Ordinary heroes

Here’s a catch-22 I’ve been thinking about a lot: advocating for better science communication sometimes feeds the very misconceptions that science communicators are trying to dismantle.

When we argue for more accessible, engaging communication about science (and we should!)—bringing science out of the lab to policymakers, patients, end-users, product developers, or even the taxpayers who fund it—it can unintentionally reinforce a stereotype: that researchers are out of touch, brilliant but eccentric minds, disconnected from the real world, and unable to communicate their work to "normal people".

This couldn't be further from the truth.

Scientists are ordinary people

I’ve been a scientist, worked with dozens more, and met a whole lot of others—including a few Nobel Prize winners. I’ve worked for them as a researcher, a communicator, and a consultant. They are my friends, clients, and yes, I'm even living with one. Trust me on this: scientists are normal people.

They live in the same world as the rest of us, dealing with the same worries, responsibilities, and challenges. That so-called Ivory Tower? It's an image that never rang true for me. The same goes for the idea that scientists are geniuses. 

Science isn’t magic, and scientists aren’t wizards. The lone-genius trope—the idea that a single brilliant mind has a “eureka” moment and creates a breakthrough—is misleading. Scientists are part of a global community, where ideas are shared, tested, and refined over time. It’s teamwork and persistance that powers progress, not isolated flashes of inspiration.

Heroes nonetheless

So, if scientists aren’t out of touch, why does this communication gap exist? If they are not too brilliant or out of touch to relate to the rest of us, what's the issue?

The answer is much simpler: they’re busy. 

Between running experiments, teaching, writing grant proposals, publishing papers, and navigating institutional demands, scientists have little bandwith to prioritize storytelling—even if they want to. Even if they know how to.

Impactful communication takes time, effort, and yes, some skill and experience. From my perspective, time is the limiting effort, much more than communication talent. Expecting every researcher to also be an influencer or entertainer on top of everything else we already ask of them simply isn’t fair.

When I advocate for more and better science communication, I am talking about helping and supporting researchers in whichever way they need to get their important insights and stories out there. These are stories of a global, collaborative effort fueled by curiosity, persistence, and teamwork. 

That’s the real story—and it’s worth telling.