As a health and science writer, my job is to write about science. So I’m happy to hear that Americans are still curious about science news, ranking it below local and political news, but above business and sports, according to the Pew Research Center. In addition to being interested in the usual science issues — such as climate change (and now COVID-19) — people are also seeking out information on more niche topics such as gene editing.
Traditionally, many people got their science news through print or online publications, either general publications or ones focused solely on science or health. This means that science writers are often the intermediary between the public and the latest research, with further filtering happening at the level of the editor or publication — no, not every great research study gets written about by science journalists.
However, in recent years this dynamic has shfited. More scientists are writing about their own and other scientists’ work on websites such as The Conversation or producing videos or podcasts explaining complex science topics. This raises awareness of science by giving the public greater access to unfiltered science content — straight from the science horse’s mouth, so to speak.
Social media has also played a role in enabling scientists to communicate widely with the public about various science topics. I follow many researchers on Twitter, including ones that I have interviewed for my news stories. I also follow these researchers on Google Scholar, but Twitter is where I can get a quick summary of their research as well as their thoughts on current science issues (lately it’s been a lot COVID-19 discussions).
I am not alone in using social media to learn about science. Millions of people see science-related posts on Facebook, according to a 2018 survey by Pew. Some of this information comes from long-running multiplatform science outlets, such as National Geographic, Discovery, and Animal Planet, all of which have set up shop on Facebook.
Others, though, are Facebook pages that primarily exist on that social network, including IFLScience, Smart is the New Sexy, Bill Nye, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Some of these pages have grown rapidly from very humble beginnings — for example, IFLScience has over 24 million followers, with a staff of 15.
Facebook pages devoted to increasing awareness of science are also turning out more content in recent years. Pew found that the 15 popular multiplatform pages that they looked at produced 115 percent more posts in 2018 compared to 2014. Pages that are primarily on Facebook increased their volume of posts by 66 percent during that time.
However, the depth of these posts are more along the lines of a small pond rather than an ocean — easy to access, but not very deep. Pew found that only 29 percent of the posts on these pages were related to new scientific discoveries. Twenty-one percent of posts were “news you can use” — the ever-popular service journalism — and 16 percent were promotions or ads.
Facebook, Social Media and Science News
It’s clear that many people are seeing science-related posts on Facebook (and likely on other social networks as well). But do these posts help build awareness of science, especially less-covered topics? A group of researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison set to find out.
They focused on gene editing because it is an example of an emerging technology, which is often not always fully understood by the general public. While early work on gene editing occurred in the 1990s, it was over the past decade that this technology has really taken off, especially with the development of the CRISPR-Cas9 system.
Scientists now have the ability to use gene editing for practical applications such as editing the genomes of human embryos to reduce the risk of certain inherited diseases. However, these applications also raise many ethical concerns, as was seen last year when a Chinese scientist produced genetically edited babies (and later ended up in jail for his work).
Gene editing receives some coverage in the mainstream and online media, although given the heavy technological bent to this topic, these stories often just skim the surface of what the technology is, how it works, and its potential applications. The exception is science-focused publications, where readers expect a deep dive into most topics.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers wanted to see what impact social media, in particular Facebook, has on people’s awareness of science, specifically gene editing. To do that, they surveyed 1,600 people online about their social media use, exposure to news stories about science and technology, knowledge of gene editing technology, their attitudes toward different gene editing scenarios, and other factors.
Their results were published June 10 in the journal Social Media + Society.
They found that social media did play a role in raising awareness of gene editing, although it depended on how people interacted with the platform. Those who used Facebook more often (times per day) were less aware of issues related to gene editing technology. However, people who spent more time on Facebook (minutes per day) showed greater awareness of gene editing.
This seems contradictory, but the researchers suggest that the discrepancy may have to do with what people do while they are on social media. Those who glance at Facebook multiple times throughout the day may just be there for a quick check-in, so they may not notice posts about gene editing in a feed filled with posts from their friends. But people who spend more time on the platform may slow down and actually read the posts, including those about science topics.
“It appears that those individuals who ‘dig’ into Facebook and report spending a considerable amount of time on Facebook are more aware of gene editing news stories,” wrote the researchers. “This type of social network behavior would indeed support the notion that more involved and time-intensive use results in a higher chance of exposure to various scientific news topics and discussions.”
As might be expected, people who had greater exposure to traditional science news, such as reading print or online publications focused on science, were more likely to be aware of gene editing. In fact, the researchers found that this was the strongest predictor of awareness of this topic.
However, the researchers write that the results suggest that Facebook and other social media still matter. These platforms expose people to information about gene editing in different ways than traditional media, but can also contribute to people’s awareness of this issue. How much that happens “might depend on how social media is used and who uses it (i.e., frequency vs duration of use),” they write.
Building Science Awareness on Social Media
With the decline in traditional science journalism in recent years, social media may play a bigger role in the future in raising awareness of science, including those like gene editing that are not heavily covered by the media. “The results show that traditional news sources are still considerably strongest in their relation to gene editing awareness, but social media certainly does matter,” the researchers write.
However, they point out that their study doesn’t show anything about the quality of the science information that is shared on social media. This raises the question of whether social media can fill in the gap left behind as traditional science journalism decreases. Some research has attempted to answer this question.
One study from last year found many examples of gene editing discussions taking place on Twitter — including posts about the research/applications of CRISPR, the “CRISPR babies” event, and agricultural uses of gene editing. But as the 2018 Pew survey shows, a lot of social media science posts are geared toward “soft news.”
Still, social media reaches a wider audience than most traditional science news publications, so there is the potential for social media to raise greater awareness about gene editing (and other) technologies. “This would give hope that information pertaining to gene editing spread via social media can even reach those who are not more likely to self-select it,” the researchers write.
