Holly Wood-Blake attended a training day organised by Stempra, focused on science communication, misinformation, and public trust in research. One of the clearest takeaways from the day: science communication is not just a ‘nice to have’ alongside research.
Scientists and researchers have an important role to play in helping the public separate fact from fiction. The ability to communicate evidence responsibly and accessibly is becoming an essential research skill in an increasingly complex media landscape.
What are misinformation and disinformation?
The terms misinformation and disinformation are often used interchangeably, but they are slightly different.
Misinformation is inaccurate or false information shared without deliberate intent to deceive. This could look like oversimplifying a study result in a social media post, or accidently sharing an outdated health claim believed to be true.
Disinformation is inaccurate or false information shared deliberately to mislead people. This could be a coordinated anti-vaccine campaign promoted by a political group, or misleading headlines designed to generate outrage and, in turn, clicks.
Why is this especially relevant to scientists and researchers?
Public trust in scientists remains consistently high in surveys on public attitudes to science. However, research findings can quickly become simplified or misunderstood once they leave academic settings. Many people encounter science news through mainstream journalism, often via social media feeds, headlines, podcasts, or short-form content. Good science communication can bridge this gap.
For researchers working in addiction and related fields, this can be especially important. Topics connected to drugs, alcohol, and other addictive products and behaviours are often emotionally charged or sensationalised.
There are three key factors underpinning good science communication.
Take public concerns seriously. Effective science communication is not about dismissing fears or ‘correcting’ people. Listening and responding respectfully is often more effective.
‘Pre-bunking’ can help. Anticipating likely misunderstandings before they spread can reduce confusion later. This could mean clearly explaining limitations, uncertainty, or common misconceptions when sharing findings.
Communicate proactively. If evidence-based voices are absent from public conversations, disinformation can fill the gap. Researchers do not need to become media personalities but engaging with public communication where possible can make a real difference.
A worked example: Responding quickly to disinformation
In September 2025, the press reported that the US Government was about to publish a document linking paracetamol use in pregnancy to autism. The Science Media Centre rapidly coordinated an expert reaction, featuring multiple researchers and clinicians explaining why the claims were inaccurate and unsupported by evidence. Journalists had access to credible expert commentary quickly, which meant that several media headlines and news reports were updated or reframed to reflect the evidence more accurately.
Practical tips
You do not need to be an expert – or a wannabe influencer! – to start building these skills.
Work with your communications team. Whether through your university, research institution, funder, or organisation, communications officers are there to help translate your research for wider audiences and build your profile.
Say yes to opportunities. Media training, public engagement events, podcasts, blogs, and panel discussions can all help build confidence over time.
Practice explaining your work simply. Being able to describe your research clearly, without jargon, is valuable not only for the public, but also for policymakers, practitioners, journalists, and potential interdisciplinary collaborators.
Engage early rather than only at publication stage. Thinking about communication from the start of a project can help improve accessibility and impact later.
Follow trusted science communication organisations. Organisations like the Science Media Centre, Full Fact, and Sense about Science regularly share useful resources and examples.
Remember that communication is part of impact. Research can’t inform policy, practice, or public understanding if people don’t understand it.
For early career researchers, science communication can feel intimidating, particularly in online spaces that can quickly become polarised. But it is important to remember that good science communication is not about having all the answers; it is about helping people access trustworthy evidence, understand uncertainty, and engage thoughtfully with research.
The opinions expressed in this post reflect the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions or official positions of the SSA.
The SSA does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of the information in external sources or links and accepts no responsibility.
