SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " misinformation " 172 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
‘We’re not ready’: US lags on pandemic preparedness after Covid, experts say
Experts say slashed funding and growing misinformation are some of the greatest challenges facing public health
CFA Counselors Committee Concerns About Mental Health Misinformation
The CFA Counselors Committee sent the following letter to the members of the CSU Board of Trustees last week: Dear Members of the CSU Board of
Hospitals are silencing doctors online, and it’s fueling the health misinformation crisis
Hospitals and health systems need to loosen the reins and let physicians combat social media misinformation, writes Adam Goodcoff.
AI chatbot shows promise in combating health misinformation
Can AI help people resist misinformation? Initial research findings suggest that artificial intelligence-driven conversations can strengthen people's resilience to health misinformation, outperforming ...
The Science Misinformation Gap
The transatlantic battle over social media and censorship.
Hantavirus misinformation runs rampant as the US is unequipped to respond to infectious disease health scare
But the US’s withdrawal from the WHO – and cuts to the country’s health system – stymie officials’ response
The Wellness Conversation: Let’s Talk About It - The Vaginal Health Episode
Vaginal health can often get overlooked due to embarrassment and misinformation. As women continue to grow and change throughout their lives, it’s important to normalize the conversation surrounding vaginal health. On this episode of The Wellness Conversation, Sarah Froman, MD, OhioHealth OBGYN, helps to break this barrier and empower women by...
Fake rumors, real killings: Inside Congo's deadly health misinformation crisis
Angry mobs attacked and killed Four health workers conducting vaccination research in an episode that took place in October.
Fake rumors, real killings: Inside Congo's deadly health misinformation crisis
In Tshopo, a northeastern Congolese province blanketed in rainforest, rumours rippled through villages late last year claiming a mysterious illness had caused men's genitals to atrophy.
US ‘drowning in misinformation’ under RFK Jr, autism advocates say
Health officials in Trump administration were accused of fueling ‘crisis of public trust’ over autism and vaccines
Paxton's frivolous lawsuits hurt Texas' business-friendly climate
Attorney General Ken Paxton's many lawsuits generate publicity but sometimes promote medical misinformation, harm businesses and defy common sense.
Fact-checking misinformation about the Correspondents' Dinner shooting
Shots fired inside the hotel hosting the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner attended by President Donald Trump caused immediate confusion about the suspect and what transpired at the April 25 event.
Why Quality Health Information May Drive Health Outcomes
Widespread use of online medical content and AI tools is reshaping decision-making and raising concerns about misinformation.
“Us versus them”: How political propaganda polarises beliefs without providing any news
Political polarisation is often attributed to misinformation, echo chambers, or biased news. But new experimental evidence suggests that merely making a social conflict salient – without providing any information at all – is enough to sharply increase disagreement on both factual and normative questions. This column discusses how politicians and media can ‘artificially’ amplify societal tensions by strategically choosing which conflicts to highlight, and why this mechanism is harder to counter than standard misinformation.
The health misinformation crisis is bigger than anyone thought: Most people worldwide believe at least one of 6 common medical myths
A global Edelman survey yields a "stunning set of facts": seven in 10 believe at least one debunked health claim regardless of education, politics or age.
Experts Confront Misinformation and AI Risks at National Public Health Week
From artificial intelligence (AI) to misinformation, public health leaders say the next crisis may be as much about communication as it is about disease. At Hofstra University’s School of Health Sciences’ (SHS) “Public Health Preparedness: Identifying Risks and Crisis Response Strategies” panel,
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections
[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
NYU Langone Health neurologists present latest clinical findings and research at AAN 2026
This year’s meeting features more than 80 presentations from Department of Neurology faculty. Here are notable highlights: practical strategies to counter harmful medical myths and misinformation, phase 3 clinical results for a novel epilepsy medication, and the barriers patients with disabilities face while navigating outpatient facilities.
How information disorder shapes global politics
UC Santa Barbara political scientist Julia Morse studies how information disorder — a media environment where it’s easy to create content and spread false or misleading material — shapes international politics.
1 in 10 health ad dollars go to sites spreading misinformation
Advertising on health misinformation websites reached $336.4 million, with $35.7 million from public health entities, threatening credibility in health info.
‘I jumped at it’: Australia’s new CDC chief on trust, misinformation and never being surprised by a health threat
Zoe Wainer’s parents started the country’s first public abortion clinic. Now she is making history too, as the inaugural head of the Australian Centre for Disease Control
Abortion Pill’s Safety Called into Question in Congressional Actions Based on Misleading Data — The Monitor
False claims about the safety of mifepristone are driving legislative and investigative action in Congress, even as major medical organizations and decades of clinical evidence support the drug’s safety. And competing interpretations of what censorship and free speech mean are impacting how health misinformation is moderated.
Health and government groups spend millions advertising on websites that promote misinformation, sometimes unintentionally
For years, health and government organizations have spent millions of dollars on advertising that appeared on websites that regularly promote health misinformation — financially supporting this growing health threat, sometimes inadvertently.
Politics & Power: Democrats expand target map, Republicans push turnout amid AI misinformation worries
Rising public anxiety about election fairness and the spread of misinformation mean both parties must confront organizational, legal and ethical challenges as they prepare for a consequential midterm season.
Navigating the social media minefield
Scientists and researchers seeking to announce promising findings, exchange ideas or contribute to policy discussions outside of academic circles may find social media an expedient tool.But increasingly, scientists and other professionals are discovering that online platforms can be a double-edged sword: while sharing their work and expertise is crucial for visibility and meeting funder expectations, it also exposes them to baseless criticism and even accusations of spreading false information."It is getting harder and harder for scientists, and researchers in general, to convey their findings without facing attacks on their legitimacy and accuracy of their research," says Valère Ndior, a professor of public law at the University of Western Brittany in Brest, France, who has spent more than a decade studying misinformation on social media. Researchers attempting to challenge deceptive online information may themselves be accused of political bias or not being objective in their research, he explains, adding that some scientists disengage because they feel overwhelmed and unable to sustain meaningful dialogue. "It is quite sad to see in some instances that researchers end up leaving social media altogether because they feel like the pressure is getting too intense or feel threatened," he says.Ndior, a past president of the Francophone Network of International Law, is also involved in European efforts to make science and research findings more accessible to the public. As an ambassador for the Science Comes to Town (SCTT) project, he has participated in recent discussions on public perceptions of science and online misinformation. The European Commission-funded initiative connects Brest and two other cities — Kiel in Germany and Split in Croatia — and aims to strengthen ties between communities, universities and research institutions to promote science awareness and cooperation across Europe.Coordinated campaigns around contentious topicsNdior draws a clear distinction between critical thinking and thoughtless criticism. Yet he sees online discussions being increasingly shaped by suspicious behaviour and coordinated information campaigns — including "raids" aimed at dominating discussions and "astroturfing," where small groups act as larger movements to sway debates. Tracking these patterns has become harder because some platforms have restricted data or charge for it, despite provisions of the European Union's Digital Securities Act aimed at ensuring researchers can have access to such data. According to Ndior, "platforms became more reluctant from the moment access to data became a legal requirement rather than a voluntary initiative."Unfounded claims and scepticism about science existed long before Internet chat groups. But the noticeable rise in online hostility has intensified around contentious topics, such as the coronavirus pandemic and climate change, alongside the weakening of gatekeepers to moderate content.For Ndior, dubious claims about pandemic countermeasures and vaccine safety highlighted the struggle between "balancing freedom of expression and the protection of public health and order." Efforts to remove social media content deemed false or risky for public health triggered accusations of censorship and the silencing of legitimate discussion, and in some cases, legal challenges.Concerns about attacks on the credibility of scientists and researchers have generated a flurry of academic papers in recent years and prompted professional communities to address ways to counter online attacks. Such unease extends to the generation that has grown up with digital media. Ndior points out that his students, some of whom research artificial intelligence regulation, hate speech, online surveillance and other controversial topics, hesitate to share their work or viewpoints online. "Many of them don't want to expose themselves too much because they don't feel ready to be faced with the backlash of other people criticising their research," he explains.Safer harbours for engagementLegal challenges against false or defamatory posts are not necessarily a solution — especially given the trans-jurisdictional nature of the Internet. Lawsuits also take time and money, and if they fail, can be counterproductive. Instead, Ndior advises scientists and researchers to be selective in how and where they communicate. Professional online platforms and moderated discussion spaces offer a better environment for engagement. He also highlights the value of more traditional formats, such as radio interviews and in-person discussions at schools, libraries and science fairs, which encourage dialogue with the public. "Personal contact makes a big difference," he says, while acknowledging that these approaches lack the global reach of social media.Ndior’s interest in digital law and online misinformation stems from his time as a doctoral student in international law in the early days of social media. He began analysing posts from governments and heads of state to determine if they could be considered official and thus used as evidence in litigation. His work attracted media attention and led to conference and speaking invitations. "This was not part of my plan," he says, "but this is what happens as a researcher — your interest is sparked by a certain event or phenomenon, and it suddenly becomes your focus."Ndior believes SCTT provides "a double benefit" for researchers, enabling them to connect with peers and interact with the public. "There is a wide community of people who are not in academia who are critical thinkers looking for opportunities to ask questions, to get information and contribute their ideas,” he says. "I really value that kind of feedback."Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
Navigating the social media minefield
Scientists and researchers seeking to announce promising findings, exchange ideas or contribute to policy discussions outside of academic circles may find social media an expedient tool.But increasingly, scientists and other professionals are discovering that online platforms can be a double-edged sword: while sharing their work and expertise is crucial for visibility and meeting funder expectations, it also exposes them to baseless criticism and even accusations of spreading false information."It is getting harder and harder for scientists, and researchers in general, to convey their findings without facing attacks on their legitimacy and accuracy of their research," says Valère Ndior, a professor of public law at the University of Western Brittany in Brest, France, who has spent more than a decade studying misinformation on social media. Researchers attempting to challenge deceptive online information may themselves be accused of political bias or not being objective in their research, he explains, adding that some scientists disengage because they feel overwhelmed and unable to sustain meaningful dialogue. "It is quite sad to see in some instances that researchers end up leaving social media altogether because they feel like the pressure is getting too intense or feel threatened," he says.Ndior, a past president of the Francophone Network of International Law, is also involved in European efforts to make science and research findings more accessible to the public. As an ambassador for the Science Comes to Town (SCTT) project, he has participated in recent discussions on public perceptions of science and online misinformation. The European Commission-funded initiative connects Brest and two other cities — Kiel in Germany and Split in Croatia — and aims to strengthen ties between communities, universities and research institutions to promote science awareness and cooperation across Europe.Coordinated campaigns around contentious topicsNdior draws a clear distinction between critical thinking and thoughtless criticism. Yet he sees online discussions being increasingly shaped by suspicious behaviour and coordinated information campaigns — including "raids" aimed at dominating discussions and "astroturfing," where small groups act as larger movements to sway debates. Tracking these patterns has become harder because some platforms have restricted data or charge for it, despite provisions of the European Union's Digital Securities Act aimed at ensuring researchers can have access to such data. According to Ndior, "platforms became more reluctant from the moment access to data became a legal requirement rather than a voluntary initiative."Unfounded claims and scepticism about science existed long before Internet chat groups. But the noticeable rise in online hostility has intensified around contentious topics, such as the coronavirus pandemic and climate change, alongside the weakening of gatekeepers to moderate content.For Ndior, dubious claims about pandemic countermeasures and vaccine safety highlighted the struggle between "balancing freedom of expression and the protection of public health and order." Efforts to remove social media content deemed false or risky for public health triggered accusations of censorship and the silencing of legitimate discussion, and in some cases, legal challenges.Concerns about attacks on the credibility of scientists and researchers have generated a flurry of academic papers in recent years and prompted professional communities to address ways to counter online attacks. Such unease extends to the generation that has grown up with digital media. Ndior points out that his students, some of whom research artificial intelligence regulation, hate speech, online surveillance and other controversial topics, hesitate to share their work or viewpoints online. "Many of them don't want to expose themselves too much because they don't feel ready to be faced with the backlash of other people criticising their research," he explains.Safer harbours for engagementLegal challenges against false or defamatory posts are not necessarily a solution — especially given the trans-jurisdictional nature of the Internet. Lawsuits also take time and money, and if they fail, can be counterproductive. Instead, Ndior advises scientists and researchers to be selective in how and where they communicate. Professional online platforms and moderated discussion spaces offer a better environment for engagement. He also highlights the value of more traditional formats, such as radio interviews and in-person discussions at schools, libraries and science fairs, which encourage dialogue with the public. "Personal contact makes a big difference," he says, while acknowledging that these approaches lack the global reach of social media.Ndior’s interest in digital law and online misinformation stems from his time as a doctoral student in international law in the early days of social media. He began analysing posts from governments and heads of state to determine if they could be considered official and thus used as evidence in litigation. His work attracted media attention and led to conference and speaking invitations. "This was not part of my plan," he says, "but this is what happens as a researcher — your interest is sparked by a certain event or phenomenon, and it suddenly becomes your focus."Ndior believes SCTT provides "a double benefit" for researchers, enabling them to connect with peers and interact with the public. "There is a wide community of people who are not in academia who are critical thinkers looking for opportunities to ask questions, to get information and contribute their ideas,” he says. "I really value that kind of feedback."Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
U.S. Medicine, Science Facing An Online Misinformation Siege, Poll Concludes
By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, March 25, 2026 (HealthDay News) — Americans are trapped in a ruthless social media spin cycle of viral misinformation regarding science and medicine, with many actively contributing to the problem, a new Harris Poll has found. People have come to ...
What growing up in an end-times church taught a science communicator about dispelling misinformation
A passion for snakes opened a crack in the religious beliefs science communicator Paul Martin Jensen grew up with in a end-times Pentecostal church.
MSU Museum panel teaches about AI, politics and misinformation
Speakers discuss AI and its influence in politics and elections at the MSU Museum as a part of the Department of Political Science's "Blurred Realities" series.
A clarinetist, a high school student, and some climate deniers write a science paper
With the help of AI, misinformation purveyors are up to new tricks.
Doctors and educators work to break taboos about gut health and sex education
From digestion to consent, experts say open conversations can improve health and fight misinformation
As the risk of measles grows, why are parents so divided on vaccines?
In South Carolina, some parents embrace vaccines, others opt out. Why do people make such different choices? A mix of politics, distrust and misinformation is pushing neighbors apart.
How Are We Preparing For the Next Pandemic? | FRONTLINE | PBS | Official Site
Six years since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, here’s a snapshot of preparedness at a time of global health funding cuts, policy shifts and the spread of misinformation.
Misunderstandings about science are as bad as misinformation | Psyche Notes to Self
People’s misunderstanding of terms like ‘heritability’ shows how important it is to communicate science carefully
Elections 2026 Press Kit
Northwestern University faculty are available to discuss 2026 election topics including redistricting, voter behavior, campaign strategy, election law, misinformation, polarization and political history.
In Talking to Parents About Vaccines, Pediatricians Navigate a Sea of Misinformation
Practitioners nationwide are striving to do what’s best for children’s health, while staying supportive in the face of mistrust and confusion.
NYC top doctor's priorities: health, affordability, and then there's Trump
The new health commissioner has plenty on his plate, including answering "misinformation" from the White House.
More than two thirds of state Sen. Dems oppose CLCPA changes
“I believe very strongly that she has been peddled an enormous amount of misinformation,” state Sen. Liz Krueger said of the governor.
Steve Kerr admits 'stupid mistake' for calling misinformation on Warriors C Kristaps Porzingis' POTS diagnosis
Porzingis has still played only one game for the Warriors after joining them at the trade deadline.
Women's Health Myths: Doctor warns against believing claims about testosterone
Women's health expert says misinformation about taking testosterone is rampant on social media.
Women's Health Myths: Doctors say hormone therapy misinformation is rampant
Experts warn against turning to social media for advice about treating menopause symptoms.
IL bill could create IDPH health misinformation response unit, offer public health literacy grants
The proposal also calls on the Illinois State Board of Education to work with the Department of Public Health to create guidance for schools to teach health literacy in comprehensive health courses.
Fear among Minnesota’s Somali community compounds a public health woe: Low measles vaccination rates
Public health officials say a measles crisis has long been brewing in Minnesota.
Communicating Science in a Misinformation Age
S4, E7: Drawing on decades of experience, infectious disease expert William Schaffner, MD, explains why effective science communication must reach hearts as well as minds to change behavior ...
Exposure to low-credibility online health content is limited and is concentrated among older adults
Nature Aging - Concerns over health misinformation online are becoming increasingly important. Here the authors show that older adults are more likely than younger people to encounter...
Autism: myth-busting and what scientists still don't know : Short Wave
Autism has a long history of misinformation that continues to today. The Trump administration has perpetuated some of this misinformation in the last year. Among other things, officials have claimed certain groups of people don’t get the condition and that taking Tylenol while pregnant causes autism to later develop in children. Today, NPR Science Correspondent Jon Hamilton sets the record straight with host Emily Kwong on what scientists do and don’t know about autism. If you liked this episode, check out our episodes on an Autism researcher’s take on Trump’s claims about Tylenol and a Fragile X treatment that may be on the horizon.Interested in more science in the news? Email us your question at shortwave@npr.org.Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave.This episode was produced by Berly McCoy. It was edited by Rebecca Ramirez. Tyler Jones checked the facts. The audio engineer was Damian Herring.
6 Podcasts About Medicine and Health Care
These shows can help you navigate a time of soaring insurance costs, confusing policy changes and medical misinformation.
GUEST OPINION: Court saw through attack on stoves, science
When the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) filed a federal lawsuit last year challenging Colorado’s new gas stove labeling law, it exposed a troubling pattern of how climate advocacy can morph into scientific misinformation to achieve policy goals through fear rather than facts. At the heart of the court dispute is House Bill 25-1161, […]
Global sports face challenges from 'AI slop' misinformation
A study by AI risk management platform Alethea into the surge in artificial intelligence-generated fake content, dubbed "AI slop," has warned sports teams, leagues and fans of the risks posed by increasingly sophisticated digital misinformation.
Sherrill pick for N.J. health commissioner vows to fight ‘misinformation from Washington’
“While Washington is attacking our public health institutions, New Jersey must do everything we can to protect the public’s health and safety."
The history and science behind why we're all vulnerable to brainwashing
We tend to associate “brainwashing” with cults and hostages, but author and science historian Rebecca Lemov says it can happen to anyone. Her new book “The Instability of Truth" explores the history and science of brainwashing and what it can teach us with misinformation on the rise.
Science is best communicated through identity and culture – how researchers are ensuring STEM serves their communities
Scientists have traditionally focused on educating the public on science or correcting misinformation. But researchers from marginalized communities often have broader goals in science communication.
Prof. Dorit Reiss Wins National Award for Distinguished Service in Health Law - UC Law San Francisco (Formerly UC Hastings)
Professor Dorit Reiss, who brings legal expertise to public health debates, has received a national award for her lasting contributions to the field as a scholar, policy adviser, and mentor. Faculty Who Lead: Dorit Reiss Professor Dorit Reiss receives the 2026 Distinguished Service Award from the AALS Section on Law, Medicine and Health Care. She is a leading expert on vaccine law, advising policymakers and providing expert analysis to journalists. Reiss mentors future health law scholars and combats misinformation online through evidence-based public education. Professor Dorit Reiss, a leading voice on vaccine law and policy, has won a national award recognizing her contributions to health law. She received the 2026 Distinguished Service Award from the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) Section on Law, Medicine and Health Care. Presented at the AALS Annual Meeting in January, the award honors sustained service to public health and the health law academy through advocacy, public education, and mentorship. In presenting the award, Professor Doron Dorfman of Seton Hall Law School, chair-elect of the AALS Section on Law, Medicine and Health Care, described Reiss as “a committed public health advocate who has used her expertise to influence vaccine policy, research, and practice at both the state and federal levels for nearly two decades.” Reiss leads a widely read vaccine law listserv that provides real-time updates on litigation, regulatory developments, advisory committee proceedings, and public comment opportunities. The resource has become an important tool for lawyers, scholars, journalists, and public health professionals tracking fast-moving developments in vaccine policy. Her service extends to policymaking as well. She has supported vaccine-related legislation in California, testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on vaccine mandates and non-medical exemptions, and serves on the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization focused on reducing vaccine-preventable disease. Dorfman also highlighted Reiss’ active role in robust debates over vaccine safety and related laws and policies. “She directly engages misinformation by responding to anti-vaccination claims on social media with careful, evidence-based rebuttals,” Dorfman said. As federal vaccine policy undergoes significant change, Reiss has become a trusted source for major national news outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN, which regularly seek her expert analysis on new policies and decisions. Dorfman noted that Reiss is widely respected for her mentorship of health law faculty and scholars. “She is consistently generous with her time—approachable, willing to provide feedback, and a mentor to many in the field, including myself,” he said. At UC Law SF, Reiss brings the spirit of public service into the classroom, helping students understand how legal frameworks translate into real-world public health outcomes. She holds the James Edgar Hervey ’50 Chair of Litigation, a position that recognizes faculty excellence in the field of litigation. The Distinguished Service Award highlights her sustained commitment to evidence-based vaccine policy, public education, and mentorship during a pivotal time for public health law.
Take-Two Falls on ‘Grand Theft Auto VI’ Delay Misinformation
“Grand Theft Auto VI’ was first announced for fall 2025 before slipping to May 2026 and then again to Nov. 19, 2026, its current planned date
Canadian officials say US health institutions no longer dependable for accurate information
Misinformation from the Trump administration is cited as fuelling Canadians’ concerns over childhood vaccinations
Editors Pick: Sense, Nonsense and Science Columns
Seed World Europe features the columns of Dr. Joe Schwarcz, Director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society, for readers who appreciate science with clarity, curiosity, and wit. Known for demystifying chemistry and challenging misinformation, Joe brings an engaging, no-nonsense voice to topics spanning food, biotechnology, health claims, and the science behind everyday phenomena. Each column helps readers separate evidence from hype while exploring how science shapes our world—and the seed sector.
Science Still Made Incredible Breakthroughs While Under Attack
It was a tough year for science in the US. Thousands of research grants, including more than 3,800 from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation alone, were frozen or canceled. NASA was threatened with sweeping budget cuts. Top scientists are leaving the US in search of better opportunities. And misinformation about vaccines and other important scientific matters continues to spread.
How Australia Fights Scientific Misinformation
The Science Media Centre connects researchers and journalists.
A navigator for better science reporting
Science touches nearly every beat in local journalism, yet many reporters lack the training or time to confidently navigate complex scientific topics. In this piece, Bob Sillick explains how The Open Notebook, in partnership with the Reynolds Journalism Institute, has launched the Science Reporting Navigator to close that gap. The new tool aims to help local journalists spot misinformation, understand research and bring scientific clarity to their daily reporting.
AI Is Getting Dangerously Good at Political Persuasion
For a while last year, scientists offered a glimmer of hope that artificial intelligence would make a positive contribution to democracy. They showed that chatbots could address conspiracy theories racing across social media, challenging misinformation around beliefs in issues such as chemtrails and the flat Earth with a stream of reasonable facts in conversation. But two new studies suggest a disturbing flipside: The latest AI models are getting even better at persuading people at the expense o
Grok gets the facts wrong about Bondi Beach shooting
Grok, the chatbot built by Elon Musk’s xAI and popularized on his social media platform X, appears to have repeatedly spread misinformation about today’s mass shooting at Bondi Beach in Australia.
Grok is spreading misinformation about the Bondi Beach shooting
Grok has repeatedly misidentified video of the Bondi Beach shooting and the hero who disarmed a gunman.
Grok Is Glitching And Spewing Misinformation About The Bondi Beach Shooting
Among other problems, the chatbot is spewing misinformation about the horrific Bondi Beach shooting in Australia.
The federal government is blurring the lines between politics and medicine
As a family physician, I work every day to earn the trust of my patients. I see lines being blurred between politics and medicine and, despite the high trust the public has in their own physician, it is becoming harder to separate medical and scientific information from misinformation. I hear this concern from my patients, […]
Low health literacy is costing health
This document highlights health literacy as a critical determinant of health and a foundation for empowering individuals to make informed choices amid growing volumes of information and misinformation.
A 5-month-old's shocking death and the dangers of extreme diets, medical misinformation
The alkaline diet in particular has become a dangerous, yet widespread, piece of misinformation.
For Real, a Natural History of Misinformation
It’s not just humans who suffer from leading one another astray. So do fish, flies and even bacteria.
WATCH LIVE: Ask us anything about fighting science misinformation during a special Reddit AMA
AI deepfakes of real doctors spreading health misinformation on social media
Hundreds of videos on TikTok and elsewhere impersonate experts to sell supplements with unproven effects
The new normal: Fighting misinformation now consumes 90% of Mass.’ top health official’s time
As the Trump administration questions vaccine science, Dr. Robbie Goldstein says combating disinformation rivals disease prevention as his primary responsibility.