Scientist’s Guide For Countering Misinformation

Misinformation about outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics is a decades-old problem that has been exacerbated by the rise of the internet and the widespread use of social media. Some false claims may be addressed through sound scientific analysis, suggesting that scientists can help counter misinformation by providing evidence-based, scientifically defensible information that may discredit or refute these claims.

This how-to guide provides practical steps that scientists can take to assess mis- or disinformation, determine whether and how they should address it, and effectively communicate the corrective information they develop.



What is Mis- and Disinformation?


is defined as the unintentional spread of false or misleading information that is shared by mistake or under the presumption of truth.


is defined as false, misleading, distorted or isolated factual information that is spread deliberately with the intention to cause harm or damage.

Key Steps for Identifying and Addressing Inaccurate Scientific Claims


accent image, step 1

STEP 1: Evaluate the claims to determine whether scientific inaccuracies should be addressed.

A critical aspect of identifying and addressing inaccurate and misleading scientific information is determining whether a particular claim needs to be addressed, and indeed could be addressed without inadvertently amplifying and propagating mis- or disinformation.

Whether claims are associated with particular scientists’ work or institutions, or refer to particular events such as outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases or other biothreats, the initial set of questions to determine if a claim should be addressed is the same.


Key Considerations When Determining Whether to Address Particular False Claim


Could the claim cause significant harm or damage to public health, national security or other social systems, either directly or indirectly through influencing individual behaviors?


Can scientific knowledge or analysis counter a particular claim?


Does scientific knowledge or data exist to provide accurate and defensible scientific information to counter a particular claim?


Could addressing a particular claim amplify it, resulting in greater, rather than reduced harm?

Address the Claim, if the following are all true

  • the potential for harm or damage is high,
  • the claim can be addressed through scientific knowledge or analysis,
  • the data to address it exists, and
  • scientific inaccuracies can be addressed without amplifying the claim.

If one or more of the above statements isn’t true, judgement will have to be used to determine whether or not to address the claim. The flowchart below provides additional guidance.


Could addressing the claim inform actions to reduce the potential harms associated with those claims? Allow normal scientific progress to produce and disseminate accurate information if the claim is not expected to have significant harmful consequences. Claim not necessary to correct. Engagement in policy, scientific correction, or other corrective actions may have greater adverse consequences than leaving the claim alone. Can uncertainties be reduced over time or with additional research and analysis? Consider describing knowledge gaps that prevent the claim from being addressed Could the mis- or disinformation claim increase over time? Allow normal scientific progress to produce and disseminate accurate information if the claim is not expected to have significant harmful consequences. Conduct research and/or analysis to correct inaccurate and misleading scientific information in collaboration with domain experts relevant to the inaccurate information. Conduct research and analysis collaboratively with domain experts to identify and implement strategies for reducing amplification of particularly harmful messages in a targeted and effective manner. NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Conduct research and/or analysis collaboratively with specific domain experts to correct inaccurate and misleading scientific information in collaboration. Could mis- or disinformation (for which scentific evidence and data are unavailable or poor and/or influencing factors exist) be amplified or evolve? High Amplification Potential? VIEW QUESTIONS READ CONTEXT Is sufficient information available to correct the claims? If sufficient information is available, is it reliable, reproducible, and repeatable? If sufficient information is not available, why? Evidence-based Science? VIEW QUESTIONS READ CONTEXT Claim Answerable by Science? Can science address inaccurate and misleading information leading to the mis- or disinformation claim? READ CONTEXT VIEW QUESTIONS Potential for Harm or Damage? Could the claim harm social systems, such as public health and national security? Could the claim lead to dangerous individual behaviors that could have adverse effects on institutions and communities? VIEW QUESTIONS

What If You, a Colleague, or Your Institution are the Subject of a Claim?

In consultation with your institution, communications networks, and other experts, you can work through the framework above to determine whether to address the claim. Although the consequences you identify may not be at the community, national, or international levels, they may be still be significant, particularly if they present a specific danger to you, your family, or your organization. This chart provides examples of situations that have occurred, the actions taken by the scientists, and the results of those actions.

This scientist should contact their institutional communication experts and work with them to determine the best course of action based upon the assessment of the risks posed by the blog. The scientist also may contact law enforcement depending on language used in the email and whether they feel their personal safety might be at immediate risk. Law enforcement agencies may be able to work with other intelligence agencies to contact the individual that wrote the email and/or runs the blog. The scientists should contact their institutional communication experts and work with them to determine the best course of action to correct the information, which could be an email or letter to the editor describing the errors, a written piece or frequently asked questions on an institutional website, or some other form of rebuttal. The scientist should work with their institutional communications experts to respond as soon as possible asking the reporter what is the arc of their story and their deadline. The information is in the public domain and unless the media outlet corrects or recants the story, the scientists and institution will have to do their best to refute continuously the claims as quickly as possible. Actions by the Scientist In this instance, the blog is not a credible source, has limited reach, and does not appear to be referenced by other sources. Drawing greater attention to the blog could potentially raise the profile of the individuals behind it and increase readership. Unless the blog develops greater reach or readership, debunking it is not worth the resources. The reach of the media outlet is wide and influential in this example, and the inaccurate information and misinformation runs a high risk of being repeatedly cited as fact. The claim persists regardless of whether corrected information is released. This is an opportunity to potentially correct misinformation before it reaches the public domain. The scientist should make every attempt to speak with the reporter before their deadline because they potentially could change the arc of the story and influence the sharing of correct scientific information. Result of Decision A scientist receives an email with inappropriate, somewhat threatening, language about experiments they supposedly did according to a blog the email sender referenced. An internationally well-known media outlet runs a story about research conducted in your laboratory and misquotes a spokesperson from your institution making your research appear inappropriate. A reporter contacts a scientist for a story they are working on in the scientist’s area of expertise. By the general description of the story in the email, the scientist fears that the reporter already has their mind made up and is looking for a quote for a story that most likely will contain misinformation. Examples

accent image, step 2

STEP 2: Identify expertise needed to correct scientific inaccuracies.

Although some scientific inaccuracies may be addressed by experts from a single field or discipline, more likely, you will need to identify scientists from other disciplines—referred to as ‘domain experts’—who have the knowledge and expertise to address certain aspects of the inaccuracies being circulated. The relevant domain experts will not only be able to help correct inaccuracies, hype, and misleading scientific information, but also will help to develop messages for communicating the correct information and its associated uncertainties.


Identifying Domain Experts


What scientific information is needed to address misinformation claims?

  • What scientific information is needed to correct inaccuracies relevant to the misinformation claims?
  • What scientific information is needed to produce accurate, defensible knowledge to counter the misinformation claims?

What life, social, and computer science skills and expertise are needed to address scientific inaccuracies and counter associated misinformation claims?

  • What specific expertise is needed if the primary audience is scientists?
  • What specific expertise is needed if the audience includes non-scientists, such as members of the public, policymakers, and journalists?

Evaluating Domain Experts


Do the domain experts within your trusted scientific network have the appropriate skills and expertise to address the inaccurate information?


What domain expertise exists outside of your network but is needed to address the inaccurate information?


Do the identified experts have strong scientific credentials (e.g., publication record, scientific expertise, reputation, scientific excellence awards, and leadership positions)?


Are scientists from all relevant disciplines and sectors been involved in your collaborative team for addressing the inaccurate information?

accent image, step 3

STEP 3: Define the methods for correcting scientific inaccuracies.

Once you have identified the appropriate expertise, the next step is to work with your team to define your approach for addressing scientific inaccuracies.


Characterizing the Claim and Its Source


What is the source of the inaccurate and misleading information or resulting misinformation claim?


What is the credibility of the source of the inaccurate and misleading information or resulting misinformation claim?


What is the reach of that source?


Has the inaccurate and misleading claim been referenced in other sources?


Has the claim been repeated elsewhere?


Defining the Approach


What scientific inaccuracies and associated claims already are being addressed? What still needs to be addressed?


What approach will you use to correct scientific inaccuracies?


What resources are needed to correct scientific inaccuracies or build the scientific foundation to counter particular misinformation claims?

accent image, step 4

STEP 4: Communicate the correct information and uncertainties.

Communicating the correct information accurately and effectively is just as important as producing accurate, defensible information. Institutions often have communications and public affairs offices to support scientists’ efforts in reaching audiences beyond the scientific community, especially policy-makers, journalists, and lay and religious leaders in the broader public. If your institution or network has this type of office, you should work with it to determine how to communicate corrective information. Regardless, training in science communication and public engagement and/or collaboration with professional science communicators will help to ensure that the corrective message has the intended effect.


Identifying the Needs for Addressing the Claims


Who are the primary and secondary audiences?


Have you been working with a science communication expert on your team?


Is your approach to communication based on mental models? (Knowledge deficit models have been shown to be ineffective at communicating science to various audiences.)


What are your communication goals?


What uncertainty is associated with the correct information? How is uncertainty described for information for which little or no scientific consensus exists? How has uncertainty been captured in the corrective message?


Characteristics of Communicating Science


When developing your message, avoid jargon. Effective science communication stays away from jargon or unfamiliar words and uses terms that make sense to a broader audience. If scientific terminology must be used, explain it in more commonly understood terms.


When creating your message, use framing messages to connect scientific information to cognitive schemas that matter to your target audience.


When developing corrective messages, use charts, graphs, images, and other visuals to avoid jargon and make an audience comfortable with a topic.


When developing messages for non-technical audiences, highlight the correct information rather than the misinformation.


When developing the message, discuss the broader contextual impact of the misinformation claim and corrective message, which may help audiences understand why addressing the claim is important even if they may not understand the scientific processes behind the counter-argument.

Read More

cover image

This interactive guide is based on the work of an expert committee convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The committee was tasked with evaluating how to engage scientists in Southeast Asia in working collaboratively across scientific disciplines and sectors to identify and address inaccuracies that could fuel mis- and disinformation. Although this study focused on a scientific network primarily in Southeast Asia, scientists in other parts of the world may find that much of the study and guide are relevant to their own situations and contexts. The committee developed two primary consensus products: a report, Addressing Inaccurate and Misleading Information about Biological Threats through Scientific Collaboration and Communication in Southeast Asia; and a how-to guide for scientists on which this website is based.