Digital Consumer
Education
Social Networks
July 25, 2025
Science communication: antidote against disinformation
Bringing society closer to research results strengthens public trust in science and contributes to more informed decisions
In the 18th century, while smallpox outbreaks ravaged various parts of the world, movements against vaccination began to emerge — even before the production of vaccines as we know them today. At that time, a procedure called “variolation” was common, in which healthy people were inoculated with substances from the wounds of the sick, in an attempt to produce immunity (Britannica, n.d.). Despite representing an advance for the time, the practice was viewed with distrust in various sectors of society.
Although variolation involved risks — as some healthy people ended up being infected —, the process evolved and gave rise to vaccination, which proved so effective as to eradicate the disease from the planet (Britannica, n.d.). Nevertheless, distrust persisted, largely fueled by disinformation (read more in the text Anti-vaccine movements, below).
In the current context, this distrust has taken on new dimensions. Vaccine hesitancy, previously motivated solely by rumors and lack of knowledge about how vaccines work, is now intensified by denialist campaigns on social media, which are dedicated to questioning widely established scientific consensuses in areas such as health and the environment, in favor of specific economic interests of certain sectors (Galhardi et al., 2022).
The main antidote to combat this evil — which gained more strength with the Covid-19 pandemic — is accessible and clear scientific dissemination, especially in a scenario, like the current one, in which mistaken or manipulated information, which appeals to emotions, personal beliefs, and prejudice, circulates more efficiently and quickly than that based on solid evidence.
Scientific communication plays the role of bringing society closer to the knowledge generated by research, in a simplified and practical way, strengthening public trust in science and contributing to more informed decisions. By presenting clear and contextualized information, scientific communication functions as a reflective instrument, helping to develop critical thinking (UFACB, n.d.).
However, the dissemination of scientific information lacks efficiency, as it has not (yet) reached the speed at which the automated algorithms of social networks spread all kinds of information, including false ones, nor the appeal and influence that the content of social networks has on the audience: according to the DataReportal 2024 report, Brazilians spend an average of 9 hours and 13 minutes connected to the internet, of which 3 hours and 37 minutes are spent browsing social networks (read more in the column Brands and the era of the attention economy: the new currency of the digital world). Among the many challenges of scientific dissemination are:
- adapt the science content to the different languages of the algorithmic logic of social networks;
- curtail the production and dissemination of low-quality science, in publications of low reputation and without scientific rigor, such as the so-called predatory journals;
- promote the scientific literacy of laypeople and the media literacy of scientists (ABC, 2024).
Overcoming these challenges is also important to weaken the distrust in scientific institutions. Research conducted in 2019 by the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications (MCTIC) and the Center for Management and Strategic Studies (CGEE) showed that nine out of ten Brazilians trusted science, but did not know how to name scientists or research or science outreach institutions, evidencing the need to expand the reach and efficiency of outreach. The survey interviewed 2,200 people over 16 years old in all regions of Brazil.
Another survey, conducted in 2022 by the National Institute of Science and Technology in Public Communication of Science and Technology (INCT-CPCT), found that this trust decreased after the Covid-19 pandemic, due to the trail of “informational disorder” (fake news) it left behind — dubbed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “infodemic”.
Source: Nature Human Behaviour.
“The role of more robust, continuous, and well-structured science communication and science education policies becomes evident from this data,” states the study text, which was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). A survey-type investigation, conducted between November 2022 and August 2023 in 68 countries and published in “Nature Human Behaviour,” showed differences regarding the population’s trust in scientists around the world. Brazil ranks 21st, behind countries such as Egypt, India, Uganda, and Chile (figure).
“Infodemics have happened in one way or another in past epidemics, but what is happening now is on a global scale, where people are connected through different means and share information more quickly,” says Tim Nguyen, who manages the WHO’s epidemic information service, in a text on the entity’s website.
Operation
The mechanism that drives the information false was described by the University of Oxford. Researchers analyzed 830 news sources and concluded that misleading information (which they called “junk news”) is promoted by groups with financial interests, who optimize their content to appear with prominence in search engines on the internet and on social networks, through SEO (Search Engine Optimization) techniques.
The research, published in 2020, investigated why, during the Covid-19 pandemic, users had been exposed to misleading content. Among the main conclusions, the study highlights that websites of great prestige also promoted disinformation, inadvertently, by amplifying their online visibility — the republication of news without proper fact-checking may be one of the causes.
AI
Another instrument that has been serving — unintentionally or not — for scientific disinformation is Artificial Intelligence (AI). According to a report by “The Guardian”, in 2023, more than 10,000 articles published worldwide were subject to retractions due to improper and/or inadequate use of AI, linked to reasons ranging from authorship of information to data processing (read more in the column AI in scientific writing: advances and ethical implications).
“In the context of post-truth, people tend to prioritize their personal beliefs over scientific facts, a phenomenon exacerbated by the logic of algorithms on social media,” says a passage from the book “Challenges and strategies in the fight against scientific disinformation,” released in 2024 by the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, which proposes guidelines and actions to combat scientific disinformation, with a focus on education.
“Mitigating scientific misinformation requires a solid understanding of science, communication strategies, and media manipulation. Among the actions, the importance of developing critical thinking about media and social networks is highlighted, helping people to objectively evaluate information, verify evidence, and recognize biases,” says the text.
Psychological factor
But why is it so easy to spread false information? Psychological factors contribute greatly to this phenomenon, according to the APA (American Psychological Association). “People are more likely to share misinformation when it aligns with personal identity or social norms, when [the information] is novel, and when it evokes strong emotions,” states text on the entity’s website.
Concerned about the situation, in February 2024 the body issued a resolution addressed to psychologists, educators, researchers, and public policymakers titled Combating Misinformation and Promoting Psychological Science Literacy, with the aim of increasing public awareness of the psychological mechanisms behind the creation and dissemination of misinformation.
Among other things, the resolution proposes the “inclusion of the psychological science point of view in public health campaigns, educational programs, and political initiatives that address health misinformation”. The text also highlights that the possible consequences of misinformation include even violence, as happened with the cell phone towers that were set on fire in England after the circulation of false information about the supposed dangers of 5G wireless technology. “We are all susceptible to misinformation to some extent, even on subjects we know, because fact-checking is an arduous cognitive task,” the text states.
The role of scientific journals
Given the speed at which information circulates and the amount of data available, the role of scientific journals becomes even more relevant: they are the ones that help to organize, validate and give visibility to the knowledge produced by researchers and specialists. “Through editorial curation, peer review, and adherence to ethical and methodological criteria, these publications ensure that the knowledge present there is reliable and useful,” states Simone Oliveira, coordinator of Editora Pecege, responsible for the publication of the scientific journal “Quaestum” and the technical-scientific publication “Estratégias e Soluções (E&S)”.
“As editorial coordinator, I realize that journals play a formative role, not only for authors but also for reviewers, editors, and society (readers). Each accepted article, each opinion issued, each adjustment made, strengthens scientific and editorial culture. The publication process is, in itself, a space for learning and intellectual growth,” she says.
For her, it is also important to recognize that the publishing world needs to keep up with social transformations, technological and cultural, and this requires “openness to new formats, articulation with other areas of knowledge, attention to language, accessibility, visibility, and structured editorial policies to validate publications”. The challenge, she says, “is to maintain this commitment to quality without losing sight of the fluidity of processes, the transparency of decisions, and the real impact that science can (and should) have on the world”.
| Anti-vaccine movements |
|---|
The first vaccine considered a success story, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), emerged in 1796, against smallpox. Developed by the English physician Edward Jenner from the cowpox (vaccinia) virus, it caused unease and distrust in some sectors of society at the time, who did not understand the immunization process and feared side effects, even if mild. A few decades later, on the other side of the Atlantic, the launch of a vaccination campaign in Brazil, in the town of Paracatu (MG), in 1832, led a group of people to stone the house of the Chairman of the Municipal Council, a position equivalent to mayor, out of fear of information from anonymous pamphlets claiming the politician intended to infect everyone. It was later proven that these were fake news distributed by a judge who was a political enemy of the Chairman of the Council (Westin, 2020). In 1853, an anti-vaccine movement began to organize in London and culminated in the creation of an anti-vaccination league (Oliveira et al, 2022). Despite all the attacks, research continued, and currently, vaccines protect against more than 30 diseases, from pneumonia to cervical cancer, and immunization helps prevent up to 5 million deaths per year globally (WHO, n.d.). The opposing voices, however, did not subside. The anti-vaccine movement gained new momentum in 1998, when British doctor Andrew Wakefield published a paper in the medical journal “The Lancet” suggesting that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine could cause autism. The study, filled with ethical, technical, and methodological flaws, was eventually retracted. |
| To access the references of this text click here |
This content was produced by:
Renata de Gáspari Valdejão Almeida
Assistant Editor of the “Strategies and Solutions (E&S) Magazine”, published by Pecege Publishing House. She is a journalist, screenwriter, and researcher. She worked for 16 years at “Folha de S.Paulo”, as an editor and reporter, and collaborated with several national circulation magazines, such as “Época Negócios”, “Revista Pais & Filhos”, and “Superinteressante”. She worked in the communication area of the USP School of Medicine and was the Audiovisual Coordinator of UNA-SUS/UFMA, in Maranhão.
Who wrote this column
Editora Pecege
