Galvanising your allies, part 8: The general public

The general public is a diverse and powerful group that helps fund research through taxes. So why aren’t they being treated like important stakeholders?

27th May 2025

Via European Society for Gene and Cell Therapy.

Before we begin: STEM Matters is hosting a Lunch & Learn Webinar! Please join us to learn how to effectively interview researchers, and uncover impact and develop compelling research impact case studies and  with insights from top journalists and STEM Matters  Publishing Director AJ Epstein. 

Join us Tuesday 3 June, from 12-1pm AEST. Register here.

Welcome to the final installment of my series on how to galvanise your allies. So far, I’ve explored; how to galvanise government on a sectoral level and on an individual level; and how to turn alumni and students into advocates and allies and how to galvanise industry (part I and part II); and how to galvanise philanthropy. 

The general public: a powerful but underutilised tool

I’ve talked before about the disconnect between science, research and universities in the public eye. Researchers like Pew ask the public about trust in science, not trust in universities. And—as we know—trust in science is actually holding relatively steady after the pandemic, while trust in universities (and all public institutions) has cratered over the past few decades.

Universities are far from unique in this. But they do have benefits that many other public institutions don’t—like direct connection with the public, whether it’s through education, training or research impact. Not to mention a critical part of this connection: there is no part of our lives that isn’t improved by research from universities. 

This means that there’s a far greater opportunity to reach the public, to rally them and to convert bystanders to advocates, supporters and allies, and to take back control of the conversation. 

Yet the idea of the Ivory Tower persists—the idea that universities are elite institutions that don’t care about the general public. Why is it so stubborn?

The general public are your research stakeholders too

While working with a client recently, I was struck by a phrase he used. He had been working on research translation for an emerging technology that was moving from the fundamental research stage to real-world application after decades of investment. When explaining he had chosen to focus on research translation, he told me: “I think the Australian taxpayer deserves to benefit from the investments they’ve made, and that we have a duty to make that happen.” 

I’ve actually heard this sentiment echoed many times over the course of my career. Yet this isn’t actually being communicated with the public itself. I don’t think most people know that many academics think this way. And this is partially because I’ve never seen a university’s communications treat the general public as if it were an equal stakeholder. 

This has left universities exposed. By not engaging the public in a serious way, others have stepped into that void and created the narrative for them. (Hence the persistent Ivory Tower idea—and the ongoing culture wars).

Engaging the public and convincing them of your worth needs to be one of the top priorities of senior leadership. What if you invested in the general public as a stakeholder, as a potential advocate? How could you help people feel truly engaged with your work, and help them feel that supporting you has a direct positive impact on their life? 

If they know you, they are more likely to embrace new innovations

The spectre of the public debate over genetically modified (GM) foods, which erupted globally in the late 1990s and early 2000s, still looms large as nations worldwide navigate the introduction of new and transformative technologies. The memory of extensive misinformation and deeply entrenched public fear that significantly hampered the acceptance of GMOs in many regions serves as a stark reminder of the critical need for early, transparent, and robust public engagement on a global scale.

With GMOs, public perception was heavily influenced by misinformation, sensationalist media coverage and rumors, which often amplified fears about health risks, environmental impacts, and ethical concerns—even when scientific consensus found no substantiated evidence of harm. 

When I was CEO and publisher at Australian science magazine, COSMOS, we worked with the Australian Federal Government to create educational materials for primary and secondary schools teachers and students about a different emerging technology, nanotechnology. They wanted to avoid the GMO misinformation and scare campaigns. They recognised the first step is to create an educated and informed public. 

In other words, they treated the public as an important stakeholder. You wouldn’t expect an investor to put money into a technology that they didn’t understand, or a policymaker to regulate new technology without any information about its pros and cons. So why would you expect the general public to accept a new technology—particularly one with an exciting-yet-scary sci-fi aura like nanotechnology? 

Yes, they will understand less than a researcher (and this is where many scientists get tripped up) but the first step to acceptance is always understanding. 

Don’t assume they aren’t interested

I hear assumptions all the time about what people are interested in. Most of the time, it’s just that—an assumption. 

The public are interested in science, they are interested in complexity—and they aren’t stupid. The perception that they aren’t interested in science is because the media largely doesn’t cover it much. 

But what the media chooses to cover is not a reflection of what the public is interested in—it is a reflection of the interests of media ownership. Their interests are political. This is where media organisations spend their money. I’d also add that in my experience media companies are run by people from humanities, business and law backgrounds, with little personal interest in science unless it’s technology. 

There have been multiple reputable surveys that demonstrate public interest in science. (And yes, even more than sports—a study by the Reuters Institute at Oxford noted that 36% of readers were interested in science and technology compared to 31% in sports). 

A Pew Research Survey shared that one-in-six Americans actively seek out and consume science news, and most Americans trust “speciality sources–documentaries, science magazines, and science and technology museums–as more likely to get the science facts right” than general news sources.

Tere’s this enormous gap between public interest and what’s covered in the media. This creates an enormous opportunity for universities and research organisations to be that destination point around AI, environment, vaccinations and so forth. 

You don’t have to be the New York Times—but if you have invented or discovered something, it would significantly benefit you to explain it. It would be a simple but profound decision if universities recognised that outsourcing their messaging to media hasn’t worked (Exhibit A. Trump Exhibit B. Your country’s own investment in science) and that recognising the public as a crucial stakeholder. 

A simple decision with profound impacts.

It begins with treating the public as an equal stakeholder. Instead of assuming they’re not interested, take the opposite path. Assume that they are—and start from there. Treat them like an industry partner or investor you’re hoping to entice. How would you convince them that you’re worth the outlay?

Because, again—between tuition and government funding—the public are paying a portion of the research sector’s bills. They are getting handsome returns—there are multiple economic studies indicating the strong rate of return on government investment in R&D. This recent piece in The Conversation (co-authored by a former client of mine!) makes a strong argument for investing in science as a powerful lever to improve productivity.

But most people don’t know that. Most people would say that publicly-funded research has done nothing to improve their lives. That’s not just a perception gap: That’s a valley of death. 

You need to be as invested in (and disruptive with) your engagement as you are with your research. 

A world where the public sees itself as a direct stakeholder

If people could see the true impact of research—and if they saw themselves as direct stakeholders and beneficiaries—they would actually protest defunding. The dwindling state of Australian funding (not to mention the UK and the catastrophe in the US) would not be allowed to fly. 

But for that to happen, universities must rethink how they engage with the public. The groundwork is already set–as I said, many researchers and leaders are very aware of the public’s role, and feel a sense of responsibility to create value for the public, whatever that may look like. Yet the message is getting lost in translation. 

It’s time to begin treating the public as the key stakeholders that they are–to turn them from indifferent bystanders to advocates and allies. It’s time to seize the opportunity, instead of perishing in the perception gap. 

Folks - that's the end of the series of Galvanising Your Allies.