The timing of the argument is not accidental. The COVID-19 pandemic offered a stress test of how science reaches the public, and the results were sobering. Rapidly evolving evidence forced frequent updates to public health guidance, but inconsistent messaging and inadequate explanation of scientific uncertainty bred confusion. Social media amplified both accurate information and misleading claims at unprecedented speed, and simplified or sensational narratives frequently outran nuanced, evidence-based explanations. The authors argue that the pandemic did not create these weaknesses but exposed them, revealing that the institutions and incentives supporting science communication have not evolved at the pace required by a decentralized, algorithmically mediated information environment.

The first stage of breakdown occurs before a finding ever leaves the laboratory’s orbit. Peer-reviewed journals remain the gold standard for communication within the biomedical community, prized for their rigorous scientific and editorial oversight. Yet the path to publication is fraught. Manuscript submission fees can be prohibitive, rejection rates are high, and peer review and editorial processes are lengthy. The imbalance between available peer reviewers and the volume of manuscripts awaiting review has worsened since the pandemic, and it has been compounded as submission numbers climb, driven in part by researchers using large language models to draft manuscripts. Publishing incentives also favor positive findings and novel discoveries over the confirmatory studies and negative data that build a complete evidence base.

Access is the other half of the problem. Full-length journal articles often sit behind expensive paywalls, and even when they are readable, dense field-specific terminology and technical precision prioritized over clear storytelling can render them impenetrable to biomedical professionals outside a given specialty. Many journals have introduced remedies, including open access options, required plain-language summaries, and graphical abstracts, but adoption is inconsistent and enforcement is weak. Plain-language summaries remain relatively uncommon or overly technical, and graphical abstracts can themselves create accessibility barriers for some audiences. The result is a system in which even the professionals most likely to translate research for others struggle to obtain and understand it.

The authors propose a layered set of fixes for this first stage. Journals can use their own data on readership, citation metrics, and digital engagement to evaluate which editorial policies actually work and to refine guidelines for data sharing and plain-language summaries. Research institutions can retain department- and school-level support from in-house statisticians, graphic designers, technical writers, and communications specialists, and extend equitable access to those staff regardless of a research team’s size or funding. Researchers themselves are urged to write for the professional backgrounds of their intended audiences, to describe the conditions under which findings apply while acknowledging limitations and uncertainty, to develop fluency in accessible visual communication, and to use preprint outlets when publication costs are prohibitive. Philanthropic funders, meanwhile, can incentivize these practices among grantees; the authors cite the Misophonia Research Fund, which engaged a communications firm to strengthen grantees’ skills and hosted a virtual forum to share findings with both the biomedical community and the public.

The second stage, interpretation and distribution, is where the telephone game gets truly dangerous. Once research is published, findings are picked up, translated, and repackaged for different audiences, and every act of reinterpretation is an opportunity to introduce inaccuracy. Science journalism sits at the center of this relay, and it is struggling badly. As the advertising-based model that historically supported news platforms collapses, legacy media organizations have lost reporting capacity, particularly in specialized areas like science. The United States is losing an average of more than two newspapers per week, and the spread of news deserts, communities with few or no local news sources, matters because local news is highly trusted and has significant reach, making it a key vehicle for disseminating accurate scientific information. The contraction also means fewer opportunities for specialized training: most journalists are generalists, and fewer than 3 percent bring an undergraduate science major to their reporting.

As journalism recedes, other actors fill the vacuum, often without preparation. Clinical and research scientists increasingly post on social media, write for public audiences, and engage with reporters, but they are not typically trained in public communication and risk misrepresenting nuance or uncertainty in ways that inadvertently undermine trust. Misinformation compounds the problem. Although blame often falls on social media, the authors note that inaccurate scientific information stems from many sources, including corporations, government offices, entertainment media, press offices, individual scientists, healthcare professionals, and research institutions. AI platforms and large language model chatbots now serve as additional distribution channels, with the potential to amplify both accurate and misleading content. Because misinformation thrives in the absence of easily accessible, credible information, the authors argue that everyone participating in the ecosystem bears responsibility for sharing reliable science.

Remedies for the distribution stage already exist and can be scaled. Training programs and fellowships support specialized science journalism, exemplified by the Knight Science Journalism Academic-Year fellows who spend a year at MIT exploring research and honing technical skills. Scientific societies can train scientists to work with journalists: SciLine, developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, offers journalists free training, resources for evidence-based reporting, and a matching service that pairs reporters with scientific experts, while scientists in its network receive media training. Universities can embed communication skills in scientific training, as Stony Brook University does through a science communication certification offered with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science during doctoral study. Philanthropy has a distinctive opening here, exemplified by Press Forward, a national network led by the MacArthur Foundation that aims to strengthen local news and close coverage gaps by lowering barriers for new funders. Because much philanthropic giving is place-based and rooted in personal interests, the authors argue that science journalism, sitting at the intersection of those domains, can appeal to many funders.

The third stage, public engagement, is where the paradox of modern science communication becomes starkest. Polling from the Pew Research Center reported in April 2026 found that 85 percent of Americans obtain science and health information at least sometimes from healthcare providers, 66 percent from people with similar health experiences, and 60 percent from major health websites such as WebMD or Mayo Clinic. Journalists and news organizations were cited by 46 percent, government health agencies by 45 percent, social media by 36 percent, and AI chatbots by 22 percent. Yet despite this abundance of channels, global and US public confidence in the ability to find reliable answers and make informed health decisions has significantly declined in the past year, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer. The authors attribute this paradox to the multiple layers of reinterpretation in the current pipeline: different platforms deliver conflicting or oversimplified narratives, leaving audiences uncertain about what to believe and more likely to gravitate toward the most prominent or emotionally compelling voices.

The encouraging news is that trust itself is not the missing ingredient. Roughly 70 percent of Americans report at least moderate trust in scientists to act in the public’s best interest, and about 75 percent prioritize sources that demonstrate relevant medical expertise, disclose conflicts of interest, and present information clearly. Preferences vary across populations: people with lower incomes or less formal education are more likely to prioritize likability and relatability, while those without health insurance often emphasize convenience, including access through social media and AI platforms. The central weakness, the authors conclude, is a misalignment between trust, accessibility, and communication pathways. Their recommendations include having academic medical centers incentivize faculty and clinicians to engage in outreach and pair them with professional science communicators, as the Mayo Clinic has done by counting digital and social media scholarship among criteria for academic advancement. Community-level partnerships matter too: the Barbershop Talk with Brothers program, a collaboration between the Arthur Ashe Institute for Urban Health and SUNY Downstate Medical Center, trains barbers who are trusted advisors in Brooklyn to communicate evidence-based health information. Structural incentives, such as tying grants or accreditation to demonstrated public communication, and philanthropic support for programs like the ARVO Science Communication Training Fellowship could make outreach a core component of scientific careers. The challenge, in the authors’ framing, is not a deficit of public trust in science but the failure to ensure that accurate, transparent, and understandable information is easy to find, easy to engage with, and easy to trust, and philanthropy’s risk-tolerant capital may be the force best positioned to rebuild those connections.

Subject of Research: Redesigning the biomedical science communication ecosystem from publication to public engagement

Article Title: Bridging communication gaps across the biomedical ecosystem

Article References: Burke, E. A., Schumm, S. N., Jobe, A., Whelply, K., & Das, I. (2026). Bridging communication gaps across the biomedical ecosystem. Frontiers in Systems Biology, 6, Article 1939110. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsysb.2026.1939110

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fsysb.2026.1939110

Keywords: science communication, biomedical research, peer review, misinformation, science journalism, social media, large language models, public trust, philanthropy, health information, news deserts, community health

The scientific scope of the meeting is deliberately encyclopedic. Organizers highlight upcoming coverage of climate variability across deep time and projected futures, the rapidly transforming Arctic, wildfire behavior and impacts, earthquake science, and the dynamics of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, among many other themes. For reporters, that breadth translates into a compressed news cycle in which a single day can yield findings on paleoclimate proxies, space weather, glacier dynamics and planetary geophysics. The meeting functions as a preview of the research that will shape policy debates, funding decisions and public understanding of the Earth system in the years ahead, and the press program is structured to help journalists identify and contextualize the most significant work before it appears in journals.

Eligibility for press registration extends beyond staff reporters at established outlets. Freelance and student journalists may apply, as may press officers and institutional writers who are covering the meeting for their organizations. Applications will remain open until the end of the conference on Friday, 11 December, but AGU has emphasized one critical logistical constraint: there will be no walk-in press registration on site in San Francisco. All eligible media must complete the registration process through the online portal before arriving at the convention center. Media access to the meeting is issued at the discretion of the AGU Media Relations Office, and reporters with questions about eligibility, registration categories or other conference matters are directed to contact the office directly by email.

Credentialing requirements apply universally, regardless of a reporter’s history with the meeting. All registrants must provide professional credentials even if they have attended previous AGU annual meetings, and media access is strictly non-transferable. Registered press receive, at no charge, access to all scientific sessions, an on-site press room and press events. The organization notes some important limits, however: certain activities, including invitation-only events and communications workshops, are excluded from press access. Reporters planning their coverage budgets should also note that hotel bookings at conference rates can be made during press registration or afterward through the booking page, with reservations closing on 19 November, although AGU cautions that room blocks may fill before that deadline. A practical warning accompanies the housing information: reporters who intend to register as press should not book housing through general registration, because doing so will block them from entering the press registration flow.

The physical infrastructure supporting reporters is substantial. Registered press attendees will have access to a dedicated press room equipped with high-speed Wi-Fi, working and discussion space, power outlets, refreshments, and smaller quiet rooms suitable for conducting interviews away from the bustle of the exhibit hall. The press room will operate from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Pacific Time, Monday through Thursday of the meeting week, with abbreviated hours on Friday, 11 December, from 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The meeting itself is centered at the Moscone Convention Center at 747 Howard Street, with some events and sessions also taking place at the San Francisco Marriott Marquis on Mission Street and the InterContinental San Francisco on Howard Street, both within walking distance of the main venue.

The media program itself will follow a hybrid model designed to serve both attending and remote reporters. A press event schedule will be published in November, and press conferences will be hybrid, recorded events that are livestreamed and support participation by journalists who cannot travel to San Francisco. AGU media relations will host two distinct formats. The first is the traditional press conference, built around breaking research findings and timed to the release of new results. The second is a newer, in-person-only roundtable format, designed as an informal, ask-me-anything conversation about ongoing research projects, missions and programs. Roundtables give reporters the chance to probe the uncertainties, false starts and long-term trajectories of major scientific endeavors in a setting that is less scripted than a formal briefing, a format that has proven valuable for enterprise and investigative reporting.

Virtual access extends well beyond press events. Recordings of plenaries, named lectures, Union sessions, oral sessions, GeoBurst sessions and town halls will be posted on demand on the conference platform within 72 hours of the live sessions, allowing reporters who miss a talk in real time to catch up quickly. Poster presenters will have the option of uploading their posters to an online gallery, and online presenters can self-schedule video discussions with conference attendees, creating opportunities for remote interviews that would once have required travel. One limitation deserves emphasis for planning purposes: no part of the 2026 scientific program will be livestreamed. Reporters relying on remote coverage will therefore depend on the recorded sessions, the online poster gallery and the hybrid press conferences rather than real-time access to the scientific talks themselves. The full conference program will be available online in early October, giving media teams several weeks to build coverage plans before the December meeting.

The annual meeting is the flagship convening of an organization whose reach extends far beyond one week in December. AGU describes itself as a global community supporting more than half a million professionals and advocates in the Earth and space sciences. Its activities include serving as a scholarly publisher, convening virtual and in-person events, and providing career support for scientists at every stage. The organization frames its mission around advancing discovery and solution science that accelerates knowledge and produces solutions it characterizes as ethical, unbiased and respectful of communities and their values. That mission is reflected in institutional commitments, including a net zero energy renovated building in Washington, D.C., and an Ethics and Equity Center designed to foster a diverse and inclusive geoscience community and ensure responsible conduct across the field.

For science journalists, the practical takeaway is that preparation for AGU26 should begin well before December. Registration through the press portal is the essential first step, followed by a review of the eligibility and credentialing requirements published in the conference Press Center. Once the scientific program appears in early October, reporters can begin identifying sessions, named lectures and Union sessions most relevant to their beats, and once the press event schedule arrives in November, they can map out which press conferences and roundtables to attend in person or join remotely. Housing should be booked promptly given the 19 November closing date and the possibility that room blocks will fill earlier. With more than 24,000 researchers converging on San Francisco to present work ranging from ocean-floor processes to planetary exploration, the meeting promises a dense concentration of publishable science, and the press infrastructure, from the quiet interview rooms to the on-demand session recordings, is built to help reporters capture it.

Subject of Research: Press registration and media arrangements for the AGU 2026 annual meeting in Earth and space science

Article Title: Press registration open for 2026 AGU annual meeting

Article References: Press registration open for 2026 AGU annual meeting. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: AGU, annual meeting, press registration, Earth science, space science, San Francisco, science journalism, climate, wildfires, earthquakes, El Niño, Arctic change

The work investigates a specialised form of critical science reporting that follows suspicious claims through to evidence-based conclusions. Instead of relying on a quick expert quote, journalists reconstruct timelines, review papers and supplementary materials, and assess methodological choices that can be difficult to interpret even for specialists.

Fleerackers points out that these inquiries commonly require weeks or months of labour. Journalists may need to map data pathways, examine how results were produced, and compare reported findings with what can be substantiated across documents and sources. In practice, this means watchdog work is investigative, document-heavy, and time-sensitive.

Yet the study finds a recurring tension: practical feasibility can override public interest. When budgets shrink, expert access becomes harder, and legal or fact-checking capacity is limited, editorial teams may choose stories that are faster to verify and likely to perform better online.

A major challenge is that evidence thresholds are high because reputational and legal risks are real. Even when integrity problems are clearly newsworthy, the time required to reach defensible conclusions—and the risk of being wrong—can prevent publication.

Access barriers also shape what reaches the public. Institutions and communications departments can act as gatekeepers, limiting what journalists can see, whom they can contact, and how quickly they can obtain key documentation.

The research also notes that national context and legislation affect risk levels and transparency. Cross-border reporting can therefore involve additional complications, from procedural requirements to uncertainty about how allegations should be framed.

To strengthen science communication, the study recommends expanding newsroom capacity for investigative work through time, training, and dedicated support. It also calls for collaborations or targeted funding involving universities and research integrity bodies.

Finally, the researchers argue that carefully investigated stories can improve public understanding of what goes wrong in science—and how corrective measures can reduce harm. In an era of viral headlines, rigorous watchdog reporting remains a key safeguard for trust.

Subject of Research: Not applicable
Article Title: Holding Science to Account: A Qualitative Study of Practices and Challenges of Watchdog Science Journalism
News Publication Date: 2-Jul-2026
References: Published in Science Communication (qualitative study by Alice Fleerackers and colleagues).