Why science communication matters in making Agricultural Biotechnology understandable

Kenya’s agriculture is under pressure like never before. Farmers are dealing with unpredictable weather, new and stubborn pests, declining soil fertility, and rising production costs.

In this reality, agricultural biotechnology offers real hope—crop varieties that can resist pests and diseases, tolerate drought, and produce better yields.

These are not abstract scientific ideas; they are practical tools that can help farmers put food on the table and improve incomes.

But here is the challenge: having good science is not enough. If people do not understand it, trust it, or see how it fits into their everyday farming realities, it will not be adopted widely.

In Kenya, biotechnology often ends up sounding complicated, technical, or even controversial. And when science feels distant or unclear, it creates space for doubt and misinformation.

This is why science communication is becoming just as important as the science itself.

At institutions such as the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), scientists are working hard to develop improved crop technologies, including biotechnology-based solutions.

But for these innovations to make a real difference, they must travel beyond research stations and reach farmers in a language they understand, in formats they can trust, and through channels they already use. Too often, the problem is not the technology—it is the way it is explained.

When terms like “genetic modification” or “gene stacking” are used without explanation, they can easily sound threatening or confusing.

Yet, when these ideas are translated into simple messages—such as “this maize can resist pests and reduce your need for pesticides”—farmers can quickly see the value.

Science communication is, at its heart, about translation: turning complex ideas into practical meaning.

Trust is the foundation of this process. Farmers are more likely to accept new technologies when they understand how they were developed, tested, and approved.

That is why regulatory processes, such as biosafety assessments and field trials, need to be communicated clearly and consistently. When people see that there are systems in place to ensure safety, confidence begins to grow.

But trust does not come from documents alone. It comes from engagement—through conversations, demonstrations, and real experiences in the field.

When farmers see a demonstration plot where a new maize variety performs better under drought or requires fewer sprays, the science becomes real. It is no longer an argument on paper; it is something they can see and relate to their own farms.

Media also plays a powerful role in shaping how biotechnology is understood. Unfortunately, coverage is sometimes driven by controversy or fear, rather than a balanced explanation.

Strengthening the relationship between scientists and journalists can help change this. When journalists are supported to understand the science, they can tell clearer, more accurate stories that help the public make informed decisions.

Today, communication is no longer limited to radio, newspapers, or television. Many farmers now get information through mobile phones and social media.

This creates both opportunity and risk. On one hand, it allows quick sharing of useful information—videos, testimonials, and advisory messages.

On the other hand, it allows misinformation to spread just as quickly. This means science communication must also be active online, responding to questions, correcting myths, and sharing facts in real time.

What also matters is listening. Communication should not only be about pushing information out; it should also be about hearing farmers’ concerns, cultural perspectives, and questions.

In many communities, food is not just about nutrition—it is tied to identity, tradition, and values. If these concerns are ignored, resistance to new technologies can grow, no matter how good the science is.

This is why trusted local voices—extension officers, community leaders, and lead farmers—are so important. People are more likely to believe someone they know and trust than a distant institution.

For science communication to work well, it must also be built into the research process from the beginning. It should not be something done only at the end when a technology is ready.

From the first stages of research, scientists need to think about how their work will be understood, received, and used by the people it is meant to serve.

There is also a growing need to equip scientists themselves with communication skills. Many researchers are excellent in their technical work but have limited training in explaining their findings to non-specialist audiences.

Supporting them to communicate better can significantly improve how innovations are received and adopted.

In the end, the success of biotechnology in Kenya will not depend only on how advanced the science is. It will depend on whether people understand it, trust it, and feel part of it.

Science communication is the bridge between research and real life. It helps turn innovation into impact.

Without it, even the best technologies risk being misunderstood or underused. With it, they can become powerful tools for improving food security, strengthening livelihoods, and building a more resilient agricultural system.

If Kenya is to fully benefit from agricultural biotechnology, then communicating science clearly, honestly, and in a human way is not optional—it is essential.

The writer, Dr. Floridah Maritim, is the Director of Corporate Communication at Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO).