Children experiencing science popularization games at the Fuzhou Science and Technology Museum in Fuzhou, Fujian Province, on August 5 Photo: IC PHOTO

The term kepu, or “science popularization,” has long played an important role in Chinese social life and national governance. Against the backdrop of a global knowledge society, dramatic shifts in information dissemination, and the rise of public scientific awareness, the concept, boundaries, and functions of science popularization are undergoing profound change. It is no longer simply a vehicle for spreading scientific knowledge, but is gradually evolving into a theoretical and practical issue spanning education, culture, communication, and governance.

Constantly evolving connotation with times

As a bridge between science and society, the clarity and adaptability of the kepu concept directly affect the precision of public policy and the effectiveness of science communication. In China, science popularization first appeared as “popularizing scientific and technological knowledge,” with an emphasis on enlightening the general public outside the professional sphere. Over time, through sustained practice, its meaning has steadily expanded to encompass knowledge dissemination, the promotion of scientific spirit, and the enhancement of scientific literacy. The evolution of science popularization as a concept can be broadly divided into three stages.

The roots of science popularization in China date back to the late Qing Dynasty and the Republican period, when social movements aimed at “saving the nation through industry” and “saving the nation through science” inspired a wave of progressive intellectuals to bring modern scientific knowledge to the public. To spread their ideas, Liang Qichao, Ding Wenjiang, and Cai Yuanpei turned to newspapers, public lectures, and translated works, believing that scientific education could cure China’s “illness of ignorance.” Although the term kepu had not yet been coined, the pursuit of scientific enlightenment had already emerged as a central cultural initiative in the nation’s broader efforts toward modernization and national rejuvenation.

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, science popularization became an integral part of the state’s agenda and institutional framework. The term kepu, derived from the abbreviation of the China Association for Science and Technology Popularization, gradually came to signify the organized, socialized effort to educate the public in science. By 1956, the national plan for scientific and technological development explicitly called for the “broad popularization of scientific and technological knowledge,” marking the formal inclusion of science popularization in national policy. This period was characterized by government leadership, mass mobilization, and standardized content and channels. Newspapers such as China Youth Daily, Science and Technology Life, and Science and Technology Daily became primary platforms for popular science, while science museums and community cultural centers served as typical offline venues for public engagement.

Following the National Science Congress in 1978, science popularization in China began to align with broader concepts such as “scientific literacy” and “citizen scientific competence.” In 1986, the government for the first time incorporated “scientific literacy for all” into the national science and technology development strategy, establishing a coordinated relationship between public science education and the enhancement of overall scientific literacy. The enactment of the Law on Popularization of Science and Technology in 2002 marked the formal legalization and institutionalization of science popularization, clearly defining the roles of governments at all levels, schools, enterprises, and research institutions. Over time, the focus of science popularization expanded from merely disseminating knowledge to promoting ideas, values, and public engagement, gradually evolving into a practice with both strategic and cultural significance.

At the national level, policy documents typically define science popularization as a comprehensive social education activity that combines the dissemination of scientific and technological knowledge, the promotion of scientific thinking, the advocacy of scientific methods, and the fostering of a scientific spirit. The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Popularization of Science and Technology (2024 Revision) further emphasizes the foundational role of science popularization in improving national scientific literacy and building an innovation-driven country, underscoring its intrinsic connection to the modernization of the national governance system.

It is important to note that science popularization overlaps with, but differs from, related concepts such as science education, science communication, and scientific culture. Science education focuses on formal, school-based instruction that supports youth development and disciplinary construction; science communication emphasizes two-way interaction between the scientific community and the public, highlighting engagement and participation; and scientific culture encompasses society’s overall knowledge, values, and practices regarding science, forming an important part of national soft power. By contrast, science popularization largely operates outside the formal education system, targeting the general public and serving as an intermediary that translates scientific achievements and disseminates scientific values.

Overgeneralized popularization and blurred boundaries

From a theoretical perspective, science popularization embodies both “instrumental rationality” and “value rationality.” On one hand, it functions as a technical pathway for the dissemination of scientific knowledge, facilitating the flow of information between the scientific community and the public. On the other, it carries the values of the scientific spirit and modern culture, acting as a key support for enhancing public critical thinking, rational judgment, and democratic participation. This dual nature positions science popularization not merely as a tool for spreading knowledge, but as a cultural mechanism within the broader structure of social governance. Today, it operates both as a public good that improves citizens’ scientific literacy and as a strategic resource for building an innovation-driven nation. Its definition must balance the breadth of knowledge dissemination with the depth of cultural guidance, and combine communication efficiency with social significance, in order to align theoretical logic with practical function.

In practice, science popularization faces several significant challenges. First, the problem of “overgeneralized popularization” has become increasingly serious. Under the concept of “broad science popularization,” nearly all activities involving scientific elements are categorized as science popularization, leading to ambiguous policy standards, uneven resource allocation, and uneven content quality. In some regions, evaluation methods that focus solely on metrics or quantity have, to some extent, weakened both the public and professional value of science popularization.

Second, the boundaries between science popularization, commercial promotion, entertainment content, and educational outreach are becoming increasingly blurred. Much of the output from independent content creators, as well as certain events labeled as science popularization, lack the basic attributes of scientific communication, and “pseudo-popularization” has emerged, potentially misleading public understanding and distorting the value of science. Examples include clickbait-style technology explanations on social media or commercially driven “paid knowledge” courses, which deviate from the public-interest nature of science popularization.

Third, professional talent remains in short supply. The willingness and capacity of scientists to participate in public science education are often limited, and, having failed to fully adapt to modern information consumption preferences, dissemination still heavily relies on traditional media. The rise of AI-generated content, virtual reality, and immersive interactive technologies also poses new challenges for conventional science popularization.

Finally, the conceptual paradigm of science popularization has yet to fully transform. It still relies primarily on a “knowledge transmission” model, without creating a participatory ecosystem in which the public co-constructs scientific understanding. A narrow conception of “the public” and a sacralized view of “science” have constrained science popularization from moving beyond simple delivery to meaningful dialogue.

Going forward, science popularization needs to be re-envisioned along four strategic dimensions. First, it should shift from “knowledge provision” to “cognitive co-construction,” emphasizing the public’s constructive and participatory role in understanding science. Second, it should move from “static dissemination” to “dynamic participation,” supporting new forms of engagement such as citizen science, community experiments, and youth co-creation. Third, it should expand from a “single perspective” to “multi-stakeholder collaboration,” integrating the efforts of science, education, culture, and media to create a synergistic communication network. Fourth, it should replace today’s “propaganda logic” with the “educational logic” it historically embraced, embedding science popularization into the routine systems of public education and social development.

Conceptually, science popularization can be defined as a social activity system aimed at enhancing public scientific literacy, based on multi-stakeholder collaboration, implemented through interactive communication, and oriented toward building a shared scientific culture.

The evolution of the science popularization concept is deeply embedded in social practice, continually responding to changing societal needs and public understanding. In an era marked by overlapping scientific and communication revolutions, there is a pressing need to clarify and reconstruct the concept’s meaning and value. A clear understanding of the boundaries between science popularization and related concepts, along with its theoretical foundations and institutional logic, is essential for building a science communication system with Chinese characteristics and enhancing national scientific literacy. Looking ahead, science popularization should advance toward institutionalization, professionalization, digitization, and co-construction to meet the needs of both the public and national strategic priorities in the new era.

Cheng Peng is an associate research fellow at China Research Institute for Science Popularization.