Rapid mobilisation of science communication in times of crises and misinformation: Insights from the Joint COALESCE event/ INSPIRING ERA Exchange
Enhancing trust in science through citizen participation, engagement and science communication is a vital part of the ERA Structural Policies (2025-27). In crises, trust in public communicators is absolute key. Crises place high demands on science communication. Evidence must be mobilised quickly, uncertainty communicated responsibly, and information delivered to diverse audiences, often under conditions of fear and heightened misinformation.
How can science communication systems be prepared to respond effectively when rapid action and public trust are most critical?
This question framed the joint COALESCE event /INSPIRING ERA Exchange held in Berlin on 25 March 2026 at the German Federal Ministry for Research, Technology and Space. The event brought together practitioners, researchers and policy makers from across Europe.
Speakers and perspectives
The event was opened by Dominik Adrian (Federal Ministry for Research, Technology and Space (Germany)), emphasising the relevance of rapid mobilisation of science communication for state institutions, as crises will continue to happen and will need strategic responses.
In an expert panel discussion, Olha Izhyk – Risk Communication Officer, WHO Europe, highlighted that currently, we do not invest enough in preparedness (which means: investment in budget, people, structures), for a new (health) crisis. Olaf Kramer – Professor of Rhetoric and Knowledge Communication, University of Tübingen stressed the fact that in polarised societies you have to be careful when combining research and advocacy or agency, as oftentimes one group might see one research or advocacy as the enemy. Also, one should be aware that different authorities are recognised by different societal groups. Yagmur Demirpehlivan – Communications Manager, Charité Center for Global Health argued for not treating science communication as a one-way street, but as a participatory process with communities, following a bottom-up logic rather than top-down. This would lead to a co-ownership of knowledge and avoid treating communities only as an audience. Paula Gori – Secretary-General, European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), summed up what the most important steps institutions and public authorities should do: Be transparent, be accessible, be honest and go to the people you want to address.
The expert panel was followed by seven short country presentations about successful and unsuccessful examples of science communication during different crises.
In two participatory exercises, researchers, practitioners and policy makers afterwards discussed how to integrate SciComm in early warning systems, how to ensure equitable access to crisis information and how to strengthen resilience against misinformation.
Pathways forward
- Invest in preparedness:
Successful science communication in crises needs stable investment beforehand. In a crisis, science communication has to work under pressure. Starting to develop a strategy in crisis is too late.
- Invest in building trust, e.g. by multi-stakeholder coordination, such as a regular dialogue between science, policy and advocacy so that there will be credible voices known by the public during a crisis.
- Different authorities have authority within different groups.
Rather design communication with the communities you want to address, not just for them. This means to
- communicate where the communities actually are, may it be physically (e.g. by people who deliver food in a catastrophe/ a war), or digitally (e.g. on TikTok).
- find diverse voices that showcase pluralism in a crisis.
- Do not treat misinformation as noise.
- An informational void left by public authorities will always be filled quickly by misinformation. This has to be considered as a structural risk; public authorities must not leave gaps that disinformers can fill.
- In crises: embrace uncertainty, be honest about it, keep your messages simple.
The WHO has developed three steps for crisis communication: say what you know, what you do not know, and what you are doing about it.
Why it matters
Science communication needs to be treated as a structural investment. Funding is needed for all aspects ensuring rapid mobilisation of science communication in times of crisis: setting up structures for communication that will foster trust, including independent networks of fact checkers and securing participation of communities. In a crisis, policy makers will have to become science communicators as well – if they want to or not. Becoming aware of this role and being prepared for it will be essential for responsible and effective actions of state institutions under pressure.
