Consensus Study Report
NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation (Award No. 2153107). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-72395-4
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-72395-7
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/27894
Library of Congress Control Number: 2025934029
This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Understanding and Addressing Misinformation About Science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27894.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE
KASISOMAYAJULA “VISH” VISWANATH (Chair), Lee Kum Kee Professor of Health Communication, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
NICK ALLUM, Professor of Research Methodology, University of Essex
NADINE J. BARRETT, Senior Associate Dean, Equity in Research and Community Engagement, Wake Forest School of Medicine
DAVID A. BRONIATOWSKI, Professor, Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, The George Washington University
AFUA A. N. BRUCE, Adjunct Professor, Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University
LISA K. FAZIO, Associate Professor of Psychology, Vanderbilt University
LAUREN FELDMAN, Professor, Department of Journalism and Media Studies, Rutgers University
DEEN FREELON, Presidential Professor, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania
ASHELEY R. LANDRUM, Associate Professor, Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Communication, Arizona State University
DAVID M. J. LAZER, University Distinguished Professor, Northeastern University
EZRA M. MARKOWITZ, Professor of Environmental Decision-Making, University of Massachusetts Amherst
PAMELA C. RONALD (NAS), Distinguished Professor, University of California, Davis
DAVID SCALES, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Joan & Sanford I. Weill Medical College, Cornell University
BRIAN G. SOUTHWELL, Lead Scientist for Public Understanding of Science, RTI International
JEVIN WEST, Professor, Information School, University of Washington
Study Staff
TIFFANY E. TAYLOR, Study Director
LETICIA GARCILAZO GREEN, Associate Program Officer
HOLLY G. RHODES, Senior Program Officer
LAUREN RYAN, Senior Program Assistant
HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Director, Board on Science Education
National Academy of Medicine Fellow
PAULE JOSEPH, Lasker Clinical Investigator, National Institutes of Health, American Academy of Nursing Fellow (2022–2024)
BOARD ON SCIENCE EDUCATION
SUSAN R. SINGER (Chair), President, St. Olaf College
SUE ALLEN, Co-Director, Clean Conferencing Institute; Principal, Allen & Associates
MEGAN BANG, Professor of Learning Sciences and Psychology, Northwestern University
VICKI L. CHANDLER, Provost, Minerva Schools at Keck Graduate Institute
KIRSTEN ELLENBOGEN, President and Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Science Center
MAYA M. GARCIA, Chief Program Officer, Beyond100K
DAVID GOLDSTON, Director, MIT Washington Office
G. PETER LEPAGE, Andrew H. and James S. Tisch Distinguished University Professor of Physics (emeritus), Cornell University
WILLIAM PENUEL, Professor of Learning Sciences and Human Development, University of Colorado Boulder
STEPHEN L. PRUITT, President, Southern Regional Education Board
K. RENAE PULLEN, K–6 Science Curriculum Instructional Specialist, Caddo Parish Schools, Louisiana
K. ANN RENNINGER, Dorwin P. Cartwright Professor of Social Theory and Social Action, Swarthmore College
FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, Chancellor, Los Angeles Community College District
MARCY H. TOWNS, Bodner-Honig Professor of Chemistry, Purdue University
DARRYL N. WILLIAMS, Senior Vice President, Science and Education, The Franklin Institute
Staff
HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Director
AMY STEPHENS, Associate Director (until December 2024)
MARGARET KELLY, Program Coordinator
This page intentionally left blank.
Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by BARBARA SCHAAL, Washington University in St. Louis, and BRUCE LEWENSTEIN, Cornell University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
Acknowledgments
This Consensus Study Report reflects the invaluable contributions of many individuals who provided their expertise, including those who served on the committee, the staff of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies), and many other experts who participated in discussions with the committee.
This report was made possible by sponsorship from the National Science Foundation and the Fred Kavli Endowment Fund. We first thank Robert O’Connor, Program Director of Decision, Risk, and Management Sciences for supporting this study and providing insight to the committee. We are also grateful to the National Academies Presidents’ Committee for supporting this work.
Over the course of the study, the committee held public information gathering meetings, including a public workshop, and the members of the committee greatly benefited from presentations by, and discussions with, the many individuals who participated in these meetings: Cary Funk, Pew Research Center (until October 2023); Tina Purnat, World Health Organization (until October 2023); Claire Wardle, Cornell University (previously at Brown University until July 2024); Alice Marwick, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Dietram Scheufele, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Sacha Altay, University of Zurich; Kelly Born, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation; Melissa Aronczyk, Rutgers University; Heidi Larson, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Mark Lynas, Alliance for Science; Briony Swire-Thompson, Northeastern University; Cabral Bigman-Galimore, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Roberta Braga, Digital Democracy Institute of the Americas; Leezel Tanglao
and Mark Calaguas, Filipino Young Leaders Program; Jason Young, University of Washington; Joel Breakstone, Digital Inquiry Group; Ethan Porter, George Washington University; Emily Vraga, University of Minnesota; Victor Pickard, University of Pennsylvania; Kavitha Rajagopalan, Asian Media Initiative, City University of New York; Abhishek Roy, Google; Michael Strevens, New York University; Sarah Kreps, Cornell University; and Jenn Wortman Vaughan, Microsoft Research.
The committee is also grateful for the efforts of the following authors who prepared background papers for the committee’s use in drafting the report:
- Rachel Kuo, University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, and Sarah Nguyễn, University of Washington, on misinformation in non-English language information networks;
- Ryan Calo, University of Washington, and Nicole Buckley, K&L Gates, LLP, on opportunities for addressing misinformation through policy and legislation; and
- Joseph Polman, University of Colorado, Boulder, on science learning for navigating a complex information landscape.
Thanks are also due to the project staff. Tiffany E. Taylor of the Board on Science Education (BOSE) directed the study and played a key role in the report drafting and review process. Holly Rhodes (senior program officer, BOSE), Leticia Garcilazo Green (research associate [until 2023] and associate program officer, BOSE), and Paule Joseph (American Academy of Nursing Fellow, National Academy of Medicine) provided critical assistance in directing the project, organizing the report, and revising the writing. Heidi Schweingruber (director, BOSE) provided infinite wisdom and oversight throughout the entire study. Lauren Ryan (senior program assistant, BOSE) managed the study’s logistical and administrative needs and assisted with manuscript preparation.
Finally, we thank Laura E. Yoder for providing invaluable editorial direction, Heather Kreidler (independent consultant) for fact-checking the report, and Kirsten Sampson Snyder (Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education) for expertly guiding us through the National Academies review process. The committee also wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the National Academies Research Center staff for completing a literature review to support report development.
Contents
Adopting a Systems Perspective
Characterizing the Impacts of Misinformation About Science
2 Defining Misinformation About Science
CHALLENGES OF DEFINING MISINFORMATION
WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE?
Implications for Misinformation About Science
MAPPING THE BOUNDARIES OF MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE
Confounding Differences in Values with Misinformation
3 Misinformation About Science: Understanding the Current Context
SYSTEMIC FACTORS THAT SHAPE HOW PEOPLE INTERACT WITH INFORMATION
The Role of Science in Society
Declining Trust in Institutions
Societal Forces That May Warrant Further Study
CHARACTERIZING THE 21ST CENTURY INFORMATION ECOSYSTEM
Audience Fragmentation and Hybrid Media
Emergence of New Information Technologies and Platforms
Decontextualization and Context Collapse
Complex Interactions and Consequences
FACTORS SHAPING THE SCIENCE INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT
The Quality of News Production, News Deserts, and Resource Constraints
Competing Interests and Public Relations
Changing Norms and Practices of Science Communication by Scientists
4 Sources of Misinformation About Science
CURRENT STATE OF MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE
Characterizing the Prevalence of Misinformation About Science
Characterizing the Exposure to Misinformation About Science
Alternative Health and Science Media
Entertainment and Popular Culture
The Scientific and Medical Community
Individual Sources of Misinformation About Science
5 Spread of Misinformation About Science
FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE SPREAD OF MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE
Digital Technologies and Online Platforms
Information Access and Information Voids
Summary of Individuals’ Motivations
6 Impacts of Misinformation About Science
THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF MISINFORMATION
IMPACTS OF MISINFORMATION FOR INDIVIDUALS
Detrimental Behaviors and Actions
UNDERSTANDING HARMS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL
Structural Factors Influencing Receptivity to Misinformation About Science
CONSEQUENCES OF MISINFORMATION AT THE SOCIETAL LEVEL
7 Intervening to Address Misinformation About Science
A BRIEF HISTORY OF INTERVENING TO ADDRESS MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE
RECENT INTERVENTIONS TO ADDRESS MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE
Distribution-Based Interventions
CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTERVENING TO ADDRESS MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE
The Importance of Culture and Community
8 The Study of Misinformation About Science
MISINFORMATION: AN EVOLVING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY FIELD OF STUDY
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES FOR STUDYING MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES FOR ADDRESSING MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE
OVERARCHING CHALLENGES TO STUDYING AND ADDRESSING MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE
Challenges of Conceptualization and Definition
Challenges in Theorizing About Intervention Effects
Challenges of Scaling Up Interventions
Challenges of Obtaining High-Quality Data from Social Media Contexts
Challenges of Obtaining Comprehensive Data Across Populations: Data Absenteeism
Challenges of Researcher’s Health and Safety
9 Conclusions, Recommendations, and Research Agenda
DEFINING MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE
Recommendations to Promote the Spread of Accurate Information About Science
UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACTS OF MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE
Community and Societal-Level Impacts
INTERVENING TO ADDRESS MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE
CHALLENGES TO UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING MISINFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE
Challenges of Scale and Efficacy
Challenges of Obtaining High-Quality, Comprehensive Data
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Expanding the Types of Misinformation Studied
Measuring Aggregate Exposure to Misinformation
Validating Impacts of Misinformation About Science
Bolstering the Efficacy of Interventions Against Misinformation About Science
Improving and Expanding Methods for Studying Misinformation About Science
This page intentionally left blank.
Boxes, Figures, and Table
BOXES
1-2 Characterization of Evidence
6-1 Consensus on Consequences of Science Literacy
6-2 Vaccine Hesitancy and Conspiracy Theories in Immigrant and Diaspora Communities
7-1 European Union’s (EU’s) Digital Services Act
7-2 The Filipino Young Leaders Program’s (FYLPRO) Tayo Project
8-1 The Application of Qualitative Methods During the COVID-19 Pandemic
FIGURES
3-1 Trends in trust in U.S. institutions from 1973 to 2022
3-2 Trends in confidence in the scientific community based on partisan identity
3-3 Trends in trust in U.S. institutions based on partisan identity
6-1 Key drivers of receptivity to misinformation about science
Preface
Another hurdle in recovery from Helene:
Misinformation is getting in the way1
The New York Times, October 6, 2024
This headline is an outstanding example of how misinformation is perceived in the public arena. The headline makes a causal assumption that misinformation is “getting in the way” of recovery from the hurricane’s devastating impact. The degree of accuracy of this assumption is a question for further study and empirical examination, but the very assumption that misinformation has a direct causal impact on relief efforts with significant negative consequences is noteworthy. And newsworthy. And is part of what motivated this report.
Information, and misinformation, is everywhere—on our phones, televisions in the gym, social media. Some of this misinformation is brain candy, simple entertainment, and inconsequential; some of it, though, has the potential to impact public health, inform policy responses, and shape people’s perceptions of the world. If misinformation about science leads to beliefs that are in conflict with accepted science, the consequences can be profound. False perceptions and beliefs may lead to behaviors and support for policies that are not supported by accepted science and/or are not aligned with individual preferences and goals, with negative consequences for individuals, communities, and broader society.
___________________
1 See https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/06/us/hurricane-helene-north-carolina-misinformation.html
The charge to our committee—that we examine the existing evidence on misinformation about science and draw conclusions about how it spreads and its potential for harm—was a challenge on at least two fronts. One, there is no simple way to define misinformation about science; science is a process where claims are tested, accepted, and upended as knowledge accumulates. This process of revising scientific knowledge as new evidence emerges can be incremental and more like clarification, especially in domains where there are decades of confirmatory studies and the science is more settled, such as in laws of physics. But in emerging areas of science, the generation of new knowledge can be quite rapid, such as the incredible pace of growth in knowledge about COVID-19 during the first months of the pandemic. This rapid generation of new information—and its displacement of older information—can make identifying and defining misinformation at any given time complex. In addition, for individuals who are not deeply familiar with how science works, revision of scientific explanations can be confusing and raise questions about the trustworthiness of science and scientists.
A second challenge is assessing the evidence on the origins, spread, and impact of misinformation about science. Research on misinformation about science has exploded over the last decade and has been pursued in multiple disciplines. However, these different lines of research have often developed in fragmented and disconnected ways, making the synthesis work that this committee was asked to do quite difficult. Moreover, the task of reviewing the sheer volume of publications, with new studies on the topic published seemingly every day was daunting. Our interdisciplinary committee was well constituted to take on the task, but our work must be seen as a snapshot based on the available evidence at the time of this consensus study process.
The stakes in understanding the origins, spread, and the impact of misinformation about science are high. The belief that misinformation about science is a serious and a consequential problem is widely shared by many different stakeholders both inside and outside of the scientific community. In fact, some policymakers are clamoring for action to stem misinformation and arrest its spread and negative impact. Many actions in policy and legislative arenas are already under consideration.
But the committee had to engage in a delicate balancing act. One the one hand, we had to look at the evidence carefully to draw inferences and make actionable recommendations in the context of a fragmented and still-emergent evidence base. On the other hand, we do not want to downplay concerns about the potential harm that misinformation about science might cause. The evidence is clear that exposure to misinformation about science may lead to misbeliefs, which, in turn, have the potential for causing harm at the individual and collective levels. But the leap from documenting that
misinformation about science is present in the information ecosystem to assumptions that individual exposure always leads to harmful behaviors with negative consequences for communities and societies is hard to justify based on current evidence. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that many widely held assumptions about the sources of misinformation about science, how it spreads, and how to combat it may need to be revised.
We still have much to learn regarding the dynamics of misinformation about science in the information ecosystem—we know little about how misinformation is shared within and affects different communities especially underserved, socially vulnerable groups; we know less about misinformation that travels through “offline” social networks and older media such as radio or television than in online contexts; and we need to better understand how particular interventions designed to combat the negative effects of misinformation can work in combination and at scale.
Our message then is that we know a lot, but in order to develop informed policy responses and help individuals and communities combat the potential negative effects of misinformation about science we need to know a lot more. We also, all of us, need to examine our assumptions about the origins of misinformation about science, how it spreads, and how we can help address it. Misinformation about science is a multi-faceted, complex phenomenon, and we all have a role in addressing it. We hope this report provides a roadmap for initial action and illuminates the areas where we need to learn more.
Tiffany E. Taylor, PhD, Study Director
K. Viswanath, PhD, Chair
This page intentionally left blank.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
| AAAS | American Association for the Advancement of Science |
| AI | artificial intelligence |
| API | application programming interface |
| CBO | community-based organization |
| CDC | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
| CEAL | U.S. National Institutes of Health Community Engagement Alliance |
| COVID-19 | coronavirus disease 2019 |
| DSA | Digital Services Act |
| DYOR | “doing your own research” |
| EPA | Environmental Protection Agency |
| EU | European Union |
| FDA | Food and Drug Administration |
| FTC | Federal Trade Commission |
| FYLPRO | Filipino Young Leaders Program |
| GDP | gross domestic product |
| GE | genetically engineered |
| GMO | genetically modified organism |
| GSS | The General Social Survey |
| HAIR | Health Advocates In-Reach and Research Campaign |
| ICPSR | University of Michigan’s Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research |
| LLM | large language model |
| MI | motivational interviewing |
| MMR | measles, mumps, and rubella |
| MTBI | Mild Traumatic Brain Injuries |
| NASA | National Aeronautics and Space Administration |
| NIH | National Institute of Health |
| NRC | National Research Council |
| RCT | randomized control trial |
| SES | socio-economic status |
| STEM | science, technology, engineering, and mathematics |
| USPSTF | the CDC’s U.S. Preventative Services Task Force |
| VLOP | very large online platforms |
| WHO | World Health Organization |
