When it comes to science communication in Türkiye, one of the most prominent platforms is undoubtedly Evrim Ağacı. This organization, which began as a student initiative at Middle East Technical University years ago, has since evolved into a trusted, comprehensive science communication platform reaching millions of people. From the story of Evrim Ağacı’s emergence and content creation processes to science communication and sustainability models, Çağrı Mert Bakırcı, one of Türkiye’s leading figures in making science understandable to the public, shares insights on many topics.

Mustafa Burak Avcı: Can you tell us the story of Evrim Ağacı? What motivated its creation, and how has its journey unfolded?

Çağrı Mert Bakırcı: Evrim Ağacı traces back to my years at Middle East Technical University (METU). I was raised in a middle-class, enlightened, and progressive family, which was advantageous for me. My family supported my interest in reading by buying the books I liked and fostering a strong reading culture. Many relatives, including my brother-in-law, who often brought TÜBİTAK books and took me to science fiction films, were also educated and enlightened. Growing up in such an environment, I considered evolution a straightforward scientific concept when I started at METU in 2007. I was unaware of the debates surrounding it. While it was clear within science, I observed that it was highly controversial publicly, and I encountered anti-evolution sentiments for the first time.

This realization prompted me to act. After some initial attempts to create and lead communities, my friends from the Department of Biology at METU and I established Evrim Ağacı. I was studying Mechanical Engineering at METU, but my passion for biology led me to take courses in the biology department. Our student group, initially called Evrim Ağacı, began by preparing for biology exams together. Over time, it grew into a platform that offers free high school education across Türkiye and provides clear answers to science questions on social media. Essentially, we aimed to bridge a gap in scientific knowledge.

Evrim Ağacı has always been part of my life. During my PhD in Texas, I expanded our website. After meeting my wife here, we faced a choice: finish our doctorates and stay in academia, leaving Evrim Ağacı behind, or make Evrim Ağacı our profession and leave academia. Because I had dedicated eight years to this project and knew its impact in Türkiye, we chose to continue with Evrim Ağacı and both work to grow it. Today, after 15 years, it is Türkiye’s most visited, most well-known, and most trusted science communication platform. Of course, this is a highly condensed summary; throughout the process, we wrote countless books, organized events, and took our branches to places no one else could reach. We are trying to continue on this path by adapting to changing global conditions.

M.B.A: Nowadays, it is becoming difficult to access scientific research for free. What methods do you use to collect scientific data?

Ç.M.B: I’m trying to reach them through all the ways I know. Sometimes I need to access them through my friend’s academic email. I can also read many of them through my own Google Scholar account. I haven’t paid for any articles so far, and I never will. Such an academic exploitation system should not be allowed to take a single penny. There are other ways.

Alper Akkaya: Is it ethically appropriate to use sources that fall into gray areas, such as Sci-Hub, Libgen, and Unpaywall? What are your thoughts on piracy and intellectual property rights?

Ç.M.B: Yes, that’s appropriate. There’s a saying: “If you can’t own what you buy, you’re not a thief for using pirated things.” That’s somewhat valid here, but it’s also influenced by other factors… Because the absurd amounts journals charge per article provide only digital access rights to that article. It’s impossible for individual researchers to pay these huge sums out of their own pockets. Look, I’m not saying it’s hard; I’m saying it’s impossible. At Evrim Ağacı, we benefit from about 500 articles a month. If we paid $40-50 for each of these, we would go bankrupt in a month. If someone thinks, ‘Well, those articles don’t come easily, of course they need to be paid for,’ don’t think that way. First, more than 50% of those research projects are funded by taxes we pay. I can say this comfortably because I also pay taxes in the U.S. Therefore, hiding behind paywalls is illegal. Second, if the money went to the researchers or the peer reviewers who evaluate those articles before publication, I would understand. After all, when tools like Netflix offer a reasonable price for a rich content collection, everyone moves away from piracy and accepts monthly payments because the average person can understand the value of this transaction. But the money paid to academic journals doesn’t go to the researchers or reviewers; it goes to the publishers of those journals. These publishers have many apparent responsibilities, but their main role is to artificially restrict access to articles, creating this financial paywall.

“At Evrim Ağacı, we strive to fulfill our responsibility to communicate academic research to the public as accurately and clearly as possible, even beyond global standards.”

M.B.A: Does simplifying technical language when communicating scientific knowledge to the public result in a loss of quality?

Ç.M.B: Our view of quality depends on what we mean by quality. If by quality we mean the scientific depth of what is being explained, then yes. Popular science entails a loss of quality compared to academic science. But after you understand what academic science is saying, what value does it have for the public? Therefore, if quality means, on average, that more people can grasp that information and that it serves as fuel to turn young people into the next generation of scientists, then no. On the contrary, popular science enhances the quality of academic science. If we see popular science as “imprecise academic science,” then all pre-university education is wasted, because more than 90% of what is taught in high school and over 30-40% of what is taught at university consists of imprecise explanations.

M.B.A: How do you overcome the algorithm barrier? Does being a well-established platform have any effect in this situation? Does the algorithm create a barrier for new science communication platforms to reach audiences?

Ç.M.B: If you ask someone who is obsessed with social media, they will talk about algorithm all day. But the number one rule for producing quality content on social media is not to overthink about algorithm. Because there is a motto like: “Content is king.” The story you tell and how you tell it determine about 95% of the outcome. The remaining 5% depends on the specifi c needs of social media platforms. For example, on YouTube, whether you make proper thumbnails and titles. Also, the biggest point that people don’t understand or can’t follow even if they understand is consistency. Evrim Ağacı didn’t suddenly become rooted; it became rooted because it was consistent.

My guiding star in this matter is not a science communicator but a vlogger; even more, a videographer who largely invented and mainstreamed the concept of vlog: Casey Neistat. The most important message Casey gives is just three words: ‘Just keep uploading.” That applies to this article and to videos as well. If you keep obsessing over ‘Why wasn’t it read? Why wasn’t it watched? Why did they leave such bad comments?’ Or worse, if you get discouraged just because a few simple metrics suggest so, you will lose. I see the algorithm from this perspective. The so-called algorithm has nothing to do with content creators. It is a software specialized in fi nding the content that best fi ts the user – whether the viewer or reader. Therefore, the matter ends with the user. As content creators, our job is to produce the highest quality product and wait. Eventually, the algorithm will deliver it to that niche audience. Although science might sound like a “niche,” if you’ve been watched 500 million times a year and you’re one of Türkiye’s most-visited sites, I think you can say you’re not in a niche.

“As content creators, our job is to produce the highest quality product and wait. Eventually, the algorithm will deliver it to that niche audience. Although science might sound like a ‘niche,’ if you’ve been watched 500 million times a year and you’re one of Türkiye’s most-visited sites, I think you can say you’re not in a niche.”

If these numbers come from work done without regard for the algorithm, maybe it’s worth paying attention to this advice. Ask yourself with every piece of content: Is this the best I can do for this content? If the answer is yes, you’re done. If not, you know what to do.

A.A: The agenda in Türkiye is constantly changing. You also produce content related to this evolving agenda. Does producing content about the constantly changing agenda pose practical problems?

Ç.M.B: That’s true. But it doesn’t affect us very much because our relationship with the agenda is more about the “topic idea.”In other words, we don’t feel the urge to say, “Oh, this is on the agenda, let’s cover it and write about it.” Instead, we think, “When I look at the agenda, I see that there’s such a topic, and people are interested in it. Maybe it would be good to inform them about this.” So, we don’t follow the agenda that closely. Of course, the agenda is also one of our source topics.

M.B.A: While Evrim Ağacı presents current scientific developments, how does it contextualize these events within their theoretical background? How does it distinguish between science journalism and science communication in practice?

Ç.M.B: Science journalism can be compared to entertainment journalism: there’s not much difference between “so-and-so celebrity was spotted somewhere!” and “so-and-so particle was observed at such-and-such energy level!” But what makes science journalism a form of science communication is the context information that should be inherently present in journalism. For example, if I understood entertainment, I would provide contextual information that would fully convey to the reader or viewer what it means for that celebrity to be seen somewhere. I believe some content creators do this. There are also many of these issues in our newspapers. When you look at Western and Eastern counterparts, you see that the background details of the news are as deep as the news itself, but since we lack a solid journalistic culture and, on top of that, the modern world’s easy-consumption urges, a terrible form of agenda-setting emerges. The most common negative criticism I hear about my content is that I drag out the topic too much. Everything I tell is like the arteries that feed the “By the way, this also happened” sentence I will mention in those 2-3 minutes.

When the reader or viewer takes this path with me, it goes beyond a news headline they’ll forget in two minutes. They understand how that newly discovered thing was discovered, why it’s important, and what its relationship might be to them. This is what learning is; it’s not about memorizing facts.

“If you ask someone who is obsessed with social media, they will talk about the algorithm all day. But the number one rule for producing quality content on social media is not to overthink the algorithm. There is a motto like: ‘Content is king.’”

M.B.A: Does Evrim Ağacı develop a separate content strategy for each platform, such as YouTube, Instagram, and podcasts, when communicating science? Which platform is most effective for each type of scientific content?

Ç.M.B: Honestly, content should be tailored to each platform, and we should pay close attention to that. But we have a serious shortage of staff. Within the current scope of Evrim Ağacı, it would comfortably require a team of around a hundred people. But we are a team of only ten people, including four core members. Even famous science communicators who produce only videos have teams of 30-60 people, including videographers, editors, research writers, and technicians. We produce videos with just two people. Think of it that way. Still, we try to adapt our content to each platform as much as possible. Video is currently the most popular platform, but learning is only possible through reading. Therefore, humanity is not heading in a very good direction. We are moving toward a place where knowledge is infinite, but very few people know much.

M.B.A: Do you have data about your target audience? Which audience is following you?

Ç.M.B: Of course. We don’t follow this very closely, but since you asked, I looked at our YouTube statistics. In the past year, 70% of our viewers are male, 83% are between the ages of 18-44, and 85% are from Türkiye. Of course, this doesn’t give us a lot of detailed information, but it can provide a general overview.

M.B.A: Do viewer comments, questions, and feedback affect your broadcasting policy and production process?

Ç.M.B: It affects us a little, but it’s limited. Because, ultimately, we try to run Evrim Ağacı according to our own principles and policies. For example, the principles we follow have not changed at all in the last fifteen years. This provides us with intellectual stability. But of course, when certain topics are requested or when recurring criticisms arise at certain points, we think about how we can improve those areas. However, in 99% of the cases, we identify and solve these problems before any feedback comes in, or the feedback we receive often comes without a proper understanding of the causes or without proper evaluation, so it doesn’t trigger change.

“Our job is to effectively communicate what’s happening in academia to the public; if we don’t do this through primary and highly reliable secondary sources, we can’t say we’re doing a proper job.”

M.B.A: Do you promote participatory science or mainly explain the scientific method and inference in your videos?

Ç.M.B: There’s no point in fooling ourselves. While this percentage might be slightly lower among readers, over 99.99% of video viewers don’t care about sources and don’t even bother to open or read one. Citing sources is more of an academic reflex, and it should be. If someone is curious and wants to check the source or read more in-depth, the source should be accessible. Our articles on the website are always fully sourced. Since our videos are mostly based on our articles, we include sources more sparingly in the videos. However, we have a database where we can provide all sources upon request.

The reason we use reliable sources is not just to have them ready if someone asks, but out of respect for our work. Our job is to effectively communicate what’s happening in academia to the public; if we don’t do this through primary and highly reliable secondary sources, we can’t say we’re doing a proper job.

M.B.A: Is the “small donors” model and YouTube revenue sufficient to ensure sustainability?

Ç.M.B: The donation model is not enough for sustainability. It only serves as a safety net for fluctuating advertising revenues. YouTube earnings have become our biggest resource for growing Evrim Ağacı. This is largely due to changes in consumer habits shifting from reading to watching, as well as YouTube’s producer-friendly policies. However, a multi-source model is essential for sustainability, especially for channels of our size. For smaller creators, a model of small donors combined with sponsored content can work quite well. But as we grow, we need to diversify our income sources. Being able to do this without deviating from our principles is critically important. We pay close attention to this. Our supporters, thankfully, do their best as well. In other words, Evrim Ağacı is the result of a large collective effort.

M.B.A: How is it determined whether potential sponsors are compatible with your scientific publication policy? Is this a criterion? What portion of the economic revenue model do potential sponsors represent?

Ç.M.B: Yes, we have specific criteria. We reject more than half of the sponsors that come to us because they don’t offer the products we use or because their products could harm our readers and viewers. That doesn’t mean that all the brands we accept are completely flawless. Is there such a brand, or has there been? But as you know, some brands, even if issues inevitably arise when you scrutinize them, are now accepted by the public. We try to secure sponsorships from them whenever possible. The key is the message they are trying to convey.

If a hotel, instead of promoting its vacation services, tries to send a message about how it is fighting against climate change, meaning it can’t show us its actions with reliable metrics and only talks about it in words, we reject their messages, no matter how trustworthy the hotel seems. Since we are not a typical entertainment-oriented influencer, we don’t receive many offers. Therefore, sponsored content makes up only a small part of our income. That’s why we don’t have to bow to anyone’s money.

M.B.A: How much does user support through Kreosus influence content planning on Evrim Ağacı? Are there shifts in content focus, such as evolution, climate, and quantum, based on supporters interests?

Ç.M.B: No, not really. Only those who support us at certain levels can request video content, and we also give these requests limited priority. At this point, we have a very special bond with our supporters that differs from profit-driven models like Patreon; we built Kreosus entirely on this bond. 99.9% of our supporters do not support us expecting something special from us.

“Science journalism can be compared to entertainment journalism: there’s not much difference between so-and-so celebrity was spotted somewhere!’ and ‘soand- so particle was observed at such-andsuch energy level!’”

They support us because they value Evrim Ağacı’s principles, mission, vision, and work and want to be part of this process. As a result, the benefits we offer our supporters are quite superficial and symbolic. We make an effort to preserve this special bond.

M.B.A: In the Kreosus model, what kind of belonging strategies are implemented to ensure users remain longterm supporters? Does the sense of community contribute to this strategy?

Ç.M.B: Of course. As I said, we’re not doing anything very special. The overwhelming majority of our supporters are satisfied just by helping the Evrim Ağacı. We use their support to do our best work even better, giving them exactly what they want. There’s one thing we always say: for us, the financial health of our supporters comes first. If supporting us would harm someone’s financial well-being, we never want that support. They can watch the video or read the article, share it, or like it. That’s enough for us. But we also know there are many among our readers and viewers who can comfortably support us and strengthen our efforts. If our content motivates them to support us, that’s wonderful. If not, that’s perfectly fine. We continue to do our best.

M.B.A: Almost everyone who becomes a member on the website can produce content and interact with content, right? Did the participatory science perspective influence the website’s emergence?

Ç.M.B: Yes, all members can start interacting with each other and with our content on Evrim Ağacı Social. We are following a modern and progressive social media philosophy there. We are building a social platform based on value creation, knowledge, and culture, not on debate, tension, or negativity. We are just at the beginning of this journey, and if artificial intelligence doesn’t completely shut down our system, we have a long way to go. But like everything we do at Evrim Ağacı, we are not short-distance runners; we are marathon runners in this regard. We will continue to produce. Thank you.

The Leading Voice of Popular Science Evrim Ağacı yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.