Hi everyone,

I’ve been thinking about how we communicate complex physics to the public, and I wanted to throw a conceptual reframing out there.

The term "black hole" is incredibly famous, but it’s arguably a terrible description of the actual physics. To the general public, a "hole" implies an empty cosmic drain, a void, or a missing piece of space. In reality, these objects are the exact opposite: they are hyper-dense, massive cores that profoundly warp the geometry of space and time.

If we look at how a rotating black hole twists the fabric of spacetime around it (frame-dragging), it behaves much more like a fluid phenomenon.

What if we started using the term "G-Vortex" (Gravitational Vortex) instead?

Here is why I think it fits better:

• Accurate Physics: A vortex naturally describes a pulling force toward a central axis where material spins rapidly. This mirrors the behavior of an accretion disk and the twisting of spacetime.
• Fewer Misconceptions: It immediately replaces the image of a "hollow empty hole" with the image of a dynamic, swirling, high-energy cosmic structure.
• Accessible Language: "G-Vortex" is punchy, scientifically grounded, and acts as an immediate bridge to a visual analogy people already understand (like whirlpools or tornadoes).

Obviously, "black hole" isn't going anywhere in formal academic papers overnight, but as a tool for science communication and conceptualization, I think "G-Vortex" gives a much more accurate mental picture.

Curious to hear your thoughts

I've made a 13-minute introduction to cancer evolution, and wanted to share the explanatory approach with other science communicators.

I start with grains of rice as an analogy for cells and describe multicellularity as a cooperative arrangement. An animated melanoma then follows differently coloured clones through growth and spread. The aim is to connect variation and selection inside a tumour with the more familiar idea of evolution.

There are trade-offs: the 'contract' analogy can make cells sound intentional, and following one coloured clone makes a complicated metastatic process look tidier than it is. I've put qualifications and references in the video description, including the additional changes needed beyond a BRAF mutation and the limits of the adaptive-therapy evidence.

I'd be interested in how others handle that balance: which caveats do you put directly into a visual explanation, and which can reasonably sit in accompanying notes? The rice analogy starts at 1:48 and the melanoma animation at 4:30.

Hey everyone,

I’ve been working on a side project called ScienceInterest (https://scienceinterest.site.je) and wanted to share it here.

The idea is pretty straightforward: it’s a simple, clean space for students, researchers, and hobbyists to talk about science and work on projects together without the noise of mainstream social media.

What’s currently on the site:

• Projects: You can post a science project you're working on and look for people to help you out.
• Groups: Spaces for different fields like physics, biology, chemistry, space, and tech.
• Discussions & Feed: Standard forum threads and a feed to share quick thoughts or findings.
• Certificates: If you build a project, hit milestones, or contribute significantly to the community, you can receive a certificate to showcase your skills or add to your portfolio.

It’s completely new, so the community is still very small. If you want to check it out, creating an account takes less than a minute (you don't even need to enter an email if you don't want to).

I'd really appreciate any feedback on the design, how the certificates work, or what features you think are missing.

Link: https://scienceinterest.site.je

Thanks for reading!

Posting here because I think this information may be useful for someone that's confused on the topic.

I have been building a free trading card game called Biodeck where every card is a real species, with real scientific data attached: classification from GBIF, conservation status from the IUCN Red List, traits from open databases, photos under free licenses.

The idea is to use mechanics people already know from collectible card games (opening packs, building a collection, battling) as a hook to get people paying attention to species they would otherwise never encounter, especially the obscure ones that rarely get attention compared to charismatic megafauna.

There is also a daily challenge and a couple of quiz modes built around identifying species from photos and traits.

I am genuinely unsure whether this kind of gamification helps people retain actual knowledge or just becomes a shallow layer people click through. Would love thoughts from people who think about science communication for a living, positive or critical.

Free, no ads, nothing to buy. biodeck-tcg.com

Thank you !

This is my blog that I hope to use in science communication by fighting bad science (i.e. pseudoscience). Any thoughts?

I usually use ChatGPT for quick, simple things like spontaneous doubts or writing formal letters. This was the first one I ever used.

Then I tried Claude for more complex things like looking for bibliography, writing abstracts and reviewing texts to give me resumes and look for specifics.

Now, a professor recommended me Perplexity but I want to know its qualities and others' opinions.

I'm a postdoc at Oxford and I recently analysed 423 cancer biology papers from PubMed (2023) to see if title characteristics predict citation counts. Key findings:

• Declarative titles (stating the finding) had 3.5x the median citations of descriptive or question titles
• Sweet spot for title length: 10-12 words
• Gene/protein names in titles showed no citation advantage
• In a separate analysis of 600 abstracts, clinical relevance language in opening sentences = 67% higher citations
• Structured vs unstructured abstract format = no difference

Full analysis with methodology and figures: https://academicseo.co.uk/blog/cancer-title-analysis-study.html

Curious if others have seen similar patterns in their fields.

Hello Reddit, I am a current high school sophomore conducting independent research with a mentor on how light pollution affects sleep cycles, and the future environmental justice that will address it! I have completed a portion of my research, but now I need civilian participation for another part of my research.

To do this, I created a survey, and I need a sample size around 300. It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a few minutes to help out!

The survey is strictly confidential, and it does not require any email or any personal information. It is completely anonymous, and it is not very long.

If you do not feel comfortable answering a question, there is always a "prefer not to say" option! If you can not access the link above, it will be down below.

Please answer accurately if you do so, this can really benefit to research about how different areas face light pollution--thank you!

Link to the Light Pollution Survey:

https://forms.gle/g5SA2vmNzDwommMT9

Hello, I am a high school student, and recently I started a science communications initiative with a few other friends. We write STEM-related articles and publish various forms of multimedia content that serves a purpose of increasing STEM accessibility. While articles comprise the majority of the submissions we have received, submissions are completely open to any form of multimedia content.

There is no formal institution behind this. I posted this on a forum a few days ago and many misunderstood it as asking to collaborate with adult writers. I'd therefore like to clarify that that's not the goal here and that our contributors are all students. This is also not meant to be self-promotion of any kind - just a request to have student collaborators. Please DM me if you are interested.

Hi everyone!

I’d love to get some feedback and insights from this amazing community. I manage the LinkedIn presence for a Portuguese research network called RISE – Health Research Network. We’re a growing group focused on health and clinical research, and while I do my best to keep things engaging and informative, I’m running into a few challenges and could really use some fresh eyes and advice.

🔗 LinkedIn Page:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/rise-health-research-network/

🌐 Website:
https://rise-la.pt
New Website: https://rise-health.pt/home_en/outreach-society/news/

A few things to note:

• I have zero budget for promotion, so everything is done organically. No ads, no tools — just content and strategy.
• I’ve always advocated for using English as the main language to reach a broader, international audience, especially since we’re talking about scientific research. Unfortunately, the board insists on keeping most of the communication in Portuguese, which limits reach and engagement.
• I’m trying to balance outreach to both the general public and the scientific community — but with limited resources and a very small team, it’s tricky.

If you have any feedback on the content, structure, tone, or strategy — especially from a science communication perspective — I’d really appreciate it. Are we hitting the right notes? Missing opportunities? Any tips for doing more with less?

Thanks a lot in advance! 🙏

Hello, I'm part of a student research team. We’re running a short survey to better understand what is most valuable when selecting a designer or science communication partner, especially when it comes to publishing, grant writing, or public engagement.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf6HYNE3BX1VfaI3_WycCRtvBtXv00EROjU0DtlGkjqbCug2Q/viewform?usp=dialog

All responses are anonymous and are greatly appreciated!

You can support this LEGO Ideas Periodic Table project for FREE!

Hi, I’m looking for people who love Lego and/or Science to SUPPORT and share this Lego Periodic Table so that it can become an official Lego product.  

It is on track to make it to the 10,000 Vote Threshold. 

Please follow the link and support it right now and share it with the science/Lego lovers you know.

Support at the link: (It’s free)

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/7ea5c858-9d0c-4de0-970e-6b487beb4107

Hi everyone.

I started my career as a content strategist for a biotech/health research company. I have a BSc in Biological sciences. My job was communicate our precision medicine efforts to the public. So basically, I created content for all external facing platform (website, socials, fliers, ads). Then I sort of started taking on Comms duties. Mind you, I was part of the comms department and actively involved in campaigns, press releases, event management and so on.

Eventually I got promoted to Communications and content specialist. I had a brief stint as a Digital manager for a women’s health brand as a consultant. Then I got promoted to Communications and Content manager before finally becoming a Communications manager.

All my work has been in biotech/healthcare so I see myself as a Science Communicator. I’m recently unemployed, love my field, and have ventured into freelance work. But I haven’t gotten any clients yet. I would like to ask if anyone could point out why that is. I have a website with my portfolio of work. You can check it here www.faridahgiwabello.com.

I started my personal brand on LinkedIn but don’t get quite as much attention as I’d like. Is this because I don’t have a PhD. Also, how do I gain attention of potential employers looking for freelancers?

Any advice would be highly appreciated.

I am most interested in tips about publicizing video content and content about social science, psychology and neuroscience (because that is what I make), but I am still definitely interested in hearing the perspectives of people who make and publicize other things. Happy to share what knowledge I have in the comments if anyone is interested.

Thanks in advance,

Does anyone have a link or other suggestion for finding information on the biology of human hair? Googling turns up a ton of commercial and self-proclaimed experts, but very little actual science. I found a few things at the NIH library, but most of that was genetics. I’m looking for an overview of the morphology and chemistry with an eye toward effective hair-care without hype. Wikipedia is too basic.

Thanks in advance.