Anyone who’s had to read academic papers knows how tedious it can be to grasp all the details. It’s not that they’re badly written, but academic writing has its own style—often opaque and overly technical.
I’m not suggesting that academic writing needs to change. Its complexity and tone are justified by the high level of detail and the target audience of scientific papers. But when scientists transition into communication roles, they often carry this style with them, which is why science content can feel dry or hard to understand for a broader, less specialized audience.
Beyond just simplifying the language or adding storytelling elements, the goal of scientific content is often to engage readers and inspire them to take action—something that’s hard to do if your audience is bored or lost.
But why is it so hard for experts to simplify their writing? Like any good scientist, let’s start by reviewing past studies on the topic.
The curse of knowledge
Becoming an expert changes how you see things. Experts naturally use abstractions when discussing their subject without even realizing it. For example, a term like 'gene editing' means something entirely different to a biologist than to a layperson. To the biologist, it immediately brings to mind the intricate machinery used to cut, insert, and edit genes within a cell. To someone without biology training, it just sounds like sci-fi.
This gap in knowledge is totally normal and should be expected, but here’s the problem when it comes to communicating science: abstractions don’t stick in people’s minds. Concrete ideas do. The more specific and tangible your writing is, the easier it becomes to engage your audience. This doesn’t just apply to non-experts—experts themselves can be bored by overly complex writing, even if they fully understand the topic.
The unintentional use of abstractions stems from a concept known as the 'curse of knowledge,' which was famously demonstrated in a 1990 experiment by Elizabeth Newton.
In this experiment, participants were split into two groups: tappers and listeners. The tappers’ task was to tap out the rhythm of well-known songs with their fingers, while the listeners had to guess the song. Sounds simple, right?
Before starting, the listeners estimated they could guess about half the songs. But here’s the catch—out of 120 songs, listeners correctly guessed only three!
Why such a big disconnect? Well, that’s because the tappers, like experts, had the song playing in their heads as they tapped, but the listeners—lacking that insider knowledge—heard only random tapping. Try it yourself and see how many songs you can guess. Chances are, it won’t be many!
When experts communicate, they’re 'tapping out' their knowledge without realizing it. To someone who isn’t attuned to that rhythm, it just sounds like gibberish.
Fortunately, there are ways to overcome the curse of knowledge. Let’s explore some strategies to make your writing more accessible and engaging.
6 ways to make your scientific ideas stick
1. Adapt your language but don’t dumb down
The common advice you’ll hear around science communication talks is to “understand your audience” but what does it really mean?
I don’t really like this advice because it sounds like scientists are dumb and can’t figure out how to use better words to describe their science.
Another way I find more helpful is the use of “schemas,” a concept I learned about from the book “Made to Stick” by Chip and Dan Heath. In their book, the two authors describe schemas as an easy way to build new knowledge on previously acquired knowledge.
For instance, you could describe a pomelo like this:
"A pomelo is the largest citrus fruit. The rind is very thick but soft and easy to peel away. The resulting fruit has a light yellow to coral pink flesh and can vary from juicy to slightly dry and from seductively spicy-sweet to tangy and tart."
Or you could use a schema, like this:
"A pomelo is basically a super-sized grapefruit with a very thick and soft rind."
See the difference? Not many people know what a pomelo is, but most people are familiar with grapefruits. By building on the grapefruit knowledge, you can very easily describe a pomelo to someone who’s never heard of it.
As the two authors wrote in their book, “People are tempted to tell you everything, with perfect accuracy, right up front, when they should be giving you just enough info to be useful, then a little more, then a little more.”
So, when it comes to your scientific writing, using schemas can be an excellent way to communicate complex or abstract knowledge.
2. Highlight the “so what?” factor
When writing scientific content, the most critical question you need to answer is: Why should the audience care?
It’s easy for experts to get lost in the details of their field, but your readers are more interested in the big picture—how does this information affect their lives or work? A scientific discovery might be groundbreaking, but if the audience can’t see how it relates to them, they’ll quickly tune out.
Think about how TED Talks captivate audiences. These talks often start by highlighting why the topic matters: how it impacts health, technology, or society. They don’t just talk about science—they show how it affects our daily lives, which makes the information relatable and engaging.
You can achieve the same in your writing. Don’t just present the facts—connect them to your audience’s experiences, challenges, or desires. Frame your content around the benefits and implications, and make it clear why it matters.
In short, always lead with the "so what?" Answer that, and your readers will be hooked.
3. Make it concrete
Abstract ideas are hard to grasp and even harder to remember. That’s why concreteness is key to making your content stick. Concrete examples, analogies, and vivid imagery help your audience visualize concepts and understand them on a deeper level.
Concreteness doesn’t mean everything has to be literal. Even metaphorical stories, like fables, are easier to remember and transmit than dense scientific explanations. Think about Plato’s Allegory of the Cave—it’s a simple, memorable story with layers of meaning that resonate long after it’s told.
When you’re explaining scientific ideas, use concrete analogies and real-world examples. For instance, rather than just talking about "gene editing," you could describe it as "the molecular scissors that allow scientists to cut, paste, and repair DNA." This paints a clear picture for the reader, making the concept easier to understand and recall.
To make your content more concrete, ask yourself: How can I make this idea visible? What vivid examples or metaphors can I use to bring it to life? The more concrete you can make your writing, the more likely it will resonate with your audience.
4. Use the “curiosity gap”
In 1994, behavioral economist George Lowenstein theorized that curiosity happens when we feel a gap in our knowledge. This gap—the space between what we know and what we want to know—creates discomfort in our brain, much like the urge to scratch an itch. We’re driven to fill that gap, often at any cost.
You’ve likely experienced this yourself! Who hasn’t sat through a bad movie just to find out how it ends? Content that naturally creates this gap is powerful at holding attention.
The good news is that the curiosity gap can be created deliberately. Start with a question or present a mystery, and your audience will instinctively recognize a gap in their understanding—hooked until they can fill it.
The physicist and author Stephen Hawking was a master of this technique. His books asked big, mind-bending questions right from the start, and then guided readers through a scientific journey to answer them. His final book, Brief Answers to the Big Questions, exemplifies this approach, beginning with questions like “Is there a God?”, “How did it all begin?”, “Can we predict the future?” and “What is inside a black hole?”
By opening with questions that pique curiosity, you can create content that pulls readers in and keeps them engaged until they satisfy that need to know.
5. Be authoritative without overwhelming
Scientists love to showcase their knowledge—and understandably so. In the academic world, knowing everything about your field sets you apart. But when it comes to engaging a broader audience, information overload has the opposite effect. Dumping too much information can quickly bore or overwhelm your readers.
Here’s a key piece of advice: you don’t have to explain everything. Focus on the most critical points, keeping your writing aligned with the goal of your content. Use references or footnotes to guide your audience toward deeper exploration if they’re interested.
I love footnotes. They’re an excellent way to offer additional insights without cluttering the main narrative. They allow readers to dive deeper if something piques their interest without distracting from the core message.
If you struggle with keeping your writing concise, take Ernest Hemingway's advice and "write drunk, edit sober." I'm not saying you should actually be drunk when you write (Hemingway was most of the time, but that's not an example to follow). What it means is that when you are drafting a piece of content, you can go wild and dump everything you know as fast as you can. But then edit your text impartially to keep only the main argument and related ideas.
It’s not uncommon to cut 30–40% of a draft. In fact, that’s often what transforms good content into great content. So be tough on your drafts—cutting excess will sharpen your message and keep your audience engaged.
6. Be yourself
Look, it’s not because you spend your day wearing a lab coat that you have to be serious all the time. When writing outside of the academic field, allow some personality to shine through. Your humor, your curiosity, or your enthusiasm can make the content more relatable.
Also, don’t feel obliged to be a clown because you’re writing to a broader audience. If you naturally use a neutral tone, keep it this way.
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is a great example of someone who lets his personality shine through when communicating science to a broader audience. Whether he’s on TV, a podcast, or writing, he's not afraid to crack a joke or use Star Trek references to make complex concepts more relatable. But what makes him effective is that he doesn’t force it—he’s simply being himself.
So be authentic. Whatever the background and expertise level of your readers, they always appreciate a genuine voice.
It’s a balance
Effective science communication is a delicate balance between being accurate while also being engaging. I know, scientific topics can be complex, and simplifying them without losing essential details requires skill. But it’s a balance worth mastering because it’s the difference between content that just informs and content that inspires.
On the one hand, accuracy is non-negotiable. As a science communicator, your credibility relies on providing factual, reliable information. On the other hand, if your audience finds the content dry or inaccessible, even the most accurate information won’t have any impact. The key is to bridge the gap between these two needs.
That’s where the techniques explored in this article come in. They work because they don’t dilute the science; they make it digestible and memorable. By focusing on what your audience cares about and presenting ideas in a way that sticks, you can maintain scientific rigor while making sure your message resonates.
