In late 2024, the National Academies of the Sciences (NAS) published the uncorrected proofs of their report, Understanding and Addressing Misinformation About Science. The 409-page report, which will be published in an updated version after peer review, can be viewed online, downloaded, or ordered in book format. The report offers the most comprehensive analysis of misinformation related to science that I have seen to date.
Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the work was the provision of a definition for misinformation about science that make scientific information unique based on the tenets and practice of science. Specifically, the authors wrote:
“… misinformation about science is information that asserts or implies claims that are inconsistent with the weight of accepted scientific evidence at the time (reflecting both quality and quantity of evidence). Which claims are determined to be misinformation about science can evolve over time as new evidence accumulates and scientific knowledge regarding those claims advances.” (p. 2)
The committee also defined disinformation as a sub-category of misinformation because while the information being spread is knowingly false, intent “is not an attribute of information itself; rather it is an attribute of an actor who creates or shares the information” (p. 34). The authors pointed out that it can be difficult to determine intent, especially if the original source is unknown (such as on social media networks), and that intent does not change the potential harm or influence of the inaccurate information. For these reasons, the committee determined that intent was not an essential component of the definition.
In addition to exploring the characteristics of information, misinformation and disinformation about science and offering definitions, the report includes information about:
- Factors that shape the current information environment and scientific information within that environment
- Sources of misinformation about science, including considerations related to industry, government and politicians, think tanks, mainstream news media, partisan media outlets, ethnic and diasporic news and media, alternative health and science media, entertainment and popular culture, the scientific and medical community, and individual sources of misinformation about science
- How misinformation about science spreads and what is known about its impact
- Data on interventions to address misinformation at four points, including supply, distribution, demand and uptake
- Methods used for studying misinformation
The report resulted in 13 recommendations related to different aspects of misinformation about science, including:
- Its sources (Recommendations 1 – 3)
- Its spread (Recommendations 4 – 9)
- Interventions (Recommendations 10 – 11)
- Challenges for understanding and addressing it (Recommendations 12 – 13)
Read, download or order the complete report on the NAS website.
Contributed by: Charlotte A. Moser
In late 2024, the National Academies of the Sciences (NAS) published the uncorrected proofs of their report, Understanding and Addressing Misinformation About Science. The 409-page report, which will be published in an updated version after peer review, can be viewed online, downloaded, or ordered in book format. The report offers the most comprehensive analysis of misinformation related to science that I have seen to date.
Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the work was the provision of a definition for misinformation about science that make scientific information unique based on the tenets and practice of science. Specifically, the authors wrote:
“… misinformation about science is information that asserts or implies claims that are inconsistent with the weight of accepted scientific evidence at the time (reflecting both quality and quantity of evidence). Which claims are determined to be misinformation about science can evolve over time as new evidence accumulates and scientific knowledge regarding those claims advances.” (p. 2)
The committee also defined disinformation as a sub-category of misinformation because while the information being spread is knowingly false, intent “is not an attribute of information itself; rather it is an attribute of an actor who creates or shares the information” (p. 34). The authors pointed out that it can be difficult to determine intent, especially if the original source is unknown (such as on social media networks), and that intent does not change the potential harm or influence of the inaccurate information. For these reasons, the committee determined that intent was not an essential component of the definition.
In addition to exploring the characteristics of information, misinformation and disinformation about science and offering definitions, the report includes information about:
- Factors that shape the current information environment and scientific information within that environment
- Sources of misinformation about science, including considerations related to industry, government and politicians, think tanks, mainstream news media, partisan media outlets, ethnic and diasporic news and media, alternative health and science media, entertainment and popular culture, the scientific and medical community, and individual sources of misinformation about science
- How misinformation about science spreads and what is known about its impact
- Data on interventions to address misinformation at four points, including supply, distribution, demand and uptake
- Methods used for studying misinformation
The report resulted in 13 recommendations related to different aspects of misinformation about science, including:
- Its sources (Recommendations 1 – 3)
- Its spread (Recommendations 4 – 9)
- Interventions (Recommendations 10 – 11)
- Challenges for understanding and addressing it (Recommendations 12 – 13)
Read, download or order the complete report on the NAS website.
Contributed by: Charlotte A. Moser