When communicating scientific research to a broader public, why does the narrative ordinarily center around ‘a problem’? This has the effect of tying the work to negative issues within policy, economy, culture, etc. in order to augment its perceived relevance. How can various ways of communicating scientific information using the language of other fields (ie: art, social sciences, etc.) make this a more positive message? Can these methods enhance or alter how science is weighed or used in making decisions? At what point during scientific research should other fields become involved?No matter your discipline, if your work, research, practice or general interests are concerned with science communication, the expansion or redefinition of a scientific community, the impact of science upon other disciplinary spheres, etc., please join us for the conversation!