The digital revolution and dawn of generative AI are fundamentally reshaping the conditions for science communication and journalism, giving rise to new threats but also new opportunities to improve the reach and accessibility of scientific knowledge. These themes are the focus of the European Science-Media Hub (ESMH) Summer School ‘Science Communication in the Digital Age‘, taking place between 24-26 June 2025. Young journalists from across Europe will gather to discuss how to navigate the challenges and opportunities with online science communication. You can watch the opening and closing session online.
Ahead of the event, the ESMH spoke with science communicators Elisabetta Tola and Mirko Bischofberger, who will speak at the Summer School. Elisabetta Tola is a science, data, and investigative journalist and the co-founder and editor-in-chief of Facta.eu. Mirko Bischofberger is an expert in science communication and a lecturer at the Swiss Federal Technology Institute of Zürich and Lausanne (ETH and EPFL), as well as the universities of Zürich and Basel.
The importance of science communication
Science increasingly shapes every aspect of our lives, rendering scientific communication more important than ever. Because if scientific knowledge ceases to be a part of public understanding, there is a risk of disempowerment.
As Elisabetta Tola, science, data, and investigative journalist points out, “In a world where scientific knowledge increasingly shapes policy, economics, health, and the environment, excluding people from that knowledge, or presenting it in a way that is elitist or opaque, weakens democracy.” – Read the full interview with Elisabetta Tola
Indeed, Hannah Arendt noted the risks of humans becoming oblivious to scientific knowledge over half a century ago. In ‘The Human Condition’, she wrote that if “knowledge (in the modern sense of know-how) and thought have parted company for good, then we would indeed become the helpless slaves, not so much of our machines as of our know-how, thoughtless creatures at the mercy of every gadget which is technically possible, no matter how murderous it is.” (1958: 3)
Scientific communication, by offering a bridge between scientists and the public, is therefore crucial to ensuring a functioning democracy. The aim is to foster what Elisabetta Tola calls ‘scientific citizenship‘: citizenship characterised by a “participatory relationship between science and the public“, where people have “the tools and the knowledge to understand, challenge, and act on issues that are deeply shaped by science — from climate to health to digital technologies.”
Challenges in the digital age
There is a common narrative that trust in science is declining, fueled by unchecked misinformation spreading on social media. With the dawn of generative AI, there are similar fears about AI-generated disinformation and deepfakes undermining the epistemic authority of science.
Research offers a more reassuring picture, showing that most people still have high levels of trust in scientists. Yet digital technologies are rapidly transforming the conditions of science communication, posing new risks.
Mirko Bischofberger, expert in science communication, who describes himself as a ‘techno-optimist’, acknowledges these risks: “Of course, dual technologies like AI can be used for both good and ill. It comes with great advantages, but also great risks, including from deepfakes and misinformation.” – Read the full interview with Mirko Bischofberger
Misinformation is not new in the digital age. As Elisabetta Tola points out: “Just think of how Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany used radio to mesmerise and control the masses, while forcing newspapers to serve only propaganda and distorted news, the very kind we now simplistically call fake news.” However, she explains that: “in today’s hyper-connected world, misinformation spreads at a completely different pace, and its reach is global.”
AI-generated disinformation can rapidly flood public platforms aimed at discussion and deliberation, causing confusion, polarisation, and general mistrust. By influencing the training data of large language models (LLMs), AI-generated disinformation can also distort the information space in more subtle ways, by shaping the responses people get from AI chatbots.
The fact that AI-systems have shown to be superior to humans in the field of persuasion in recent studies adds another layer of risk. Moreover, hallucinations offer a potential source of misinformation, if AI tools are used without adequate human supervision. As Mirko Bischofberger summarises, “machines will hallucinate, lie, and maybe persuade people of falsities even better.”
Opportunities and best-practices
Not all is doom and gloom for science communication in the digital age. Science communicators can now reach a larger audience than ever before through the internet and social media. Digital tools can facilitate science communication adapted to different audiences, for instance through videos. In addition, AI tools can help communicators quickly get up to speed in a broad range of scientific fields.
These unprecedented opportunities come with significant responsibilities for science communicators. According to Elisabetta Tola, good science journalism should be “not only accurate, but also contextualised, accessible, and empowering.” Scientific communicators need to balance the pursuit of scientific accuracy with accessibility to a diverse range of audience.
To improve the accessibility of science, Mirko Bischofberger emphasises the promise of using techniques from storytelling. “Humans love stories,” he points out. Using stories in science communication can therefore “make a message more compelling and memorable,” allowing more people to access and identify with science.
Mirko Bischofberger is hopeful that AI can change science communication for the better. In particular, he highlights the potential of AI to spread science beyond traditional audience, and even combat conspiracies. As he explains, “The capacity to help reach beyond the usual audiences is one of the greatest opportunities of AI for science communication, I think. It could help give access to scientific knowledge to people who are usually not accessing it. Concretely, if you have somebody who believes the world is flat and you put them together with a person or with a machine, the machine is more likely to change their mind.” In the field of persuasion, at least, it seems humans may have a lot to learn from AI.
Finding common solutions
Given the threat of disinformation in the digital age, there is an urgent need to come together to learn and find common solutions. As Elisabetta Tola puts it: “The only way to build a healthy information environment is by fostering a deeper understanding of the complex digital communication system we live in. That’s why events like this summer school, especially with so many young journalists, most of them digital natives, are incredibly valuable.”
The ESMH Summer School can help create a space for this kind of learning, critical reflection, and creative problem solving. Ideally, Mirko Bischofberger says, “participants can go in new directions, have new ideas, and dive into possible futures of science communication.”
Useful links:
• ESMH Summer School 24-26 June 2025: more information and programme
• Watch the opening session live
• Watch the closing session live
Related content:
• Elisabetta Tola: ‘We need spaces to learn, share, and reflect together’
• Mirko Bischofberger: ‘AI offers a promise of a better way of communicating’