Is ARIA rewriting the rulebook for Science comms?

If you are working in PR and comms for an organisation pioneering breakthrough science, the recent media attention generated by ARIA may have been a little anxiety-inducing. The UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency announced it will be allocating over £56 million to geoengineering experiments designed to explore ways to artificially cool the planet. These potential tech solutions promise rapid climate intervention, but carry significant scientific, ethical, and geopolitical risks.

Critics were, unsurprisingly, quick to raise the alarm, arguing that geoengineering could divert essential focus from reducing emissions, and warning of unpredictable impacts on weather, agriculture, and ecosystems. All valid questions, but ARIA maintains these studies are critical exploratory steps intended to assess the viability of emergency climate interventions that may be needed if climate tipping points are breached.

What makes this announcement interesting is how ARIA emphasised transparency, governance and proactive communication as being central to its approach at each stage of this research, including around “levels and sources of funding, intentions, how the research is conducted, [and] outputs, and impacts.”

Some may argue it would have been easier in the short-term to progress with these projects without going public. However, the possibility of the news ‘leaking out’ and triggering a broader backlash could have risked the shuttering of an entire field of science – one that may well end up being part of the solution to mitigating climate change.

Recent conversations we have had with founders and marketing professionals working on controversial breakthroughs in areas like lab-grown meat and gene-edited crops reveal a common tension – not around whether to be transparent, but when and how much information to make public. Often, there is a dilemma between comms and research teams that risks letting the ‘pursuit of the perfect’ become the enemy of good communication.

Yes, anticipation of how media, influencers and stakeholders may react and preparing the facts and evidence accordingly is core to the work of a science comms agency, but the possibility of negative reaction and commentary can never be fully negated. That should never be used as an excuse to go silent and store up larger reputation issues down the road.

ARIA’s PR approach and commitment to openness should be applauded. As we help our clients navigate the ‘Age of Conspiracy’, the transparent communication of science and technology is mission critical. Building trust through early dialogue with stakeholders, clear differentiation between research and deployment, and proactive engagement strategies can require bravery, but with the right support, it can help bridge the gap between innovative science and public and stakeholder acceptance.

If you’re a comms professional grappling with how to communicate complex or controversial science and technology, and could use some support, we’d love to help, please drop me a line to connect at ivana.farthing[@]diffusionpr.com.