ABT Framework: Storytelling Tool for Strategic Science Communication
Here is a scenario that plays out constantly in science organizations. A researcher has spent years on a finding that could shift how policymakers think about a public health challenge. They get the meeting. They get the speaking slot. And then they walk in and deliver fifteen minutes of background, methodology, and data tables. The audience nods politely. Nothing changes.
This is not a problem of scientific rigor. It is a problem of narrative structure.
Strategic science communication does not begin and end with choosing the right journal or sending the right press release. At its core, it requires scientists and scientific leaders to think like storytellers. And one of the most practical frameworks for doing that is the ABT model.
What is the ABT Framework?
ABT stands for And, But, Therefore. It is a narrative structure that originated in Hollywood screenwriting and was brought into science communication circles. It was largely brought into the scientific world through the work of marine biologist and filmmaker Randy Olson.
Under this framework, the premise is simple. Every compelling story follows a three-part arc:
And: It sets up the context. It tells the audience what is true, what exists, and what we know.
But: This part introduces the conflict or problem. It is where the tension lives. Without this, there is no reason for anyone to keep listening.
Therefore: Lastly, this section delivers the resolution or call to action. It tells the audience what follows logically from the problem you have just revealed.
Why Most Science Communication Fails Without ABT?
Most scientific presentations and papers are built on the AAA model.
AAA means And, And, And. Papers or presentations built on this model have no pull. They only have facts, facts, and facts. The audience has no reason to lean forward because nothing in the structure signals that something important is at stake.
The result of such communication is accurate and forgettable at the same time. Research shows that facts alone do not move audiences to action. People need a narrative structure that creates emotional engagement before information can take root. Strategic science communication recognizes this reality and builds around it.
The ABT framework forces that structure. It makes the communicator identify what is actually at stake before they open their mouth.
ABT in Practice: What It Looks Like Across Different Contexts
The best way to understand ABT is to see the before and after of each submission, paper, op-ed, or presentation.
To help you understand the framework in real-life, we have prepared three examples for you. Here are three contexts that reflect the world Etalia works in: global health, institutional science leadership, and direct funder engagement.
Let’s proceed!!
Global Health: The Stop TB Example
Without ABT:
Tuberculosis remains one of the leading infectious disease killers globally. Drug-resistant strains are increasing. Current treatment regimens are long and difficult to complete. New diagnostics and therapeutics are in development across multiple research pipelines.
With ABT:
Tuberculosis was supposed to be a disease of the past, and in much of the world, effective treatments exist. But drug-resistant strains are outpacing the treatments we have, and the patients least able to complete a six-month regimen are exactly the ones most likely to develop resistance. Therefore, the window to fund and deploy next-generation diagnostics is not a future priority. It is a decision that affects how treatable TB will be for the next generation.
The second version does not have more information. It has more structure. And that structure gives the listener a reason to act.
University Science Leadership: Making the Case Internally
Without ABT:
Our faculty have produced significant research output this year. We have published in high-impact journals and contributed to several interdisciplinary initiatives. We are seeking investment in a new science communication training program.
With ABT:
This university has some of the most credentialed researchers in the country, and the quality of their work is not in question. But only a third of Americans can name a living scientist, and the policymakers who shape our funding environment are making decisions without ever encountering what our faculty actually know. Therefore, investing in the communication capability of our researchers is not a soft priority. It is how we protect the return on every research dollar this institution has spent.
Notice that the But draws directly on a real dynamic. Etalia has cited it on their own site: only a third of Americans can name a living scientist. That is not a rhetorical flourish. It is the tension that makes the ‘Therefore’ land.
Op-Ed Pitch: Reaching Policymakers Through the News
Without ABT:
I am a researcher in infectious diseases with fifteen years of experience and over 80 peer-reviewed publications. I would like to write an op-ed about the importance of pandemic preparedness funding.
With ABT:
The world invested heavily in pandemic preparedness after COVID-19, and for a brief window, political will aligned with scientific urgency. But that window is closing. Preparedness funding is being cut at exactly the moment when the infrastructure built during the pandemic needs sustained investment to remain functional. Therefore, I want to write a piece that makes the case to general readers that the decision happening right now in budget negotiations will determine whether we enter the next outbreak with tools or without them.
Research shows that 65 to 70 percent of readers become more open to a new argument after reading a well-structured op-ed. The ABT framework is what makes that persuasion possible. Without it, even a compelling idea can read as a lecture.
How to Build Your Own ABT Statement?
Here is a practical approach to building your own ABT statement while planning your strategic science communication process:
Start with the But: Most scientists naturally gravitate toward the And. They want to establish everything that is known before introducing a problem. So, you need to work backwards. Also, you need to identify: What is the central conflict or gap your work addresses?
Once you identify this, you have your entry point.
Write one sentence for each element: You should literally use the words: And. But. Therefore. So, you should not try to be elegant at first. You just get the logic on paper.
Test it on a non-expert: To evaluate whether you can communicate your point clearly, you should present your statement to a non-expert. If they cannot tell you what was at stake after hearing your ABT, your But is not specific enough. So, you need to sharpen it.
Use it as the spine, not the script. Your ABT statement is not meant to be delivered word-for-word in every situation. It is the narrative logic that holds everything else together. Once you have it, the rest of your communication becomes easier to structure.
ABT is a Starting Point, Not a Magic Formula
It is worth being clear about what ABT does and does not do.
It does not replace scientific credibility. It does not guarantee placement in the Washington Post or a meeting with a Senate staffer. And a well-crafted ABT statement built on a vague or weak Therefore will not do much for you.
What it does is give strategic science communication a structure that audiences can actually follow and retain. It aligns how scientists think about their work with how human beings process information under pressure, in a fifteen-minute meeting, in a three-minute op-ed read, in a thirty-second conversation at a conference.
Scientific organizations that build this habit across their teams do not just communicate better. They begin to show up differently in the places where the decisions are actually being made.
The Bigger Picture: Communication as a Leadership Capability
ABT is a tactical tool. But strategic science communication is bigger than any single framework.
The organizations doing this well are not treating communication as a support function that kicks in after the science is done. They are treating it as a leadership capability: something that is integrated into how they build relationships with funders, engage policymakers, and earn the trust of publics who may never read a peer-reviewed paper but whose understanding and support determine what science can actually accomplish.
ABT helps get that communication off the ground. But the goal is a system where every key leader in an organization can say what only they can say, and make sure the right people hear it.
That starts with learning to lead with the But.
Ready to Build Communication That Moves People?
At Etalia, we help leaders in health, life science, and technology build the communication infrastructure that converts attention into real opportunity. If you are ready to explore what that looks like for your organization, we would be glad to think through it with you.
