The World's Best Environmental Research Is Happening Right Now. Almost No One Will Ever See It.

Here's something that should bother anyone who cares about environmental science: Marine mammal biologists with Fisheries and Oceans Canada spent three years flying drones over beluga whales in the Churchill River estuary to collect their snot. The mucus from their breath contains DNA, stress hormones, pregnancy indicators, and bacterial signatures that reveal the health of individual animals and, by extension, entire marine ecosystems. It's brilliant, non-invasive science that could reshape how we monitor whale populations.

The findings were published in a peer-reviewed journal. The methodology was presented at academic conferences. And unless you have institutional database access or stumble across a brief Hakai Magazine profile, you'll never hear about it.

This isn't unusual. It's the norm.

The Communication Gap Everyone Ignores

We live in an era where content creation has become a competitive advantage across nearly every industry. Businesses invest millions in video production. Influencers build audiences around niche topics. Even traditionally staid sectors like finance and law have discovered that visual storytelling drives engagement, trust, and action.

Environmental science hasn't gotten the memo.

A 2024 study by Stefano Cisternino, published in SSRN, examined the "science-public gap" in environmental research and found exactly what you'd expect: researchers are producing extraordinary work that never reaches the audiences who might care about it. Video content consistently achieves the highest engagement rates, yet most environmental scientists communicate almost exclusively through written reports, academic papers, and conference presentations. Cisternino concluded that there's an urgent need for scientists to develop "diverse communication toolkits" and navigate digital ecosystems more effectively.

He's right. But the problem runs deeper than individual researchers lacking social media skills.

Three Sectors, Same Problem

The environmental research space is dominated by three major players: government agencies, non-profit organizations, and private industry (through mandated environmental assessments). Each produces valuable research. None of them communicates it well.

Government agencies conduct some of the most fascinating environmental research in any country. In Canada, Fisheries and Oceans scientists like Hudson are tracking beluga stress levels through exhaled breath. Environment and Climate Change Canada monitors caribou herd dynamics across vast Arctic landscapes. Natural Resources Canada maps geological hazards that affect millions of people. These aren't obscure academic exercises; they're programs that directly inform policy, land management, and public safety. Yet outside of occasional press releases, this work remains invisible to the public that funds it. There are no documentary series following DFO researchers into the field. No compelling video explaining why caribou migration patterns matter to someone in Vancouver or Toronto. The science exists in technical reports that specialists read, and everyone else ignores.

Non-profit organizations face a different challenge. A study in Conservation Biology examined social media usage among environmental NGOs and found something surprising: nearly all of them have social media accounts, but few have large audiences. The gap between presence and influence is enormous. Organizations with multi-million dollar budgets and decades of conservation work often have fewer followers than individual content creators who started posting last year. The problem isn't that these organizations don't try. It's that they try in ways that don't work, such as stock photography, generic messaging, and communication strategies that prioritize internal stakeholders over external audiences.

Private industry might be the most tragic case of all. Under environmental regulations across North America, companies proposing major projects are required to conduct Environmental Impact Assessments. These EIAs often involve years of baseline studies, wildlife surveys, water quality monitoring, and ecological analysis. The resulting data represent some of the most detailed environmental documentation ever collected for specific regions.

Almost no one reads it.

A 2024 study in the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review put it bluntly: the "naïve assumption that this communication of findings can be effectively achieved through the publication of a written report pervades legislation worldwide, despite decades of evidence to the contrary." EIA documents are often thousands of pages long, written in technical language, and formatted for regulatory review rather than public understanding. The findings: species inventories, habitat assessments, seasonal patterns, and migration routes are locked inside documents that only consultants, lawyers, and government reviewers will ever examine.

The Hidden Cost of Invisibility

This communication failure isn't just inefficient. It's actively harmful to environmental science and the causes these organizations claim to support.

Public support for conservation depends on public awareness. When people never see the research demonstrating why a particular ecosystem matters, they have no reason to care about protecting it. When communities never learn about the species documented in their own backyards, they can't become advocates for their preservation. The knowledge exists. The connection doesn't.

Researchers at the European Meteorological Society convened a workshop at their 2024 Annual Meeting in Barcelona specifically to address this problem. Their conclusion was sobering: scientists are among the most trusted professionals in society, but inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration with communication experts is essential to improve scientific outreach. Training climate scientists in effective communication, the workshop emphasized, isn't optional - the research must have any impact at all.

The challenge is that most researchers weren't trained to communicate with general audiences. They were trained to communicate with other researchers. The reward structures of academic and government science emphasize peer-reviewed publications, not public engagement. And the organizations that employ these researchers, agencies, universities, and non-profits rarely invest in the production capabilities that would make visual storytelling possible.

What Good Looks Like

The frustrating thing is that we know this works when people actually do it.

Consider the shark research we've written about before: Dr. Chris Lowe's Shark Lab at Cal State Long Beach has been conducting drone surveys of juvenile white sharks along the California coast for years. Their findings, that sharks swim within meters of surfers 97% of the time without incident, fundamentally challenged public assumptions about shark behaviour. But the research didn't stay in academic journals. It was covered by Scientific American, Nature, and dozens of mainstream outlets. The visual nature of the data, drones filming sharks and humans sharing the same water, made it inherently compelling.

Aeria operator captures media of the setup task during a freshwater study.

Or consider David Attenborough's work with the BBC Natural History Unit. When Blue Planet II aired footage of plastic pollution's impact on marine life, it sparked what researchers called the "Attenborough effect" - a measurable shift in public awareness and behaviour around single-use plastics. The science behind plastic pollution wasn't new. What was new was the storytelling.

These examples share common elements: high-quality visual documentation, narrative structure that connects data to meaning, and distribution strategies that reach audiences where they already are. None of this is technologically difficult. Drones can capture footage that would have required helicopters a decade ago. Editing software is accessible and affordable. Distribution platforms are free.

The barrier isn't capability. It's a priority.

The Opportunity No One Is Seizing

Think about what's sitting unused in environmental research archives right now.

Government agencies have decades of wildlife monitoring data, field photographs, and research documentation that could be transformed into compelling content about species most people have never heard of. The scientists doing this work often have remarkable stories, years spent in remote locations, breakthrough discoveries, and unexpected findings that never get told outside conference presentations.

Non-profits have access to conservation projects, restoration efforts, and community partnerships that represent exactly the kind of hopeful, action-oriented content that audiences respond to. Yet most environmental non-profit communication remains focused on crisis messaging and donation appeals rather than documentation of the work itself.

And those EIA documents? They contain baseline surveys of ecosystems that will never be studied again in such detail. Before a mine opens or a pipeline is approved, consultants spend months documenting everything from soil composition to bird nesting sites. That documentation represents an irreplaceable record of what existed in a specific place at a specific time. In a better world, it would become source material for public understanding of local ecosystems. Instead, it sits in regulatory filing systems, accessed only when someone needs to verify compliance.

A Different Approach

Team interaction captured during remote research of marine mammals.

Storytelling through media collection isn't a replacement for rigorous science. It's an extension of it. The same systematic approach that makes research valid, careful observation, documentation, and analysis, also makes research communicable. The difference is in how the outputs are formatted and who they're designed to reach.

An environmental monitoring project that incorporates content creation from the beginning looks different from one that treats communication as an afterthought. It means capturing footage alongside data. It means thinking about narrative structure while planning field campaigns. It means budgeting for post-production, not just data processing.

This isn't about dumbing down science for popular consumption. The most effective science communication respects its audience while making complex information accessible. It doesn't require exaggeration or sensationalism. It requires craft, the same craft that goes into the research itself.

The groups doing environmental research have the most interesting raw material in the world. They're studying ecosystems, documenting species, tracking changes that will define the planet's future. They're collecting whale snot and counting caribou and mapping migration patterns that won't exist in fifty years.

Someone should be telling those stories. Right now, almost no one is.

---

Aeria Solutions works with research organizations, government agencies, and industry clients to integrate professional media collection into environmental monitoring programs. We've seen firsthand how the same field campaigns that generate scientific data can also generate content that reaches audiences beyond the research community. The technology is the same. The intent is what differs.