How Media Hype Hurts Public Knowledge of Science

Remember that news article that was going around saying that a high proportion of Americans can’t tell astrology from astronomy? We tackled this news on the Science on Google+ Community, by going to an analysis of the original source. I’m republishing my comments and parts of our Community discussion.* I expand my argument to make two points: 1) Media hyperbole on science needs careful critique by scientists. 2) Scientific literacy requires our sustained engagement. I include some of interesting figures from the USA National Science Foundation (NSF) Science and Engineers Indicators report for 2014, focusing on Public Attitudes and Understanding of science and technology. This information speaks to the public’s lack of understanding about what scientists do, how funding works, and how trust in scientists influences the public’s assessment of the output of our research. I’d like to start a conversation about how to move forward in dispelling the hype and myths surrounding science.

Astronomical Misrepresentation of Science

Various major news publications reported on The National Science Foundation (NSF) study in February. The media focused on the idea that a large group of young people think that astrology is “scientific.” We had a few people post on this news to our Science on Google+ Community. They lamented the lack of knowledge about astronomy. Astronomy is an especially popular topic of discussion in our Community. One of our Community members, Matthew Timothy Bradley points to an excellent blog post by Richard Landers that re-examines the NSF data with respect to the questions they asked. On our Community discussion, Johnathan Chung notes differences in the responses across different age groups. He also notes that the public’s confusion may be related to changes in language. Most people are now used to thinking of astrology as “horoscopes” but if they are unfamiliar with astronomy (the science) they may misinterpret the word astrology to mean the scientific study. So: while they may understand that horoscopes are just a bit of fun, and they know that there is a formal science field that studies the universe, they may be confusing the words.

Johnathan notes that the media ran with shock headlines and did not adhere to the caveats in the original study. I noted the data in Lander’s post are illuminating but still contain gaps. At the heart of the problem is that most people are semantically confused about the difference between astronomy (a science) and astrology (not a science). Yes the words sound similar in English, which may explain why some people are confused.It may follow then that if the researchers had asked people a question about astrophysics that there may not have been the same level of confusion, since this word has the concept of physics embedded within, which is probably more clearly identified as a specialised area of science. Yet given the level of science fiction speculation I read about certain areas of astrophysics (e.g. black holes), I’d be curious what the findings might be for this discipline.

What I would like to see in a further study, is to dig deeper into the qualitative distinctions and what they mean for scientific literacy. If you take the qualitative answers from the poll in Landers’ blog post, to some people, astrology means:

Astrology is the study of how the positions of the planets affect people born at certain times of the year… The study the heavens for finding answers to life questions. (My emphasis)

These qualitative responses suggest that to some people, the “correct” meaning of astrology is still mistaken as a form of science.

Photo: Astronomer by Tobias Lindman, via Flickr, CC 2.0
Photo: Astronomer by Tobias Lindman, via Flickr, CC 2.0

Landers’ blog post provides a useful point of comparison to a study completed by the European Commission. A higher proportion of people think that astrology is scientific (41%) when they are specifically asked how scientific is astrology?, versus a lower proportion of people (13%) who think that horoscopes are scientific when asked specifically about this.

I see that these findings still suggest a troubling trend: that people don’t understand what astronomy is. Why is this? It shouldn’t be the case, as this is a major field of scientific study. I’ve previously covered that there’s plenty of evidence that the public doesn’t really understand the basics of science. So despite the qualitative distinctions, there is a public education problem here that needs to be addressed.

In our Community discussion, Rajini Rao notes that younger people were more likely to see astrology as science. Only 42% of people aged 18-24 thought that astrology was unscientific. A lower proportion of older people aged 35-44% today say the same (51%), where as in 2010, 64% of older people thought that astrology was not scientific. This trend is even more worrisome – older people are relatively less confused about astrology, but the misinterpretation is growing.

The broader NSF report shows other trends that influence the public’s understanding of science.

Science Literacy

So knowledge of astronomy is waning amongst older people relative to previous years. Is this because, as people get older, they forget their science education?

The NSF study identifies that well educated people with “factual knowledge” of science were less likely to confuse astrology for a science. This suggests that there may be a discrepancy between science education at different levels. At school, science teaching is still focused on remembering “facts,” while university learning is focused on developing critical thinking skills, which enables people to better weigh up new evidence.

There is more to the NSF study than what was reported by the media. The most interesting patterns are somewhat contradictory to the pursuit of enhanced public science outreach. For example, 80% of Americans surveyed are interested in new scientific discoveries, but then again, amongst those following science “closely” most are paying close attention to the weather, and only 16% of people follow other science and technology news this closely. Looking at public interest in science issues, new medical discoveries ranks higher than other scientific discoveries, technological inventions and space exploration, but all of these areas are at an all-time low compared to 30 years a go. Given that space exploration has the lowest level of public interest, this may explain the poor knowledge of astronomy.

Media Coverage of Science

Then again, this lack of interest in space news is odd given that it is the leading science and technology news story covered by traditional media such as TV and newspapers. Coverage of this news has significantly dropped in recent times. Space news peaked in the late 1990s, making up 5% of all news stories, but it still outweighs other biotechnology and basic medical research news, which, alarmingly, only make up 0.5% of all news stories. Drilling into traditional media coverage of science, health and medicine get more air time as a whole than environmental and other science news. Stories about health care reform led mainstream American news in 2011 to 2012, but there is less coverage of socio-economic issues impacting on public health, such as the Trayvon Martin shooting (that is, the relationship between gun reform, racism, the criminal justice system and mortality of Black Americans). As far as individual storylines being covered in the USA, NASA is a leading topic, while scant attention is paid to diseases such as cancer and injury research. Coverage of chronic illnesses that kill the most people in developed nations, such as heart and respiratory-related illnesses and diabetes, do not feature as leading news stories.

It appears that traditional media are out of step with the type of science and technology news that the public is after. This void is filled by new media.

The NSF study shows that a larger proportion of people get their science news from the internet today (42%) relative to previous years. When people seek out news about specific science and technology issues, over 60% go to the internet. It is a worry, however, that the most discussed issues in new media focus on technology companies like Apple, Google, or Samsung, as well as general discussion of social media and celebrities. This makes it all the more important for practising scientists to correct media hype such as the original reporting on this astrology finding, and all the more reason for us to publicly critique junk science news. (Science on Google+ is committed to these aims using the hashtags #ScienceMediaHype and #DebunkingJunkScience).


Knowledge of What Scientists Do

The NSF study finds that while most people have a high opinion of scientists, only half of the people surveyed say that they have a good or strong understanding of what we do. The public is more likely to have a clearer idea of what applied fields do, specifically engineering and computer programming. Again, space exploration ranks low as a topic of scientific interest, and perhaps explains why people confuse it linguistically with astronomy. Sadly, but not surprisingly, people do not see the social sciences as scientific research. This is partly due to the public’s narrow understanding of what science is and what it involves.

Most people think that scientists are devoted to solving important problems and that our work is not boring. These are true and useful things for the public to know. Unfortunately, there is misconception about how we carry out our work. More people think that scientists work alone, that our work is dangerous (notwithstanding the fact that this could mean different things to different people) and that we’re peculiar people. Misconceptions about what it means to be a scientist are likely to affect how people understand – and more importantly misunderstand – what we do, how we do it and why. This can have an impact on public interest in scientific endeavours.

The NSF data show that public education on science needs more practical support and active engagement by scientists, especially if we want to foster greater trust in scientific work.

Public Trust in Science

The NSF data show that public trust in science is relatively better than in other institutions, but still, this is outweighed by the proportion of people who distrust science. Around 2/5 of Americans trust scientists and the medical community, but half trust the military. Conversely, a higher proportion of people distrusted other institutions more than they distrusted science, but organised labour was distrusted the least.

Public confidence in institutional leader by type of institution: 2012
Public confidence in institutional leader by type of institution: 2012. Data via NSF

It’s possible to lift public understanding and trust in science when we look at the NSF’s international data. Overall, more Americans think that the harmful results of research outweigh its benefits, and this discontent has grown slightly since the last two surveys were conducted in 2008 and 2010. Scandinavian nations and Canada have a higher proportion of people who think science has done more harm than good. Then again Canada also has the highest proportion of people who have confidence in the good produced by science, along with nations like Taiwan, South Korea, Czech Republic, Austria and Mexico, while the Philippines has the highest confidence in science.

Public assessment of scientific research 2012-1979
Public assessment of scientific research 2012-1979. Data via NSF

Historical experience, public framing of debates and understanding of the practical and tangible benefits of institutions all influence how people understand their benefits. I’ve previously shown that a lack of understanding of science, such as its advantages and risks, affect the level of trust the public has in science. As I’ve shown previously, lack of trust in science is also associated with personal beliefs, values and attitudes.

There is some conflation of belief in faith versus belief in science. Around half of Americans think that there’s too much belief in science, which makes them similar to most European nations. Religion alone does not account for lack of trust, however, as education level and other socio-economic variables are also influential.

Belief in Science vs Faith. By NSF.
Belief in Science vs Faith. Data via NSF.


Science Funding

Perception of science funding has fluctuated over the years. This trend is influenced by economic and political pressures at particular points in time. Around a decade a go, more Americans believed that the government was not spending enough money on research. Close to 80% of Americans think that there’s not enough funding of education (presumably at the primary and secondary levels), but less than 40% think that there’s not enough funding of scientific research.


I will return to the issue research funding and trust in science at a later time. In a nutshell though, in some cases, people mistrust science because they don’t understand how science research is funded. People think all the money comes from lucrative private companies such as “big pharma.” The reality is that most research is funded by Government. So it is of critical public interest that this funding is being decreased in Australia (and elsewhere), despite the strong innovation and social progress stimulated by the sciences.

Moving Forward

I started this post reflecting on the misinterpretation about astrology and astronomy. Clearly there are problems with how people understand quantitative survey questions, so we need mixed methods to get to a deeper understanding of what all of this means. As I mentioned, people think science is dangerous and that the benefits do not always justify the costs. Why do people think this? Where do they get their ideas? If we take the astronomy example, clearly the media are not helping. They serve only to confuse the public on many science matters, offering only superficial slivers of information on rich, complex studies.

And now for the perennial question: How do we do better science outreach?

Clearly we have many dedicated scientists doing quality public engagement, but we need more. Given that applied science fields are more familiar to people, boosting the profile of applied research may help to increase public understanding of science. This is an especially important challenge for the social sciences, and sociology specifically, as our applied work is rarely highlighted as a strength.

But how do we dispel some of these myths about science funding, the pros and cons of research, and what it means to be a scientist? Is it enough for more of us to engage, or does the nature of our outreach need to change?

Write your ideas in the comments below!

Scientific literacy requires sustained engagement.  Support Applied Science & Public Outreach.
Scientific literacy requires sustained engagement. Support Applied Science & Public Outreach.



*This article as first posted onGoogle+.

Top photo: Astronomers by vastateparksstaff via Flickr, CC 2.0

Connect With Me

Follow me @OtherSociology or click below!

Other Sociologist TwitterOther Sociologist FacebookOther Sociologist Google+Other Sociologist InstagramOther Sociologist TumblrOther Sociologist Pinterest


7 thoughts on “How Media Hype Hurts Public Knowledge of Science

  1. On the topic of dispelling hype and myths surrounding science:

    · Those formally educated in science have a fiduciary obligation to educate others, especially others in the media. As in the field of science itself, credentials matter here.

    · We must continue to call out both bad science and bad science reporting. Perhaps we extend this to contacting the media sources directly and publishing their replies, or tweet- and comment-storming the original media articles?

    · It is not reasonable to expect media not to hype science (or anything else), especially in this era of “citizen journalism” (i.e., loud people with blogs and social media accounts). Media is in the selling businesses, not the education business. Our task, then, continues to be counteracting the hype.

    · Heavy, consistent, and timely moderation is key in combatting erroneous science factoids and lack [of] scientific content or explanation. Although there are opportunities to educate here, improving the real-science signal-to-noise ratio seems most important. (I may suffer the bias of idealism.)

    · We need a better response to big-industry funding concerns so the conversation doesn’t devolve into an “is not/is too” playground argument.

    · Can we combat misperceptions about funding by including a description of funding sources when we review papers and articles? Is that information readily available? Positive spin can help tremendously here, e.g., “none of would have been possible without the basic research funding from . This is what makes science, and your future, possible.” In the frequent case of publicly (i.e., tax) funded projects, address the readers’ contribution and play up their vicarious participation: “The best part is that you made this possible through your government. Be proud that you are helping to advance and improve life for everyone.”

    In regard to misconceptions about who scientists are and what scientists actually do:

    · Perhaps we should encourage autobiographical posts from scientists, tagged #HowIDoScience or something similar, using a prescribed format or template. At work/at home/at play videos would help tremendously, opening and closing with, “I am , and this is how I do science.”


    · More engagement by more scientists is always better.

    · More scientists engaging is always better.


  2. Letha McGarity I did a double major in science and media as an undergrad – ethics was a major part of the training in our journalism units. The Journalism Code of Ethics includes not sensationalising reporting: Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.  (

    It is absolutely possible to make a clever and fun headline without misrepresenting the findings! 

    Your points about behavioural science are misguided. Like all sciences, methods can be used as they were intended, or they can be misused. People who misuse surveys are not properly qualified to be doing that research. The NSF survey needed input from strong qualitative social scientists who are expertly trained on how to ask valid and reliable questions. Part of this training is understanding the empirical and theoretical literature on how questions can be misunderstood by participants and how to write up the data so as not to confuse the public.

    I agree that we need better science training for journalists. The problem is that there are many people who call themselves science writers on news sites, blogs and on social media who aren’t qualified to write about science. We need people with science degrees writing about science. Even then there are issues: when scientists write on a topic outside their field, they should speak to experts in that specialised discipline to craft a proper story that enlightens, rather than distorts. I’ve written about this a lot on G+ and on my blog – it’s a major problem when journalists present findings without critical understanding what the science actually means. Public education should be the goal, not simply flimsy entertainment. Science is already interesting and fun – it doesn’t need sensationalism.

    What we often see is people regurgitating poorly written press releases, cherry picking tidbits (which often involves reproducing stereotypes) and jumping to the wrong conclusions (drawing causation from correlations, etc.).

    I can see benefits in offering advanced science writing courses that include interdisciplinary groups of scientists and journalists working together. I’m a big believer in interdisciplinary collaboration. Positive change evolves from diffusion and cross-pollination of ideas. As it stands, some journalists aim their science reporting to the lowest common denominator (sound bites and moral panic). Many scientists only talk to other scientists in their own fields. It’s obvious but it bears repeating: this needs to change.


  3. Michael Verona Thanks for sharing your ideas! Your first point hits the nail on the head: many science news reports do not link to the original source. The reason this is the case is because in many cases they haven’t read the paper, they’re simply reporting on a press release! The original science papers often have jargon titles, so they’re hard to find. This makes it difficult for the general public to go back to the original source. Of course you would need a science degree in that specific field to be able to read the original paper any way – but still, it would help to include sources.

    I disagree that it’s unreasonable to expect journalists not to hype up science. It actually goes against the journalism code of ethics, as I noted above. It actually doesn’t take that much work for a journalism to research their articles properly, by speaking to the authors as well as other experts in the field to provide a well-rounded and informative piece. We don’t accept lazy journalism on other important fields like politics and conflict, so STEM writing should be held to the same high standards.

    I agree that industry funding is an especially confusing subject for some segments of the public. But we actually already include disclosures of funding for all science papers and reports, so it’s all publicly available information. Websites like The Conversation include disclosures for all authors (if you don’t already read it, it’s really great – all articles are written by scientists for public audiences The problem is that sceptics and anti-science folk misunderstand how funding works. As I noted, most science is funded by Government, but how that money is awarded is up to professional science bodies. In Australia the primary funding is funnelled via the Australian Research Council. 

    Absolutely – more outreach and engagement by scientists is ideal! I love your  #HowIDoScience idea!


Comments are closed.