The Structure of Science 

In sciences, MVPs often take years, require massive amounts of capital, and live in the abstract for most of their development cycle. For simplicity’s sake, I refer to ‘sciences’ as biology, chemistry, physics, and related disciplines; computer science is, as identified, a caveat of its own. 

The public perceives sciences as a black box - it is complex, distant and opaque. At times, fields like AI, quantum computing, and climate change spark broad public interest, but they rarely hold attention unless prompted by major breakthroughs. Biotechnology particularly struggles to hold its own on such a list because it lacks a mechanism to capture and sustain wide public imagination (and significant damages to public trust, see Theranos).

I’ve spent the last three years as a meandering scientist: in academia, in government, in startups, as a student. I repeatedly see the following structural challenges, predominantly in life sciences and biotechnology.

1. High Stakes, High Cost, Low Visibility

Science is expensive. Unlike tech, where college students can, and have, disrupted industry giants with modest funding, biotech MVPs usually require a few hundred million in capital and years of R&D just to get a prototype in development. A team I advised - developing a B2B neuroimaging tool - spent $300M and 8 years just to get to clinical (human) trials (the timelines are even greater for therapeutics companies). 

Life science entrepreneurs know the “Series B Pit of Doom” all too well: a critical juncture where the majority of biotech companies falter.

Biotech also operates in an environment of inherent secrecy. The dog-eats-dog nature of intellectual property (IP) is fiercely competitve: teams sacrifice visibility and ‘building in public’ to avoid tipping off competitors or becoming targets of Big Pharma idea-poaching. This stealth mode approach is a necessary evil, but makes it hard to build excitement, trust, or the critical emotional resonance with the general public. 

2. Lack of Relatability

Science is broad. By nature, it encompasses countless domains and verticals, all specialized, but at times in competition with one another (for investment, social capital…). For the average person, the sheer diversity of scientific research can feel overwhelming, leading to disengagement not purely out of apathy, but out of cognitive overload. 

Most science is not designed for mass interaction. It’s difficult to get most people excited about enzyme kinetics or CRISPR pathways. Part of the challenge lies in the fragmentation of science - each vertical functions as its own silos, with researchers, funding organs, and publications catering to a specific, already curated audience.

Without clear proximal relevance and connections to other “nodes” of scientific knowledge, much of science risks operating in an increasingly narrow tunnel that feels incomprehensible from the outside looking in. 

3. The Complexity Barrier

Science is complicated. Biotechnology is hyper-granular: every molecule, every assay, every protocol builds on top of each other, and it demands a deep, nuanced understanding of intricate systems. This means the barrier - or knowledge - required to “enter” and participate fruitfully are staggeringly high. 

Biotech products are much harder for the public, and even most life science investors - to understand. It is intricate, and the process of development (from Step 1 to Step 50) are unclear (see portion on IP protection above). 

Granularity alienates stakeholders. Even within the scientific community, the assumed technical knowledge and background required to truly “get it” disengages the average person who simply does not have the background, time, or patience to understand a specific product, tool, or technology beyond a high-level (or even garner that initial high-level interest). 

This holds true even for those with a scientific background - a pitch about structural biology to a former cardiologist-turned-VC can easily lose impact,  not because the science lacks merit, but because there is a dissonance between its audience and relatively narrow relevance. 

This creates a losing front on both ends, even for promising teams. 

4. The Cost of Risk/Exploration

Science is risky. There is a prescribed way to “do” traditional science that is constrained by traditional funding models and creates a culture of risk aversion, even for seasoned Principal Investigators (PIs) and researchers. Deviations from established research paths is frowned upon, reinforcing the tunnels into highly specific problems rather than broader horizons. This has created a pipeline of academics entering fields with bold, niche ambitions who end up ‘draining’ to work on safer, more commercially viable problems such as drug discovery or protein folding. 

Focused Research Organizations (FROs) have emerged as a partial solution, providing funding with 5-7 mandates for specific, moonshot projects. However, even FROs are limited by their fixed timelines and costs of operation. 

Yet this is where the exciting, novel ideas lie - how can we catalyze more of them and engage the public? 

If we distill the challenges above, we end up with a vicious cycle that looks something like this:

With the following issues at the core:

• High Barrier of Entry - an inaccessible cost of understanding and participation (an overload of jargon and technical detail inaccessible to those without prior expertise)

• Fragmentation - a wide variety of adjacent(ish) domains, where scientists work in independent silos and outsiders fail to see a unified narrative or relatable connections

• “Seeing is Believing” - most people cease to care about a scientific topic until they see an object, results, or the people behind the entity

• No Money, Mo’ Problems - science needs significant financial backing, which requires some degree of visibility and public buy-in - the money follows the market, and people drive the market. If we can get the public to care, private and public sources of funding will be redirected accordingly. 

The Creative Means

Over the last four months, I’ve been reflecting on how we can reconcile these elements. 

The way we do this is with effective storytelling. We use creativity as a means. Short-form (reels), long-form (documentaries, videos), audio (podcasts), written (blogs) - more thoughts on form below. 

I think about the ways that I learn best, the educators and communicators I look up to, and the ones who have inspired an interest in serendipitous fields beyond my initial calling. It’s never been a publication in Nature or a textbook that’s inspired me to dig deeper, learn more, and ask questions. It’s the National Geographic documentaries with beautiful production quality, visuals you can’t look away from: it’s the personalities like Bill Nye who distill information so succinctly and effortlessly; it’s the professor who lectures without slides, the excitement in their voice exuding a passion for a domain that only years of practice can refine.

Science is human. It is an endeavour driven by creative curiosity. It’s apparent that science communications isn’t something taught to most technicians and researchers. I’m not surprised. In the last week, I’ve told three separate teams that their competitors are raising twice the money they are with half the personnel simply because said competitor is more effective in crafting a narrative that people care about. 

“Give them something to root for.”

Haymitch Abernathy, The Hunger Games

When architectured well, you:

• Reduce steep learning curve for understanding by quickly breaking down complex terms and concepts with analogies, audiovisual supplements, narratives, and interviews. Tap into graphics and tools to make learning immersive. Pull from experts and key opinion leaders (KOLs). Accessible anywhere with an internet connection. See ASAP Science, Hank Green, Kurzgesagt. 

• Aggregate insights based on theme. Frequent content output schedules allow for quick identification of overlap between domains. Interdisciplinary contributions are simple (think interviews) - clear synergy through case studies and collaborations. See Vox’s “Explained.”

• Make them see. Showcase prototypes and research at any stage. Engage curiosity and demonstrate potential impact at early stages. Physical demonstrations uniquely communicated through audiovisual. An emphasis on personal stories. For researchers, a stronger connection to the public removes some of the feeling of working in a vacuum. See the James Webb Space Telescope’s early marketing. 

• Trigger the invisible hand. As outlined earlier, money goes where the public interest goes. You can also mould this as a non-government, non-venture entity with crowdfunding and the role of science influencers to amplify certain causes and campaigns (tread with moderate caution here, thoughts for another time). More visibility leads to more support for high potential research areas. 

And uniquely, you get to survey the masses. Humans don’t like to learn in isolation - we like to feel like we’re part of a bigger community. Content builds that community, or at least provides a ‘point person’ where questions and thoughts can be directed - it feels much more personable and organic than, say, trying to contact the author of a paper. 

Why Now?

We’re at a rare convergence of forces—science, funding, competition, and mass media—creating the perfect inflection point in how scientific narratives are told.

1. The Democratization of Science Funding

Scientific progress used to be dictated by government grants, academia, and legacy institutions. Today, the landscape has shifted. Private funding is no longer an afterthought—it’s a primary driver. Venture capital firms, corporate R&D arms, focused research organizations (FROs), and experimental funds (see Arcadia and Astera) are enabling moonshot ideas alternative pathways to traditional academic funding. We’re seeing a modern-day Bell Labs revival, but relatively distributed and decentralized. This means faster iteration cycles, more ambitious bets, and a growing need for science to articulate its value beyond a closed circle of researchers and investors.

2. A New Geopolitical Arms Race—But for Science

Historically, competition between nations has catalyzed scientific advancement—from the Space Race to the Human Genome Project. Today, we are in another such moment. AI, quantum computing, bioengineering, and space exploration are at the center of global competition, with governments and private entities racing to secure breakthroughs. Unlike the Cold War era, however, this race isn’t just about state-sponsored research, or even private and public players competing with each other. We’re seeing increasing incentives for collaboration (see SpaceX). 

3. Ubiquitous Media: The Era of Infinite Access

More people today have access to a smartphone than a toilet. Information is no longer a privilege of the educated elite—it’s ambient, omnipresent, and overwhelmingly demand-driven. The problem is no longer just access—it’s direction. What people consume, how they interpret it, and the narratives that shape their worldview are dictated by algorithms that prioritize engagement over accuracy.

Questions I’m Asking

There are a number of (my own) knowledge gaps I want to fill before diving straight in. Having dabbled, and then burned out, in content before, 

On form: innovating the medium. Short-form piques curiosity, while long-form holds depth. What is the optimal balance for reach and impact? How can teams ebb and flow between them (if at all possible)?

On reach: a public research ecosystem. What is the relationship with the public like? Who and what can engage with who and what? 

On integrity: the respect of research. Admittedly, oversimplification risks the loss of nuance, which in turn feels like a offence to someone’s work. How do we balance accessibility and simplicity with completion?

On longevity: the legacy, the plan. You can put out videos, you can host interviews, but it all becomes part of an already saturated environment. In the short term - how do you stand out? What are you known for? Are you a topical (vertical) or a style/form (horizontal) stakeholder? What is the intersection that you fit best in - the axis? Is the plan to keep pushing out content indefinitely, or is content a means to something more, something bigger? What is that? 

On culture: shifting the paradigm. This is the big one. If the goal is to change the mindset of how people learn and approach science, everything you release should be moving the needle towards this. But what is the culture shift exactly? Where is science culture going - is this a bright or bleak future? What are elements we want to preserve, and what do we want to change? What is feasible from a content perspective? Who else needs to be involved, and how do you get to them?

…what is “science culture?”

Science needs to take its complex components and make them simple, powerful, and ripe - a narrative everyone can byte into.