This semester (Fall 2025), I’m taking a course to learn how to write better as a scientist, and I’m already feeling a bit freaked out by it.

For the record, my fears surrounding my Writing in the Sciences (WiS) course have nothing to do with whether or not I think I can do it. I don’t think I’ll have any trouble in this course. Rather, it’s just starting to dawn on me just how badly the Trump administration’s fucked up our healthcare and scientific research so far. 

That said, the problem itself isn’t exactly with the Trump administration. It’s not even with the people of this country who voted Trump back in. Rather, I lay at least 50% of the blame on our “intellectual leaders”: celebrity scientists, doctors, and science influencers who’ve tried (and ultimately failed for reasons I’ll soon discuss) to effectively educate the general public on science. I also lay a good chunk of blame at the feet of teachers who’ve no issue calling their students “stupid” and “slow” for struggling with STEM subjects- or any subject for that matter- and making them feel completely inadequate and inferior. 

In other words, the MAGA movement isn’t a root cause of our country’s distrust in science and institutions as a whole. Instead it’s a symptom. 

What is the root cause, then?

I believe that our education system, and the tendency for scientific influencers to get needlessly divisive when it comes to politics and religion, have gotten us into this anti-intellectual mess that we’re currently dealing with. I mean… People distrust science not because science is bad in their eyes. People largely distrust science because they don’t trust scientists. In other words, people are much less likely to trust science if they don't trust the people who communicate it.

The problem is, scientists tend to suck at communicating with people. 

Also, people write off science when it seems to conflict with their deeply held beliefs/values. Scientists, more often than not, add fuel to this fire by not taking into account what people believe. More specifically, scientists rarely discuss how a scientific fact can coexist with one’s personal beliefs, which we all have. 

In other words, if one’s going to teach science effectively, they have to be able to engage with very difficult questions that people have about what science has to say, as well as how science impacts things like religious beliefs. 

Take evolution for example. The theory of evolution- that is, all living things evolved from the same common ancestor- is a fact. Meanwhile, 33% of the world’s population is Christian. Bringing it closer to home, 69% of Americans identify as Christian. What about the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, then? Does the theory of evolution negate the truth that Genesis was trying to convey when it talks about God creating Adam and Eve? If so, then what else does the Bible get wrong? Is the Bible wrong about the existence of God, too? 

On the surface, absolutely! Naturally, when people are confronted by a belief-shattering, surface-level answer like that, people will immediately deny it, thus denying science in favor of Christianity. 

But, if one decides to be brave and take an hour to actually study and understand what the authors of Genesis were trying to convey- that being, one God created everything and He is deeply interested in His creation on a personal level- then, no. The theory of evolution does not negate the truth that Genesis is attempting to convey. Genesis may not be literally true, meaning that God didn’t literally create Adam from the dust and Eve from Adam’s rib. But Genesis still conveys a fundamental truth that Christians believe God created the universe and everything in it, including us.

That fundamental truth does not conflict with the theory of evolution, because it doesn’t claim to know how God created humans, just that He did create humans. Also, Genesis was put in the form of a narrative because that’s how people communicated with each other before most people knew how to read and write. And guess what: it’s much easier for us to remember things when they’re put in a narrative form, rather than just a statement like, “God created people for a specific purpose, period.” 

Long story short, God can still exist, and the Bible can still be true. And science can be true. 

So… what does all of this have to do with what I said at the very beginning of this piece? That being a very real fear I feel whenever I think about the failures of scientific communication, and how it can be fixed? 

Well… there are very few scientists who are willing to actually learn how to communicate science well to everyone. Let alone, go public with it. I can only name a handful of scientists/doctors/scientific influencers at the top of my head who, I think, do a great job making science accessible to all, without being insufferable jerks about it. Those are Dr. Alok Kanoja (AKA Healthygamergg on Youtube), Dr. Mikhail Oskarovich Varshaviski (AKA Dr. Mike on Youtube), Dr. Francis Collins (AKA Biologos), and Dr. Andrew Huberman (AKA Huberman lab on Youtube).

But, even those guys aren’t enough to stem the tsunami of anti-intellectualism ripping through our country right now. Especially because there are far more public intellectuals who’re only making things worse by doubling down on ideas like “science and religion are mutually exclusive”. 

So, how else can we revive the public’s trust in science? How else can we, as writers and scientists, help revive the public’s trust in science against the odds? 

Well… I don’t have the answer, but I have my tentative (and uncomfortable) ideas, one of which I already alluded to. I mean… I’m a writer. I’m a Christian. Technically, I’m a scientist. I have a camera. I have a Youtube account. I know how to edit photos and videos fairly well. See where I’m going with this? 

However, like pretty much every other scientist, I’m terrified of publicity. 

I have a million reasons as to why I’m terrified of publicity. 99% of my reasons are irrational fears rooted somewhere in my past. The other 1% are not as irrational, but are highly unlikely to happen (such as, ending up with a stalker), given the stuff I’d be talking about as a science communicator, and the drastic measures I’m willing to take (and am already taking) to protect myself. 

Also, for reasons I cannot explain, I keep getting very weird opportunities to spread my wings as a fledgling science communicator. 

In just under ten days, the Goldwater Institute- a right-leaning, libertarian organization that lobbied for Colorado’s “Right to Try” bill that was signed into law last May- has reached out to me yet again, asking me to go national with my story. 

To get the ball rolling, a film crew will show up to my house and interview me about how and why I did phage virus therapy to defeat my Pseudomonas infection. This would inevitably put me on the “right” end of the political spectrum in the eyes of many, many people (despite the fact that I’m anything but). However, the more I research where science communication has failed, the more I realize that the folks right-of-center need someone who can talk about science to them, too. 

Once again, I am terrified. But, at the same time, it would be incredibly stupid and short-sighted of me to turn down the opportunity to go so public with my phage virus story purely out of fear. 

So, how do I deal with this?

First, I think I’ll script out my story so that A) it’s easy for laypeople to understand, B) it’s damn near impossible for the Goldwater Institute to misrepresent in any way, shape, or form, and C), so I don’t sound like a shaky, incomprehensible mess when the cameras come on. 

From there, I’ll probably rehearse my script over and over again, so that when the cameras do come on, talking about my phage virus experience will feel natural to me. That said, I won’t adhere to the script like an actress adheres to a script for a play. I’ll write how I talk, and talk how I write. Then, I can extemporaneously respond to my audience (the camera crew) as needed. 

Finally, the Goldwater Institute has reassured me (in writing, over email) that they will not post the final video until I review and okay it. 

After all, I know that the Goldwater Institute only has so much time on their hands to make a statement using my words. But, I also know that there are a lot of issues that crop up when people proclaim that terminally-ill patients have “the right to try” non-FDA approved treatments, after all other conventional treatments have failed. And, I want to make it EXTREMELY CLEAR that I do not, under any circumstances, endorse whackjob “treatments” such as bleach enemas or taking Ivermectin that is meant for horses. 

There’s a vast chasm between that crazy shit and phage therapy. 

So… that leads to another question: how do I explain phage therapy in the length of an elevator speech that is engaging and digestible, yet still scientifically and medically accurate? Hell, how do I explain all kinds of science in the length of an elevator speech that is engaging and digestible, yet still scientifically and medically accurate? 

Moreover, how do I reach the audiences of organizations like the Goldwater Institute (which has partnered with organizations like Fox News, Prager U, and Gun Owners of America), without totally compromising my own values and beliefs? 

That’s one hell of a challenge, to say the least.