“You’ve got to tell a story” is heard so often it’s almost a cliche.

Such an exhortation is more often than not heavily directed at science and science policy storytelling.

But no one ever tells you how.

Well, here’s a (summarised) how – based on a ‘science of stories’ – written by Michael D Jones of Oregon State University and Deserai Anderson Crow of the University of Colorado, and published in Nature.

They argue in “How can we use the ‘science of stories’ to produce persuasive scientific stories?” that the repetition of emotionless objectively sterile information doesn’t increase understanding.

In turn, the politicisation of science/policy is possible because science IS complex, and opponents can focus on uncertainty – as practiced by tobacco and anti climate change lobbyists.

Jones and Crow argue science storytellers don’t have to distort the truth, but can help people connect with problems and issues on a more human level in terms of what happens to them.

This can be done by understanding the structure of a narrative.

Their article shows how to tell a tell a compelling science story by defining a narrative as having a:

– Setting
– Characters
– Plot
– Moral

These elements are explained and illustrated in greater detail in their paper.

“It is these emotional components of a story that are most memorable, not references to scientific evidence,” they write.

Jone and Crow offer a step-by-step guide for story construction.

They point out how vital it is to have a clear understanding of the audience, and to clearly articulate the problem. Without this a narrative is likely to be lost, misinterpreted or even worse, backfire.

The importance of heroes and villains in a story is another vital component – again superbly illustrated.

The article also gives excellent examples of good and not so good storytelling, using measles and anti-vaccinators as examples.

For policy-makers and science communicators (and technical subject writers for that matter), their piece is hugely informative reading.

Jones and Crow conclude that all elements of an evidence-based narrative need to be treated strategically, and done so in the name of science.

Their paper concludes: “We suspect this will not be easy, but then again, what hero’s journey is?”