Talking about change

A conversation with two seasoned science communicators, Désirée De Poot & Sooike Stoops

I meet Désirée De Poot and Sooike Stoops in a cosy Lebanese restaurant in Brussels on a grey November day. Désirée, now press officer at VITO with a background in journalism, and Sooike, who spent many years shaping communication at VIB before becoming a freelancer, are just taking off their coats as I arrive, and already deep in conversation, having known each other for more than fifteen years. I, a Gen Z (or millennial, depending on who asks) science communicator, luckily feel more excited than intimidated by this combined force of experience. My main goal? I want to know how the field changed through their eyes and what has stayed the same throughout their careers.

© India Jane Wise

I start by asking the obvious question: How did you both end up in the world of science communication?

De Poot / “It was definitely not a straight line for me. I studied psychology at KU Leuven, but I needed money to pay for my studies, so I started working for Gazet van Antwerpen to report about KU Leuven news. Later, because of my background in child psychology, I was pulled into crime reporting when the Dutroux case broke [a high-profile case in 1996 when a serial child abductor, abuser, and murderer was caught]. After the case settled, I became a political journalist. It took me almost twenty years after graduating to move into science and health communication. Around 2008, I became editor-in-chief of Roularta’s medical magazines. I did that until 2018, then moved to VITO as press officer. Looking back, I realize I had already been translating science much earlier. I co-wrote books with, among others, the gynaecologist Marleen Temmerman in 2007 and 2009, so science was always there in some form.”

Stoops / “My story is different, but also followed a very organic course. In my final year as a bioengineering student, I volunteered as a guide for an exhibition titled “The ABC of DNA.” I loved it. I started a PhD in Peter Marynen’s lab, but my funding fell through. I ended up at the Rega Institute for a year helping a PhD student with her DNA work, and during that time, I kept applying for jobs. I eventually saw a position at VIB to develop an exhibition about genetically modified organisms (GMOs). I owed it to myself to take that leap, even if I didn’t quite dare to believe I would make it. In the end, it came down to me and someone with a communication background. Luckily, they chose the person with a scientific background, and I got the job. I stayed for over twenty years before becoming a freelancer in 2022.”

How different was your job before the age of email and social media?

Stoops / “We still faxed things.”

De Poot / “I had telex!”

Stoops / “Actually, there was much less time pressure. Your day was not determined by a stream of emails. You worked toward one story or one press moment. Your job was not fragmented the way it is today. There was less hassle.”

De Poot / “The medical magazines I worked on were published weekly, so the rhythm was very different. You were not expected to put something online every day. That constant demand for fresh content simply didn’t exist.”

Working life really has changed a lot. Besides the time pressure, what is the biggest change you have seen in the way science is communicated?

De Poot / “Social media is definitely part of it, but for me, the bigger shift is that the entire communication pipeline has been rewritten. The target audience is much more fragmented. Press releases used to be the main channel to reach journalists. Today, press releases are only one piece of a much larger puzzle.”

Stoops / “Exactly. When I started, press conferences were still important. That format has almost disappeared, and plenty of alternatives have emerged. Still, many scientists ask for a press release simply because it’s the first thing that comes to mind when funders ask for visibility.”

De Poot / “Yes, and that shift also changes who you actually reach. Newspapers still work for our generation, but younger audiences and harder-to-reach groups need different channels entirely. There is no single route to the public anymore.”

Was the shift to social media abrupt or gradual?

Stoops / “Gradual, with phases. First, someone in the team proposed to create a Facebook account. It was popular for private use and we assumed it could have benefits for a research organization as well. The start was hesitant, since we were genuinely afraid of receiving hate and large discussions around sensitive themes, such as GMOs and animal research. We had to experiment our way into it. Facebook appeared great for reaching a larger—lay—audience. Twitter ruled among scientists. Now, as you know, the landscape is different again.”

De Poot / “You have to constantly reevaluate and evolve. We also started organically with social media, but now they form an important pillar in our communications strategy. We now have people dedicated to social media. It is not an option to avoid online communication.”

Has social media brought anything positive?

Stoops / “Yes, absolutely. You can create richer narratives. You can combine elements, add layers, and build momentum. It forces you to think strategically. You have to ask yourself what the real goal is. One broad press release push is rarely the best approach. Sometimes it is more effective to pitch just one journalist or only focus on socials.”

De Poot / “And it does open doors to reach people you would not reach otherwise. But reaching more people is not the same as reaching the right people. So that is the challenge for the right communications strategy, with social media as one aspect.”

So you feel like you lost something as well?

De Poot / “Yes, social media made it more challenging in a way to reach the general audience with our message. As strategic research centers [the publicly funded research organizations VITO, VIB, Flanders Make, and imec] in Flanders, we have the explicit task to reach all citizens, but not everyone follows or reads our social media channels. So, we still need other means, such as newspapers and science events, which also only reach part of the population. Everything is more fragmented.”

Stoops / “There is, of course, also old school outreach. I used to drive all over Flanders giving talks; time-consuming and reaching a much smaller audience, but in-person contact offers more depth and a place for nuanced messages. At the time, this was one of the few ways to reach a broad audience, because next to the absence of social media, there weren’t that many science events as today.”

What about journalists? Have there been changes in how they cover science throughout the years? 

De Poot / “There used to be many dedicated science journalists. Now there are almost none. More and more journalists have to be generalists. This also means more copy-and-paste work from press releases.”

Stoops / “At the first BE SciComm event (online because of COVID-19), Maxie Eckert from the newspaper De Standaard explained that for her, a press release is only the starting point for a journalist to work out an article. That is what it should be, but it’s not feasible for a lot of journalists nowadays.”

In these past years I have worked as a science communicator, I have also seen science editorial offices being shut down. Why is this happening?

De Poot / “Speed. The pressure to publish new content on social media every hour.”

Stoops / “And money, as budget cuts in newsrooms pushed editors to move away from working with specialists. Although about ten years ago, the VRT [Flanders’ public broadcaster] decided to invest more in science news because they noticed more clicks on these articles. So, they still have dedicated journalists with a real interest and passion for scientific subjects.”

What about the relationship between scientists and communicators? Has this changed?

Stoops / “Not fundamentally. They know how to find us more easily now, which helps. We don’t have to dig for stories as much, on the contrary.”

De Poot / “I haven’t seen many changes. Researchers know the route to the communication unit now. They know we can take a lot of the burden away from them. We do give more media training now because researchers are approached directly by journalists more often, and this definitely helps.”

What about the rise of tools like ChatGPT? Do researchers feel they can now write their own press releases?

Stoops / “I feel like the idea that everyone can communicate has always existed. It feels very intuitive, so people don’t consider it a specific expertise.”

De Poot / “Yes, that feeling is very persistent, but you need someone who looks from the outside. You need distance, nuance, the right angle. On a side note: I do not use ChatGPT for press releases. Mine are still better [smiles]. An AI model is always based on older work, and press releases feature brand-new science. That doesn’t work.”

Has the public itself changed?

De Poot / “There is more interest. Look at popular science programs or festivals like Dag van de Wetenschap and Nerdland Festival. They made science feel accessible.”

Stoops / “I had hoped that after the pandemic, people would be more interested in the scientific process, but that did not really happen. Still, everything is more accessible now. And researchers are more eager to communicate.”

De Poot / “At VITO, there is a core of enthusiastic researchers, but the pressure on them is very high. They often need to do outreach in their own time because budgets are shrinking.”

Stoops / “But I do think when they see the visibility it brings, they become motivated. Look at the PhD Cup. People learn to shape their message, even for fundamental research. And with success! Journalists now know how to find them. This became very clear during this year’s PhD Cup final, where winners and even finalists from the past decade shared how much the experience had meant to them.”

Looking ahead, what do you see as the biggest challenges for the next ten years?

De Poot / “I refuse to predict ten years ahead. If progress keeps this pace, I have no idea where we will be!”

Stoops / “For me, it is credibility. People take so much at face value. We need to protect the integrity of science and scientists. It is crucial that universities and research institutions are recognized as valuable sources of correct information.”

De Poot / Yes, that’s true. Helping people navigate fake information is essential. Being able to say: this is reliable, this isn’t.

So what skills will the next generation of science communicators need?

Stoops / Critical reflection.

De Poot / Fact-checking. Real fact-checking, not superficial filtering.

If you could restart your career, what would you do differently?

Stoops / I would have dared to become a freelancer sooner. Now I get to work for different organizations. It broadens everything.

De Poot / I wish I had done a short internship inside a research institute as a journalist or, the other way around, let more scientists intern with a newsroom. Everyone would benefit from that.

What continues to excite you in your job today?

De Poot / As a journalist, I was always at the forefront of the news. Now I am still at the forefront of innovation. That’s what I love.

Stoops / I agree. And I love seeing interactions between scientists and citizens. When you see that moment of connection, that cross-pollination, it is incredibly energizing. It reminds me of why we do this.

Thank you both very much!

Coats go back on, the bill arrives, and we all head back to our own corners of the science communication world, ready to translate new discoveries for whoever needs them next in any way possible—but not by fax.