An Open Letter to (Health, Life, and Food) Scientists and Science Communicators

 June 10, 2026

Dear colleagues,

At a time when public trust is fragile and scientific issues are increasingly filtered through fear, ideology, and oversimplification, we share a responsibility that extends beyond discovery alone. We must communicate science with clarity, proportion, humility, and courage. The strength of our disciplines depends not only on the quality of our research, but also on the quality of the explanations we offer to the public, to policymakers, to students, and to one another.

Too often, complex findings are reduced to slogans. Detection is mistaken for danger. Association is presented as proof of causation. The words chemical and natural are used as rhetorical shortcuts rather than scientific descriptions. Uncertainty is hidden when it should be explained. When this happens, the public is not informed; it is confused, polarized, and made more vulnerable to misinformation.

That is why we urge all scientists, educators, physicians, journalists, public information officers, and science communicators to read, adopt, and actively promote the practices outlined below. These principles are not merely stylistic preferences. They are part of the ethical work of defending science itself: by presenting evidence in proportion to its strength, distinguishing hazard from exposure, explaining uncertainty honestly, and helping audiences understand how scientific reasoning actually works.

We ask you not only to apply these practices in your own writing, teaching, speaking, reviewing, and publishing, but also to encourage your colleagues, students, institutions, and professional societies to do the same. Share them in classrooms and laboratories. Use them in interviews and press releases. Bring them into editorial discussions, conference panels, and public conversations. The more consistently we communicate with rigor and integrity, the stronger and more resilient scientific culture becomes.

Science does not defend itself automatically. It is defended when evidence is explained well, when limits are acknowledged honestly, when exaggeration is resisted, and when the public is invited into understanding rather than pushed toward alarm or distrust. Let us commit to a standard of communication worthy of the scientific enterprise: one that uplifts our disciplines, strengthens public reasoning, and protects the integrity of science for the generations ahead.

With respect and resolve,

Angela Anandappa, Ph.D.

We commit to the following:

1. Always distinguish hazard from exposure

A major communication problem arises when people hear that a substance is “dangerous” without being told at what dose, under what conditions, and with what type of exposure. A good communicator should explain that the presence of a substance does not automatically mean meaningful risk.

2. Give scale and context for numbers

Modern instruments can detect extremely tiny amounts of substances. The technology available to scientists is continually improving, allowing the detection of ever smaller quantities of substances. If scientists or journalists report trace findings without explaining whether those amounts are biologically meaningful, audiences may overestimate danger. Communicators should translate quantities into understandable comparisons and explain whether the level detected is relevant to health.

3. Avoid treating “chemical” as a synonym for harm

Every single thing in the universe is comprised of matter. Matter is formed by atoms arranged into chemicals. The use of the word chemical as if it automatically means artificial, toxic, or unsafe causes confusion and sows distrust, especially among populations of people who are less educated in the sciences. Communication should avoid reinforcing this misconception and instead explain that all food is made of chemicals; the scientific issue is risk, not mere chemical identity.

4. Do not imply that “natural” automatically means safe

A strong science-communication lesson from the lecture is that “natural” is often used as a persuasive label rather than a scientific category. Communicators should avoid creating a false contrast in which natural substances are presented as inherently safe and synthetic ones as inherently harmful.

5. Explain evidence quality, not just study outcomes

Not all scientific studies deserve equal weight. Good communication should therefore clarify whether evidence comes from:

• a cell study,

• an animal study,

• a human observational study,

• a randomized trial,

• a scientific review,

• or a regulatory review of multiple lines of evidence.

Instead of simply saying “a study found,” communicators should explain how strong the study design is and what its limitations are.

6. Do not overstate weak associations

In nutritional epidemiology especially, many reported associations are small and close to the null value. These weak findings are often communicated too confidently. A more responsible message would explain that a statistically significant association is not the same as a proven causal relationship.

7. Clarify uncertainty instead of hiding it

Context matters. Scientific disagreement may persist not because one side ignores evidence, but because different institutions interpret uncertainty differently. Good communication should make uncertainty visible: what is known, what is not yet known, and why experts may disagree.

8. Separate scientific findings from rhetorical framing

Dramatic phrasing such as “there is no safe amount” or “as little as one hot dog a day,” because this kind of language can make weak or nuanced findings sound absolute. Communicators should avoid converting modest statistical signals into emotionally forceful warnings unless the evidence truly supports that level of certainty.

9. Explain study design flaws when they matter

When discussing controversial findings, the communicator should point out major limitations such as:

• confounding,

• biased comparison groups,

• unrealistic dosing,

• poor controls,

• or pre-treatment with known carcinogens.

This helps audiences understand why not every alarming result should be interpreted literally.

10. Control the narrative spun by advertisers and publicists

Even the best of marketing teams and publicists aim to make headlines appealing and constantly vie for attention in a flooded media landscape. University scientists as well as commercial organizations must play an active role in balancing the need for announcing activity, publications, and acknowledgements and do so in a measured and balanced manner. Review the drafts for scientific accuracy before the press release, advertisement, webinar, or social media posts are developed. Universities in particular must play an active role in stewarding the conduct of scientific research and communications about the research.

11. Communicate proportionately

One of the clearest overall recommendations is that science communication should be proportional to the strength of the evidence. Strong claims require strong evidence. Weak evidence should be presented cautiously, with limits clearly stated.

12. Help audiences understand how regulation works

Public misunderstanding grows when regulatory systems like GRAS are described in oversimplified or misleading ways. Good communicators should explain what regulatory decisions mean, what standards are being applied, and why one agency’s conclusion may differ from another’s. When it is not a strength, one should find reputed experts to weigh in on such matters.

13. Encourage scientific literacy rather than fear

Let’s help people think critically instead of reacting emotionally. The goal should not be to reassure blindly or alarm dramatically, but to teach audiences how to interpret evidence, uncertainty, scale, and causation more intelligently.

Add your name and join scientists and science communicators as we move forward to defend science ethically.