Science Communication 360° conference: The second edition offers new formats, international reach, and prominent keynote speakers
The Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, the Czech Academy of Sciences, and the SciComHub platform are bringing the second edition of the Science Communication 360° conference, which will take place on February 5, 2026 at the Jinonice Campus. After a successful pilot edition, participants can look forward to several new features. What theme will this year’s conference adopt? And how will the afternoon programme differ? The co-founders of the conference – Kateřina Sobotková, Director of Division of External Relations at the Czech Academy of Sciences, and Tereza Klabíková Rábová, Vice-Dean for Public Relations at FSV UK – reveal this and more in the following interview.
Could you briefly introduce how the idea for the Science Communication 360° conference originally came about?
Tereza Klabíková Rábová (TKR): In the Czech Republic, there are already many advanced institutions, teams, and individuals who are successfully developing science communication. But these initiatives often operate in isolation. Our main idea, therefore, was to connect existing experience and expertise across the field and elevate science communication to a higher level. With this intention, we met and began discussing the possibility of organising a conference.
Kateřina Sobotková (KS): Yes, a group of enthusiasts met at one event, and one thing led to another. The idea emerged to create a platform or space for anyone interested in this topic—people who feel they want to improve, learn, or contribute something important. We wanted to provide an opportunity for everyone who enjoys and cares about science communication.
TKR: Recently, I came across the context of another European country where the development of science communication was based on the very same principle: the right people, at the right time, in the right place. I think that’s what happened here too. Passionate people who mean it seriously and are in positions where they can make real change.
What do you think sets this conference apart from other events focused on science communication? What is its added value?
KS: A very important element is the involvement of Charles University and the Czech Academy of Sciences. But that doesn’t mean these two giants are the most important part. We mainly provide institutional backing, and it’s quite possible that without this support the conference would not exist in its current form. Both institutions deserve credit because they strongly support science communication and help bring additional actors into the discussion. I also have to mention the SciComHub platform, which was crucial in the early stages and continues to be very important. But the diversity and richness of the conference truly lie in the fact that anyone can participate—even individuals who feel that their struggles and successes in this field don’t often get enough visibility.
TKR: Our goal was also to offer an interactive programme—not just one-way presentations of case studies, but workshops and practical sharing. And I very much wanted to bring in international speakers to enrich our ecosystem with outside perspectives.
How would you like the conference to influence the science communication community in the future?
KS: The most important thing for us is for science to become embedded in a truly serious system. Good science communication makes society more resilient to disinformation and both existential and social crises. Science has this power, but it must reach people in the right language and in an accessible form. The social relevance of science also needs to be significantly strengthened. These are the two key themes for me. It’s a long-distance run, but I believe we can help transform the entire ecosystem.
TKR: I completely agree. It will be a very long journey, and along the way we will make mistakes. But our main goal is to establish this area as a necessary and indispensable societal authority so that science can be more involved, for example, in policymaking.
What worked well in the first edition of the conference? What did not, and what will you change this time?
KS: The morning programme worked very well—mainly because we had two big names: Iain Stewart and Paulína Tabery. Both need a stage and are a huge inspiration and motivation for everyone, which our community really needs. We plan to keep this format this year too—we again have two excellent speakers. On the other hand, one of our lessons learned was that our organisational enthusiasm led us to host the conference across two venues. The logistics between the locations were complicated, and we as organisers got a bit overwhelmed. That’s why we are moving the second edition to the Jinonice Campus so that everything is in one place and the space between programme blocks can be used for networking.
TKR: We approached the first edition as a pilot and simply wanted to try it together. And based on participant feedback, I think we succeeded both content-wise and organisationally. The shortcomings stressed us—the organisers—the most. I believe the next edition will be better because we will give it a thematic focus. Through joint brainstorming, we identified institutional support for science communication as an important and timely topic. We also want participants not only to enjoy the conference but also to take away something practical. We therefore plan to create tangible outputs from the afternoon sessions, such as sets of recommendations that the community can continue sharing. A new addition is that this time we are also offering a programme in English to include international researchers.
And which part of the programme are you personally looking forward to the most?
KS: The biggest highlight will likely be our two speakers. Christina Beck, Head of Communications at the Max Planck Society, is a truly major figure—an amazing woman and a top expert. I think her talk will resonate with us for a very long time. I am also very much looking forward to Tomáš Koblížek from the Czech Academy of Sciences. He deserves admiration for how he positions himself in the public space and how he tackles issues that even society struggles to address. I’m excited that the afternoon programme will involve a lot of brainstorming. Each participant will have the chance to engage in discussion and take away a final output.
TKR: A unique opportunity will also simply be the fact that all the people involved in this topic will meet and have focused time to talk about things. I’m definitely looking forward to the special evening programme as well—we won’t reveal its content just yet, but it should be a delightful final touch. We’d like to inject some humour into it too, because science communication doesn’t always have to be strictly serious. Passion, enthusiasm, and even fun are key components of effective science communication.
Why is effective science communication so important in your view? And what obstacles does it still face in the Czech Republic?
KS: For the scientific community, the problem is that communication and popularisation of science are not part of evaluation criteria. This means that scientists who engage in communication enter a kind of “death spiral”. They’re expected to produce scientific outputs, but they also administer projects, apply for grants, secure funding—and on top of that, they’re expected to communicate science effectively. Everyone across the scientific landscape who communicates science in their free time purely because they believe in it has my absolute admiration. Another issue is the support system for science communicators—by which I mean professionals. At the Czech Academy of Sciences, we have many science popularisers, but they mostly do this part-time alongside research. They are cultivating themselves and the field, but they often stand with one foot in one job and the other in another—yet they still deliver excellent work. Again, it’s a matter of time and funding. Although things are improving and I see early signs of progress in some places, the steps are still small.
TKR: In addition to this workload, I would add teaching in the university environment. In general, we can no longer rely solely on willingness and talent. I feel the time has come to push harder at the systemic level. This is also one reason why we are organising this conference—to metaphorically bang on the pot and send signals to higher political levels. We need a more consistent platform where mandates and responsibilities are clearly and predictably established, rather than relying on our fragmented efforts.
KS: And then there’s the external world. We enjoy working with the media, and we do so very actively, but the reality is that the media often push science toward quick statements and black-and-white claims. A scientist will not say anything that isn’t true—they will explore multiple perspectives and complexities until the very end. Unfortunately, we have very few science newsrooms that have the time, funding, and space to support that. All of this creates a difficult situation for anyone who wants to enter the public arena.
What challenges await the field of science communication in the coming years?
KS: The absolutely biggest mountain we need to climb—or at least start climbing—is convincing people to trust science. Science needs to be at the forefront when it comes to trustworthiness and act as a standard of reliability for the public. And it is the task of science communication to strengthen this trust and put scientists in the position they deserve. For me, that’s the biggest challenge—among many others.
TKR: In one study we conducted at the Faculty of Social Sciences, we saw that the public is still willing to trust scientists and wants them to be involved in decision-making processes. But now we need to carefully understand what exactly the public is still willing to place its trust in. We must communicate with people. On many levels, this is already happening—for example, through science fairs. But these events often still take place in isolation, sometimes competitively, and inconsistently. I think we really need to pull together. We don’t have the luxury of standing still in this area. The scientific sphere exists in a context of business and other significant actors. And we need to stay afloat.
KS: Yes, in key decisions of the state and society, the expert principle of science should be indisputable in the future. It may sound idealistic, but it is simply true.
You can find more information on the conference website.
