Science Communication Must Serve Public Needs

A family weighing solar panels may care more about electricity bills, Malaysia’s hot climate and sustainable living than the physics of photovoltaic cells, science communication researcher Kumuthini Chandrasekaram writes. In her article, she argues researchers can make science meaningful by connecting discoveries to people’s experiences, concerns and aspirations, not simply presenting findings or simplifying technical reports.

From findings to public concerns

Chandrasekaram is a Research Officer at the Universiti Malaya Power Energy Dedicated Centre (UMPEDAC), Universiti Malaya (UM). Malay Mail published her article on October 20, 2026, at 5:05 PM MYT. The publication identifies it as the personal opinion of the writer or publication, not necessarily the views of Malay Mail.

The solar-panel example shows the difference between describing scientific findings and explaining their relevance to an audience. Scientists might explain how photovoltaic cells work, while a family considering solar panels may focus on household bills, Malaysia’s hot climate and sustainable living. The science stays the same, Chandrasekaram writes, but the story can change to meet an audience’s needs.

Her article asks whether scientists communicate with people or merely talk at them. Effective science communication, it says, can cultivate curiosity, encourage evidence-based decisions, inform public policy and build trust between science and society. It doesn't describe a specific policy proposal, research budget or financial return from solar technology.

Jane Austen and Albert Einstein serve as the article’s paired examples. Austen, described as a novelist who explored the intricacies of human behaviour, examined in Pride and Prejudice how pride and perception shape relationships. Chandrasekaram draws a lesson about assumptions: what scientists believe others understand can create barriers to sharing knowledge.

Einstein, the physicist who transformed understanding of the universe, is popularly associated with the idea that complex concepts should be explainable in simple terms. The article quotes a saying attributed to him: “One does not truly understand something unless one can explain it to one's grandmother.” Clear explanations, Chandrasekaram writes, can make knowledge accessible without reducing scientific rigour.

Who gets to take part

Classrooms, public lectures and scientific presentations have traditionally carried information from experts to the public. Chandrasekaram says this one-way model can share established knowledge, but it may leave little room for questions, discussion and alternative perspectives.

She distinguishes dissemination from public participation. Dissemination helps people access reliable scientific knowledge; participation creates opportunities to question, discuss and contribute. People understand science through their cultural backgrounds, education, experiences and community concerns, the article says. Listening to those perspectives can help researchers communicate effectively and address questions that matter to society.

The article presents the approaches as compatible: they can be combined according to audience and purpose. It also gives educators, institutions, policymakers and communities a role in creating opportunities for meaningful dialogue and participation. It offers no account of a particular government action or organized campaign.

Making science relevant to students

Some students, Chandrasekaram writes, may encounter science as unfamiliar terminology, complicated equations and facts to memorise. When everyday relevance isn't clear, curiosity may give way to apprehension.

A lesson on renewable energy could instead ask why solar panels perform differently under changing weather conditions. Students could investigate how sunlight and temperature affect performance, explore materials used in solar cells and learn how researchers improve energy generation.

Interactive demonstrations, storytelling, digital platforms and conversations with researchers can make concepts more approachable, the article says. These methods can encourage students to ask questions, test ideas and see curiosity as a driver of exploration.

Chandrasekaram argues scientific work should be valued not only for publications, patents or laboratory breakthroughs, but also for how it informs decisions, improves lives and inspires future generations. Her closing image is science as a conversation: people can learn, question and contribute when researchers communicate without prejudice and audiences engage without intimidation.