The Cost of Failed Science Communication: Lessons from Los Angeles

Expertise Without Connection Leaves Us Talking to Ourselves

As Los Angeles burns in unprecedented January wildfires that have already claimed ten lives, the scientific community finds itself in a familiar and frustrating position. The evidence strongly suggests climate change is playing a significant role - through what scientists call "climate whiplash," where extreme wet-to-dry conditions created massive amounts of vegetation, followed by record-breaking drought that turned it into perfect fire fuel. While other factors are likely at play, the climate connection is clear. We can point to the data showing how climate change has increased these volatile swings by up to 66% since mid-century. We can explain how warmer temperatures and Santa Ana winds gusting to 100 mph created the perfect storm for winter fires that shouldn't even be possible.

And yet, as we share this evidence-based explanation of why California is burning in January, we're met with hostility, dismissal, or simple indifference from many of the very communities most affected by these disasters. The gap between scientific understanding and public reception seems to widen with each passing crisis.

The View from the Ground

A recent social media discussion about climate communication revealed something profound about this disconnect. A member of a farming community described the frustration of watching interactions between scientific experts and local farmers: "Communication between regular people of all areas of life and the enlightened educated presenters who come bless our little redneck selves with their infinite knowledge." The sarcasm cuts deep because it reflects a truth we in the scientific community often prefer to ignore - our expertise has become a barrier rather than a bridge.

The Language of Disconnect

Another commenter pointed to how the scientific establishment and professional science communicators have created their own echo chamber through language, describing presentations filled with "billion buzzwords that are sort-of based in physical tactile reality." This technical jargon, while precise, often serves more to demonstrate expertise than to facilitate understanding. The most effective science communicators are those who break free from this pattern - who combine their scientific expertise with authentic human connection, who share not just their knowledge but their humanity. They understand that being relatable and understood matters more than using the language and jargon preferred by some of their peers. Research shows that perceived warmth and competence are critical factors for the trustworthiness of scientists. Additionally, studies have shown that scientists who embrace uncertainty also increase their trustworthiness to a broader audience. Expertise is critical, but we also have to consider the social element in how we connect to different groups of people.

Beyond the Academic Armor

As scientists and science communicators, we've created a paradox of our own making. Our expertise - hard-won through years of education, research, and dedicated work - is simultaneously our greatest asset and our biggest barrier to effective communication. Let's be clear: this expertise matters. The rigorous training scientists receive in understanding the scientific method, analyzing data, and drawing evidence-based conclusions is invaluable. But we've developed a troubling habit of wielding our credentials like weapons, both against the public we're trying to reach and, perhaps more destructively, against each other.

Breaking Down the Tribes

The discussion revealed how "tribe mentality," as one participant put it, keeps both sides locked in their respective corners. Scientists cluster in academic circles, speaking our specialized language and reinforcing our shared worldview. Meanwhile, communities develop their own protective barriers against what they perceive as condescending outsiders who don't understand their reality. Ingroup bias is a very strong psychological force and having positive interactions between different groups is an effective way to reduce potential animosity.

The Relationship Imperative

What emerged most clearly from the discussion was that successful science communication isn't about perfecting our presentations or finding better ways to explain the data. It's about building relationships. As one commenter noted, "You have to actually build relationships. However, giving presentations to rooms full of people (or publishing social media posts, etc.) clearly wasn't working, so it doesn't really matter if this is more work or more expensive, it's a hell of a lot more cost-effective to do something that actually works."

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences does make an explicit effort to foster collaborations between communities and scientists to address environmental health concerns. However, this is just one example and we need more scientific institutions working with their local communities and establishing partnerships that help everyone.

---

Moving Forward: From Presentation to Partnership

The path forward requires a fundamental shift in how we approach science communication. This doesn't mean abandoning our expertise - quite the opposite. It means using our training more thoughtfully and holistically. We need to:

1. Recognize that our scientific training provides valuable critical thinking skills while acknowledging that other forms of knowledge and experience are also valid

2. Be proactive and focus on building relationships before presenting data

3. Learn to speak in accessible language without sacrificing accuracy

4. Approach communities as partners in understanding and addressing challenges, not as audiences to be lectured

The Stakes Are Too High

As California burns in January, we don't have the luxury of maintaining academic distance or engaging in territorial disputes about who can discuss what topics. The challenges we face - from climate change to public health crises - require us to bridge these divides.

Our expertise is valuable, but it's not a substitute for connection. As current events continue to demonstrate, the gap between scientific understanding and public action isn't due to a lack of facts or credentials - it's due to our failure to create meaningful relationships with the communities we serve. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can begin to make real progress on the critical challenges facing our world.

A Personal Note

I (Jess) want to acknowledge that I'm still learning to practice what I preach here. As a scientist and science communicator, I find myself falling back into familiar patterns - using technical language when simpler words would do, unconsciously seeking validation from my academic peers, staying within the comfortable confines of scientific circles. It's challenging to break free from these habits. Our academic communities provide validation, support, and a sense of belonging. Stepping outside these spheres of comfort, engaging with different perspectives, and making ourselves vulnerable to criticism or misunderstanding - it can be genuinely scary.

But I'm learning that this discomfort is the price of real impact. Every time I force myself to simplify my language, to listen more than I speak, to acknowledge the validity of experiences different from my own, I see the difference it makes. The connections become more genuine, the conversations more productive.

This isn't just about changing how we communicate science - it's about changing how we show up as humans in these vital conversations about our shared future. It's a journey I'm still very much on, stumbling sometimes, learning always, but convinced of its fundamental importance.

Stay curious,

Unbiased Science and Misguided