SWCC Blog

Celebrating 20 years of science books through the Science Writers and Communicators of Canada Book Awards

By Milana Madzarac   •   May 9, 2026

SWCC News

Marie Curie once remarked, “I am among those who think that science has great beauty.” One powerful way to showcase that beauty is through storytelling.

Storytelling is as old as humans have existed. Preceded by oral traditions around the world, the earliest known written story is The Epic of Gilgamesh from ancient Mesopotamia, that dates back to the 7th century BC. Historians believe its influences shaped famous works including The Iliad, The Odyssey and The Old Testament. Stories have always been how we make sense of the world, and that continues to remain true today.

Studies show that reading can help reduce stress, improve social cognition, increase critical thinking skills and even strengthen academic achievement. In an era where we’re flooded with digital information, books offer something deeper: sustained attention, depth and wonder.

(photo by cottonbro studio via Pexels)

Science books, in particular, transform complex ideas into accessible understanding, spark curiosity in young readers, and help build a deeper understanding of the world around us. They remind us that science is not just data and discovery, but is rooted in human connection.

This belief has driven the SWCC Book Awards to celebrate science writers and authors who bring the beauty of science to life, one book at a time.

Connecting Science with Storytelling

For more than 20 years, the Science Writers and Communicators of Canada (SWCC) has celebrated excellence in science writing through its annual Book Awards. Each year, the SWCC’s Book Awards Committee Chairs selects a panel of judges to read and discuss the variety of science books submitted.

“The SWCC Book Awards provide vital recognition for Canadian science writers,” says Jennifer Cox, a past judge liaison volunteer with the Book Awards committee. In her role, Cox would receive books from the publishers, support the Book Awards judges and serve as a representative of the committee.

She continues, “I saw firsthand how committed SWCC members are to building awareness of the incredible selection of books that Canadian science writers publish each year.”

Authored by scientists, professors, industry professionals, science enthusiasts and storytellers, the SWCC Book Awards Committee accepts nominations for books on a variety of topics and formats, with the goal of not only promoting science writing, but to encourage science reading.

Titles from the 2025 SWCC Book Awards.

As one of the largest science communication organizations which support professional science journalists, writers and communicators across the country, the SWCC lends the expertise of its members to recognize Canadian talent in this field.

"SWCC is the ideal organization to run this competition because of its deep commitment to recognizing excellence in science communication for readers of all ages,” says current SWCC Book Awards volunteer, Sherestha Saini. “I am proud to play a small role in amplifying the voices of Canadian authors who write science books”.

Jennifer Cox, past Book Awards judge liason (left); Sherestha Saini, 2026 Book Awards volunteer (right).

The SWCC Book Awards has earned national recognition across the Canadian publishing and academic landscape. Notable organizations citing the awards include the Canadian Children's Book Centre, Publishers Archive, leading industry publication Quill & Quire, and Queen's University, reflecting the award's growing credibility among national book industry media, academic institutions, and publishing platforms.

SWCC distributes a semi-annual newsletter to publishers and partner organizations sharing the authors and books. SWCC Book Awards winners are also encouraged to promote their recognition. A notable example is Shohini Ghose’s Her Space, Her Time, whose paperback edition, published by Penguin Random House Canada, features the 2023 SWCC Book Awards win.

Breaking down the Book Awards

Over the past few years, upwards of 50 to 65 books have been submitted per awards cycle. Of these entries, the judges present the shortlisted titles for the Youth and General reading categories, which is then shared by the committee at the annual SWCC Conference. The candidates are then reviewed and narrowed down to a single winner per category, which is announced by the Book Awards Committee later in the fall at the SWCC Annual General Meeting and via social media. The winners from each category are awarded with a $1,000 prize.

"The SWCC Book Awards provide vital recognition for Canadian science writers."

Jennifer Cox, past judge liaison volunteer, SWCC Book Awards Committee

As of 2021, SWCC has also awarded the Paradigm Prize for Underrepresented Perspectives in Science Writing. The Prize recognizes first-time authors, an author-illustrator pairing from equity-seeking or underrepresented backgrounds, or works published by a small press or independent publisher.

While the General and Youth categories have a single winner within a defined category, the Paradigm Prize recipient is chosen from among the shortlist of finalists for the two main categories and may be awarded in addition to another prize. Winners of the Paradaigm Prize are awarded $500.

"[The SWCC Book Awards] recognizes the importance of Canadian science literature and celebrates the writers whose unique ability to translate complex research into accessible, engaging content helps us to see and understand the world in a different way," says Cox.

Running a national book competition

While many of the Book Awards judges are avid readers, this competition wouldn't be possible without the Book Awards Committee volunteers who are responsible for promoting the competition, liaising with the publishers and managing the logistics of the judging.

“Volunteering for the SWCC Annual Book Awards has been such a rewarding experience!" notes Sunita LeGallou, former Book Awards committee chair. "It is incredible to see how much work goes into putting on a competition like this... It's a delight and an honor to uplift great science books.”

In addition to their work behind the scenes, a book booth, set up by the Book Awards volunteers, is present at the SWCC annual conference, enticing attendees with a book giveaway in exchange for a post on social media. 

Book Awards volunteers at the 2025 SWCC Conference with book bundles to be won through the social media give away.

“Volunteering for the Science Writers and Communicators of Canada has been a meaningful experience for me because I get to work with a group of people who are committed to making science visible and accessible to everyone." says Saini.

Interested in learning more about the Book Awards and previous winners? Visit our Book Awards webpage.

Want to collaborate with the Book Awards Committee? Reach out via email.

About the Author

Milana is a Communications Officer at the University of Waterloo School of Pharmacy and a volunteer with the SWCC for the Digital Media Committee. She also serves as the SWCC Book Awards columnist. She graduated with her BSc in Biology from Wilfrid Laurier University and completed a Certificate in Publishing from Toronto Metropolitan University. She also co-runs a local Silent Book Club in Kitchener, Ontario and volunteers at Kitchener Public Library author events. Her love of reading and science traces back to her childhood visits to her local library.

Showcasing original research by graduate students, The Canadian Journal of Science Communication offers a unique experience for authors

By Rebecca Dang   •   May 1, 2026

SciComm News

The inaugural issue of The Canadian Journal of Science Communication was launched in December of 2025.

The journal features written work and infographics - produced by graduate students - on a range of STEM topics, including space colonization and biologging. Driven by passion and dedication, the journal’s vision is to become more accessible and welcoming to all forms of science communication.

The editorial team is led by Alexander Hall, an assistant professor at the School of Interdisciplinary Sciences at McMaster University and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal. Five graduate students from Canadian academic institutions, including the University of Manitoba, the University of Toronto and Dalhousie University, serve as Associate Editors.

The cover of the first edition of The Canadian Journal of Science Communication. This image is published with permission from the editorial team of The Canadian Journal of Science Communication.

Hall emphasized that the journal emerged because of the initiative of graduate students. “One of the great strengths of the wider network behind the Journal is that it's run by graduate students for graduate students,” he says.

Where it all started

Attendees at the 2025 ComSciCon Canada (ComSciCon-CAN), a national science communication conference for graduate students, had the opportunity to receive feedback on their work from communication professionals at a workshop called the “Create-A-Thon”. While they were provided with invaluable information, they found that they were lacking a suitable space to publish their finished pieces.

Attendees at the 2025 ComSciCon-CAN conference, which was held at McMaster University between Jun. 27–29, 2025. The 2026 ComSciCon-CAN conference will take place at the University of Waterloo.

“The Create-a-thon is a workshop that happens at our annual conference at ComSciCon-CAN, and it is open to any Canadian graduate student who's interested in improving their science communication training and skills,” says Juliet Rowe, a doctoral student at Dalhousie University and member of the organizing committee for ComSciCon-CAN.

Rowe recalls, “There are not a lot of opportunities for multimedia pieces. That sparked the idea of creating The Canadian Journal of Science Communication, as a place to publish all forms of science communication.”

Challenges leading to the launch

The logistics of setting up a new peer-reviewed open-access journal was one of the main challenges that the managing team faced. For example, setting up a digital object identifier (DOI) for each article, establishing technical workflows on the team and coordination of cost for the set-up.

Hall and Rowe expressed gratitude to McMaster Libraries for their help. The Library staff assisted the journal editorial team with open journal systems, navigating Creative Commons licenses and uploading multimedia files.

Alexander Hall and Juliet Rowe. Hall (left) serves as the Editor-in-Chief of The Canadian Journal of Science Communication; Rowe (right) is a member of the organizing committee for ComSciCon-CAN, where the idea for The Canadian Journal of Science Communication originated.

“The editorial team behind it has thrown themselves into learning the interface, checking the workflows, all of those technical things,” says Hall. “I think that it seems to have gone relatively well for the first edition.”

Student author experience

Madeleine Matthews, a second-year Master’s student at the University of Toronto’s Institute of Medical Science, worked with her colleagues to develop an infographic after receiving feedback from the Create-A-Thon reviewers. She incorporated the valuable science communication skills learned through the ComSciCon-CAN conference into her current research to create their now-published article, Staying on TRACK in Family Partnership: Guiding Challenging Conversations Between Researchers and Family Partners.

Madeleine’s piece provides guidance for scientists working with family partners on research centred on their lived experiences, specifically on sex and gender considerations for children with rare conditions. Their article illustrates how to navigate obstacles with empathy, mutual understanding and collaboration. She also includes a “Stay on TRACK” template, which researchers can use in their own work to improve communication with family partners.

Madeleine Matthews (left), one of the authors in the first issue of The Canadian Journal of Science Communication, shared the "Stay on TRACK" template (right), which she designed with co-authors, Tanya Chute-Nagy and Clara Jordan. Their full article was published in the December 2025 edition of the Journal. The "Stay on TRACK" template image is published with permission from the editorial team of The Canadian Journal of Science Communication.

“Coming into graduate school, my vision has always been that the research is absolutely pointless, if you cannot share it with the right people,” says Matthews. “I [now] view science communication as an essential series of points [throughout the research process] where one can engage with the community [and] get them involved to make sure that the research is relevant and sensitive.”

Future of the Journal

Hall and Rowe aim to broaden the journal’s scope by publishing research that highlights diverse forms of communication beyond the conference. They’ re encouraging submissions that extend beyond written transcripts or scripts, such as filmed performances.

“In the online world, we can bring in so many different formats and I think lots of traditional journals have not done that,” says Hall. He notes that the next issue promises fresh perspectives, thoughtful storytelling and engaging science content related to their research that readers do not want to miss.

Additional Information

The Canadian Journal of Science Communication is open to taking submissions from all attendees of the ComSciCon-CAN.

The next ComSciCon-CAN conference will take place at the University of Waterloo on Jun. 19-21, 2026. The conference is free to apply for all graduate students or recent graduates, with the application deadline typically due in the winter semester.

At the time of publication, applications for the 2026 conference are now closed. Any interested student should check out the website for details on the next application cycle.

About the Author

Rebecca is a research technician at McMaster University, and freelance part-time as a science writer. Rebecca graduated with an MSc in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine from Western University completed a Certificate in Multimedia Journalism from the University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies. Her motivation as a science communicator is to share scientific knowledge with communities that traditionally did not have access research and scientific information.

Three science communicators share their experience on what accessibility means in STEM

By Ashlyn Stuart   •   April 25, 2026

SWCC News

Accessibility is an important consideration in all aspects of society, as it allows everyone to be included, regardless of our differences. But the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) – as well as science communication – are not always accessible, and this can have a significant impact on those with invisible disabilities. 

Samantha Fowler is an English PhD student at the University of Waterloo studying the rhetoric of community building and role models for disabled scientists and engineers. She is also the University of Waterloo’s Disability Inclusion Coordinator and the co-executive director of The Disabled CoLab, a non-profit organization that supports disabled scientists, engineers and students.

Fowler identifies as disabled and neurodivergent. She became involved in disability justice after noticing a lack of accessibility and representation in STEM.

“While there is definitely explicit ableism and discrimination in workplaces, it’s often subtle,” she said. 

Samantha Fowler

Fowler shared that this discreet inaccessibility can look like inflexible work arrangements or the deprioritization of digital accessibility elements, like alternative text, colour contrast and font choice. She also spoke about the impact of the many biases in science on those with disabilities.

"Who gets to ask the questions, what questions we ask [and] who benefits from results," shared Fowler. “We need diverse voices in science to lead equitable research that challenges [the] status quo and helps us build the world we want to live in.”

Discussing her transition into the disability justice field, Fowler shared the importance of role models. “My shift into disability justice work came from not seeing disabled STEM role models… [I] wanted to change the narrative of who gets to be a scientist and what science can look like.”

When asked what motivates her, Fowler explained that accessibility is necessary in order for us to have a literate society that will vote meaningfully on science issues.

"Science needs to be accessible to make this happen," she says. “Accessibility is a story of progress,” 

"We need diverse voices in science to lead equitable research that challenges the status quo and helps us build the world we want to live in.”

-Samantha Fowler

Like Fowler, Carrie Boyce, understands how a lack of accessibility can impact those with disabilities. 

Boyce is the Executive Director at the Royal Canadian Institute for Science and is the Vice Chair for Science is a Drag, a not-for-profit organization that empowers 2SLGBTQIA+ scientists. An accomplished science communicator, Boyce has worked in the field for many years, including in outreach for the Royal Society of Chemistry and as a Research Engagement Manager for Cancer Research U.K.. 

Carrie Boyce

Boyce discussed how certain work environments can present challenges for those in the disabled community. For example, she highlighted how early morning meetings and late night lab work can make it difficult for people living with disabilities to continuously participate in STEM. 

Boyce shared that, in her own work, she has learned to recognize her boundaries and advocate for her needs.

“I’m like many people learning [my] boundary base and my limits and when to push myself and when not,” she explained. “As I get older, I get more confident in knowing where those limitations are and seeing my needs.” 

Ainsley Latour sees how inaccessibility influences learning environments. Latour is a science teacher at a school for the Deaf in Belleville, Ontario during the school year. In the summer, she works as a medical laboratory technologist specializing in genetics. She is also a Co-Founder of the organization IDEA-STEM, which focuses on helping other organizations, educators and research teams become more accessible and enhance equity in STEM, healthcare and education. 

Latour, who is also deaf, shared how many in the Deaf community have difficulty learning about STEM due to longstanding barriers.

“We know that all Canadians don’t have access to learning about science, don’t have access to participating in it, and don’t have access to benefiting from it equitably," she said. “We have very few developed resources in ASL. It is very challenging to teach STEM to students who do not use a spoken language." 

Ainsley Latour

Like Fowler, Latour emphasized that role models play an important part in making STEM and science communication inclusive for those with disabilities.

“We form ideas [of] who can be a scientist and who can do science really early on. Those types of images that we see in the news and stories we hear about… really impacts kids in that they see themselves doing science or they don’t.”

When asked how those without disabilities can work to make STEM and science communication more accessible, Fowler, Boyce and Latour each emphasized the need for everyone – including those without disabilities – to be informed and aware of the importance of accessibility and the impact of inaccessible environments. 

“Keeping people with disabilities in the [science and science communication] space is kind of a team effort,” Latour said. “There are things that people with disabilities can do, but really it’s other people who need to keep those doors open and keep the environment welcoming and give them access to science in the first place.”

As advice to those within the disabled community who want to work in STEM and science communication, or who already are working in those fields, Fowler recommends embracing identity and finding community.

“Sharing your authentic self creates a safer space for others to do the same,” she shared. “Community is everything.” 

Boyce had similar advice. “It’s empowering to find people who’ve had similar experiences to you, and you can achieve more when you work together, and you can leverage those networks in that community to bring about real change in your own kind of context.”

In short, when STEM and science communication is accessible, everyone benefits. As Latour put it, “we’ll do better science in Canada if everyone participates.”

About the Author

Ashlyn Stuart has a BSc in biological science and enjoys reading and writing about science-related topics.

By Jax Jacobsen   •    April 1, 2026

Commentary/Op-Ed

Now that scientists have determined we have surpassed the suggested Paris limit of 1.5 C, it is clear that we are currently in a climate emergency.

Climate scientists around the world have determined that our best hope of remaining within a livable, 1.5 C global warming increase has now been breached, far earlier than the globe was projected to reach this point. Every country — and Canada is no exception — has been buffeted by severe storms and deadly wildfires, causing billions of dollars in damage and disrupting infrastructure, transport and people’s daily lives.

(Pixabay via Pexels)

Yet, when national and local media groups discuss pressing issues of the day — such as the need to diversify export partners and further diversify the Canadian economy — we’re shown articles and reports pushing for Alberta pipelines, with little to no mention of the climate impacts if these pipelines were to be built.

For science journalists and communicators, it is no longer possible to pretend that climate concerns can be ignored or put to the side, even on stories that do not appear directly linked to climate.

Approaches, before and now

It has been a difficult transition for many journalism and communication groups to incorporate this new reality into their previous understanding of ‘objectivity.’ For years, media groups employed the standard ‘both sides’ approach, ensuring that every assertion made about climate change and global warming was met by pushback from climate skeptics. Failing to provide these opposing arguments on this scientific reality was seen as, at best, abdicating journalism’s position as an unimpeachably unbiased observer, and at worst, climate activism.

There has been a slow movement away from this stance, solidified by the near-unanimous perspective of climate scientists that climate change is both human-driven and occurring at a rapid pace.

In 2018, after years of criticism, the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) officially developed a guidance statement for its journalists, accepting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s finding that climate change is indeed human-made, according to reporting from Carbon Brief (1). The BBC guidance also specifically rejects the need to include climate skeptics in coverage to achieve balance, in regards to reports on whether climate change is happening or that it is human-made. However, the 2018 guidance did say climate skeptics could be quoted when discussing the speed of climate change or how governments should address the issue.

Closer to home, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) issued climate-related guidance on coverage in 2021(2).

“Climate change will define every aspect of our lives and those of generations to come,” CBC Editor-in-Chief, Brodie Fenlon, wrote in the 2021 note (3).

The CBC said it would make climate change a coverage priority at all levels (local and national), and designated climate change as a national beat. It also vowed to create a dedicated international, climate-reporting team. Five years on, however, the CBC has been heavily criticized for not doing more to highlight the critical importance of advancing climate change knowledge for the Canadian audience (4). In October 2024, following criticism that CBC had not done enough to expand its climate coverage, Fenlon reiterated that climate coverage was a priority for CBC News (5).

So what are some ways that writers can bring more of a climate balance into their work?

One option: Reframe ‘objectivity’

Those of us who are trained journalists have all been through extensive training on maintaining objectivity, which focused on (attempting to) remove all personal and political biases from reporting. The journalism industry, and editors throughout the industry, believed it was possible to be completely neutral in conveying information, and the value of journalism was equated with its hands-off, no-stakes-in-the-game approach to events on the ground.

The standard method of ensuring this level of objectivity is encapsulated in what’s now termed ‘both sides’ journalism, in which stories are told, and reactions from both, or all, sides of an issue are included, with journalists standing aside and refusing to weigh in on the issue.

This model has come under tremendous criticism in recent years, including from journalism insiders themselves. As more scientific disinformation (regarding vaccines, climate change and disease) has flooded the public sphere, the ‘both sides’ approach has been fiercely debated, with many pointing out that the traditional ‘objective’ stance of journalists has more often coincided with biases held by white men in charge.

(George Milton Via Pexels)

“'Objectivity' can no longer be trusted to convey the reality of what is happening in our world,” said veteran journalist, Karen K. Ho.

"The current moment exposes the degree to which the 'view from nowhere'/'straight white male' perspective is incongruous with reality," she said in conversation on January 28. She added, "other media critics have pointed out that journalists using the ‘both sides’ method have also been prioritizing quotations from individuals with large audiences, despite their lack of credentials or experience.”

This realization gives science journalists and communicators an opportunity to redefine what 'objectivity' means in practice. Objectivity, at its most fundamental, could be understood to mean refraining from advocating a particular position or solution. Moving from that starting point, journalists could argue that — given the scientifically-agreed reality in which we’re operating, where climate change is real, human-made and having deadly impacts — a new definition of 'objectivity' would insist that climate concerns must be considered, and individuals contesting this basic premise would not be quoted or referenced, at the very least.

Second option: Incorporate risk analyses

If a fundamental mindshift on 'objectivity' throughout the entire journalism industry seems unlikely or farfetched, science journalists and communicators may also consider a technique used by beat journalists to incorporate reputable, third-party reports or findings in stories to provide a corrective balance to other quoted individuals who are promoting incorrect or problematic views on climactic issues.

In the case of a newly proposed pipeline in Canada to contend with tightening trade policy with the U.S., journalists can contrast pipeline advocates’ positions in stories with new research from both economic bodies and international industry organizations to emphasize the climate impact of pursuing such a pathway. In the last two years, the International Energy Agency (IEA) — an agency tasked with objectively monitoring energy demand projections — has openly and repeatedly cautioned that oil is approaching peak demand, making any future pipelines less economical to construct and use.

(Tom Fisk via Pexels)

There are plenty of non-partisan, scientifically-informed reports from business entities that can be paired nicely with any story about fossil fuel groups, or any industry with severe environmental impacts. Among these is Nicholas Stern’s The Economics of Climate Change (published in 2006 for the U.K. government, and still widely referenced today), IPCC reports and IEA assessments, among others.

“Objectivity can no longer be trusted to convey the reality of what is happening in our world."

-Karen K. Ho, Journalist

Freelance journalist, Kelsey Rolfe used this approach in a recent article for Corporate Knights (6). In covering Canadian oil and gas investments, she pointed to a report from U.K.-based think tank, Carbon Tracker, to explain why these investments are risky. By citing a report from a respected think tank outside of Canada, Rolfe was able to provide readers with a more nuanced picture of these investments than they might receive from Canadian publications relying on solely Canadian sources.

Fairness is important in journalism — but so is informing readers that a plan or a project is likely to face steep headwinds, or never make any progress at all. By relying on external sources and reports which take these factors into consideration, journalists are providing a ‘big picture’ framing to their audience. Also, by downplaying the financial risk of, say, new pipelines, the article may be perceived as favouring the fossil fuel industry instead of being objective.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Science Writers and Communicators of Canada (SWCC), the SWCC Board of Directors or the SWCC members.

In keeping with the SWCC's commitment to scientific integrity, accuracy and accountability, this piece may highlight actions or criticisms of organizations and/or individuals which, while may be difficult to hear, remind us of the responsibility when reporting on these critical issues. These comments are intended as fair comment and are not an indication of wrongdoing, malicious intent or liability of the groups in question.

Sources 

1. https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change/
   

2. https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/media-centre/2021-2022-environmental-sustainability-report?utm_source=featured
   

3. https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/editor-note-climate-change-cop26-journalism-1.6213067

4. https://www.theenergymix.com/cbc-expands-climate-coverage-ducks-role-of-climate-emergency-broadcaster/
   

5. https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/cbc-news-editors-blog-climate-change-2024-1.7312924

6. https://corporateknights.com/energy/new-oil-and-gas-investments-threaten-canadas-economy-research-finds/
   

About the Author

Jax Jacobsen is a Montreal-based journalist who specializes in mining, business, and climate.

The pitfalls and the promise of offloading our thinking

By Kim Taylor   •    December 10, 2025

Commentary/Op-Ed

This blog post was inspired by Kim’s presentation AI & Critical Thinking: Empowering the Next Generation at the 2025 Science Writers and Communicators of Canada conference.

Math Wars and the Calculator Debate

(Steve Buissinne via Pixabay)

Look at the picture in the above. Do you know what it is? Have you ever used one yourself? You might know that this is a handheld calculator. You might even own one of these.

This nifty little tool might seem quaint these days, but I remember the outcry from parents when they first began to appear in schools. These devices were part of the ‘math war’ that led many to question how calculators would impact math education.

Would students become overly reliant on these machines? Would they lose the ability to do basic math? Would they use the technology to ‘cheat’ their way through homework and tests? Even 50 years later, educators still come out on different sides of the calculator debate.

In June 2025, I asked participants at the 2025 Science Writers and Communicators of Canada (SWCC) conference during our "AI for Good" panel discussion if they considered using a calculator to be cheating. Most said no. But one person remarked that if a student used one during a test, then yes, it would be cheating.

Others quickly agreed, saying that the appropriateness of calculators depended on the situation. It could be inappropriate for an elementary student to use a calculator for a calculation, but not for an adult to use one in everyday life for the same calculation.

Using devices such as calculators means we can exert less mental effort, thus freeing our brains to do more complex tasks. Similar concerns are now being expressed about generative AI (gen AI) by parents and caregivers, educators and business leaders. They wonder how gen AI tools are impacting students’ thinking and are concerned that students will become overly reliant on these tools.

(Graphic by SWCC)

Gen AI and Cheating

Today, students have access to increasingly sophisticated gen AI tools, such as ChatGPT, that can help them write assignments, do homework and ace tests. And many students use them.

Given students’ easy access to gen AI, it’s not surprising that a 2025 report released by KPMG found almost 8 out of 10 Canadian students surveyed are using AI-generated content as their own work. But do the students consider this to be cheating? Two-thirds of these students said yes.

Between August to September 2025, KPMG surveyed 684 students attending university, college, vocational or high school educational institutions on their use of gen AI. KPMG is a full-service Audit, Tax and Advisory firm owned and operated by Canadians. (Graphic by SWCC)

Clearly, many students use gen AI, even if they feel that they are cheating, but why?

In a June 2025 Forbes magazine article, AI for Educators podcaster, Dan Fitzpatrick, interviewed San Jose high school student, William Liang, for his behind-the-scenes perspective on how his peers are using gen AI. Liang compares assignments to logistical hurdles that must be cleared as efficiently as possible. Gen AI gives him and his classmates a leg up on clearing hurdles through cognitive offloading, much like the calculators of decades past.

Is Gen AI Doing Too Much of Our Thinking?

Concerns about gen AI go far beyond simply cheating the system. Many wonder whether students will become overly reliant on gen AI at the expense of developing critical thinking skills. This question is also of interest to researchers.

For instance, a 2024 research study investigated the relationship between gen AI use and cognitive load. The study found that when university students used AI for research and answer-finding, their cognitive load was reduced. However, they also found that gen AI-use resulted in lower-quality reasoning for analysis and synthesis.

A 2025 study by Swiss researcher Michael Gerlich also looked at cognitive load. This time, it was in relation to cognitive offloading. Gerlich found that higher AI use led to greater cognitive offloading. He also found that, as cognitive offloading increased, critical thinking decreased. Especially notable was his finding that younger participants exhibited higher dependence on AI tools and scored lower on critical thinking compared to older participants.

(Graphic by SWCC)

So, given findings like these, how can we ensure that people use AI tools without losing their ability to think critically?

Brain First, Gen AI Second

A June 2025 study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology looked at the neural and behavioural impacts of using a large language model (LLM) to assist with writing essays. LLMs are a type of gen AI that focuses mainly on generating text. Participants were divided into three groups. Each group used either an LLM, a search engine or their brain (no tools) to assist them during three essay-writing sessions.

Participants were connected to an electroencephalography (EEG) device to measure brain activity during the sessions. The EEG results showed significant differences in cognitive activity among the three groups. As tool use increased, cognitive activity decreased.

During a fourth session, the LLM group could no longer use tools, and the brains-only group could use an LLM. Brain activity was once again measured. The researchers found that the LLM-to-brain group struggled to quote their own work and felt little ownership over what they had written.

On the other hand, the brain-to-LLM group had high memory recall and the highest feelings of ownership of their work. It is insight from research such as this that can help educators effectively use gen AI with students.

Kim Taylor speaking at the 2025 SWCC Annual Conference on June 13th, 2025 in Fredericton, N.B. about the impact of generative AI on young students. Taylor was part of the "AI For Good" panel, alongside Concordia University PhD candidate, Azfar Adib. (Photo by SWCC)

The Bottom Line

Like the calculator, gen AI can be useful in reducing mental effort if foundational skills are in place. It can also be an effective tool when it is used to extend, rather than replace, cognitive effort. But research has shown that there can be some serious side effects. If gen AI becomes the default for human cognitive effort, critical thinking, as well as many other skills, will be at risk.

Above all, like any other tool, people need to know how it works. They need to know its strengths and limitations, when it can help, and when it can harm. Just because you have a hammer, it doesn’t mean that every problem becomes a nail.

Note: Only the built-in grammar and spell check of MS Word and human reviewers were used in the writing and editing of this blog.

A copy of this article can also be accessed at https://letstalkscience.ca/news-media/generative-ai-killing-critical-thinking

Further Reading/Listening

Brains Before Bots (New Research), AI for Educators Daily, Spotify.

On Gen AIin the Classroom: Give Up, Give In, or Stand Up, Active History.

The Metacognition Revolution: AI is Playing a Central Role in Reshaping How We Learn, The Atlantic.

About the Author 

Kim Taylor is the Strategic Projects and Integration Officer for Let's Talk Science; a national charitable organization committed to preparing youth for evolving career and citizenship demands in a rapidly changing world. She has been a passionate science communicator and informal educator for more than 25 years and enjoys finding ways to put the “A” in STEAM through sustainable fibre arts.

Celebrating the convergence of biology and technology and how it shapes our world

By Amal Zafar   •    December 8, 2025

SciComm News

This past fall, biotech leaders, scientists, government representatives, educators and science enthusiasts gathered across the country to participate in Global Biotech Week.

Spanning September 20 to 27 of this year, Global Biotech Week brought together science and society through a wide range of events, from art exhibitions and workshops to policy meetings and public lectures. The goal was to showcase Canadian success in biotechnology and to educate the public and those in policy development about how biotechnology improves lives — from advancing medical research and sustainable agriculture to protecting the environment.

(Alejandro Barrón via Pexels)

National Roots

Global Biotech Week was first conceptualized in Canada when BIOTECanada — the national industry association representing over 230 member organizations across biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, academia and their supporters — launched the first-ever National Biotechnology Week in 2003.

BIOTECanada President and CEO, Wendy Zatylny, notes, “Global Biotech Week has grown into an international celebration of the biotechnology industry’s impact and potential. It's a moment to showcase the strength of our national ecosystem and the leadership of provinces driving discovery, investment and innovation across the country.”

Since its humble beginnings in Canada, Global Biotech Week has become a global movement, inspiring similar events around the world in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, the United States of America and Australia. Together, these countries hosted approximately 100 events worldwide, each highlighting the vital role biotechnology plays in shaping a sustainable and healthy future.

Zatylny continues, “the week’s purpose has always been to raise awareness of biotechnology and its global significance, among policymakers, influencers and the public.”

Across Canada, events ranged from art exhibits and science workshops to panel discussions, networking sessions and facility tours. Among the many activities held throughout the week, CaRe Clinics hosted an open house at their Calgary location that allowed participants to step inside an active clinical research facility, meet the research team and gain insight into the studies being conducted across diverse therapeutic areas.

These activities not only celebrate the achievements of Canadian biotechnology, but also invite the public to explore how this field continues to influence the nation's health, environment and economy.

Inspiring Change Around the World

The impact of Global Biotech Week has reached far beyond Canada's borders. In fact, it helped inspire European Biotech Week, which began in 2013 through the European Association for Bioindustries, also referred to as EuropaBio. The organization works to create national and global frameworks that support the growth of biotechnology across different sectors.

During European Biotech Week, countries across Europe also hosted a variety of events that highlight the work being done in health, agriculture, environmental science and more. It shows how Canada’s idea has grown into something much bigger — a worldwide celebration of how biotechnology is shaping our future.

Global Biotech Week stands as a proud reminder that Canada’s leadership sparked a global conversation, one that continues to grow, evolve and connect science with society.

“Canada’s biotech sector is collaborative, globally connected and positioned to play a defining role in solving some of the world’s most pressing health and environmental challenges, and this year's 100-plus activities demonstrated just that,” Zatylny says.

About the Author 

Amal Zafar is a writer with a background in professional writing and liberal studies/art, with a growing focus on science communication. She's interested in translating complex scientific ideas into clear, engaging stories for non-specialist audiences.

The Canadian SciComm organization, the Science Writers and Communicators of Canada, is looking to provide a more comprehensive membership experience

By Elizabeth Benner   •    December 8, 2025

SWCC News

An important activity of the Science Writers and Communicators of Canada (SWCC) has been to provide timely and relevant professional development and networking opportunities through regular virtual events. Earlier this fall, the SWCC announced that its members will no longer be charged to attend these events, and that the associated costs will now be included in their annual membership fee.

As one of the largest science communication organizations in the country, the SWCC is taking steps to enrich memberships for existing holders and attract new individuals who are looking to develop their skills and knowledge in the field.

The Chair of the SWCC Ethics Committee, Rhonda Moore, giving a presentation at the 2025 SWCC Annual Conference in Fredericton, N.B.. Moore will be hosting a Member Meet-up in early January on the SWCC's next steps following the organization's release of their Guidelines for the Ethical Use of AI earlier this year. (Photo by SWCC)

SWCC President, Lucas Kavanagh, is excited about this change.

“We want to add as much value to the SWCC membership as possible. Removing barriers to these events also means more people can attend, facilitating lively discussions and more opportunities for networking,” he said.

Earlier this month, Kavanagh hosted a “Discussion on Fact Checking” Member Meet-up event, where attendees had the opportunity to share fact-checking strategies and best practices. The SWCC Professional Development Committee also hosted a fireside chat the following week with the Honourable Kirsty Duncan, who spoke on how to keep women and girls engaged in science.

For members who are not available to attend, all professional development events will be recorded and available via email link afterwards, as long as they register beforehand. While Member Meet-ups are also included in this change, a recording will not be available following the event in order to encourage attendee participation.

Speakers from the most recent SWCC virtual Member Meet-up and professional development events. From left to right: Lucas Kavanagh, the Honourable Kirsty Duncan, Tara Wood and Marty Kurylowicz.

SWCC Board members Kristina Campbell and Joshua Mogyoros are serving as co-chairs of the Professional Development and Membership Committee as of October 2025. Campbell wants to make sure that not only are members engaged throughout these events, but that they also come away informed and equipped for the future.

“Science communicators are facing some urgent issues and challenges at this moment in time,” she says. “Through SWCC’s professional development events, we’re aiming to provide a variety of tools and perspectives – coming from both inside and outside the organization – so we can navigate these challenges together.”

In order to cover event costs, the SWCC raised their membership fees, doing so for the first time in a decade. The organization has also introduced a new membership price tier for those who self-declare as unable to pay the full amount.

The new membership fees went into effect on October 1, 2025.

Next event

"Ethics and Generative AI: Next Steps for the SWCC". Virtual Member Meet-up. Speaker: Rhonda Moore. (Jan 7, 2026)

Earlier this year, the SWCC distributed a survey to its members to gauge their use and perspectives on Generative AI in science writing and communication, as well as how they view the SWCC's role in addressing its implications. On January 7th, Moore and members of the SWCC Ethics Committee will be hosting a Member Meet-up event to discuss the survey findings and its themes.

Register for "Ethics and Generative AI: Next Steps for the SWCC".

See the full list of SWCC virtual events.

Past Events

Since the start of this past fall, the SWCC has hosted four virtual events. More information can be found at the links below.

"Discussion on Fact Checking". Virtual Member Meet-up. Speaker: Lucas Kavanagh. (Nov 5, 2025)

"Keeping Women and Girls Engaged in Science: The Role of Science Communicators, from Policy to Press Coverage". Virtual Professional Development Event. Speaker: the Honourable Kirsty Duncan. (Nov 13, 2025)

"Using SciFi to Promote Science Curiosity & Vision". Virtual Professional Development Event. Speaker: Marty Kurylowicz. (Dec 4, 2025)

"Understanding Identity in Science Communication: Building Connection and Trust". Virtual Member Meet-up. Speaker: Tara Wood. (Dec 10, 2025)

Testicular organoids may one day offer hope to childhood cancer survivors facing infertility who want to start a family

By Anja Elsenhans   •    November 10, 2025

Science Explained

As a male patient, what would you do if you knew you might face fertility issues in the future? For adults, the answer is often simple: sperm banking. But for young cancer patients who have not yet gone through puberty, sperm banking is off the table.

Infertility is a common side effect of cancer therapy. Saving a child's life is, of course, the top priority. But they might not be able to fully understand the impact infertility will have on their future. As childhood cancer survival rates keep improving, more and more adult survivors are facing infertility as a consequence of their treatment.

Organoids may be one piece of the puzzle to help childhood cancer survivors live life on their own terms following cancer treatment. Organoids are lab-grown “mini organs” that can mimic the structure and function of real organs. This makes them a versatile tool for research with many potential real-world applications. Scientists are currently exploring how testicular organoids could one day offer a new path toward regaining fertility.

Making sperm

In the testicles, specialized cells – called germ cells – develop into sperm through a process known as “spermatogenesis”. Young males start to make sperm at the beginning of puberty. But until then, the germ cells within the testicles are immature, waiting and preparing to become sperm one day.

With the start of puberty, the wait is over. Germ cells begin the complex and multi-step process of spermatogenesis. It takes about 2 months for a germ cell to complete all steps of this process and become sperm. If those germ cells are damaged before puberty, because of cancer treatment, for example, they cannot go through spermatogenesis.

To tackle this issue, scientists are exploring ways to make sperm outside of the human body. Lab-grown “mini testicles”, called testicular organoids, have the potential to mimic the function of real testicles and produce sperm.

Testicular organoids today

Researchers around the world have already made testicular organoids for many species, including mice, pigs, and of course humans. Generally, cells can be isolated from a small piece of testicular tissue. The isolated cells contain a mix of different cell types found in the testicles, including the germ cells. When this mix of cells is forced into close proximity, the cells are often able to form organoids on their own.

Many testicular organoid models do a good job in mimicking the cellular architecture of the testicles. Most of them contain all key cell types found in the testicles, including the all-important germ cells. Researchers in Sweden have been able to generate rudimentary testicular organoids from the preserved testicular tissues of a childhood cancer patient.

This is a magnified view of a microwell plate with one testicular organoid in each microwell. Microwells are tiny pyramid-shaped structures that force cells into close proximity and enable organoid formation. The organoids here have just formed and are now ready for subsequent experiments. (Photo by Anja Elsenhans, the Dobrinski Lab, the University of Calgary.)

In addition to mimicking the cellular architecture of a testicle, testicular organoids should also be able to perform the main functions of the testicles: produce sperm. But so far, none of these “mini testicles” can do that.

Although producing sperm is challenging, scientists have not given up, and their hard work is starting to pay off. Making sperm is a complex, multi-step process. Germ cells must go through several stages of development before they turn into sperm. Researchers can now observe some of the early stages of sperm development happening inside human testicular organoids.

Organoids beyond the lab bench

Although this is an exciting time for reproductive research, it can raise ethical questions: Is lab-grown sperm safe, and how and when can it be used? In Canada, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act defines what is allowed when it comes to reproductive technologies. But it does not yet include clear guidelines for lab-grown sperm. As science progresses, the rules will have to evolve, too.

Testicular organoids may not be ready for clinical use just yet, but progress is steady. At the University of Calgary, Dr. Ina Dobrinski has advanced research on testicular organoids for several years.

“Sperm generated from testicular organoids is practically possible and within reach. One of the major obstacles right now is to keep testicular organoids alive long enough to support full spermatogenesis,” Dr. Dobrinski said.

In the near future, childhood cancer survivors may not only survive the cancer, but also be able to look forward to building families.

About the Author:

Anja Elsenhas completed her BSc in Medical Biology in Germany before moving to Canada to join Dr. Ina Dobrinski’s lab at the University of Calgary. As an MSc student in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, her research focuses on culturing testicular organoids.

Stay up to date on Anja’s work here.

SWCC members gather in Fredericton to discuss science communication’s changing international landscape – and how to plan for the road ahead

By Elizabeth Benner   •    November 10, 2025

SWCC News

Scientific cooperation has had a significant role in maintaining harmony around the world. Sharing information and knowledge between countries not only encourages collaboration among researchers, but also allows national representatives to resolve conflicting points of view. However, evolving international relationships in the last decade have caused science and its communication to be sidelined in the political discourse. Science communicators are now finding it more and more difficult to inform key audiences, leading to growing unrest among communities.

At the 2025 annual Science Writers and Communicators of Canada (SWCC) conference, which took place June 12–13 in Fredericton, SWCC president Rhonda Moore opened the event with a panel of international science journalists to draw attention to this important conversation. The panelists, part of the World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ), spoke on the current state of science communication and media in their home countries — Costa Rica, Mexico and the United States.

“We’ve had some challenges in the last few years, which I think is a trend in many countries worldwide,” said Debbie Ponchner, an award-winning Costa Rican science journalist and editor of Knowable en español. She describes how the government’s relationship with journalists has changed in her country. “They have been very harsh in attacks [on] the press.

Panelist, Debbie Ponchner, speaking to attendees at the Science Writers and Communicators of Canada Conference on June 12, 2025 in Frederickton, New Brunswick. (Photo by SWCC)

This conflict not only interferes with journalists’ ability to inform the public, but also erodes their authority and credibility as storytellers. However, it’s not just government administrations that are a cause for concern. Changes in technology and information-sharing has opened up new avenues of communication — some of which may be harder to use than others.

Changing patterns in readership

Over the past few decades, a shift in how readers consume information has destabilized revenue sources, moving the industry from print to digital media. Newer social media platforms have also emphasized quicker, more digestible content formats, like TikTok and Instagram reels. And, thanks to the accessibility of the internet, anyone can post anything.

“As Americans, we are seeing more scenarios where it is difficult to inform our audiences with verified, scientific information,” said Tinsley Davis on what keeps her up at night. Davis is the Executive Director of the US National Association of Science Writers and a leader and advocate for issues in STEM — Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics — and science journalism.

Davis continued, "people have shifted the way they get information, with more of it coming from social media… but they don’t have a complete understanding of what is verified and what is a [reputable] journalistic source."

To prevent the spread of misinformation, and the social division which comes with it, Ponchner said it’s not enough to simply tell the stories — you need to engage with the public to maintain that connection.

“You have to have to go where the audience is,” she said, in response to an audience question about reaching viewers on social media. “Whoever you want to reach — you have to go there.”

Attendees at the 2025 SWCC conference asking the panelists questions about the evolving challenges in science journalism and communication. (Photo by SWCC)

With all of these obstacles, it’s understandable that science communicators and journalists are worried. Keeping up with the regular demands of the job while also constantly adapting to evolving methods of communication can be a difficult task. But the solution to this problem might be closer than we think.

Considering the future of science communication

As the discussion drew to a close, it was clear that the loss of connection and trust with audiences around the world to tell these critical stories paints a worsening picture for the stability of science. If science communicators can’t stay afloat and maintain scientific credibility in this changing world, it will no longer be clear where the truth lies.

But as Aleida Rueda, a science journalist and science communicator at the Centre for Complexity Sciences in Mexico, emphasizes that science communicators must first recognize that they can’t do this alone.

"If science communicators can’t stay afloat and maintain scientific credibility in this changing world, it will no longer be clear where the truth lies."

“Ten years ago, we didn’t have a network, we didn’t have colleagues to help each other reflect about what we can do together,” Rueda said. “What gives me hope is collaboration,”

As science communicators move into the coming years, one thing is clear — connection is the vital ingredient in getting them through this moment in time. And this isn’t just working with colleagues in research, journalism and communications, but also with those who are able to help us best use social media platforms and those who can get communicators in front of the leaders of nations. Only through acknowledging our need for connection, can communicators successfully connect with their audience.