Communicating Science with Chloe the Scientist
Written by Ed Aymar, Marketing and Communications Manager, ASPET
It’s hard not to feel, when talking with Chloe Kirk, PhD, an infectious energy whenever she discusses science. That energy, which holds both an intellectual restlessness and profound curiosity, led her from degrees in Molecular Biology and Legal Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, to her PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Miami, and then to an intersection of science and law at a Washington, DC-based patent office. And now she’s found her calling, that of one of the preeminent voices in the relatively new field of Science Communications (SciComm).
Under the moniker “Chloe the Scientist,” Dr. Kirk has amassed a devoted following. While active across all social media platforms, she is most prominent on Instagram, where her posts have received millions of plays and her account has over one hundred thousand fans. She introduces her audience, through a variety of engaging videos and podcasts, to topics like influential female scientists, the complications of academia, current scientific articles that have gained the attention of the wider public, and the implications of funding and politics on science.
We talked with Dr. Kirk about Science Communications, what advice she offers scientists on furthering their voice and reach, her particular path from the lab to the camera, and much more.
The Pharmacologist:
What informed your current perspective on science?
Chloe the Scientist: To be frank, I didn’t find science that fun through middle and high school, and I think that speaks to the disservice of how science was taught when I was growing up. It focused more on rote memorization than what science truly is: this new, exciting place where discoveries are constantly happening.
I was actually thinking of being an architect when I was in high school. I love drawing houses. I still have a dream of getting to design my own house one day.
I will say that dream fell flat when I realized I needed to learn how to draw.
The Pharmacologist:
What changed?
Chloe the Scientist: It was my senior year. My school had a standard requirement that we had to do a senior thesis, but they also gave us the option to work in a lab for a couple of days a week. I worked at the cancer biology lab at the University of Minnesota. They used CRISPR technology and my mind was blown at seeing the scientific process in action, and seeing how much of the science world we don’t know and are still discovering.
After reading about science in textbooks for so long, and then realizing that there are tools in the labs that can answer any question your heart desires—that was the game changer for me.
The Pharmacologist:
You’ve been open about how you found academia stifling as a scientist. And it seems like your early education had that same effect, this classical education that took all the enjoyment out of something that, later, you realized you love.
Chloe the Scientist: The way we teach science is flawed, not just in college and grad school, but even if you go down to middle and high school. I think everyone is born a scientist and, somewhere along the way, they lose that curiosity and excitement.
I’d love to connect kids with actual scientists. There are some really cool programs like Skype a Scientist, or tutoring programs like Tutoring Chicago, where they bring scientists into classrooms. At the University of Miami, where I received my PhD, I partnered with a couple of high schools to bring students to our campus to see how labs worked.
I really think a lot of it is just showing people what a scientist looks like, and how science involves so many different sorts of people working together in the pursuit of knowledge.
I think everyone is born a scientist and, somewhere along the way, they lose that curiosity and excitement.
The Pharmacologist:
What led you from the lab and into the world of science communication?
Chloe the Scientist: I figured out early on in grad school that academia wasn’t for me.
I loved doing research every day. But I saw my colleagues working day and night, slogging away, applying nonstop for grants, and they’d been forced away from that fundamental love of science because they were working so hard on trying to make a career out of it. They weren’t spending as much time as they wanted working in the lab and getting to do the actual research.
And so, halfway through grad school, I started to wonder what else was out there.
Around that same time, I started a reading challenge, and I was reading a science book every month that had nothing to do with my research. I just wanted to learn about different sorts of science, and I realized that there was so much cool science out there. So why limit myself?
I’d always had an interest in law, and a friend who worked in science policy asked if I’d ever considered patent law. I liked how the field tied applications of science and law together, and I started working in a DC-based patent law office. The day-to-day work offered, to an extent, what I wanted. I might work on a drug in the morning and, in the afternoon, an engineering mechanism.
But I was trying to defend the PhD while starting a new job in a completely new career, and the learning curve was steep. I was more burnt out than I’d ever been. I remember calling my husband and telling him, “I just can’t do this anymore. I don’t think this is the learning environment for me.” He told me to sleep on it and, if I felt the same way in the morning, then what was the point of doing this? And that’s exactly what happened. I slept on it, woke up the next morning, and quit.
And now I’m exploring the space of science communication, in part as Chloe the Scientist, and as a science correspondent with BiotechTV.
The Pharmacologist:
What led to that first social media account? Did you feel there was something missing in that space which you could provide?
Chloe the Scientist: When I was an undergrad, I wanted to know what getting a PhD actually looked like, so I’d started following accounts of people who were getting PhDs or were early in their careers. And it was really helpful to learn that you didn’t need to be some mad genius. You just have to keep trying every day. That honesty was refreshing, and inspiring.
And I loved using Instagram. That’s always been my preferred platform and, when I started grad school, I posted videos of me doing things in the lab, just excited to share what I was working on. And then the pandemic hit, about a year into my platform, but that’s when it blew up. Before that, I may have had 100–200 followers. And then, as the pandemic went on, people realized misinformation was running rampant and looked to science accounts for accurate information. Within the first year, I grew from a few hundred followers to about twenty or thirty thousand.
The Pharmacologist:
Other than a pandemic, what’s a good way to gain followers?
Chloe the Scientist: Authenticity is huge. Even when you’re talking about a specific science discovery, like when I’m talking about a new paper, I’m talking about it through a lens, which is my own perceptions, my own thoughts. And that ties into another conversation I often have about science, and whether science is objective or subjective.
Authenticity is huge, even when you’re talking about a specific science discovery.
The facts that we’re collecting are objective, but then the lens that we’re seeing science research through, and asking new questions, is subjective. And when you’re using social media as a first-person narrative, I think that’s an important distinction to make.
If you’ve centered yourself in the authentic first person—this is who I am, this is my expertise, this is the background that informs the decisions of what I share with you—it makes for a much more compelling narrative.
So the advice I give to people who are interested in social media is to focus a lot less on the viral hook moments. Talk about the things that you’re really passionate about, and stick within that niche of expertise. The audience will come and, if you’re authentically reaching people, that audience will stay and grow.
The Pharmacologist:
Let’s say you’re a scientist and you want to put your voice out there, but you’re camera shy. What advice would you offer?
Chloe the Scientist: For me, when I started grad school, social media was a completely different place. Instagram Reels didn’t exist. The most anyone did was take a photo of themselves in the lab and wrote a caption of text below. I actually prefer that to speaking into a camera.
But speaking into a camera was something I had to learn. There was this huge shift when Instagram Reels came out, and people wanted more than a photo. You needed to have storytelling, a clear vision, video editing, all of that.
That said, there are a lot of tools available so someone doesn’t necessarily need to be talking in front of the camera. Obviously, the algorithm prefers it, but I’ve seen scientist’s accounts where they’re showing a video of something they’re looking at under the microscope, and they might just speak over it, or have text on screen with some sort of trending audio.
Obviously, Instagram and TikTok are video formats. But if you think of Twitter/X (which I know scientists are using less), that tends to feature a lot of written media. And Substack has really taken off in the past few years. But I don’t want scientists to think that they shouldn’t use their voice because they’re scared of putting themselves on camera.
There’s a lot of value in doing a podcast or having a Substack where you can talk about science in more than just thirty or sixty second soundbites.
The Pharmacologist:
It’s all about different ways to communicate with the public.
Chloe the Scientist: And that’s something I’ve talked about a lot with other scientists. Part of my mission is to learn how to talk about science in a way that the public can actually engage with. Particularly because, especially during these past few years of science misinformation, we see that people are very good at taking a hook and running with it without understanding the actual science of what’s going on. And I’d love to say that people are doing this just because they want to talk about cool science, but I also know that health and wellness on social media is almost its own financial industry. There’s a lot of incentive for people to get into this.
Many scientists say that the way to combat science misinformation is not to talk about it. They argue that, if we keep going on social media, we’re just going to be part of the problem. And I think that’s an outdated way to think about using social media.
Social media is a way to connect, in theory, with the rest of the world.
The Pharmacologist:
Have you had an experience where there’s been something you’ve wanted to explore, and the interest or engagement just hasn’t been there?
Chloe the Scientist: I started a series called “Women in Science” to talk about different female scientists. My original plan was to do the entire series over Women’s History Month, and I had this grand idea of doing one video per day.
These videos were taking four hours to edit, and I hate video editing. And the engagement wasn’t great. It may have been about five thousand total views when, previously, I had ten or thirty thousand or, if something went viral, two hundred thousand. I was wondering if the series was worth it, and that’s when the video editing app I was using crashed and deleted all my work. So I just decided to end the series.
But, a few weeks later, I posted a video from the series that I’d half edited. And that’s when the algorithm suddenly decided to like it, and the video received about fifty thousand views and a ton of new followers and my friends were direct-messaging me to say, “I love this series so much!”
The Pharmacologist:
How long does it typically take for you to put together a post, from writing to posting?
Chloe the Scientist: I usually separate each post into three days of work. I spend a few hours the first day usually just doing research on the specific topic, but that depends on the topic. I’m currently preparing a segment of my “Women in Science” series on Marie Curie, and that will be quicker because I already know a lot about her, and there’s a lot of information available.
But if I’m doing a post about someone not as well-known, I’ll spend a few hours digging through the literature. And, if I can, I try to separate this research into days—I find that when you sit on something, and then come back to it, you have a new, creative mindset. I usually use the first day to compile all the information about something and then, the next day, I come back.
And to be frank, this is where AI has been really handy. I love Claude.ai for this because I can take notes and have Claude.ai synthesize them all together, or suggest a story or hooks or structure. I do caution people from using AI to make content, especially in science, because you’re going to have a really high error rate. But using it in terms of synthesizing information or forming a story has been invaluable.
After that I spend a day writing the script and filming, and then another day editing.
The Pharmacologist:
Should someone concentrate on one platform, or should they be on all the platforms?
Chloe the Scientist: Starting out, I’d recommend sticking with one platform that you like the best. Scientists are busy, and expecting yourself to post three times a day, on three different platforms, just isn’t realistic. Consistency is important for any of those platforms, but it doesn’t need to be multiple times a day.
Starting out, I’d recommend sticking with one platform that you like the best.
The Pharmacologist:
How important is it to engage with other people on a social media platform?
Chloe the Scientist: Early on, when you’re trying out social media and science communication, you’re going to learn a lot from other people that are already in the field. Scientists in this space are happy to chat with people about what works, what doesn’t, and even willing to collaborate. And I’ve done this on occasion, particularly when I want to talk about science that’s not specific to my area of expertise.
The Pharmacologist:
You seem you have such a defined personality in your posts. Did it take you a while to find that?
Chloe the Scientist: I want to be myself first and then a scientist, and I think that resonates with people. That’s what does well—when people can relate to you, and see that you’re not just some scientist in an ivory tower. When they know you’ve gone through struggles, and you understand that science isn’t necessarily easy for everyone.
What I hope people take from me is that, if you love science, and you’re curious and excited about it, then science can make anything happen.
The Pharmacologist:
Where do you see “Chloe the Scientist” going? Do you want to stay within this space?
Chloe the Scientist: I’ve realized that it’s difficult to communicate in-depth on social media. Longer formats are generally better for science communication when you’re trying to dive into the nuances. So I’ve been trying a few different things. I started “Science Reads,” where I talk about a different science book every month. And I just started a journal club series, called “No Dumb Questions,” where I talk about actual science papers, but break into the actual science. Another route I’m exploring is podcasting. In “Reforming Academia,” a fellow PhD biochemist and I discuss various elements of academia and science, including imposter syndrome, non-traditional careers, the complications of being a woman in science, and more. And this summer I’m launching “Unprogrammed Scientist,” which is a series of conversations with scientists who have worked in a wide range of non-traditional careers.
I’d love to see formalized training opportunities for scientists to learn about SciComm, and a path for scientists to do it full time. Some biotech companies and science societies are starting to hire science communication program managers or science communication positions, but we’re still in very early days. My dream would be to see science communication as a viable career option for more scientists. It’s certainly necessary.
My dream would be to see science communication as a viable career option for more scientists.
The Pharmacologist:
Can you see yourself someday returning to the lab, either in industry or academia?
Chloe the Scientist: I wouldn’t go back to the lab as an academic researcher, because I find there’s so much cool stuff about science now. I could never limit myself to just one subject. But science communication in biotech, pharma, or even in an academic or nonprofit setting would be closer to what I enjoy. I get to do some of that in my work with BiotechTV.
The Pharmacologist:
Returning to changes in funding and international opportunities, how do you think US science will be affected?
Chloe the Scientist: I can give some painful examples. I have a friend who was a PhD student in a lab studying ovarian cancer. Her grant got cut because, since she was studying ovarian cancer, the grant had “women” in the title. I have another friend who’s doing a postdoc at the NIH, working on vaccines. And fortunately, their grant wasn’t cut, but when they were applying for grant funding, they switched how they talked about it. Instead of talking about vaccine research, they switched it to allergy research. Even though they’re fundamentally still studying the same stuff and the same mechanism, they just had to change how they’re talking about in the grants. Other friends that are looking for postdocs right now have been told that need to bring their own funding in. That used to be the exception. Now it’s the norm.
Europe has realized that there are a lot of excellent scientists looking for jobs. The EU announced a 600-million Euro campaign to start attracting researchers. Just last year, the government of Norway brought me and a few other American scientists over to Oslo for the week to show Americans the cool science happening in Norway, and I received so many DMs afterwards from people looking for postdocs and opportunities there as a result.
A lot of European countries are realizing that US scientists are very dissatisfied and desperately want to continue scientific research. The brain drain is real.
The Pharmacologist:
So how do you find hope nowadays?
Chloe the Scientist: The hope is that there’s still great science happening, and there’s still great scientists and researchers who care about science.
We’re in dark times, and we’re in sad times. But I don’t think the answer is that we all should move to Europe. I think we need to be consistently pushing the excitement of science and science research.
Don’t lose the mindset that science can do so much good for humanity. It’s going to be dark for a couple of years. But scientists need to keep talking, and we need to keep pushing. A great example is last year’s NIH budget. Congress pushed back, in large part because scientists went to speak to representatives on the Hill and showed the importance of science. I think we need to keep that pressure on now more than ever. We need to be the ones who keep demanding the funding of science, the voices that keep pushing the excitement of learning and teaching and presenting science.
