A consequence of communication barriers between scientists and the board of directors is?

• A. Faster project approvals
• B. Delays in approving new projects
• C. Improved stakeholder trust
• D. Increased marketing reach

Answer: (B)

When scientists and the board can’t exchange information clearly, critical technical details, risks, and implications don’t get translated into the board’s language and decision criteria. Directors need concise, relevant summaries that connect findings to strategy, costs, and timelines. If barriers exist, questions pile up, data is reinterpreted, and back-and-forth clarifications slow down judgments. That buildup delays approvals for new projects because a clear, timely, and shared understanding of benefits and risks is hard to achieve. Over time, this can cause missed opportunities and higher costs from rework. The other outcomes don’t fit: faster approvals would require smooth communication, improved stakeholder trust comes from open dialogue rather than obstructed communication, and marketing reach is driven by external actions beyond the internal decision-making bottlenecks.