�����̨

Universities play a crucial role in disseminating reliable scientific information, for example through press releases about important research findings. Ironically, those same press releases can sometimes also contribute to misleading perceptions. How does this happen?

PhD candidate Aike Vonk studied dozens of press releases and more than a hundred news articles about plastic in the ocean for her research into how scientific news finds its way into the media. She discovered that press releases have a major influence on how research is ultimately reported in the newspapers. Vonk explains: “University press releases are often largely copied. Journalists use the way the university frames the research and the quotes from the lead researcher, without placing the study in a broader context or seeking responses from other scientists.”

This is understandable, says Vonk, because news moves incredibly quickly and not every outlet has the time for in-depth journalistic work. “In the Netherlands, we have good science journalism. We have dedicated sections in newspapers and specialist science desks. But that is not the case everywhere. My research focused on English-language media, so I mainly examined press releases from British and American universities. These releases become the science news not only in their own countries but also much further afield. Often, journalists would reproduce the press releases without validating the research with external experts or seeking clarification about the results. That validation step was lost, and then you run the risk of the story taking on a life of its own.”

Extraterrestrial life

Vonk recently witnessed this again, in the news story about the ‘strong evidence of extraterrestrial life’ that researchers from the University of Cambridge claimed to have found on a distant planet. Vonk says: “The university’s press release stated that further research was needed before they could be certain that other life forms existed, but this disclaimer was hardly mentioned in the news articles. No external researchers were cited either. The researchers’ enthusiasm dominated the reports. In the Netherlands, however, de Volkskrant followed up and found that the ‘strong evidence’ was not that strong at all.”

Vonk also observed similar patterns in her research on ocean plastics: the press releases often noted that further research was necessary, but that point usually did not receive emphasis. “That is understandable too, because a university wants to showcase the relevance of its research and, to some extent, promote itself.”

Uncertainty and nuance are not catchy enough to include in an article

Vonk says: “One example in my dataset was a press release about a type of mealworm discovered by Australian researchers that could eat plastic. This suggested possibilities for tackling the enormous amounts of plastic in the oceans, the researchers noted, but much more research was needed to make that feasible.”

In the news articles, however, this disclaimer had disappeared. “Journalists selectively copied parts of the press release, creating the impression that a solution to the ocean plastic problem had been found. The full nuance was not conveyed, because that is not catchy enough for a short piece.”

Media outlets want to publish attractive, engaging stories – and quickly too, since news is always on. Vonk finds this problematic: “Scientific research portrayed in the media this way gives a distorted picture of what science actually is: a very slow process in which nuance and a certain degree of uncertainty are essential. If people have no understanding of that process and scientific promises in the media turn out to be overstated, they can become disillusioned and lose trust in science.”

Bad intent

Vonk does not wish to lay the blame for the spread of misinformation solely at the feet of journalists. “Yes, journalists do sometimes copy things without fact-checking, and that is concerning. But it is not out of bad intent; there is simply not enough funding or manpower for proper science journalism. That has been shown in many studies.”

According to Vonk, science communicators at universities have an important role to play. “Universities must realise that their audience is shifting, from knowledgeable journalists to the general public. And the latter often has little understanding of how science works. There is a mismatch between journalism and science, and science communicators need to be aware of that. They should ask themselves: how do I present this research so that it is relevant and understandable for the general public?”

Is there a risk that science communicators will then overstep into the journalist’s role? There are indeed concerns, Vonk acknowledges. “You cannot expect a communications professional at a university to validate research findings or present them from a different perspective. But they can provide context about the scientific process: what methods were used, what claims can and cannot be made based on them, and how do the findings fit into the broader social and scientific context?”

By framing your research as a university, you can influence media coverage

Vonk finds it fascinating to consider how more attention could be paid to the broader context of research. “In my research, I found that the urgency to act on ocean plastic was only mentioned in newspaper articles when it was already highlighted in the press release. This underscores the role that institutions have in conveying a sense of urgency. Utrecht University, for example, consistently refers to a ‘’ in its press releases on climate change. By framing climate change in this way, the university influences overall media coverage too.”

There is no magic formula for preventing misinformation, says Vonk. “Parts of a press release will always be simplified or misinterpreted. But as a communications officer, you do have influence over how research appears in the media. And you can think about that strategically.”