Karen Ring is a stem-cell researcher turned website and social-media manager for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) in Oakland. As the threat of cuts to science funding sweeps the globe, she is encouraging scientists to advocate for their research.

What was your reaction to the election of Donald Trump as US president?

Credit: Todd Dubnicoff/CIRM

I started to read articles about what it would mean for the future of science. I found some of his pre-election comments about science troubling, including criticism of the US National Institutes of Health and his belief that climate change is a hoax. This seemed like a wake-up call for the scientific community. I tweeted, “Now more than ever #scientists need to speak out about the importance of funding scientific research! Share hashtag #ImWithScience.”

How did people respond?

The post has been re-tweeted hundreds of times. In October 2016, some colleagues and I started an online @SciParty group to discuss how scientists can do public outreach better. But after the election, we realized that we have to find better ways to connect with people who either don't understand science or are sceptical of it.

What happened with the first @SciParty exchange after the election?

We discussed what the Trump presidency might mean for US science communication and funding. We also discussed the potential for integrating science-communication training into graduate programmes. One participant suggested that scientists listen more and talk less. Scientists often get caught up in how exciting their research is to them, but forget the big picture. We need to tailor communications to specific audiences.

Did people from outside the United States participate?

Yes. Funding cuts are happening all over the world. We had people from Evidence for Democracy, a Canadian organization established during former Prime Minister Steven Harper's tenure. They suggested that it's important to be political without being partisan. We're all working towards the same thing — the funding necessary to maintain scientific progress.

What topics will @SciParty tackle in future?

Upcoming parties will focus on public sentiment about climate change and animal biotechnology. We want to intermix topics focused on how to improve science communication with discussions that concentrate on a particular area of science.

What do scientists want to know most during these discussions?

Mainly, how to improve science communication. People are interested in how to share science through different avenues, such as blogs, art and videos. Many participants have stressed coming up with a mission statement to make sure there is a concrete goal for efforts.

Are you finding synergies with other groups on social media?

Yes, we are trying to collaborate with others to share our audiences and get to know how we can help each other through Twitter and Instagram. There are groups such as @IAmSciArt, @realscientists and @womenofsci.

Do stem-cell scientists have specific concerns?

A lot of researchers don't know what to expect. Trump hasn't spoken a lot about his science-funding plans, but his past statements are not encouraging. Every state is different. California is lucky. When former President George W. Bush banned federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research in 2004, the CIRM formed, with US$3 billion in funding. We won't be affected if there is another federal-funding ban on embryonic stem-cell research. But that's not the case for other states. And there are many others that do important research and would be affected. It's important for scientists to speak out, get involved and help to motivate the incoming administration.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.