WASHINGTON — A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine provides a comprehensive assessment of the literature on science misinformation, its origins and impact, and strategies for mitigating its spread and potential harms.

While misinformation about science can originate from wide-ranging sources — such as corporations, governments and politicians, alternative health and science industries, entertainment media, news media, nongovernmental organizations, science organizations, individual scientists and medical professionals, and ordinary citizens — its influence varies, says the report. For example, science misinformation is more influential when it reaches large audiences, such as on search engines and social media. The report says search engines and social media platforms should foreground evidence-based science information that is clear and easy to understand for different audiences, working closely with nonprofit, nonpartisan professional science societies and organizations to identify such information.

To provide clarity and to focus its analysis, the committee that wrote the report defined misinformation about science as “information that asserts or implies claims that are inconsistent with the weight of accepted scientific evidence at the time (reflecting both quality and quantity of evidence).” Claims that are determined to be misinformation about science can evolve over time as new evidence accumulates and scientific knowledge advances. Moreover, the committee considered disinformation about science to be a subcategory of misinformation that is spread by agents who are aware they are circulating false information.

Over the last decade, concerns about the spread of misinformation about science and the role of scientific expertise in civic dialogue have grown significantly. The committee’s review of the evidence found that misinformation can lead people to hold misbeliefs with potentially negative consequences such as ill-informed personal choices for themselves or their communities; exacerbate existing harms within historically marginalized communities; distort public opinion in ways that limit productive debate on dealing with natural disasters and public health emergencies; and diminish trust in institutions, which is important to a healthy democracy.

“The evidence is clear that exposure to misinformation about science may lead to misbeliefs which, in turn, have the potential for causing harm at the individual and collective levels,” said committee chair K. “Vish” Viswanath, Lee Kum Kee Professor of Health Communication in the department of social and behavioral sciences at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and in the McGraw-Patterson Center for Population Sciences at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. “Misinformation about science is a multifaceted, complex phenomenon, and we all have a role in addressing it. We hope this report provides a road map for initial action and illuminates the areas where we need to learn more.”

The rise of more online participatory environments such as social media platforms has enabled greater exchange of information, but it has also made it more challenging for people to assess the credibility of the information they are reading and the scientific expertise of content sources. The report calls for funders of scientific research and nonpartisan professional science organizations to establish and fund an independent, nonpartisan consortium to identify and curate sources of high-quality, accurate science information on topics of public interest, and ensure broad and equitable access to this information.

Promoting the Spread of Accurate Science Information

Scientists and medical professionals who are active in the public arena can play a critical role in communicating accurate and reliable science and health information, the report says. Those who choose to take on high-profile roles as public communicators of science should understand how the scientific evidence they are communicating may be misinterpreted without appropriate context, and they should work proactively with communication professionals to include important context, interpretations, and caveats of scientific findings in their public communication.

Many adults in the U.S. get their science information from news outlets, making the quality and quantity of science news production increasingly important. Given cutbacks in the journalism industry that have reduced newsrooms’ capacity to report on science, the report includes recommendations for funders of news media organizations and professional science and journalism organizations to make intentional investments toward supporting and promoting high-quality science, health, and medical reporting, especially from local and community newsrooms. The report also includes recommendations for mitigating the misrepresentation of scientific studies or medical developments in press communications by universities, research organizations, and funders of scientific research.

Mitigating the Demand for and Uptake of Misinformation

Many historically marginalized and under-resourced communities experience disproportionately low access to accurate, culturally relevant, and sufficiently translated science-related information, which can create information voids that may be exploited and filled by misinformation about science, the committee concluded. Many community-based organizations (CBOs), including locally owned businesses, nonprofit organizations, and faith-based organizations, proactively work to adapt and provide reliable information to fill science information voids. They are well positioned to do so because of their local ties, awareness of local needs and concerns, and the trust that residents have in them. Nevertheless, the committee found, such community-based organizations are not always sufficiently resourced. To enhance the capacity of CBOs to provide high-quality and timely science information to their communities, government agencies and public and private philanthropic foundations should provide direct funding to CBOs. Organizations at national, state, and local levels that are focused on mitigation of misinformation should identify and utilize effective approaches that are best suited to their goals.

Strengthening the Evidence Base on Misinformation

Many approaches to address misinformation about science have demonstrated efficacy in small-scale, controlled experiments, but not consistently in real-world settings or over long periods of time, and many are focused on individuals, despite recognition in the field that systems-level action is needed. This inadvertently places the onus of mitigating the impacts of misinformation on individuals, the report says, and gives the perception that individual action is the most effective way to address misinformation about science. To strengthen the evidence base on the impacts of science misinformation at community and societal levels and mitigate them, funding agencies and organizations should direct more investments toward generating evidence to understand the impact of misinformation at the systems level and develop appropriate interventions. The report also includes recommendations to reduce barriers to obtaining comprehensive data on misinformation about science that appears on social media platforms.

The study — undertaken by the Committee on Understanding and Addressing Misinformation about Science — was sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences’ Fred Kavli Endowment Fund. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, engineering, and medicine. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln.

Contact:

Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; email news@nas.edu