Education
Experts call for stronger fact-checking to curb science misinformation – EnviroNews
– Advertisement –
Experts in science communication, biotechnology and biosafety have called for stronger verification of scientific claims, transparent communication of research findings and greater community engagement to curb misinformation and build public trust in science.
They made the call at the third webinar in the Truth Under the Microscope series, themed “Checking Claims and Clarifying Science for Various Audiences”, held on August 20, 2026.
The webinar was moderated by Michael Simire, Editor-in-Chief of EnviroNews Nigeria, and Alanna Fogarty, Senior Analyst at the Johns Hopkins Centre for Health and Security.
The experts warned that scientific information could mislead the public when preliminary findings were presented as established facts, research results were exaggerated, limitations were concealed or technical language was poorly translated.
They stressed that scientific claims must be verified before publication or public engagement, rather than corrected only after misleading narratives have spread.
According to the webinar report, effective science communication requires accurate evidence, appropriate context, transparency about uncertainty and sustained dialogue with the people affected by scientific and technological developments.
Delivering the keynote presentation, Dr. Mousa Savadogo described misinformation and disinformation as persistent social and economic risks, noting that scientific claim-checking requires careful examination of research methods, evidence quality, uncertainty and evolving knowledge.
The discussion emphasised that communicators must establish precisely what a claim asserts, examine the credibility of its source, scrutinise the supporting evidence and determine whether the conclusions are justified by the findings.
The speakers identified the absence of clear sources and supporting data, sensational language, unsupported percentage claims and promises of complete safety or guaranteed success as warning signs of potentially misleading scientific information.
They also cautioned against confusing correlation with causation or presenting preliminary laboratory findings and computer modelling as proven real-world outcomes.
Dr. Amelia Wamba, who examined how scientific findings are framed for different audiences, highlighted the risks of misrepresenting research on mosquitoes and emerging technologies.
Examples discussed included early mosquito studies being portrayed as malaria-control trials and research that did not involve gene drives being described as gene-drive deployment.
Such misrepresentations, the report noted, could distort public understanding, generate unnecessary concern and influence debates about the safety and potential benefits of scientific innovations.
Wamba proposed a four-part approach to correcting misleading claims: lead with the truth, restore missing context, explain uncertainty and the limits of available evidence, and direct audiences to official sources.
She also introduced a “traffic-light” model for communicating scientific information, with green representing established facts, amber indicating emerging evidence or projections, and red identifying misleading claims.
The approach is intended to help audiences distinguish established knowledge from developing evidence and unsupported assertions.
On biosafety and regulation, John Kome warned that sensational interpretations of scientific studies could influence regulatory decisions long after the original claims had been questioned.
He urged regulators to assess potential hazards, examine exposure and the likelihood of harm, estimate possible consequences, compare alternatives and communicate the level of certainty associated with their findings.
The webinar identified transparent regulatory reviews, public access to information, consultation and compliance with established requirements as essential to building confidence in scientific and technological innovations.
The experts further stressed that responsible risk communication should compare proposed technologies with existing practices rather than an unrealistic standard of perfect safety.
They advised communicators against promising zero risk, recommending instead that they acknowledge public concerns, explain available safeguards and monitoring arrangements, identify what remains uncertain and clarify how new evidence could change current understanding.
Dr. Givemore Munhenga, presenting a case study on community engagement in sterile-insect approaches to mosquito control, demonstrated how public participation could improve understanding and acceptance of unfamiliar technologies.
The case study examined how the release of sterile male mosquitoes could support mosquito control and how the project used community participation, local languages, trusted leaders, culturally familiar analogies, music, radio storytelling and school drama to explain the intervention.
Baseline and follow-up surveys were also used to understand community concerns and assess changes in knowledge and acceptance.
The report concluded that communities were more likely to understand and support unfamiliar technologies when they participated in shaping the engagement process instead of merely receiving information from scientists and project implementers.
It consequently recommended early engagement, repeated dialogue, opportunities for questions and feedback, and communication methods that reflect local cultures and everyday experiences.
The speakers also called for different approaches to communicating scientific evidence to communities, journalists, policymakers, regulators and technical specialists.
While community communication should use accessible language and familiar examples, journalists need adequate context to avoid sensational headlines and misleading interpretations.
Policymakers require information on policy implications, available options, costs, ethical considerations, timelines and uncertainty, while technical audiences need detailed explanations of research methods, assumptions, evidence quality and limitations.
The webinar recommended that communicators develop audience-specific messages from a single, verified evidence base to ensure consistency without sacrificing scientific accuracy.
It also urged scientists and regulators to work with journalists, community leaders, health workers, teachers and other trusted messengers to improve the credibility and reach of scientific information.
Among the recommendations were the introduction of standard claim-checking procedures before publication, preparation of accessible summaries of scientific findings and regulatory decisions, and the use of local languages and culturally appropriate communication formats.
The experts further advocated two-way engagement plans that allow communities to ask questions, express concerns and demonstrate their understanding of scientific information.
They urged communicators to measure engagement through baseline and follow-up assessments rather than relying solely on attendance figures or audience reach.
The report also advised communicators to respond respectfully to misconceptions, avoid unnecessarily repeating sensational claims and provide regular updates as scientific evidence evolves.
It emphasised that simplifying scientific information should not distort its meaning or remove important qualifications needed to understand the findings.
The webinar concluded that trustworthy science communication depends on evidence, context, transparency and public participation, adding that accurate information alone may be insufficient when explanations are inaccessible or disconnected from people’s concerns.
It maintained that verifying claims before publication, acknowledging uncertainty and sustaining dialogue with affected communities would help reduce misinformation, support informed decision-making and strengthen public confidence in science.
The next session in the Truth Under the Microscope series was announced as a discussion on reporting science responsibly and covering emerging technologies effectively.