By Gabriel Iván Vega Bellido 

This is the ninth post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.

Most people don’t interact with professional scientists on a regular basis. Therefore, the depictions of scientists in popular media play a significant role in influencing the general public’s expectations, trust, and understanding of the scientific community. If you were to ask your friends and family who aren't in scientific fields about their understanding of a scientist, their responses would likely be shaped by a mix of both real-life and fictionalized portrayals encountered through various media. This post aims to contemplate how some of the most popular depictions of scientists in English-speaking media, including various works of fiction, have reflected and influenced the public’s perception of science and scientists.

By David Sidibe

 This is the eighth post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.

Mistrust in the scientific and medical community is reaching a boiling point. You don’t have to look too far to find evidence of this fact, with the politicization of medicine and vaccines during the Covid-19 pandemic. While I would like to say that there is one cause of this mistrust, the reality is that this mistrust is multi-faceted and rooted in a history of careless and, quite frankly, horrific treatment of patients. The impact of mistrust of the medical community among people of color and people from underrepresented minority (URM) backgrounds is of particular concern. Ethnic, racial, and gender health disparities are prevalent in communities throughout the US. Current and historical events (see Tuskegee Syphilis Study, HeLa cells, and the AIDS epidemic for examples) have only further amplified the mistrust within URM communities. 

By Maya Hale

This is the seventh post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.

Academia requires publications for success. They can be a condition to defend a PhD thesis (or dissertation), a part of a tenure application, or guidance for research and education. 

Lack of access to primary literature isn’t just restrictive to academics. It also acts as a barrier for aspiring students to break into science. Students submitting papers to the Journal of Emerging Investigators (JEI), a volunteer-run scientific journal for middle and high school students, are often unable to explore certain questions or even make reviewer edits to their submissions because they do not have access to publications on their research topic or the statistical analysis needed to improve publication quality.  

By Alexandra Ramirez

This is the sixth post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.

Communicating science takes many forms and is practiced by those in all stages of their scientific career. Likely the most common and most recognizable type of science communication is publishing research articles in scientific journals. These articles can be accessed by audiences around the world, both in and outside of the scientific field (though all are not always available through open-access sources). Publications are also increasingly becoming the currency needed for career growth and success in academic research. However, going from project conception to publication of a research article takes years. For those just starting out in research, publishing is a goal that is highly sought after but cannot be immediately accomplished.

By Zeenat Diwan

This is the fifth post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.

“Science has the potential to address some of the most important problems in society and for that to happen, scientists have to be trusted by society and they have to be able to trust each others' work. If we are seen as just another special interest group that are doing whatever it takes to advance our careers and that the work is not necessarily reliable, it's tremendously damaging for all of society because we need to be able to rely on science.”

—Ferric Fang quoted by Jha (2012)

By Amanda N. Weiss

This is the fourth post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.

Peer-reviewed manuscripts often serve as the primary way to disseminate information within academia. People trust that the information they’re reading is reliable and rigorous, as other experts in the field have already vetted the paper to make sure that it’s of high quality. However, peer review can be a slow process, preventing valuable information from reaching audiences in a timely manner. This can be a barrier in fields that are rapidly advancing, and is especially problematic when information is needed as quickly as possible, as is the case during public health emergencies. 

By Clara Raithel

This is the third post in our series about how science is communicated and the consequences thereof.

Whether it is an application for research funding, or a manuscript sent to a scholarly journal for publication, writing is an essential aspect of scientific work. The majority of the resulting output is evaluated by other scientists, in a process referred to as peer review. The ultimate purpose of this evaluation is to ensure the originality, importance, and quality of the academic work before it is executed, or made publicly available. In other words, grants are awarded, and manuscripts are published only when scientific standards are met. As such, peer review represents a critical gatekeeping moment that can define the outcome of entire scientific careers - simply because so much in science depends on the amount of financial resources available, and the number of papers published. However, its consequences reach far beyond an individual’s career: peer review impacts the knowledge produced and shared with the rest of the world – thereby potentially affecting the lives of millions of people.

This is the second post in our series about how scientific findings are communicated and the consequences thereof.

“Do your own research.” It sounds harmless, even admirable. But dig a little deeper, and you’ll find that this philosophy is a major antagonist in the fight against scientific misinformation.  Anti-vaxxers “did their own research” when they found a Lancet paper (later retracted) that claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and the onset of autism. Despite the paper’s retraction and its claims having no scientific basis, a nationally representative survey conducted in 2019 found that 18% of respondents believed vaccines cause autism. Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug most commonly used in veterinary practice, received attention after a few early studies suggested it might prevent and treat COVID-19 infection. It couldn’t have helped when Joe Rogan, currently the most popular podcast host on Spotify, shared “his own research” and personal belief in ivermectin’s efficacy. The research on ivermectin was later retracted by the author or subject to criticism. Still, due to the initial hyperbolic attention, the CDC reported a 24-fold increase in ivermectin prescriptions in August of 2021 compared to the pre-pandemic baseline. This sharp rise in prescriptions was associated with concern from Poison Centers and the FDA about the number of individuals reporting medical complications and hospitalizations following inappropriate ivermectin use. 

This is the first post in our series about how scientific findings are communicated and the consequences thereof.

“Abortion bans are on the ballot this year, and they are going by the name Doug Mastriano.”

So began a get-out-the-vote advertisement that I, based in Philadelphia, saw multiple times on YouTube in the weeks before the 2022 midterm elections. Similar ads centered on the anti-abortion stances of other Republican candidates for office. Abortion rights loomed large on the ballot last November, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization barely five months earlier to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Roe decision had limited the ability of state governments to regulate abortion in the first two trimesters, interpreting the 14th Amendment of the Constitution as conferring a right to privacy in such cases. Now, the Dobbs decision declared that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion at all, and restricting abortion at any stage of pregnancy is up to the states.