Like any other community or profession you might report on, science has its share of controversies. After all, scientists are human, and the process of science is an imperfect one.
Some controversies are the outcome of the collaborative nature of science, such as field-wide debates over methods and how to interpret findings. Science is also not immune from ethical tangles and political polarization. And, as in other fields, controversy in the sciences can stem from fraud and misconduct.
When reporting on controversial science or science that tends to attract backlash, there are a few skills to have in your toolbox that will make it easier to find the truth, avoid spreading misinformation, and file a fair story.
Some scientific topics are heavily politicized, making it particularly hard to weed out inaccurate claims and debunk misinformation. Reporting on vaccines, climate change, and reproductive medicine, to name just a few, can quickly spiral into controversy as you seek different voices to weigh in on hot-button topics.
Here are some concrete steps to take as you report on a scientific topic mired in political polarization:
If you’re covering a new-to-you field, familiarize yourself with the primary players, major debates, and ethical issues. For example, see which researchers have written an op-ed on an issue and ask them for an interview to orient you. Perusing coverage from respected publications can also help you get a better handle on science that’s been politicized.
Try to gauge which perspectives are evidence-based and backed by most experts in a field. Which papers are cited frequently or held up as seminal findings according to experts you interview? Have large groups of researchers authored white papers petitioning policymakers to act on a certain topic? Contact some of those authors and ask them for their take on an issue.
Contrarian views in science aren’t always questionable, but they do deserve an extra critical eye. If you come across a fringe idea that doesn’t seem to be backed by credible evidence, avoid giving that viewpoint a platform in your story. Science reporting should always prioritize evidence over a sense of “balance” between perspectives.
Remember that science doesn’t always get it right—by its nature, it’s a self-correcting process. For example, some chronic illnesses, such as long COVID and ME/CFS, remain poorly understood, and some doctors and researchers tend to minimize them. Gaps in scientific understanding sometimes propel officials or government agencies to spread falsehoods about scientific concepts.
Including a range of expertise in your story can strengthen its grounding in evidence. People with lived experience are qualified to weigh in on their condition and the priorities they hold alongside scientific experts. (People with lived experience might also have technical expertise on data, policy, or funding in that field.)
Controversy might arise around an individual research study, perhaps due to methodological errors, authorship disputes, or even research misconduct. If the work is particularly flawed, a journal (or the authors themselves) will retract the paper in question—that is, remove it from a journal’s pages.
The effects of retracted research can be severe. In 2020, for example, a study published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents touted the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. Researchers immediately raised concerns about the study, including about its very small sample size. Further investigations also revealed ethical breaches in the research. Still, many people with COVID-19 took the overhyped drug. The paper was finally retracted in 2024.
The reasons for a paper’s withdrawal aren’t always spelled out publicly. It’s up to journalists to do some sleuthing to better inform their readers.
Researchers might criticize a flawed paper by publishing commentaries in journals or by commenting in public forums or on social media.
Follow the discussion around a paper in these spaces to gain intel and identify potential sources.
Subscribe to relevant journals’ email alerts, where they might include updates about retracted papers.
Follow watchdog publications such as Retraction Watch and the blog Science Integrity Digest, both of which report on retracted studies and other controversies in science.
As with reporting on any subject, covering controversy in science inevitably involves interviewing sources who might be skittish or downright combative. Lean into your reporting prowess as you reach out to researchers for comment on an issue known to spur tensions.
