“We’re competing for attention – the packaging counts, too”
Ms. Nguyen-Kim, you speak of ubiquitous “clamor” in the information age. Who can be reached at all by science anymore?
Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim: I believe you have to think of science communication in layers. I like to compare it to an onion. At the very core is the scientific paper – very detailed, but accessible only to a small community. The outermost layer is made up of formats like TikTok or Instagram – in other words, everything that grabs attention: headlines, thumbnails, images. That is superficial, but it reaches a great number of people. And each of these layers has its raison d'être.
Journalism is fast-paced and on the lookout for sensations, whereas researchers want to delve deep. How can these two poles be reconciled from a media logic perspective?
Nguyen-Kim: That’s right, journalists often want to hear strident claims: “Explain that in two minutes.” It can be done, but then you can’t expect people to understand much. On the other hand, researchers often shy away from precisely this outer layer – the packaging. Yet that’s the level at which we compete for attention. The adage “don’t judge a book by its cover” naturally applies particularly to science, because it’s a question of the content. But it would be a pity if good content didn’t reach anyone just because the cover is so boring.
Doesn’t one still reach mainly those who already take an interest in science?
Nguyen-Kim: This problem of “preaching to the choir” definitely exists. But I think we shouldn’t underestimate what we do: we provide our audience not only with knowledge, but also with tools, including images, arguments, and explanations of how to arrive at results. And people pass these on – to friends, to family. In that sense, scientific content spreads indirectly.
You’re touching on a key point: trust.
Nguyen-Kim: Absolutely. I think we completely overestimate what rationality can achieve. Most people don’t vet sources in detail. They decide who they want to trust. And that’s completely understandable – no one has the time to verify everything themselves. Our entire lives and so many decisions are based on trust. That’s why it’s so important that science is communicated through people.
Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim, who holds a Ph.D. in chemistry, explains science in a way that’s both accessible and humorous. Through TV shows, social media, and popular books, she has reached millions of fans.
Should researchers themselves be more visible?
Nguyen-Kim: I think it’s very important that we see researchers as human beings too. Visibility builds trust, but it also has a downside. Anyone who appears in public becomes vulnerable. But I still believe it’s important. Especially during the pandemic, we saw what powerful impact individuals can have when they’re perceived as credible. I’ve also learned another thing: the degree of hatred aroused is proportional to the impact. But for me personally, the overall outcome is still positive.
Can science communication also become a burden, especially for up and coming scientists who really just want to do research?
Nguyen-Kim: Policymakers offer a lot of motivation and also funding for more science communication. But I don’t think that’s very effective. What we need most of all are structures to support researchers in the public sphere and, if necessary, to protect them. Science communication is still often seen as an afterthought – something you do “on top of everything else.” Currently, the only things that count on a researcher’s CV are scientific publications. Hence, scientists lack motivation, because there is little to gain and much to lose when speaking out publicly – that is not a good system.
You cover a wide range of topics in your formats, including socially controversial ones. How do you select your content?
Nguyen-Kim: I’m predominantly interested in topics that are already the subject of intense debate but where an evidence-based perspective is missing or distorted. Things like climate change, vaccinations, or alternative medicine. People often throw numbers around to make their case – but not always correctly. And I think that calls for science to step in.
Many people say that science should remain neutral.
Nguyen-Kim: That’s basically true. But I believe there is such a thing as a fallacy of neutrality. When science is part of a debate – because arguments are based on studies or statistics – it can’t simply stay out of it, because that would leave the field open to distorted representations. And it’s important to distinguish between well-substantiated knowledge and mere opinions. Science thrives on questioning things. It is a problem when minority opinions are presented as equally valid without corresponding evidence.
Are there formats that are particularly well-suited for science communication?
Nguyen-Kim: Compressed formats are important for grabbing attention. But they can’t replace depth. The solution can’t be to keep compressing science. We also need formats that take their time – like podcasts or longer videos. And we should be more daring in using humor and entertainment.
Many people view platforms like TikTok critically; what is your take on that?
Nguyen-Kim: Of course there are things to criticize, but that applies to all platforms. YouTube was initially dismissed and not taken seriously. There’s still this sender-receiver mindset, which is long outdated. I think people often underestimate such platforms. They aren’t superficial by nature – they can convey content in a highly targeted way. The important thing is to take them seriously and understand how they work.
What role do in-person encounters play – for example, at science events like the Long Night of Research, which is very popular in Austria?
Nguyen-Kim: I might be a little biased here, since I usually “speak” to the camera and I am often overwhelmed when I see how many people go somewhere to learn about science in their free time. Those personal connections and conversations can give rise to good things. I myself have come home from such events in the past, as a participant, feeling completely inspired. I therefore believe that such events are important; they have a much greater impact on you than simply watching a program.
What does this mean for the future of science communication?
Nguyen-Kim: That we need both: reach and depth. And that we must learn to navigate between these poles. Science cannot be reduced to headlines – but it must be visible. Every layer of the onion is important, and the focus is always inward. That is precisely where the challenge lies.
About the researcher
Mai Thi Ngyuen-Kim holds a Ph.D. in chemistry and is one of the most prominent voices in science communication in Germany. A journalist and author, she gained recognition through her YouTube series “maiLab” (funk). In 2021, she launched her own show, “Maithink X,” on ZDFneo – which has 1.5 million followers on YouTube. In addition to bestsellers such as “Die kleinste gemeinsame Wirklichkeit,” Mai Thi Ngyuen-Kim also writes children’s books. She has received numerous awards for her work, most recently the 2026 Grimme Prize, Germany’s most prestigious television award.
