Science and Social Media
Are you interested in science? Do you keep up with interesting new scientific findings? Chances are, whether you are a scientist or not, you get your information about new scientific information from social media.
Scientists build their knowledge base by sharing interesting and important findings. This allows them to stay on the cutting edge of what their chosen field considers relevant and true. Sharing this information easily and quickly is vital to science, so it is no wonder that, after the development of social media, scientists flocked to it to connect with their colleagues and stay updated on what’s happening in their field of study.
However, scientists communicating with other scientists is just one part of the social media picture. Social media has also become a place where people receive their everyday news and information about the world at large. This includes popular or significant scientific findings. While this isn’t always a bad thing, there are some key differences in how scientists and non-scientists discuss science on social media. When these differences clash, it can lead to miscommunication or the spread of misinformation. This brings up a key question: how can scientists and non-scientists communicate effectively on social media?
When Scientists Communicate Poorly
Many scientists are familiar with the word “jargon,” or overly technical language specific to a certain area of expertise. Scientists are warned against overusing jargon in order to make their discussions of their findings accessible to people outside of their field. However, many scientists consider social media a place to communicate with other scientists, meaning they aren’t always thinking about removing jargon from their posts, or about whether they are communicating to people who are unfamiliar with the scientific process.
Because of this, discussions that are normal for scientists but may be unfamiliar to non-scientists are suddenly made public, and misunderstandings can happen. H. Holden Thorp described an example of this in his 2022 article for Science: “science is an honorably self-correcting process. Interpretations are revised and sometimes experimental results are found to be incorrect, and conclusions are modified….the record of these changes, often preserved indefinitely on social media, provides material for agenda-driven naysayers to paint scientists as flip-floppers.
Good scientists will change their opinion when new facts are uncovered, updating their view of their field to be more accurate. But because many people think of science as “hard facts,” this public back-and-forth can lead people who are already skeptical of scientific information to mistrust what is being shared. So even if non-scientists are familiar with the information being discussed, the way scientists talk about this information on social media can impact how it’s perceived.
Who’s Selling You Something?
Another aspect of how science can be misunderstood on social media stems from who it is shared by and why. The Pew Research Center, a nonprofit operating out of Washington, D.C., found in 2018 that even though millions of people follow Facebook pages which are described as “science-related” pages, only 29% of the posts on these pages actually cover new scientific discoveries, while most posts were either focused on “practical applications” of scientific concepts or on advertisements and promotional events.
This means that even if people follow a page to receive new scientific information, what they actually get is often several levels removed from the actual findings. And while scientific papers and articles are written so that data can be conveyed as clearly as possible, “news you can use” writing and advertisements have a different priority: selling something to the reader. Each layer provides more risk of misinterpretation. This means that by the time a scientific concept reaches the person reading the article, it has often been misinterpreted to the point of being inaccurate.
Even beyond Facebook, social media in general rewards material that sells a product — think of how many TikTok creators have begun making videos catered to selling items on the TikTok Shop. This is fine in some areas, such as fashion or makeup, but the purpose of science is to build and convey information, and you can’t sell information. Scientific misinformation on social media often spreads when the people reporting on the science prioritize engagement, “the algorithm”, and monetization over good scientific practice, such as unbiased reporting and citing direct sources.
So, Who Do We Listen To?
So, how do we seek out accurate, trustworthy scientific information on social media that is accessible to non-scientists? One answer is to listen to professional science communicators. A science communicator’s entire job is to translate the conversations happening between scientists — which can be unfamiliar or difficult to understand — into terms a non-scientist can understand, and doing so without bias (for example, without financial incentive to support a particular viewpoint).
Science communicators are familiar with the scientific process — such as the back-and-forth conversation that happens as a field uncovers new information — and can explain it to non-scientists. They also should not be trying to sell you anything based on the findings they report on. Most critically, good science communicators will make it easy to find where they got their information from. The majority of their information will come from direct scientific sources (research papers published in reputable journals), so the information they are discussing is coming directly from the actual scientists who are doing the research.
In Conclusion:
Social media is a valuable tool for science communication, and it isn’t going anywhere. The purpose of science is to build and share new knowledge, and social media allows both scientists and non-scientists to access the latest scientific information quickly and easily. However, the unregulated nature of social media means that sometimes scientists can miscommunicate the nature of their findings. It also means that, because of how social media sites drive their users towards monetization, the way in which scientific information is reported can be misleading or confusing for the public. For this reason, it is important to identify and listen to professional science communicators, and always think about why someone might be communicating science in the way that they are and where they are getting their information.