How Engineering Stories Build Public Trust

Even now—after the silence, the suspicion, the cut funding—scientists and engineers are still showing up. Still working in labs, still mentoring students, still building the future. But the question hangs in the air: Who is standing up for us? I’ve been speaking with colleagues and there’s a shared feeling growing beneath the surface: disappointment. Not just in how science has been politicized, but in the silence that followed. In 2020, the scientific community did something extraordinary. We delivered—fast. Diagnostics, vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, and therapeutics developed and deployed in months instead of years. Lives saved. Catastrophe mitigated. And yet, that moment of collective effort was twisted. Not into gratitude. Not into celebration. But into a conspiracy theory. A weapon of mistrust. The result? A public that seems to have forgotten what we did—and worse, no longer sees science as something worth defending. That silence has been deafening. But maybe part of that’s on us. While academic media outlets churned out stories on sports and identity politics, we let the real stories—the stories of discovery, resilience, invention, and public service—slip by unnoticed. We didn’t do enough to tell the stories of our scientific and engineering heroes. Of the people who stayed in the lab while the world shut down. Of those who built the tools that saved lives—and continue to build the future while under threat. I tried to tell one of those stories here: https://lnkd.in/gz7Qr5p7 About microfluidics, and about pandemic heroes like Jonathan Didier and James Crowe. We need more of that. More stories of the scientists, engineers, and public servants who’ve quietly shaped our world for the better. More narratives that show the value of public research, not in abstract terms, but through real people and real impact. More visibility for those building a better future—not those tearing it down. If you’re in science or engineering, share your story. Name a hero. Tag your media office. It’s not that the public doesn’t want to hear from us. It’s that we haven’t made ourselves impossible to ignore. That has to change—and it starts with telling better stories.

We teach scientists to avoid emotion. Now it’s costing us trust. In biotech, our breakthroughs are built on data, our decisions on evidence. Precision is paramount. Yet when it comes to public trust in our industry’s innovation, we often overlook one critical variable: Emotional intelligence. As scientists, we are trained to set it aside. This is why we sometimes fail. As a B2B marketer, I lead with data, yes, but our best campaigns are those that communicate emotion. Scientific communication usually prioritises accuracy over emotion, but today misinformation spreads faster than peer-review, and the model no longer works. Emotional resonance is not a soft skill; it’s a strategic asset. “Knowledge is only one factor among many influences that are likely to guide how individuals reach judgments.” (Bubela et al., 2009; Sturgis & Allum, 2004) Emotionally charged misinformation is significantly more likely to be shared than neutral, factual content, and conspiracy narratives consistently outperform scientific explanations in engagement metrics, largely due to their emotional appeal. This is a big problem for biotech: When public perception lags, or is completely out of step with, scientific progress, adoption stalls, reputations suffer, and innovation is left on the shelf. For biotech leaders, the implications are clear: If we want our science and innovations to be understood, trusted, and acted upon, we must communicate with emotional intelligence. That means reframing messaging around what the data say AND what the audience feels. Three principles can help: Narrative over numbers: Data don’t persuade, stories do. Storytelling activates neural coupling, allowing audiences to internalise complex information more effectively. Leaders must ensure their teams are trained not just in scientific literacy, but in narrative strategy. Humility over certainty: In an era of rapid discovery, acknowledging uncertainty builds credibility. Audiences are more likely to trust communicators who admit what they don’t know, rather than overstate what they do. Values over variables: Emotional intelligence enables us to connect scientific outcomes to human impact. Whether it’s a new therapy, diagnostic tool, or platform technology, the message must speak to what matters: Health, hope, and progress. Some worry about diluting science, but this approach amplifies its relevance. Emotional intelligence allows us to bridge the gap between innovation and adoption, between discovery and belief in the therapies of the future. Our communication must be as sophisticated as the science it supports. The most powerful message is not always the one that informs, it’s the one that connects. Like this: https://okt.to/QJaCtU

I'm having an epiphany. Solving customers' pain points is no longer enough. Stick with me on this one. A data executive came to us with a serious issue. • Her team was losing credibility  • She questioned if she had the right people  • Leaders and peers started doubting her team's work They were tasked with assessing the impact of tech debt and legacy, and they were doing it, but their story wasn’t landing. 𝗦𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗺𝗲? Beyond the technical details, they were missing this one thing: The ability to translate the technical complexity into a story senior executives could understand—and trust. How do you turn around a situation like this? 1. You listen first—we identified key stakeholders and what truly mattered to them. 2. 3. You align on a framework—ours assessed hardware, software, and service delivery legacy  4. 5. You engineer the story—a strategic narrative with the right dose of technical depth 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁? • Her team regained their authority • She authored a story everyone could rally around • Leadership had the full picture of tech legacy, at last They kept talking about this project for months. Why? Story. 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆? Your job is not done when you solve problems, that's step 1. Step 2 is now engineering the right story to make sure people buy your solution. Nailing 1 is hard. Nailing 2 is harder.