Dr. Soumya Swaminathan is a pediatrician, clinical scientist, and global health leader who has shaped science-driven policy in India and worldwide. She served as Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization and earlier as Director-General of the Indian Council of Medical Research, helping guide India’s health research agenda. As Chair of the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation, she now focuses on equity, nutrition, climate, and sustainable development. Her work during COVID-19, and her consistent emphasis on honest, empathetic science communication, have made her a leading voice for evidence-based, people-centered public health. During this exclusive interaction with Rashmi Kumari of Neo Science Hub, Dr Soumya said COVID-19 exposed how dry, technical messaging ignored people’s emotions, fears, and mistrust, and stressed that communicators must first listen, avoid jargon, and work with locally trusted voices. She highlighted that nutrition communication should be context-specific, climate change’s biggest health threats are air pollution and heat, and that global guidance must be adapted locally.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, why did people reject science? Was it a failure of communication, trust, emotion, or culture? What must change for Viksit Bharat 2047?
From my own experience, I can say that during COVID-19, we learned quite a few things about science communication. The first lesson is that we were communicating facts in a very dry, scientific, maybe technical way, and we didn’t realize that people’s response to COVID was actually quite emotional. We were not addressing that emotional component.
As you mentioned, there is fear—fear of the unknown—confusion, and feelings of mistrust. Particularly in certain countries, there was mistrust between people and their government or between the health system and the people because of past experiences.
Some of the lessons we learned, which I think we should apply now for Viksit Bharat—when it’s really important for us to communicate science well to the public—are:
First, listening is very important. We need to listen to people, and today we can do it relatively easily by using AI and social media to understand what themes people are discussing, what their concerns and worries are, and then use our communication channels to address those questions in people’s minds.
Second, communicate without using jargon. Talk as if you are conversing with people, in a tone they will understand—not like somebody who’s preaching or talking down to them.
Third, use trusted voices in the community. These could be religious leaders, teachers, doctors, and nurses—people that communities generally respect, look up to, listen to, and trust. Using those voices for communication is very important.
India has enough food but poor nutrition. How do we clearly explain why nutritional diversity matters?
There used to be a time in India when we were short of food, and the main goal was to improve and increase food production and yields. Today, the question to be asked is: does everyone have access to the right food—nutritious food?
We have to change the conversation from ‘let’s produce more food and eat more food’ to ‘are we getting the right types of food?’ Are we getting enough micronutrients like vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin B complex, zinc, selenium, iron? Are we getting adequate good-quality protein?
When we analyze the Indian diet, we find that a lot of people are deficient in these nutrients. We need to address this in a way people will understand.
For example, if we’re talking to students, we need to discuss why nutrition is important. Do they want to be strong? Do they want to be good athletes? Do they want to perform well cognitively? We explain how nutrition builds these capabilities.
If we’re talking to farmers, we need to discuss not just yields but income. We need to address the need for diversity in farms so they can protect themselves against climate impacts and climate shocks.
If we’re talking to a consumer—let’s say a housewife who prepares the food—we need to discuss what’s in her kitchen, how she accesses healthy products, and why it’s important to minimize consumption of ultra-processed foods and eat a diverse diet based on locally available and relevant solutions.
There’s no point telling people to buy and eat things that are either very expensive or not locally available. This is why communication messages have to be made and delivered by people who understand the local context.
When science is suppressed, how should communicators protect truth and public trust?
This is a difficult question, and in some countries, it’s becoming very difficult to protect science because of very strong anti-science movements. I would say that in India, we don’t have that problem—at least till now, there is no big anti-science movement.
As scientists, we need to be able to communicate very honestly, openly, and transparently based on the real data and evidence we have before us. We also need to be humble enough to accept that science is constantly evolving and changing, and we should be prepared to change our minds and views based on the evolution of science and technology.
This is why we need very open and transparent communication—that’s actually the way to build trust in science and scientists.
Why does global health advice fail locally, and how should science be communicated differently in India?
There are many lessons from COVID-19 because the kind of advice given at the global level was sometimes not at all relevant or appropriate for the local context.
For example, take isolation. We were telling people they should isolate themselves. If you live in a house with many bedrooms, when you’re infected, you can go stay in one of those bedrooms while the rest of the people remain in the house without much risk.
But if you look at any low-income community in developing countries, you’re talking about eight, ten, or fifteen people living in a very small house or even in one room in a city like Mumbai. The context is very different, so the health advisories also have to be different.
This is why, while there can be norms and standards set by global health agencies like WHO, they need to be adapted and contextualized. In fact, for a large country like India, even doing it at the national level may not be sufficient. You need to do it at the subnational—that is, state and district—level.
Ultimately, the response for health emergencies has to be decentralized. There has to be capacity at the district level to communicate based on data and local solutions, and enough expertise must be built at the district level to develop appropriate solutions depending on the threat.
Why does strong science often fail to shape policy, and what should communicators and journalists do better?
I think the kind of science forums that New Science Hub represents is a good model. It brings people together. You need to bring scientists together with laypeople and communities.
You also have to have many more platforms for scientists and policymakers to talk to each other because often there’s a gap. Scientists don’t quite understand or appreciate the environment or constraints within which policymakers have to make policies, and vice versa. Policymakers don’t fully appreciate what motivates and drives scientists.
These open communications—maybe even challenging each other, having frank discussions—make both sides see the motivations that drive people.
When we communicate with the lay public, journalists and the media play a very important role in making scientific messages much more appealing, much more understandable, and telling them in the form of stories—because stories are what actually stick in people’s minds rather than pushing a lot of dry facts. We need many more science journalists doing that.
Climate change is often seen as an environmental issue. What is the one health impact of climate change that Indians are most underestimating today?
I think there are two big climate issues that Indians are already facing and which are already impacting our health.
First is air pollution. There’s hardly anywhere in India where air quality is anywhere close to the standard set by the World Health Organization. We’re all breathing a mix of pollutants that is impacting our health in many different ways.
It’s not only giving us more respiratory illnesses—it’s impacting our cardiovascular system, increasing the risk of heart attacks and strokes, and also increasing the risk of diseases like diabetes and other chronic diseases, as well as dementia.
It’s especially having a very bad impact on young children because their organs are still developing, their brains are still growing. When young babies are exposed to air pollution, they’re probably getting impacted for life. I would say that’s the number one health threat.
The second would be heat. Large parts of India are now increasingly exposed to prolonged and severe heat spells, and this has an impact on us in many different pathways. It impacts human health, so we really need to be preparing ourselves and adapting to a world that is warming very rapidly.
If you had to give one clear message to policymakers and citizens to protect health in a warming world, what would it be?
I would say a few things. First is understanding what heat does to us and how it impacts our bodies. That will actually help us take protective measures. Depending on the kind of occupation one has and the environment one is working or living in, the solutions could be a little different.
Understanding the heat impacts on health, how to protect ourselves, when to seek attention from the health system—to go to a doctor or nurse when you have symptoms—don’t wait till it’s too late. From the health system side, they also need to make adjustments to prepare for an increase in heat-related illnesses.
We need to have cool rooms, cooling solutions, and healthcare workforce actually trained in responding to heat.
For all of this, we need a science-based climate and health strategy that develops solutions and has them implemented. These are usually multisectoral—some solutions could be within the health system, but many will be outside the health system.
When you’re not working, what do you enjoy the most?
I enjoy being out in nature. I’m happiest when I’m walking where there is beauty—and obviously that means you need clean air. Hopefully, you’re looking at greenery and a beautiful environment. If I have time off, I try to find a nice natural environment where I can go and spend a couple of hours.
