New Report Tackles Growing Challenge of Science Misinformation

A comprehensive new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is offering fresh insights into the complex problem of scientific misinformation and strategies to combat it. Released on December 19, the report examines the nature, sources, and impact of misinformation about science while providing recommendations for limiting its spread.

The committee behind the report, chaired by K. Vish Viswanath, Lee Kum Kee Professor of Health Communication at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, defined science misinformation as “information that asserts or implies claims that are inconsistent with the weight of scientific evidence.” Viswanath emphasized that this definition allows for evolution as scientific understanding advances.

“People focus on bad actors intentionally spreading misinformation on social media, but we found that the problem is more complicated,” Viswanath explained. The report identifies numerous sources of misinformation beyond social media, including politicians, entertainment figures, for-profit companies, and even reputable scientific organizations and universities. Often, the spread occurs unintentionally through personal social networks.

The report highlights that misinformation exposure is not uniform across populations. Viswanath’s research focuses on social vulnerability and equity issues surrounding access to accurate scientific information. “Who has access to accurate scientific information, either individually or institutionally? And what are the consequences of this differential access to information?” he asks.

Crisis periods create particularly fertile ground for misinformation to flourish, as people actively seek information to navigate uncertain circumstances. The consequences can be severe, especially for marginalized communities that may be specifically targeted. During COVID-19, for instance, anti-Asian racism spiked alongside pandemic-related misinformation.

On a broader societal level, misinformation can distort public opinion and potentially erode trust in institutions. However, Viswanath notes that most research has focused on individual impacts, with less known about institutional and societal harm.

The report outlines a four-pronged approach to interventions: addressing supply, demand, distribution, and uptake of misinformation. Supply-focused strategies include reducing sources of misinformation (such as deplatforming problematic accounts) and increasing accurate information through science journalism. Demand-side approaches involve supporting people seeking reliable information and making misinformation harder to access through moderation policies and search result adjustments.

“Prebunking” represents another promising strategy, which involves warning people about manipulative techniques and false narratives before exposure. However, Viswanath emphasizes that current efforts focus too heavily on individuals rather than institutions.

“How do we build capacity and capability to generate more accurate science information and increase its supply rather than focus on censoring inaccurate information?” he asks. This institutional approach represents a key shift in thinking about misinformation management.

The report’s recommendations highlight that responsibility extends beyond individuals to include universities, professional science societies, and community organizations. Building institutional capacity to promote accurate scientific information and ensuring it reaches all groups, especially underserved populations, forms a central recommendation.

The findings come at a critical time when public trust in scientific institutions faces ongoing challenges. By addressing both individual and systemic aspects of misinformation, the report provides a framework for strengthening the communication of scientific evidence while acknowledging the complex social and institutional environments in which information spreads.

As scientific misinformation continues to influence public health decisions, environmental policy, and other crucial areas, this multi-faceted approach offers a pathway toward a more informed public discourse based on the best available evidence.