recalled visiting an IBM laboratory as a young student, which propelled her to pursue a career in science, and noted that the laboratories could inspire the future workforce. She asked how the model would accommodate a foreign-owned corporation that wanted to host a laboratory. Tsao clarified that this model is for U.S. companies but noted a similar idea circulating in the United Kingdom.

Another participant, who worked at Bell Labs earlier in his career, pointed out that part of Bell Labs’ success was its singular goal to make a high-quality communication system at a low cost. Tsao said most corporations are focused on a particular domain or problem space, which would enable them to build critical mass around that focus. He acknowledged that what constitutes critical mass is delicate—too much heterogeneity means researchers cannot collaborate, but not enough hampers variation in results. He added that a network accommodating frequent opportunities for collaboration between multiple laboratories with different sets of real-world problems is a key part of the concept.

PANEL I

Harmonizing National Science Strategy and Globalizing U.S. Innovation Through Alignment with Intergovernmental Organizations

The first panel, facilitated by Sheril Kirshenbaum (Council on Foreign Relations), focused on the intersection of national and international innovation. Kirshenbaum noted that intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), play a role in shaping international S&T priorities, and that science communication is central to their function. Salvatore Aricò (International Science Council), Jeff Singleton (U.S. Department of Defense), Mohamed Abdel-Kader (Radial Global Advisory), and Richard “Alex” Roehrl (UN) discussed how the United States can leverage science communication to coordinate within global frameworks to advance both national and global progress.

Opening Remarks

In discussing the challenges and leverage points of aligning with national and global S&T priorities, Aricò observed that although the term “alignment” sounds like an act of force, it should be a positive process for all parties. Science operates in context, he stressed. At the international level, the best way to align is through dialogue between governments, and science can mediate peaceful dialogue so that common points in national agendas emerge. Technology transfer and, more recently,

__________________

biosafety and biological weapons are examples of such alignment. Scientists can bring evidence to bear, including what is not known, and consider the needs and questions of policymakers.

Singleton observed different challenges and synergies at every level in his work: as an individual working with students and partners, in teams, and in larger departments. All have to deal with budgets and priorities. The key, he said, is to leverage what different partners are doing, whether the partner is another laboratory, department, or country. As groups get larger, he said the most successful strategy is to outline enforced milestones and plans to ensure progress. Another benefit of plans and milestones is that senior leaders can draw on them to justify budgets, identify benefits, and defend programs.

Abdel-Kader recalled his recent experience as chief innovation officer at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). He said that while technical teams will know the nitty-gritty, leaders have to consider other institutional assets as leverage and view wider communities as complements. No single organization has enough human and financial resources to address complex societal problems. He also underscored the need for change management, acknowledging that changing people’s behavior is the toughest change to effect. Beyond the current political moment, the role of the storyteller and orchestrator is to convey the value of the work and communicate it at different levels with different stakeholders.

Roehrl began with a lesson from history: the influential friendship between Thomas Jefferson and German naturalist Alexander von Humboldt. It shows how science is in the DNA of systems of thinking and governance. For several decades, beginning in the 1970s, discussion within the UN around S&T efforts was limited, but this focus was revived in the past decade. To illustrate this point, scientists were a minority of Earth Summit participants in 1992, but they were the largest contingent at the Rio Summit in 2012. Scientists, along with other stakeholders, help drive the UN’s agenda. He reiterated that science for the public good is not just charity; it is part of the DNA of institutions, governments, and intergovernmental organizations like the UN.

Discussion

A Large Tent

Kirshenbaum reflected on the points raised by the panel about collaborating, innovating, and building relationships. She asked what needs to change for U.S. S&T to better align with global initiatives. Singleton called for a “large tent,” not to align the United States with global initiatives, but to ensure that all are aligned jointly. Working in a laboratory can create tunnel vision in a small area of science. That mindset can live within individuals and organizations, and breaking it is difficult. Innovations and great ideas come from everywhere, he said. As an example, NATO recently held a challenge called DIANA, which sought emerging and disruptive technologies.⁴ It brought in 1,300 proposals from 1,200 companies, 90 percent of which employed fewer than 10 people.

Abdel-Kader concurred that good ideas can, and do, come from anywhere. A pipeline of people—from many fields, not just engineering or business—to innovate must be developed. In particular, he urged “widening the aperture to connect with the humanities.” It is important to invest in the workforce and the broader social good, including making intentional connections with K–12 students to prepare them for postsecondary opportunities.

Communication as Engagement

Communication is about connection more than anything else, Aricò emphasized. The research and development (R&D) ecosystem has become more complex with multiple actors, including funders, publishers, the private sector, those in emerging technologies, and the public at large. Many scientific academies question the need for engagement with policymakers, the public at large, and others. However, he said, scientists must engage with all of these stakeholders; if science does not engage, given the current information space, mistrust and misinformation will increase.

Roehrl added that the S&T ecosystem is undergoing dramatic changes in quality, quantity, and impact. China now produces twice as many Ph.D.s as the United States and is building systems similar to those in the United States and European countries. Science capacity will expand globally, which is both exciting and challenging.

__________________

With this new environment in mind, changes in science communication are needed.

Trust and the Scientific Process

When considering what leaders in the U.S. research community should know about the role of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in shaping S&T advancement, Abdel-Kader stressed again that these institutions and their leaders are responsible for building relationships to develop trust with the general public. Despite an overall erosion of trust, science and scientists are still valued in moments of crisis, he noted. He also urged healthy conversations around risk. It is difficult but important to talk about the iterative nature of the scientific process. Significant advances take years and billions of dollars, so managing expectations is critical. Extension officers at land-grant institutions could talk with community leaders, farmers, parents, and others to build a constituency for funding and support. When things fall short, “lean into the learning,” he urged.

Several panelists agreed that discussing the scientific process and the basic science behind advances is important. “Do not just talk quantum computing centers but the physics and chemistry behind these technologies,” Roehrl suggested. He described a high-level initiative at the UN that has discussed the need for a large-scale effort to address sustainability science.⁵ Global scientific missions would benefit from a center, similar to CERN, with physical infrastructure beyond a talent network. The United States could play an important role, he suggested.

Finding the Connections Between Disciplines

Singleton commented that most organizations develop similar lists of emerging technologies, including biotech, quantum, and advanced materials. Considering the seams between disciplines is important. Pulling together disparate disciplines might generate a leap toward new paths for the future. Aricò noted that universities should train the next generation of transdisciplinary scientists, but this is difficult to do within current structures. Abdel-Kader said multi- and cross-disciplinary investments are important but cautioned against focusing solely on such investments, as that could weaken foundational disciplines.

Audience Discussion

A participant referred to Roehrl’s point that the sciences are growing rapidly around the world. This should be embraced, but the reaction in the United States has been to control contact, he said. He asked for advice about countering this tendency so as to have more contact with international colleagues. Aricò said IGOs and international NGOs can offer this opportunity. He noted a new effort to articulate the principles and values of scientific cooperation launched by the European Commission, for which his organization the International Science Council provided a global platform for discussion.⁶ Roehrl noted that science leaders like the United States also should become convenors. Going back to his example from history, he noted that Alexander von Humboldt shared a map, based on his travels, with Thomas Jefferson, which gave him information to pursue the Louisiana Purchase.

A participant asked whether the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are being leveraged adequately. Abdel-Kader commented that K–12 education has embraced the SDGs; although more emphasis is needed to make progress, he noted that we can learn from how teachers focus on a few SDGs in their classrooms. Foundations, companies, and other entities could do the same. Aricò commented that science describes problems, but more work could contribute to the solutions articulated in the SDGs. Roehrl agreed that current progress is not on par with the UN’s visionary goals, but the SDGs have shaped R&D investments especially in low- and middle-income countries.

Bridging Knowledge Systems

A participant commented that the Louisiana Purchase, considered a science-based “advance,” did not help Indigenous communities. She suggested a modern opportunity to better leverage Indigenous and other ways of knowing with emerging research—for example, to connect food security with national security. She asked how to communicate with others in the research enterprise that these areas are interconnected. Singleton agreed with the need to connect the dots and said he plans to relay this message to a range of groups and

__________________

forums. Aricò called for dialogues between scientists and other knowledge holders to understand how their knowledge can be captured and used in both directions. As a programmatic example, Abdel-Kader recounted USAID’s collaboration with Conservation X Labs.⁷ A global grand challenge was set to find solutions to destructive wildfires, and Indigenous knowledge was made a focal point of the design. Bringing different perspectives together to look for solutions was powerful, he said.

PANEL II

Fostering Public Trust and Economic Development Through Strategic S&T Communication

Calvin Mackie (STEM NOLA) moderated the second panel to discuss the intersection of public trust and S&T communication. He drew on his own experiences working in academia and living through Hurricane Katrina to highlight the importance of explaining research in plain terms so the public can understand the issues and make decisions. Brian Southwell (RTI International) shared ideas about what trust in science means. Melissa Edwards (University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign [UIUC]), Ruth Freeman (Research Ireland), and Hollie Mackey (North Dakota Advanced Agriculture Technology Engine) provided examples of these ideas in practice.

What Does Trust Mean?

Southwell posed a question about what it means for communities to trust science. This fundamental question, although often overlooked, is one of connection with communities. The nature of the information environment in the past few decades has evolved (e.g., social networks are individualized and not visible to one another), so knowing what information people are engaged with is difficult. Rather than bemoan a lack of trust, he urged a focus on building and maintaining trust, which he characterized as a “multidimensional concept.” Trust encompasses not only intellectual credibility but also reliability and shared interests. He suggested scientists, when engaging with other people, highlight these aspects as well as the nuances of science as a process and a way of knowing. He suggested scientists ask more questions about what should be studied, provide transparency in how they work, and be honest about their motivations. The 2024 Science and Engineering Indicators report on public understanding of science includes evidence that one important predictor of trust is the extent to which respondents understand the process of science.⁸

Connecting with Local Interests

Edwards discussed the application of Southwell’s ideas in practice. UIUC, as a large research university in a rural area, wanted to strengthen connections with the local community. A small survey showed that community members recognized the global reach of UIUC’s research but did not see the impact of research locally or in their daily lives. In addition to receiving support from taxpayers, the university needs workers, research participants, and stakeholders to ensure the economic impact of emerging technology activities on campus.

Edwards and her team designed a small communication campaign in which investigators talked about their lives as community members and how their research benefits the community. Eight themes were identified: great health, thriving kids, successful farms, happy pets, strong economy, healthy aging, safe water, and vibrant community.⁹ As one indicator of success, data show that users are spending a lot of time reading the campaign content on the website. The content connects the dots between research and people’s daily lives.

Public Engagement Initiating Federal Research

Freeman said when she took over public engagement with STEM at Research Ireland, she realized most activities were at K–12 schools or on university campuses. The organization had to find new spaces for people who do not feel comfortable going to a university campus—for example, a rural community center where new nursing mothers gathered. The questions Freeman’s team posed were a starting point in reconsidering how to communicate with people about research. She stressed the need to go where people are and discuss topics of interest to them.

Research Ireland developed an initiative called Creating Our Future, which was inspired by a similar program in the Netherlands. A national roadshow, community meetings, a website, a media campaign, and other efforts were built on the following message: “Tell us your idea for what researchers should explore to create a better future.

__________________

Anyone can have a good idea.” The initiative generated 18,000 ideas, which were parsed and distilled into 16 themes. The ideas went into the “Book of Inspiration,” an online database, that has been shared nationally and can be used by researchers to shape their ideas and projects, including those under the National Challenge Fund.¹⁰ She underscored the need not just to solicit ideas and “disappear” but to remain present and explain what has been done. Freeman acknowledged some resistance and fear in the research community; scientists want the public to trust them, but they do not always trust the public. She stressed, however, that this has to be a two-way street.

An Innovation Engine in Action

Mackey runs one of the inaugural innovation engines of the National Science Foundation (NSF).¹¹ By design, it is built on a model of use-inspired research, Indigenous knowledge, and the defense innovation model. She pointed to the need to communicate and develop relationships with a broad group of people. A rural tribal community does not care about research metrics of an R1 institution, for example. She challenges herself and others to think about how science impacts people’s daily lives.

The engine aims to bring communities and researchers together to solve problems. She shared one rule for the researchers—if they do not have the personal cell phone number of at least one person in the community with whom they could meet informally for coffee, they cannot do research in that community. This is one way to address the divide and to avoid exploitation of communities and extraction of knowledge by universities. The engine also looks for ways to strengthen economic development, independence, and wealth generation that stays in community. For example, a grower fund gives a community an equity stake in a technology being tested and developed. She noted that the engine is one of 10 nationwide but is the only one that is community-based and has a significant Indigenous knowledge component. Based on researcher buy-in and development of a capital stack, the model seems to work, she concluded.

Audience Discussion

From Trust to Benefits

Mackey acknowledged, in response to a question, that translating public trust into economic benefits is challenging. As the innovation engine finds ways to meet NSF expectations to build capital stacks, the team realized that being able to replicate food security projects could result in successful rural development. She stressed the need to consider who should “be at the table” to achieve sustainability and buy-in, such as communities, philanthropies, state government, and others.

Edwards commented on the value of community buy-in around a micronuclear reactor project underway on the UIUC campus. It will have an economic impact as a source of energy as well as generate hotel and restaurant revenues, provide workforce opportunities, and offer other benefits. The project team started conversations well in advance to socialize with the community about nuclear power. She also noted that the team members are young and enthusiastic, and many can show they are part of the community as parents.

Freeman added that optimizing for economic development requires trade-offs, and these trade-offs need to be made clear early. People need to feel they have agency. To illustrate her point, she noted that Internet technologies and genetically modified crops were both introduced in the 1990s. The former was generally welcomed but the latter rejected. Maybe different paths would have occurred with fuller public conversations about the benefits and harms of each, she posited.

Increasing Connectivity

A participant asked about the challenges of benefiting communities when most research funding is mission oriented. Mackey referred to Singleton’s earlier comment that “innovation occurs at the seams of the silos.” Someone must be able to see the big picture—in the NSF engine’s case, the connections between food security, national security, health, and other issues. It is important to pull the thread at the seams and incorporate these connections into key talking points. Science remains highly trusted but is also seen as an elite institution, another participant noted.

__________________

Disinformation and Misinformation

When asked how to counteract the lack of trust in the information space, Southwell said being aware of that conflict is a step in building a relationship. In his view, stasis and a lack of attention toward S&T issues are more worrying. He explained how he trains health care providers to engage with patients who have inaccurate information from the Internet. This is not a question of deferring to or accepting the false claims, he said, but rather an opening to engage in dialogue about why they accept alternate sources of information. Mackie commented that disinformation and misinformation abound. Scientists must communicate all the time to become a trusted entity, not just when a crisis occurs.

Cohesive Communication

A participant observed that communication is sometimes seen too simplistically as just communicating a result, and she appreciated that the panel highlighted the broader ecosystem. She also commented that companies usually have a communication platform that serves as a hub, but a cohesive mechanism seems lacking at the federal level. Edwards noted the value of extension programs at land-grant institutions and other existing networks. Research needs a marketing campaign, she commented. Mackey stressed the role of culture. She urged following peoples’ experiences to see how science can help them and then creating connections between the two. Risk aversion has to be set aside, she emphasized. Southwell called for physical infrastructures to create spaces for engagement instead of just focusing on messaging. Blind trust in science is not good, he stressed, because science is an evolving enterprise. Southwell said trust is not defined as deference of the public to scientists but rather should be viewed in terms of relationships and shared interests.

PANEL III

From Open Science to Impact: Accelerating Technology Competitiveness Through Transparency

Open science has the potential to revolutionize how research fuels innovation and strengthens technological leadership and communication, said moderator Brandon Ogbunu (Yale University, Santa Fe Institute). He facilitated a discussion with Amy McGuire (Baylor College of Medicine) and Tom Mitchell (Carnegie Mellon University) on best practices for transparent cross-sector collaboration, technology development, and data sharing.

Opening Remarks

McGuire began working on issues related to data access and sharing as the Human Genome Project was concluding. Scientists gathered in Bermuda to develop principles, which were remarkable especially for the time, to prevent intellectual property claims over the genome and establish it as a public resource. Concerns arose about privacy, because each person has a unique genome. To explore these concerns, she conducted research with 323 people who had participated in the genome studies. They were randomized into categories by giving three different levels of consent, to understand how these consent levels influenced their willingness to participate in research. Most wanted bona fide researchers to have access to the data, with restrictions against bad actors. They acknowledged the trade-offs between advancing research and maintaining privacy. Noting that most were patients with health conditions, McGuire said that when forced to choose, most prioritized research advancement over privacy. In another study about data sharing around brain information, participants similarly valued research advancement over privacy; however, in a smaller study, underserved HIV participants valued privacy over research.

Ethically, protecting individuals from harm is important, but another ethical issue arises when data are not used in ways that can benefit people. Participants in the brain study were asked to rank the most and least important practices related to data sharing. They ranked protecting against bad actors and reusing for patient benefit as the most important practices, and they were less concerned about financial compensation and the details of data-sharing plans.

McGuire also shared research involving stakeholders who work in the data-sharing ecosystem. When they were asked how to do a better job of reusing data, the two issues that rose to the top were that data sharing has to be participant-centric and trustworthy. These stakeholders identified four challenges and possible policy solutions to make data accessible and reusable. The first challenge relates to informed consent and how to convey the risks of sharing data. As a solution, funders

could provide models for broad consent. Second, limited incentives exist to share data, and funders could create or expand funding streams for collaboration to combine data. Third, data-sharing standards are lacking; even when data are required to be shared, they often are not usable or accessible. Standards could be established for a range of data types. Fourth, sharing data in a usable way is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and often not funded. McGuire noted that the stakeholders said research institutes could support this work.

Realizing the Potential of Artificial Intelligence

Mitchell shared his frustration with three things related to a “Lone Ranger approach” to science, but he expressed hope that technology can address them in this decade. First, concurring with McGuire, he acknowledged a lack of data sharing. Second, it is impossible for a researcher to read everything that is being published. Third, looking forward, complex systems cannot be described by the multitudes of articles available in a way that can be used. In the near future, large language models will be able to read and query a library of published literature, generating synopses based on a question of interest. He used protein folding—specifically AlphaFold, which received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2024—as a case study. People are beginning to use artificial intelligence (AI) in some fields, including neuroscience, materials science, and weather prediction.

In addition to using AI for data sharing, Mitchell suggested thinking about how AI methods can be used for new paradigms for research—for example, by conducting studies in different fields, including the social sciences, and producing white papers about data aggregation and AI approaches that could accelerate these fields.

Discussion

Data Sharing and Competitiveness

In discussing how open science contributes to competitiveness, Mitchell said that depending on how much new knowledge is published and made available, a more even playing field could be set. He said this impact must be considered, not avoided, and may be different in different fields. He pointed out how some scientists’ hoard data because they feel they will lose something if they share their data, rather than realizing that sharing data advances research exponentially—and everyone wins. They think of data as currency, and cultural shifts are required to build trust. “You can face it with fear or with eyes opened to new opportunities,” he suggested. Mitchell observed that the wide sharing of journal articles over the past few years may offer lessons.

Transparency Versus Security

McGuire said most efforts to protect privacy have focused on restricting access, but she suggested more attention on the “back door” to protect against bad actors. Part of an effective communication strategy involves talking to people without scaring them. She warned against over-promising because complete anonymity is no longer possible. She suggested presenting people with both sides of the trade-offs, including positive examples of how data reuse may benefit and not just harm society. Mitchell added that many types of data, such as in climate, chemistry, and materials science, do not involve privacy issues, but those datasets are not being shared. To that point, McGuire identified competitiveness, lack of incentives, and difficulty as obstacles to data sharing.

Reflecting on the current lack of incentives to share data, a participant noted that no other reason exists beyond good will. McGuire distinguished between incentives in academia and industry. In academia, promotion and tenure committees could consider data sharing as a metric. Incentives can be in the form of recognition; for example, Mitchell pointed to forms of recognition such as “best dataset” awards given at conferences, which can elevate dataset creation and sharing as valued scholarly contributions.

Returning to the analogy with papers, Mitchell said journal articles have been vetted and carefully constructed to hide private details. Sharing pre-publication data raises questions, because data include everything. McGuire observed that the more data there are on an individual and the more individuals there are in a dataset, the stronger the ability is for inferences. AI provides even more opportunity to pull together information about an individual from different datasets. She noted people feel differently about this based on their experiences—for example, discrimination. This emphasizes the value of developing partnerships with participants. For the most part, the research enterprise relies on voluntary participation to contribute data. For participants to agree, they must be part of the process and understand the trade-offs.

Cross-Sector Partnerships

McGuire welcomed industry participants to discuss obstacles to sharing data. She noted that in the public–private partnerships in which she has been involved, data use agreements were tightly negotiated. Different sectors have different values and incentives. Mitchell pointed to a discussion about partnerships in a National Academies study about AI and the future of work.¹² One of the report’s findings was that the impact of AI on the economy, such as on workforce skills and jobs, is unknown. Some of the data are already available, such as job-related data on sites like Indeed.com, LinkedIn, or ADP (a payroll company). Getting those datasets in real time would be a national asset to understand the workforce and supply and demand, he suggested.

Time as Currency

In considering incentives to share data, a participant suggested that the “currency” is not data as much as time. A researcher who collects data needs an embargo as a built-in time delay to use the data first, not to prohibit sharing entirely. Mitchell suggested that this happens when data accompany a paper. McGuire noted that an embargo period can be included in data use agreements. Mitchell suggested that the optimal balance between no openness and complete openness, as well as between competitiveness and cooperation, is tied to embargo length. McGuire pointed out that companies have commercial interests that should be respected. For example, commercial space flight companies may collect data on the impacts of space flight on human health, which they may be willing to share, as well as data tied to their competitive interests, which they may not be willing to share. However, she also noted that sometimes entities use proprietary reasons as an excuse not to share data.

Preprints and Potential Misinformation

A participant noted that the expansion of preprints and non-peer-reviewed data during COVID-19 increased transparency but also spread some flawed data. Preprints are a conduit for media attention and increased transparency with the public, but they can also change the public discourse, with a negative effect if the data are incorrect—even if unintentionally. McGuire noted that the scientific process used to happen “behind closed doors,” but those days are over. Scientists have to learn to communicate about their processes as well as their findings. Mitchell said in the field of computer science, the release of prepublications accelerated progress. He also pointed to OpenReview, which shares the entire review process as part of the permanent record, which previously was missing.¹³

PANEL IV

Connecting Scientific Innovation and Economic Development: Strategic Communication for Policy Advancement

In the final panel, Andrea Love (ImmunoLogic) moderated a discussion focused on policy and scientific communication. Panelists were Rémi Quirion (Quebec Government; INGSA [International Network for Governmental Science Advice]), Maryann Feldman (Arizona State University), and Todd Ringler (Edelman).

Opening Remarks

Quirion underscored the concepts of trust, which is difficult to gain and easy to lose; resilience and the need to adapt; partnerships that are genuine and last beyond short-term collaborations; and listening. Rather than assume they have full knowledge, scientists should listen to what others know and learn their language. INGSA offers training at the national, regional, and local levels and has found that at the local level, advice has to be very practical. Quirion commented that throughout the workshop, he heard much discussion about engagement with citizens, but he reminded the group that “we are all citizens.” Working more closely with citizens in communities takes time, but they become part of the scientific method, fight against misinformation, and become proponents to convince governments to invest in science.

Return on Investment

Feldman noted that the $4 billion invested in the Human Genome Project had a return on investment (ROI) of $1 trillion, or 260 percent in new products generated. It is more difficult to measure ROI in most government investments, but that is the language that many decision makers understand. In her view, “If you can calculate an ROI, government should not be involved.” At that point, she said, a project should be turned over to the private sector, while the public sector focuses on initial ideas and discovery.

__________________

She has studied the “geography of innovation” in several locations, including Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, and Arizona. Her research in The Geography of Innovation looked at why economic engines are more productive in certain locations than in others.¹⁴ Universities are necessary to spur economic transformation, but they aren’t sufficient on their own—what makes the difference is the communication, trust, and other complementary factors that enable strong partnerships.

Bringing the Outside In

Ringler practices media relations and tells stories on behalf of health and other scientific clients. As he has helped launch many innovations, he confirmed that the issues discussed during the workshop are relevant. Narratives, communities, shared interest, and impact are important, but he also encouraged “bringing the outside in.” Reporters and editors tell him they are not interested in what is going on inside a company if it is not relevant to “the conversations outside” at the dining table, in the conference room, or in the hallway.

He also highlighted the value of aligning goals. Once this is done, communication experts help get the story out, determining when and in which formats. How and where people consume information are important to a story landing effectively, he said.

Audience Discussion

Aligning Goals

Love commented that she became involved with public-facing communications when she saw family and others making decisions based on misinformation. She underscored the need for more trust-building with community members and asked how to change communication strategies within scientific institutions to align on scientific goals to drive R&D forward.

Ringler commented on the challenge to coax different groups to align. One strategy is to bring people together in a room to identify objectives on which they can and cannot agree. He described a “MORE” workshop (i.e., messages, obstacles, response, and evidence) and noted that the evidence needed to drive trust is different depending on the organization. He also noted the need for an omnichannel approach—“everywhere all the time.” Information can be spread across different channels and formats to different audiences.

Love asked about strategies to align different interests and strengthen collaboration. Quirion cautioned against coming into a situation without understanding local culture and announcing, “Do it this way.” Collaboration takes time and patience. He underscored the need to co-design and co-produce data as well as give access to the data. Feldman noted that successful industries start by solving a local problem and scaling globally to create innovation systems. She criticized university ratings systems because they do not allow for heterogeneity. When universities are responsive to local conditions, they foster innovation and create more synergy with the community and legislatures.

Community Involvement and Buy-In

Ringler discussed how to communicate the value of the work being done. Rather than put the responsibility on the audience to understand the science, scientists must communicate what it is and show the impact through stories. Feldman noted that the NSF innovation engines are predicated on understanding a use case with a constituency that includes local residents, students, and businesses. The power of a university to provide stability and resilience to a local economy should not be underestimated, she commented. To this point, Quirion said Quebec created regional universities in isolated regions of the province 50 years ago. They focus on the strengths of each region and have had a tremendous impact.

Ringler observed that scientific innovation is ensconced in the scientific community and locked into complex language, but people want a “peek behind the curtain.” They want to see innovation happen and be part of it. As an example, he noted the benefits that arise when biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies work with patient advocacy groups—not just telling them or taking their information, but listening. The results include better studies and outcomes. He called for creating experiences that are culturally relevant to the audiences of today, beyond an annual meeting or quarterly report.

A participant asked how to work with researchers who still view a poster as their main communication tool. Quirion suggested working with trainees and younger students, who are more amenable to change. As an

__________________

example, Quebec launched a program to support students ages 16 to 25 in explaining vaccines to others in their age group. Ringler agreed with the power of peer-to-peer communication on various social media platforms. To reach younger people when those creating the policies are usually older, Ringler stressed the value of choosing the right channels. “Go where they are, in formats they want to use and share. That is not the end, but it is the beginning,” he said, adding that partnerships can help. Quirion mentioned the Global Young Academy as a possible partner.¹⁵

FINAL THOUGHTS

In closing the workshop, Pines explained that it was inspired by the activities at the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University. The panels elaborated on the opportunities and challenges of communicating with the public about scientific innovation. He reflected that some of the concepts that emerged during the workshop included community, engagement, trust, and metrics of success. Resilience and partnerships were also discussed, as was the point that people innovate “anywhere and everywhere.” It is critical for scientists, engineers, policymakers, economists, and others to communicate the importance and value of science while acknowledging that science is not perfect. The moment during the COVID-19 pandemic when science connected to everyone on the planet was not leveraged, he observed, but “we are now in another moment.” He urged participants to take action.

__________________

DISCLAIMER This Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was prepared by Paula Whitacre as a factual summary of what occurred at the meeting. The statements made are those of the author or individual meeting participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all meeting participants; the planning committee; or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

PLANNING COMMITTEE Cindy Achat-Mendes, Universities Research Association; Patricia Falcone, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; and Laura Patton, Springer Nature.

STAFF Michael Nestor, GUIPRR Director; Jennifer Griffiths, Senior Program Officer; Grace Ezyk, Program Officer; Sierra Jackson, Program Officer; Delaney Bond, Senior Program Assistant; and Cyril Lee, Finance Business Partner.

REVIEWERS To ensure that it meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity, this Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief was reviewed by Laura Lindenfeld, Executive Director, Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, Stony Brook University and Brian Southwell, Distinguished Fellow, RTI International. Kirsten Sampson Snyder, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, served as the review monitor.

SPONSORS This workshop was supported by the Government-University-Industry-Philanthropy Research Roundtable membership, National Institutes of Health (HHSN263201800029I/75N98021F00017), Office of Naval Research, and the United States Department of Agriculture.

For more information, visit http://www.nas.edu/guiprr

SUGGESTED CITATION National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2026. Bolstering National Science and Technology Competitiveness Through Effective Science Communication: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/29363.

Copyright 2026 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.