Communicating about science is a noble profession and one that is becoming increasingly and ever more popular. Yet it isn’t the right fit for everyone. Check out these five traits that no one ever tells you about to see if it’s really right for you.

1. Passion for science.

I'm not joking. If you don't care about science, or get excited about science in some way, shape or form, you are going to burn out fast. Science is hard, and science communication is hard too. You're going to have to delve into issues that are incredibly out-there (I've worked on projects involving solar panel taxes, integrated imaging, programming, perceptions of pork, etc.) If there isn't a burning passion and belief in science somewhere deep in your heart, if you don't truly believe that science is something that can help save lives, the environment, our world... then this field is going to be distressingly tedious and painful. And the only thing worse than no science communicator is a science communicator who hates his or her job.

2. Ability to interact with scientists and subject-matter experts.

Ever been on the receiving end of one of those engineering monologues where you've exhausted your full repertoire of subtle conversation-ending cues (check your watch, glance at the door, mention you have another meeting, yawn, fall asleep) and yet it just continues on... and on... and on...? Well. There you have it. A lot of scientists, academics and the like aren't renowned for their extraordinary social skills. They may launch into speech with no context, avoid eye contact, grunt in return to your 'hello' or use language that might as well be Dutch as far as you're concerned. You're going to have to learn how to interact with those personality types on a regular basis (not everyone is like that, either).

3. Willingness to persuade and convince others of the importance of communication.

For most subject-matter experts, communication is uncomfortable and time-consuming and better when entirely avoided. Yet they are very rational beings, and if you take the time to explain the importance of communication regularly and consistently they will hear you. In most cases, this isn't a role where you will be surrounded by people who intrinsically understand and support what you're doing. You may have to lay some solid groundwork before you can start to see progress. One of the best science communicators I know had a pitch she used to launch any conversation: "Communication is incredibly important. You have to reach the broader public with your research. They need to know and understand what you are doing and the importance behind it. If you want public funding for research to go back up, you need to start investing in outreach. You can't expect funding if no one knows what you're doing and what's going on."

4. Extreme creativity.

Breaking down dense, dull and technical matters into engaging and attractive packages of information requires a lot of creativity. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking science communication isn't creative. If you can make corn crop residue and the food regulatory process interesting, then you may very well be the most creative person on earth. Anyone can make a half-naked woman singing at the top of her lungs catchy, it takes a hardcore creative master to make a carbon tax sexy.

5. Confidence.

Scientists, researchers, academics and subject matter experts are often the most brilliant minds in the world. You're going to have to go toe-to-toe with them on a lot of issues. You won't always agree on the best path forward. It's important to be able to stand your ground and have confidence in yourself and your abilities. Don't question their science (that's not your place). But question how they are promoting that science and if it's going to the appropriate audiences. Have the confidence to tell them that they're wrong, and the confidence to guide them towards the right way of doing things.

What's science communication? Read this.

Jessica Eise is an author and blogger. She is the director of communications for the Department of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University. All opinions are her own.