Science Under Siege (test) Article Title For Atlantic Legal Website

Introduction

Advocating for sound science in judicial and regulatory proceedings has been one of the Atlantic Legal Foundation’s key missions since its founding a half century ago. ALF’s advocacy of sound science is more important today than ever.

A new national survey conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of Bayer, the global life sciences company, reveals a growing crisis in how Americans consume and trust scientific and health information. The report, titled Science Under Siege: The Battle Between Viral Misinformation and Shared Belief in the Value of Science, surveyed more than 2,000 American adults and reveals a complex picture of confusion, distrust, emotional fatigue, and concern about the future of American scientific leadership. The findings show a strong bipartisan belief that science remains essential for progress and national success. While public debates ranging from climate change to vaccines are often framed through a political lens, Americans do not view this as a partisan issue.

Advocating for sound science in judicial and regulatory proceedings has been one of the Atlantic Legal Foundation’s key missions since its founding a half century ago. ALF’s advocacy of sound science is more important today than ever.

Misinformation and Disinformation

To understand the conflicting information confronting the general public, it is important first to distinguish misinformation from disinformation.

Misinformation is information that was scientifically valid when written. As scientific understanding changes in response to new data, earlier information may become obsolete. That is fundamentally different from information that was knowingly false when disseminated. For example, information disseminated about the root cause of a foodborne illness later traced to a different cause makes the original news misinformation.

Disinformation is information intentionally disseminated with no scientific evidence. Sources can be unqualified individuals or even highly qualified scientists who skew the data for their own position. For example, tying certain vaccines to unrelated medical afflictions when there is no peer-reviewed evidence to show a connection is disinformation.

Both misinformation and disinformation can have devastating effects; however, misinformation can be scientifically defended looking back while disinformation is plain fabrication without evidence. While the report title only states misinformation, the context of the report did not distinguish between misinformation and disinformation and the resulting view by the public is the same: mistrust. To stay consistent with the survey report, we will exclusively use the term misinformation but understand that it refers simply to incorrect information.

Social and Traditional Medias’ Impact on Trust in Science

One of the report’s most important findings is what researchers describe as a contradiction in modern media behavior. Americans overwhelmingly blame social media for spreading false or misleading information about science and health, yet those same platforms have become the public’s primary source for such information. According to the survey, 75% of Americans obtain science and health information from social media at least monthly, while 38% do so daily. Social media now surpasses television news, newspapers, government agencies, and even artificial intelligence tools as the leading source for health and science information.

Despite this heavy reliance on social media, Americans clearly recognize the risks involved. Eighty percent of respondents blame social media platforms for contributing to the spread of misinformation. In addition, 71% believe online content creators are responsible for spreading false scientific and health information, while 75% worry that influencers and online personalities are actively undermining scientific expertise. Traditional media also plays a role in triggering readers’ critique of published stories regarding science. Although newspapers, magazines, and broadcast outlets are no longer the public’s only information sources, the basic challenge remains the same: communicating scientific information clearly and accurately. The information must be clear, concise, and accurate to be beneficial.