The Science Communicator Map · Member guide · Version 1.0

Take back skepticism.

This page is for the people on the Science Communicator Map, and for anyone thinking about joining. It's short on rules and long on thanks.

"Evidence doesn't belong to a party. Neither should your health."

A copper pipeline carrying medicines from a lab, through testing, to a village pharmacy
Before anything else

Thank you.

You already do the hard part. You read the studies, check the sources, and explain them to people who never asked for a lecture but deserved a straight answer. For many of us it happens after a full day of other work, and it's rarely thanked. This map exists so more people can find you.

One ask, the same for everyone. If you read this and have suggestions or questions, email me. I'm still learning, and this page gets better every time someone does.
Member Facts
1 seat per map
Serving size1 science communicator
Amount per post
Curiosity
100
% Daily Value*
Primary sources cited100%
Plain language100%
Referrals to other members100%
Corrections made in public100%
Certainty sold0%
Cynicism0%
Skepticism100%
* In a clinical trial, "open label" means everyone knows which treatment is being given. Nothing is masked. That's the promise here too.
The case in one page

Why we point to each other

Every medicine travels a long road, from a lab idea to the pharmacy and beyond. The map pins real people to each stretch of that road, so the public can find someone who explains the part they're asking about.

??Alone: 100 separate voicesTogether: one map the public can follow

Same people. Connected, a person with a question can reach the right one.

The public's problem. Someone gets a diagnosis, hears a claim, or sees a scary headline. They search, and their feed shows them whoever is loudest, not whoever is right. There's no list of trustworthy people sorted by the question they have.
Our problem. Careful science communicators mostly work alone. Each of us builds an audience from scratch, answers the same questions, and fights the same myths one comment section at a time. Hard to find, easy to burn out.
The imbalance. People selling certainty often promote each other and pass their audiences around. Careful voices rarely do. That's not a fair fight.
The fix. Point to each other. A shared map turns hundreds of separate voices into one network the public can follow: the right person for the right question, in one place.
What we ask. Stay connected. Share your link, send followers to each other, and hold one standard.
The rallying cry

Take back skepticism

Somewhere along the way, the word skeptic got stolen. It was handed to people who doubt everything except the person selling them an answer.

It got bad enough that skeptics themselves objected. In December 2014, fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, including Bill Nye, signed an open letter asking journalists to stop calling climate deniers "skeptics." The next September, the Associated Press told its reporters to avoid both "skeptics" and "deniers," and to write "doubters" or "those who reject mainstream climate science" instead.

The result: the people rejecting the evidence got a gentler label, and the word skeptic was set aside instead of handed back. Phrases like "vaccine skeptic" still show up in headlines.

On this map we skip "healthy skepticism." Skepticism already means checking, so it doesn't need the qualifier. Doubting everything is cynicism. Deciding before looking is denial.

BelieverAccepts too fast.
CynicRejects everything.
DenierDecided before looking.
SkepticChecks: asks how we know, follows the evidence, and updates.The goal

Four ways to meet a claim.

We're taking skepticism back. The whole word.
Not alone, and not one argument at a time. Together, as a unified front of people who check.

Sources: the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry open letter, via NCSE, December 2014; Poynter on the AP guidance, September 2015.

What we're aiming for

Show the work."Here's how we know" beats "trust me."
Stay in our lane, and point to the next one.Knowing who to send people to is part of the expertise.
Treat evidence as shared ground.Nobody owns it, and anybody can learn to read it.
Correct ourselves in public.Being wrong is part of science. Hiding it isn't.
Don't sell certainty.Say what's known, what isn't, and how sure we are.
Curiosity over contempt.The person who believes a bad claim is usually someone worth reaching.

A seat on the map is not an endorsement of every other member, and nobody on the map speaks for anyone else. What we share is a standard, not a script.

How the map works

Being part of the catalyst

In chemistry, a catalyst doesn't do the reaction for you. It lowers the energy it takes to get started, and it isn't used up, so the same reaction can happen again and again.

That's the job here. One careful post is a spark. A network of people who send readers to each other makes it easier for good information to keep moving, long after any single post is gone. You don't need to post more. You just need to stay connected. The idea isn't everyone saying the same thing. It's everyone pointing to each other.

Energy it takes From a question to a trusted answer Searching alone With the map A question A trusted source the energythe map saves

Same question, same answer. The map lowers the hill in between.

1You share your profileor a card2Your followers seethe whole road3They meet memberson other stretches4Someone with a questionfinds the right personRepeat. Nobody is used up.
  1. You share your profile or a card.
  2. Your followers see the whole road.
  3. They meet members on other stretches.
  4. Someone with a question finds the right person. Repeat.

Every share sends people past other members' cards.

Who's here

The people on the map

These are the people you're joining. Tap anyone to open their card.

Loading the map...

See everyone in the directory, sorted by profession and topic.

Using the map

Ways to use the map

Every one of these is optional. Pick what fits how you already work: no posting quota, no exclusivity, and you keep your own brand.

  1. Open your profile link and check your name, role, bio, photo and every link: openlabelmedia.com/scicomm_map/?m=your-id
  2. Add the map link to your posts, so followers can explore the rest of the science pipeline: openlabelmedia.com/scicomm_map
  3. Add your profile link to your link in bio, newsletter footer or website.
  4. Save the directory for replies when a question isn't yours: openlabelmedia.com/scicomm_directory
  5. Share your card once, using the buttons below or the Download share graphic button on your profile.
  6. Reply to your welcome email with any fixes. They go live with the weekly update, by the end of Sunday.

Your tools

ToolWhat it is
Your profileA card with your bio, what people can ask you about, your best post for newcomers, and your links.
Your profile linkopenlabelmedia.com/scicomm_map/?m=your-id opens the map straight to your card.
Your share graphicAn "I'm on the map" image with your name, photo and your part of the map, from the Download share graphic button on your profile.
The directoryEveryone on the map, sorted by profession and topic. Your answer when a question isn't yours.
Also on the mapYour neighbors on the road, listed on your card. Their audience is one step from yours.
Open to collabsA tag on your card if you said yes. Expect friendly notes from other members, and send some too.
SpotlightsRoot to Rx may feature members from time to time. A reshare helps, but it's never required.
Your numbersOnce site analytics are running, a short monthly note with how many people opened your card and clicked your links.
Lower the energy

Share the map in one tap

Share the map

Pick a platform. The post opens with the link already filled in.

Instagram, TikTok and Substack don't let websites pre-fill a post. On a phone, tap Share card to open your phone's share menu with the card attached. On a computer, tap Card and caption: the card downloads and the caption is copied, ready to paste.

Share the directory

For anyone who wants to find a science communicator by topic.

Cards anyone can post

Captions you can copy

They work best in your own words. Change anything.

If it helps: posting step by step

Instagram Story. Add the Story card to your Story, tap the sticker icon, choose Link, paste your profile link, and place the sticker in the empty space in the middle of the card.

LinkedIn. Attach the LinkedIn card, paste the LinkedIn caption, and put the link in the first comment. Many creators do this because LinkedIn may show posts with links in the body to fewer people.

A shared toolbox

Things to hand your followers

Point people to each other first, then to tools that help them check claims on their own.

From the people on the map

Each member's "start here" post appears here once the map loads.

From outside the map

The Debunking Handbook 2020A free, short guide from misinformation researchers on correcting false claims without spreading them.
The Demon-Haunted WorldCarl Sagan's case for science as a candle in the dark, and the original "baloney detection kit."

A few free tools from Root to Rx

Skeptic's ToolkitTen questions for checking any claim.
Clinical trial registriesFor "how do I find a trial?"
Send a ClaimFor a claim you don't have time to cover.
The people beside you

Supporting each other

Nobody takes skepticism back alone. The map works best when we show up for each other, as one network instead of a hundred separate voices. A few ideas:

Send people to each other.When a question is outside your lane, point to a member who covers it. A referral is one of the best compliments you can pay another communicator.
Engage with substance.If you have a moment, a comment that adds a source or an example does more than a like, and shows your audience who else is worth reading.
Share with credit.Tag the member and say why their work is good. Credit is free, and it compounds.
Collaborate across the road.A lab scientist and a pharmacist on the same medicine is content nobody else can make. Check the Open to collabs tags.
Have each other's backs.When a member gets piled on for accurate work, show up with evidence, not outrage. Quote-posting bad actors tends to hand them reach.
Grow the map.Know someone who explains their field well? Send them the join page.
Hard conversations

Talking with people, with each other, and with yourself

Some of what helps here has been tested in studies. Some is practical wisdom from people who teach hard conversations for a living. Each is labeled, so you know which is which.

With someone who believes a bad claim

TestedMotivational interviewingAsk permission, ask open questions, reflect back what you hear, and let the person name their own reasons. In a Quebec maternity ward study, mothers who had a motivational interviewing session were slightly more likely to have fully vaccinated their babies at seven months (about 76% compared with 69%). The study wasn't randomized, and the authors call for a randomized trial.
Gagneur, A., et al. (2018). BMC Public Health, the PromoVac study.
TestedSwapping stories, not just factsIn three field experiments, a nonjudgmental exchange of personal stories reduced exclusionary attitudes, and the effect lasted. That research was on prejudice, not health claims, so treat it as a strong parallel.
Kalla, J. L., and Broockman, D. E. (2020). American Political Science Review.

Practice tools for this: the OPEN and PAUSE cards in Stay in the Room, and Adam Grant's Think Again.

With each other

Practical frameworkCrucial Conversations"Start with heart": begin from the goal you share, good science reaching people. Then make it safe to talk. From Patterson, Grenny, McMillan and Switzler.
Practical frameworkNonviolent CommunicationListen for the need underneath the words, yours and theirs. From Marshall Rosenberg.

With yourself

Practical frameworkBeing wrong in publicAdmitting a mistake is hard because our minds work to protect the story we tell about ourselves. Doing it anyway is what earns trust. See Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson.
Practical frameworkScout, not soldierA soldier defends a position. A scout wants to see what's really there. It's the skeptic's stance turned inward. See The Scout Mindset by Julia Galef.

This work costs something. If you're tired, pile-on weary or second-guessing yourself, you're not the only one. Reach out to another member, or to me.

Research we lean on

You may know this better than I do

These findings shape how the map works. If you see something I've gotten wrong, email me and I'll fix it, with credit.

Prebunking builds resistance

Short videos explaining manipulation tricks, run as real YouTube ads, helped viewers recognize those tricks later.

What this suggests for us: teach the tricks, not just the facts.

Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S., and Lewandowsky, S. (2022). Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Science Advances.

Corrections usually don't backfire

Across dozens of claims, people generally moved toward the facts after a correction, even on politically loaded topics.

What this suggests for us: keep correcting, kindly.

Wood, T., and Porter, E. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes' steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior.

Lead with the fact, not the myth

Debunking researchers recommend an order: the fact, a warning before the myth (mentioned once), the fallacy behind it, then the fact again.

1. The factLead with it. Make it the headline.
2. A warning, then the myth once"A common claim says..."
3. The fallacyExplain the trick that makes it convincing.
4. The fact againEnd where you started.

What this suggests for us: the fact gets the headline. The myth gets one labeled mention.

Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Ecker, U. K. H., and colleagues (2020). The Debunking Handbook 2020.

A lot of bad sharing is inattention

In some experiments, a simple prompt to think about accuracy improved the quality of what people went on to share.

What this suggests for us: assume people are busy, not foolish, and ask "how do we know?" out loud.

Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., Mosleh, M., Arechar, A. A., Eckles, D., and Rand, D. G. (2021). Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature.

Cynicism isn't a sign of smarts

People tend to assume cynics are more competent. When researchers checked, cynics (here meaning people with a general distrust of others' motives) actually scored lower on tests of cognitive ability and competence.

What this suggests for us: show the checking, not the doubt.

Stavrova, O., and Ehlebracht, D. (2019). The cynical genius illusion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Technical words can stand in for evidence

In a well known study, people rated poor explanations as more satisfying when irrelevant neuroscience language was added. Researchers still debate how large the effect is.

What this suggests for us: if a claim needs jargon to sound convincing, look closer, including at our own posts.

Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., and Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
What a seat means

The standards we share

The line we don't cross

Members don't sell or promote treatments, supplements or clinics that lack trial evidence. Getting paid for good science content is fine.

You agreed to these when you joined (Participation Terms v1.0). They're what make a seat worth something, for you and for everyone beside you.

If something ever falls short, I'll reach out privately first. You can leave anytime, no questions asked.

Where this comes from

Standing on good shoulders

Root to Rx's Sunday letters column, The Roots, ends every issue with a banyan tree. A banyan grows by dropping roots from its branches, and each root becomes a new trunk. Every person who knows how the science works can be one of those roots. Misinformation has been taking root faster than we have. The map is what it looks like when the trunks find each other.

The method is older than any of us. Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World gave readers a "baloney detection kit," and the Skeptic's Toolkit carries that tradition forward. The books behind our thinking, from Sagan to Crucial Conversations, are listed on Behind the Label.

Who's coordinating this

I'm Justin Yamashita. I got into clinical research through my first job as a clinical trial coordinator, and today I'm a clinical trial project manager. In my day job I coordinate large trial teams, and every one of them runs on a team list. The map is our team list. I'm the coordinator, not the expert. The expertise is yours.

The practical bits

Keeping your card current

If you want toDo this
Change a link, bio, photo or best postEmail justin@openlabelmedia.com. Changes go live by the end of Sunday.
Turn Open to collabs on or offSame email.
Leave the mapSame email. You come off at the next weekly update.
Raise a concern about a listingSame email. It stays private.
Suggest a new memberSend them the join page.

Five things to remember

1
The public can't find careful voices one by one.
The map gives them one place to find the right person for the right question.
2
Point to each other.
Referrals are the catalyst.
3
Take back skepticism. The whole word.
Skepticism means checking, not doubting everything.
4
One standard.
Cite, disclose, correct in public, stay in your lane, sell no certainty.
5
All of it is optional.
Use the map in whatever way fits how you already work.

Thank you for reading the paper instead of the headline. Thank you for saying "we don't know yet" when that's the honest answer. Thank you for the comments you answered kindly when it would have been easier to scroll past, and for explaining your corner of the road so the rest of us can see it.

I've spent years inside clinical research watching how much care goes into getting a medicine to people safely, and how little of that story reaches them. You're how it reaches them.

Let's take skepticism back, together. And if you have suggestions or questions, email me. I'm still learning.

Justin Yamashita
Coordinator, the Science Communicator Map · justin@openlabelmedia.com

Version 1.0, November 2026. Members shape version 2. Changes will be listed here, with credit to whoever suggested them.