Fake news has been a prominent issue in politics, but it’s not a new phenomenon in the world of science, according to Dominique Brossard, a professor of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
In a recent discussion at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Brossard highlighted the impact of social media and online networks like Facebook and Twitter in spreading fake science news.
Brossard emphasized that fake news in science has always existed, but the speed and reach of social media have accelerated its dissemination.
To illustrate this, she recalled a study she conducted on the coverage of science in a tabloid called Weekly World News. While most of the stories were made up, some were based on actual scientific oddities.
This mix of fact and fiction enticed readers who often struggled to differentiate between what was real and what was not.
Differentiating between bad science reporting and fake news can be challenging. Inaccurate science news often spreads through social networks because it offers hope to people.
Brossard explains that individuals tend to share stories that align with their beliefs or offer potential treatments for diseases affecting their loved ones. Journalists, while searching for human interest and hope, may not always be well-trained to evaluate the validity of a study, leading to inaccurate reporting.
Brossard suggests three ways to improve science communication and reduce inaccuracies in science news.
First, scientists need to engage in effective communication by finding common ground with nonscientists and avoiding the temptation to simply present more facts, which can cause people to become more entrenched in their beliefs.
Scientists should also take responsibility for communicating their work and collaborate with journalists to ensure accurate reporting.
Second, institutions and agencies need to exercise “quality or brand control” similar to companies like Coca-Cola, which actively monitors news and responds to any mention of its brand. Similarly, organizations should act promptly when studies are misinterpreted to avoid misinformation.
Lastly, search engines like Google should remove retracted studies from search results. Retracted studies, even when labeled as such, can still influence people’s beliefs. Brossard points out that individuals may cling to a single discredited study that aligns with their beliefs, disregarding overwhelming scientific consensus.
Efforts like the Retraction Watch blog, which highlights retracted studies, have been important in raising awareness about scientific inaccuracies. However, social media plays a significant role in reinforcing shared beliefs, making it crucial to ensure accurate science news from the outset.
Brossard concludes by urging scientists to actively communicate their work, consider the consequences of their statements, and acknowledge the importance of science communication.
By doing so, scientists can contribute to accurate reporting and counter the spread of fake news, ultimately fostering a better understanding of science among the public.
