Science or spin?

Personal reflections on ethical scicomm

Finding a job as a science communicator isn’t always easy, so landing one with a steady paycheck and a research focus you’re passionate about can feel like hitting the jackpot. I remember the excitement I felt when I signed my contract at non-profit research institute VIB, a job where I get to explain cutting-edge science for a living. But in my enthusiasm to spread the word about all the cool research happening, I didn’t immediately stop to consider everything I wrote about and the impact it might have. Don’t get me wrong, I still love my job, but I’d like to highlight some pitfalls and share some tips for being an ethical corporate communicator.

Disclaimer: When I talk about “corporate science communication” here, I don’t necessarily mean working for a pharmaceutical giant or a marketing firm. I simply mean communicating on behalf of a large organization with its own strategic goals, rather than as a freelancer or independent voice. Even in a non-profit setting like mine, you’re part of an institution, and that brings both structure and pressure.

THE FALSE PROMISE TRAP

One of the hardest lessons I’ve learned in this job is how easy it is to accidentally overpromise.

A few years ago, I wrote a press release about a team that discovered a new molecule involved in neuronal cell loss in Alzheimer’s disease. It was fascinating work. The researchers had used a new mouse model, which confirmed everything, and their work was published in Science, textbook great fundamental science. When I sent the draft around for approval, the internal comments were enthusiastic. We pushed it out with a headline that mentioned “new hope for Alzheimer’s research”, with huge success. The news made it around the world. It was the prime example of what a successful press release looks like.

However, we always include a contact email for patients at the bottom of any press release involving medical research (that’s a first tip right there), and soon the inbox was flooded with hundreds of messages from families who had been affected by Alzheimer’s and wanted to know when the medication would become available. I replied to every single one, explaining that while the discovery was promising, it was still many, many years away from even the first clinical trial—if it ever got that far. 

My well-meaning attempt to make the release newsworthy clearly had unintentionally suggested that this molecule might lead to a cure, even though we had been cautious not to overpromise. It made me realize just how much power even small word choices can have. Especially when you’re dealing with diseases that touch millions of lives. Especially when people are desperate for good news.

Fundamental science is already hard to translate. Corporate science adds another layer of pressure. You want to stand out in the daily flood of press releases, to grab headlines, get visibility, make the company look good. That pressure can tempt all well-meaning communicators to reach for words that add “a little more” sparkle to a discovery. But the cost of that sparkle can be real.

WHEN FUNDING STEERS THE STORY

Accidentally overpromising is one thing. A more subtle, ongoing challenge is how your employer’s priorities influence your writing. A neutral narrator doesn’t exist—you always have your own biases—but in corporate science communication, your employer’s interests add another layer. They inevitably shape what you write about, how you frame it, and what angle gets highlighted.  

I don’t work for a profit-driven company, so this isn’t something I experience every day. But the principles still apply. The need to attract funding, retain visibility, and align with long-term goals can still influence the story you end up telling. In a truly corporate, for-profit setting, I imagine this influence is even more pronounced, especially when commercial interests are at stake.

Internal dynamics can steer the narrative. If a company invests heavily in a particular technology, for example, the temptation to overemphasise its strengths and ignore its flaws grows. Especially if you’re trying to win media attention, attract investors, or justify a pivot in strategy.

That’s normal, it’s part of the job. But it also means it can paint a wrong picture. Solely communicating about success in research, for example, can create a misleading view of the research process. And it’s easy to let your guard down. 

Even without pressure from above, we naturally want to align with our workplace’s goals. You believe in the company, after all. You believe in your colleagues. You want the science to succeed. But that faith can blur your judgment, making it easier to ignore inconvenient data or inflate the importance of certain results. 

As science communicators, we don’t just translate findings. We also have a certain responsibility of shaping how research is perceived. That’s where ethical safeguards come in. 

STAYING HONEST IN THE HYPE

So how do we stay grounded, especially when the stakes are high and the pressure is real? Here are five practices that might make a difference:

1. Email for patients. Under every press release that relates to a disease, you can include a disclaimer and an email address for questions:“A breakthrough in research is not the same as a breakthrough in medicine. The realizations of our researchers can form the basis of new therapies, but the development path still takes years. This can raise a lot of questions. That is why we ask you to please refer questions in your report or article to the email address that we make available for this purpose: [email]. Everyone can submit questions concerning this and other medically-oriented research directly to us via this address.”

2. Full disclosure. Always name the funders. Be clear about their roles in the study, and flag any potential conflicts of interest. A simple, standard boilerplate at the bottom of the article can do the trick (and can simultaneously please your funders for mentioning them!).

3. Balanced context. You can lead with the exciting bits, but beware of wording. Also explain methods, limitations, and uncertainties alongside the key results.

4. Editorial firewall. Our scientists always review and approve the content before it gets sent out. This is an extra safeguard to make sure the science isn’t diluted or misrepresented in the pursuit of engagement. It slows things down, and isn’t always in our favor, but still necessary.

5. Active audience monitoring. Once it’s out in the world, we listen, we read the comments, track social media sentiment, and monitor how the media reuses our content. If something’s misunderstood or spirals into conspiracy, we respond quickly with facts, clarifications, or deeper dives.

   
   

FINAL THOUGHTS

Working in corporate scicomm doesn’t mean you’re part of a spin machine. It does mean you need to stay alert. We have the privilege of telling stories about science that might change lives, and with that comes the responsibility not to overstate, oversell, or oversimplify.

It’s a balancing act: you want people to care, but you also want them to trust you. You want to share wonder, without faking certainty.

At the end of the day, I one hundred percent believe you can work in corporate science and still be proud of your ethics, it just takes a little extra effort.