The majority of material surrounding scientific topics is still quite stiff and dry—void of any humor. It’s because many believe that joking about science undermines its authority and legitimacy. However, some studies and science communicators are trying to prove that comedy and science can coexist. Just a sprinkle of humor makes complex scientific topics more digestible and easier to learn. They are basically asking, ‘Why not laugh while learning a thing or two along the way?’
The 'Quantum Infinity' Instagram page that shares various science memes is also bringing knowledge in a fun way, in hopes that it reaches more people’s brains. To help the cause, our team compiled the best ones in the list below. To find them, all you have to do is scroll down!
This post may include affiliate links.
A study that was published this year (2025) in the Journal of Science Communication has deeply shaken up the science community, as it disproved the settled belief that using humor in science communication is unprofessional and unreliable. The research found that scientists don’t always have to be serious to be taken seriously. In fact, appropriate use of comedy can make them more relatable and likable without undermining their authority.
“Politicians, entertainers, and advertisers often use humor because people tend to like and connect with people who can make them laugh,” said lead study author Alexandra Lynn Frank.
“When people find something funny, they’re usually less likely to argue with or reject the message or the person delivering it. Our research supports this idea. We found that humor can aid scientists’ communication efforts, but only if people think they’re funny.”
Why did the second comment make me think of the Jimmy Car comment " So Susie what have you been looking into this week,......other than gloryholes"
As the lead study author mentioned, not all humor works equally well in science communication. If a joke doesn’t resonate with the audience, it could have an opposite effect.
For an audience to enjoy a joke, it has to fit the context and be skillfully delivered. “Sarcasm or aggressively targeting someone, for example, is highly discouraged,” explained Frank.
That said, this doesn’t mean that every scientist has to become a comedian or that all science communication should include humor. Different topics and communicators call for different approaches, so each scientist should feel out what works best for them.
But those who are comfortable with humor now can use it without any worries, as the research suggests that it enhances science communication rather than detracts from its effectiveness.
“By leveraging humor, scientists can simplify complex concepts, making them more relatable and easier to understand,” said Frank. “This approach not only fosters goodwill but also has the potential to dispel misinformation in a friendly manner. Moreover, humor can spark curiosity, motivating people to seek out additional information on important scientific topics.”
To find out more about what scientists themselves think about combining humor and science, we previously reached out to science comedian Brian Malow and medical scientist and founder of the ‘Trust Me, I'm A "Biologist”’ Facebook page, Mitya. Both of them believe that science and humor can definitely coexist.
“Of course, science can be combined with humor! In fact, they are a perfect marriage. Science and humor are more similar than most people realize. They are both about finding patterns and connections leading to discovery and surprise," Malow said.
"Let’s be honest: biology (and research in general) can be stressful. If you can’t laugh about the time you accidentally used the wrong buffer, turning your cells into goo—how else are you going to cope?” Mitya asked.
“Sharing these misadventures not only provides comic relief but also builds camaraderie among fellow scientists. Sure, you can overdo it, but as long as it’s done in good spirit, humor is a fantastic way to remind everyone that behind every serious scientist is a real person who occasionally forgets which tube they labeled five minutes ago. Science should be fun!" he said.
Just like in the previously mentioned study, Malow adds that scientists shouldn’t strive to become comedians—all they need to do is relax a bit and let their personalities shine through.
“I give science communication seminars and workshops aimed at helping scientists communicate with the public. And, first of all, I’m not encouraging scientists to become comedians or clowns. You don’t need to be telling JOKES, per se. And there are some easy ways for a scientist to add a little humor to a presentation: You can share a funny quotation or cartoon, for instance. As long as it’s on topic and can lead into your subject,” he explained.
Malow thinks there’s no reason a scientist can’t be credible and have a sense of humor. “Scientists are actually human, even if some people don’t realize it.” By showing their human side, scientists can help their audience be more receptive and interested in what they have to say, thus inspiring more people to engage with science.
Sadly, you could show this clever explanation to a certain group, and they still wouldn’t get it. Or they’d refuse to try.
They had a perfectly good and useful method. Trying to correct it is like trying to make rain fall faster.
However, it’s crucial that scientists don’t lose factual accuracy while using humor.
“In my stand-up comedy, although I may say something silly or absurd, I do feel strongly about not promoting any misinformation. I would only talk about certain science myths and misconceptions if I’m going to address them and make sure we all know they aren’t true.
I don’t find it limiting to be scientifically accurate. And I love turning people onto science ideas. And the truth is usually more interesting than any fiction.”
There's debate on the reason for the final surrender -- another major candidate reason was the almost simultaneous Soviet declaration of war and steamrolling of Manchuria, which could have lead to the destruction of all Japanese forces in China. (Reddit's AskHistorians subreddit has articles in the FAQ about it.) Also, the US was blockading Japan with submarines and surface ships, so starvation was increasing and war materials were running out. Also, finding a nuclear target was hard because so many cities had already been hit hard by conventional bombs.
People always mention the starvation route, which is nuts! How would that be more humane? How many more people would have died? Starving to death is way worse than immediate vaporization or the way lower number of radiation poisoning. I hate these types of questions, because people use after the fact "evidence" to judge people that couldn't have predicted the future. You have to go by what they knew at the time and not what we figured out afterwards.
Load More Replies...Not correct. A hydrogen nuclear bomb is a "portable sun" that relies on fission and fusion for the explosion. The bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission nuclear bombs, with no fusion reactions like in the sun.
You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.
Load More Replies...The correct answer is "the Battle of Midway" and this is another history meme, not a science meme.
The were already in the final stages of retreat and defeat was inevitable. Nearly all of the red area apart from their home islands had been retaken. The bomb just made it into a total and immediate surrender.
To paraphrase the Simpsons, it is the cause of and solution to all of life’s problems.
edit: [bumble] bee: I'm cold! *Start to shake flight muscles*
And all the Elementary Particles feels like New Zealand on to many maps, missing completely...
Um, this is the best qualification for humanity I've seen. On the other hand, during the full moon, they can see crocodiles best and thereby enjoy bathing. On the 3rd hand, they seem to be thanking the moon...
Umm. Im sure the description is "a shape with four equal straight lines intersecting at four right angles". I could be wrong, but it was my best math subject with an easy A+.
That's not even remotely accurate. Cute Aggression is more likely based on the evolutionary desire to protect "the baby" (person, animal, etc) from harm. Since it isn't your baby and you see it on a screen, your brain gives you aggressive feelings In General that some people assign to the cute thing, but most DON'T.
