Science, the media and misinformation – who’s fighting the good fight?

In this blog, Tom Sheldon, Senior Manager at the Science Media Centre (SMC), explores how scientists and communicators are taking on misinformation head-on — and how the SMC’s work supports both researchers and journalists in helping the public make sense of complex, and sometimes controversial, scientific issues.

Misinformation is, at best, annoying.  But when the public are being fed misinformation on the defining scientific issues of our times, it is a serious threat.  Climategate – the orchestrated attack on the very foundations of climate science around 2010 – threatened to overturn public acceptance of the reality of climate change. The confected furore around GM food in the 90s, where the media and campaigners were complicit in spreading false claims about the health and environmental impacts of genetic modification, persuaded many that GM was poisonous. And despite what everyone says about wanting evidence-based policy, it doesn’t work like that. Where public opinion goes, policy obediently follows. In other words, if the public are misinformed, science suffers. 

There's some good news. Despite being called liars and hoaxers by the ideological deniers, climate scientists tirelessly plugged away at communicating the evidence and most (sane) people were convinced. Plant scientists were caught out by the anti-GM onslaught first time round, but by spending time explaining the science of nutrition and genetics, we are starting to see a shift in media reporting of and public attitudes to genetically edited food. They helped science journalists sift fact from fiction, the coverage improved, people were better informed. 

You often hear that a lie gets round the world before the truth can get its boots on. But that’s only half the story. If the rest of us help the truth boot up faster and start running, you often find that even if ideology wins the first salvos, evidence triumphs in the long game. And you don't have to look further than the pandemic for evidence of that working well. Despite all the misinformation about every aspect of COVID, a tireless effort by researchers, medical professionals, and press officers across the scientific community ensured the public remained well-informed throughout. It wasn’t always easy or pretty. But science/health journalists wanted to hear from the experts, and the experts came forward in their numbers.

And this is precisely what we do at the Science Media Centre (SMC). We’re an independent charity with only one mission: to improve the public understanding of science and engineering by encouraging and supporting scientists to engage more often and more effectively with the media. We run towards the controversial, messy or politicised issues where science collides with myth or ideology, and we help bridge the gap between the scientists researching the hot topics and the journalists reporting them to the wider public.

It shouldn’t surprise you that our work at the SMC overlaps extensively with the scientific themes of the BIA and its members. Engineering biology, mRNA vaccines, gene therapy, AMR, animal research, personalised medicine, bioengineering, cancer genomics – we work on all those (and many more!) to provide journalists with the very best evidence and expertise. Every year, we issue thousands of quotes from scientists and run dozens of media briefings to ensure a constant flow of accurate information to journalists when they need it most. If you read a scathing response from a scientist in response to Trump’s bonkers claims about paracetamol and autism anywhere in the media recently, chances are it came from the SMC.

I should emphasise that it’s always a joint effort. Press officers across the UK’s universities, companies and research bodies are essential in helping find the scientists, and the scientists themselves give their time and expertise for free. The media can't (and shouldn’t) be told what to report, but busy journalists on the 24-hour media treadmill appreciate the help getting their stories right - and the system works. 

Those GM and climate scientists had a lot of help, of course, from us and from the wider scientific community who make it their business to ensure the public are informed reliably, accurately and responsibly. And you can help in two ways.

The first is your willingness to engage. Media stories about science often originate in the cutting-edge research being done in the UK scientific sector, including BIA member organisations. If you're not already in touch with the SMC, we’d love to talk about working with you.

The second is – and sorry about this – money. The SMC is a lean and efficient organisation, and we don't do fluff - we are laser focused on the stories where it really matters. But we rely on small donations from organisations across the UK scientific community. Your money won't influence our work, our independence is essential, but it will mean you are contributing to the only independent press office in the UK whose mission is accurate media reporting and a well-informed public.

If you agree that those are essential to a healthy society and a burgeoning scientific sector in the UK, you can help us make a difference in these ways. Please get in touch!  There are many answers to the question I posed in the title of this blog, and we’d love to include you among them.