This Is Science: Give Abstract Research a Human Point of Reference

Read the campaign story

The laboratory is connected to life outside it. British Heart Foundation’s January 2022 This Is Science campaign paired people’s ordinary activities with visualizations of research, created by Saatchi & Saatchi with Ben Strebel, Biscuit Filmworks and MPC. The May 2023 Greatest Treasure continuation imagined a journey inside a heart. The agency explicitly identifies it as a second iteration, so both expressions remain one platform rather than two case studies.

Editorial interpretation: research can sound remote when the only visible objects are instruments, diagrams and technical language. A person’s ordinary purpose supplies a reason to care about what the unseen work is trying to make possible. The difficulty is keeping that connection honest. A compelling visualization can compress uncertainty until an aspiration looks like a finished capability. The story should help a viewer distinguish what has been established from what remains a question, without requiring them to master the entire discipline before understanding why the work matters.

The opened creator portfolios, launch account and agency-group announcement establish the communication and its continuity. They are not clinical evidence for a treatment or a forecast for an individual. This case does not repeat named people’s medical histories, efficacy claims or mortality statistics. The later internal landscape is treated as creative metaphor, not literal anatomy or proof that memories are stored in the heart. No medical guidance, fundraising transaction, imagery reuse or film viewing is claimed. The proposed application uses fictional materials research instead.

Begin with the ordinary problem the work serves

For a fictional packaging research team, imagine a retailer trying to keep a paper label readable after routine handling. That practical need gives an adult reviewer a reason to inspect a materials experiment. Begin there, then introduce the research question. Do not start by decorating the presentation with scientific equipment and hope that its importance becomes self-evident. The human point of reference should clarify why a result would be useful, not imply that the team has already solved the problem simply by choosing a worthwhile goal.

Make the visual explanation carry its uncertainty

In the invented presentation, a diagram might show a proposed protective layer between the printed surface and abrasion. Label it as a concept if that is what it is. Place the stipulated test observation beside it rather than allowing the illustration to appear as an image of a proven mechanism. A simplified explanation can omit detail without erasing status. The viewer should know whether they are looking at an observed result, a proposed interpretation or a possible future design, even if the technical account remains brief.

Return to the practical question before asking for support

The fictional team should finish by explaining what its current evidence would and would not let the retailer conclude. A promising material sample does not establish production compatibility, long-term durability or suitability for every package. Define the next research step in terms of the unresolved question rather than the emotional appeal of the original problem. That gives a supporter a meaningful reason to consider further work without suggesting that commitment itself guarantees the attractive outcome shown in the story.

A small test for another brief

Proposed adaptation: make two original explanation cards for the fictional label study. One uses a dramatic imagined barrier; the other labels the same concept, separates stipulated observations and states the next unresolved question. Ask consenting adults which claims they believe have been demonstrated and what further work would be needed. Use invented data clearly marked as such, no real treatment or product claim. The exercise examines whether an engaging visual can retain the status of the evidence while keeping its practical purpose understandable.

Record understanding of the purpose and mistaken certainty as separate outcomes. A memorable visual or willingness to support a project is not proof of technical success. Keep the fictional exercise apart from any real scientific, clinical or commercial evaluation.

Revise if the metaphor is mistaken for a physical fact, future work appears completed or the invitation implies a guaranteed result. The explanation should make the research worth understanding without making its uncertainty disappear.

• Name the everyday question behind the research.
• Label observation, interpretation and possibility separately.
• Make the next step correspond to an unresolved claim.