Understanding the Spread of Science Misinformation  

Written by: Beth Dougherty

According to a new report, misinformation about science and health can lead individuals to make ill-informed decisions that aren’t in their best interest. It also has broader effects in society by causing confusion and eroding trust in institutions, including scientific institutions. 

Over the past two-plus years, a panel of scientific investigators gathered by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine set out to understand science misinformation. Led by Dana-Farber health communication expert Vish Viswanath, PhD, the team produced the report, which defines misinformation and lays out strategies for mitigating its spread and potential harms.   

“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 Viswanath, a science communications researcher and professor of population sciences 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.” 

An illustration of a person surrounded by question marks.

Definition and impact of misinformation 

The report defined misinformation about science as information that asserts or implies claims that are inconsistent with current accepted scientific evidence. Misinformation can be intentional, perhaps with the goal of gaining attention or selling a product. But it can also be unintentional, caused by a misunderstanding, by outdated information, or a lack of access to accurate information.  

“What is factually correct today may evolve in the coming months or years,” says Viswanath. “For example, breast cancer screening guidelines have changed multiple times in recent years.” 

Misinformation can affect anyone, but the report found that it can exacerbate existing harms for historically marginalized groups. People who live in historically marginalized or under-resourced communities experience disproportionately low access to accurate, culturally relevant, and sufficiently translated science-related information. According to the report, the lack of credible information can create information voids that may be exploited and filled by misinformation about science.  

Avoiding and slowing misinformation 

A key practice for a person seeking accurate information about science or cancer, says Viswanath, is to identify credible sources of information. For example, Dana-Farber strives to provide up-to-date and accurate information about cancer based on the latest scientific evidence. The Institute also builds community partnerships and outreach programs that help make reliable information available accessible to diverse communities across the Boston area. Other sources of reliable science information include the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which also base their recommendations on the latest science.  

“It’s a good idea to double check information you see in an unreliable place, such as on social media or by word of mouth, and see if a few reliable sources back it up,” says Viswanath.  

There are multiple ways that misinformation begins and spreads, according to the report. The panel identified four points of intervention where misinformation risks can be mitigated: the supply, demand, distribution, and uptake of information.  

According to the team’s research, most of the burden of slowing the flow of science misinformation currently occurs in the uptake space. That is, it falls on individuals to spot misinformation, actively choose not to spread it, and, if possible, take strides to debunk it.  

“That’s not a solution,” says Viswanath. “Solutions at the institutional level are more critical.” 

Institutions can help by increasing the “friction” for misinformation distribution. For instance, social media organizations could implement programs to down-rank posts that contain scientific misinformation and promote posts that share accurate science.  

Scientific organizations and investigators can also help prevent the spread of misinformation on the supply side and the demand side. For instance, they can avoid sensational or misleading headlines and provide context for discoveries to reduce the risk that science will be misinterpreted. 

Doctors and medical professionals can play a role in reducing misinformation by gently steering patients away from harmful misinformation and providing easy to access to reliable and supportive information. 

Future directions 

The report identified a range of recommendations for future investments, interventions, and investigations to strengthen the understanding of the spread of misinformation and to reduce it.   

One of Viswanath’s areas of focus for future research is on providing effective cancer prevention information to people living in historically marginalized communities in the Boston area. As part of the effort, he has partnered with community-based organizations that have local ties, awareness of local needs and concerns, and the trust of local residents.  

“Trust is a key component, and we want to do what we can to maintain and increase it,” says Viswanath.  

2 thoughts on “Understanding the Spread of Science Misinformation  ”

Leave a Comment