Science Communication is hard. Bioinformatics professor Antoine van Kampen explains.
Written by Anaïs Chalard (intern at Science Matters), final edit and illustrations by Nadine Bongaerts (co-founder & partner at Science Matters).
Science communication is not always easy. Scientists usually like to use a lot of complicated words, data and difficult-to-understand graphs to make the point. For outsiders, it can feel like they speak a foreign language.
How do academics personally handle the challenge of translating their work for a broader public? How can they overcome these hurdles? In this interview, we sit down with Antoine van Kampen to hear about his own experiences with science communication as a professor in Medical Bioinformatics.
Antoine, can you please start by telling us how you ended up as Head of the Bioinformatics Laboratory at Amsterdam UMC?
I actually did not start in bioinformatics but in chemistry. I first did my PhD in a field called chemometrics, which is at the border between chemistry, statistics, and informatics. In 1997, I got a job at Amsterdam UMC to support biomedical research. Bioinformatics was virtually non-existent at that time. However, not long after I started at the Amsterdam UMC, initiatives of the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) gave a large boost to bioinformatics. This allowed me to establish my own bioinformatics group of which I became head a few years later. Now I am also a professor of medical bioinformatics and my main focus is bioinformatics and computational modelling applied to biomedical research questions.
Can you explain what bioinformatics is? What are you trying to achieve?
Bioinformatics aims to analyse biological data. For example, we can use patient samples to obtain protein, metabolite, DNA or RNA data. This data can be extremely helpful to study what biological mechanisms cause diseases. We use our expertise to help (pre)clinical researchers make sense of their data. Thanks to our type of analyses we can try to better understand the mechanisms of pathologies or identify molecules that can be used in diagnostics. Until now, my group has been mainly focusing on immune-related diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, but we are gradually changing our focus to cancer.
What is the biggest challenge your team has been working on?
For six years, our main challenge has been improving transparency and reproducibility in computational projects. It is critical to ensure that scientific findings can be reliably repeated and built upon. To tackle this, we developed “ENCORE” (Enhancing Computational Reproducibility), published in Nature Communications. ENCORE not only improves reproducibility but also ensures seamless project continuity when PhD students transition.
How would you describe your experience with science communication so far?
To be honest, I don’t have much experience with science communication. But since my group is working closely with (pre)clinical researchers, it is crucial to communicate efficiently between all of us.
Is this easy?
No, communicating our research to a broader audience is not always easy. In my opinion, there are a few reasons for that. First of all, us scientists don’t always put enough effort in science communication. Unfortunately, we do not have enough time for it and we do not always see the benefits of better communication. Second, the “return on investment” is not immediately obvious for an academic career. I think this is especially the case when communicating science via social media, because it is hard to see the direct impact of communicating science there. You don’t necessarily know if you reach the people who are actually interested in what you have to say.
Do you think scientists should be more involved in science communication? Do they need more support?
Yes, I think scientists should keep on improving at science communication. For example, my group’s research involves the analyses of data that was measured on samples taken from patients for which they sometimes undergo uncomfortable procedures. For that reason, it is important for them to understand what we do with their samples and data. We need to explain what challenges we are trying to overcome, and why we appreciate the contributions they make.
At the same time, I do see that more efforts are being made by academia concerning science communication. For instance, the communication department at AMC is efficiently helping us to talk about our research. Funding bodies also tend to demand more and more that researchers communicate about their projects. I also think it is perhaps easier for younger generations to communicate on social media as they are more used to these types of platforms.
Why did you ask Science Matters to get involved in your research?
I invited Science Matters to join the Horizon 2020 COSMIC consortium to help PhD students effectively present their results to the patients involved in our bioinformatics projects. I had previously worked with them in another consortium and liked their approach, which is why I reached out for their help. What I particularly appreciate about Science Matters is that it’s led by scientists, which, in my opinion, adds credibility and depth to their work. Their expertise in scientific research makes their approach to science communication both pragmatic and focused on achievable goals. I highly recommend Science Matters to anyone looking to improve their science communication skills.
What is your vision and hope for the future of science communication?
I think researchers need more incentives to work on their science communication. They also need to understand what benefits there are. Because social media or scientific journals do not always reach the desired audiences, we may need to develop communication channels that are more suited for researchers to communicate with the public. This is particularly relevant in today’s society where people are becoming increasingly sceptical about science. Reinforcing researchers’ communication skills is also essential. For instance, we could include more scientific communication courses in science bachelor and master programs. This way, students would acquire earlier the tools they will need later in their career. Science communication will then become more natural for researchers and, hopefully, will require less time and effort.
