1 Introduction

I’m sure many of the people out there aren’t even gonna listen to what I just said ‘cause they have their own political ideology ”. These words by astronomer Dr. Randall Mindy, a protagonist in Adam McKay’s 2021 Netflix film Don’t Look Up , probably stroke a nerve of many scientists. They might have resonated with Michael Mann, Ibram X. Kendi, Anthony Fauci, and various other scholars who have recently been challenged by skepticism, personal attacks, and politically motivated rejection of their expertise on climate change, critical race theory, and the COVID-19 pandemic, for example [Nogrady, 2021 ].

Don’t Look Up tells the story of a team of scientists whose research on a deadly comet approaching Earth is ignored by significant parts of the general population and undermined by the ambitions of politicians — specifically those of the conservative US President Janie Orlean. The film shows several more facets of contemporary challenges to scientific expertise beyond science denial, hostility against scientists, and partisan reasoning, for example conspiracy theories on social media [Mahl, Schäfer, & Zeng, 2022 ], corporate counter-research [Oreskes & Conway, 2010 ], and populist anti-elitism [Mede & Schäfer, 2020 ]. Don’t Look Up thus offers a vivid picture of current anti-science resentment, the societal settings surrounding it, and ways in which scientists and science communicators can — or cannot — respond to it. But at the same time, the film overlooks many aspects of such resentment, exaggerates others, and thus conveys a narrow understanding of how anti-science sentiments operate within society and science communication ecologies.

This commentary discusses these (mis)representations through the lens of science communication scholarship. It seeks to inspire further debate and reflection about recent anti-science phenomena, potential remedies, and the way popular media portray them.

2 How Don’t Look Up portrays contemporary anti-science resentments

Extant sociological and psychological scholarship has analyzed a range of forms and conditions of anti-scientific reasoning, affect, and behavior [e.g., Gauchat, 2008 ; Lewandowsky, Mann, Brown, & Friedman, 2016 ; Rekker, 2021 ]. Many of these are showcased in Don’t Look Up : the film portrays typical aspects of science denial, showing how parts of the public ignore research results indicating a 99.78% certainty that the comet will hit Earth [Hansson, 2017 ]. It illustrates how corporations fabricate evidence that challenges scientific consensus, showing how a billion-dollar tech company boss hires his own scientists to undermine the studies of Dr. Mindy and his PhD candidate Kate Dibiasky [Oreskes & Conway, 2010 ]. It references the affinity of anti-science resentment and populism, showing how President Orlean and her team slander Mindy and Dibiasky using populist rhetoric [Mede & Schäfer, 2020 ] and gather in an Oval Office that has a portrait of the anti-establishment science skeptic Andrew Jackson [Dupree, 1990 ]. It describes how public controversies about scientific research may fuel societal polarization, showing televised opinion poll results indicating that the population is divided as to whether the comet exists [Rekker, 2021 ]. And it features a number of characters with questionable expertise but considerable political, economic, or media power, such as a former anesthesiologist as the head of NASA, a hobby scientist as a tech company CEO, and conspiracy theorists as social media influencers [Harambam, 2017 ]. As such, Don’t Look Up portrays several dimensions of current anti-science phenomena and the political processes, economic conditions, and media dynamics surrounding them — thus touching upon multiple aspects of the social setting of public reservations against science [see Scheufele, 2013 ].

Many of these portrayals can be interpreted as references to the denial of research on climate change: empirical evidence demonstrates how deniers of anthropogenic global warming often ignore an overwhelming certainty of its existence and consequences [Björnberg, Karlsson, Gilek, & Hansson, 2017 ], refer to manufactured findings undermining scientific consensus [Goldberg & Vandenberg, 2021 ], adopt populist attitudes and rhetoric [R. A. Huber, Greussing, & Eberl, 2021 ], provoke societal polarization [Dunlap, McCright, & Yarosh, 2016 ], and profit from the power and reach of prominent science skeptics [van den Bulck & Hyzen, 2020 ] in much a similar way like what is depicted in Don’t Look Up . After all, the film contains subtle Easter egg references to (the denial of) climate change, such as mention of Carl Sagan, who advocated for the urgency to combat it, or a painting of George W. Bush, who later tried to downplay this urgency [Byrne, Hughes, Rickerson, & Kurdgelashvili, 2007 ].

But even if many pundits saw Don’t Look Up as a portrayal of climate change denial in particular [Desch, 2021 ; Oppenheimer, 2021 ; Sinatra & Hofer, 2022 ], it can also be understood as an allegory for anti-science phenomena in general, because rejection of scientific consensus, corporate counter-research, or populist backlash have also challenged academic expertise on issues other than climate change — such as vaccination, gene engineering, 5G technology, fracking, cigarette smoking, gender studies, or the COVID-19 pandemic, for example [Mede & Schäfer, 2020 ; Merkley, 2020 ; Oreskes & Conway, 2010 ]. Don’t Look Up thus seems to offer a broad picture of those phenomena. However, the film’s perspective on anti-science sentiments is nevertheless limited, as it reproduces a couple of rudimentary, dated, and misleading assumptions about these sentiments.

3 How Don’t Look Up reproduces limited assumptions about recent anti-science resentment

Don’t Look Up has received many positive reviews, also from the scholarly community: astrophysicists and climate scientists praised it as “one of the most important recent contributions to popularizing science” and maintained that it has been “the most accurate film about society’s terrifying non-response to climate breakdown” [Desch, 2021 ; Kalmus, 2021 ; Oppenheimer, 2021 ]. However, taking a social science perspective on Don’t Look Up — and more specifically, a (science) communication perspective — suggests that the film also presents a short-sighted view on the nature and surroundings of public denial, skepticism, and criticism of scientists and their knowledge. This caveat revolves around at least four themes:

The monolithic passive public. With few exceptions, Don’t Look Up portrays the general public as a large anonymous collective of seemingly manipulable citizens who have no choice but to submit to the appeals of societal elites and opinion influencers: film viewers watch masses of people unanimously cheering to their political leaders, witness Internet users thoughtlessly following social media hypes, and hear film characters repeatedly referring to “the people out there”, “peoples of the world”, or “the public” when addressing TV audiences, voters, or opinion poll respondents. Meanwhile, Don’t Look Up barely depicts civic initiatives or social action — except for the activist group Kate Dibiasky joins in a somewhat negligible subplot.

The film thus conveys the impression that science denial results unavoidably from society being exposed to persuasive election campaigns or misleading online information. It arguably subscribes to an outdated media effects model that assumes that political leaders or social media influencers can inject their ideas into the general population with the proverbial “hypodermic needle” [Maeseele, 2007 , p. 2]. Accordingly, Don’t Look Up seems to blame the public for not resisting to persuasion and deception, and pathologizes the formation of public opinion on science as a detrimental and inevitable process among allegedly incompetent and submissive lay audiences [see Krause, Scheufele, Freiling, & Brossard, 2021 ]. This perspective neglects established conceptual assumptions and empirical findings of the social sciences: it largely ignores the possibility of societal and individual agency, i.e. the potential of publics to initiate responses to substantial crises like climate change and its denial [McAdam, 2017 ], to develop resilience against mis- and disinformation [Humprecht, Esser, & Van Aelst, 2020 ], and to actively scrutinize the political and economic interests of stakeholders involved in discourse about science [Weingart & Joubert, 2019 ]. Therefore, Don’t Look Up bears the risk of conveying the misconception that society is a passive monolith of ignorant people that scientists, science communicators, and policymakers simply have to deal with.

The US American view on science denial. Don’t Look Up clearly adopts a US American view on anti-science resentments that is to some degree barely comparable to other countries. The film depicts sharp partisan divides, strong affective polarization, high distrust toward science within certain social milieus, and pronounced news media sensationalism, which have been found to be characteristic of the United States but not, or to a lesser extent, of several countries other than the US [Boxell, Gentzkow, & Shapiro, 2020 ; Dimock & Wike, 2020 ; Kleemans & Hendriks Vettehen, 2009 ; McLamore et al., 2022 ]. Don’t Look Up also suggests that societies will generally become more critical toward science when facing catastrophes — which conflicts with evidence showing that existential crises like the COVID-19 pandemic can lead publics to have more trust in science and less populist reservations against it in countries like Germany and Switzerland [Bromme, Mede, Thomm, Kremer, & Ziegler, 2022 ; Mede & Schäfer, 2022 ]. After all, the film’s depiction of US American science denial specifically is limited as well, as it does not acknowledge that US public opinion on science in general [Besley, 2018 ] or climate change in particular [Chryst et al., 2018 ] may not split into two polarized groups but spread across multiple nuances.

The portrayal of an inevitable persistence of science denial. Don’t Look Up may cause viewers to believe that there is no effective solution to science denial: the film shows how scientists do their best to communicate their knowledge to the general population — but eventually fail to change public opinion, as their efforts get undermined by political campaigns, social media hypes, celebrity scandals, and a billionaire’s pursuit of economic profit. Hence, Don’t Look Up promotes a fatalistic narrative suggesting that measures against science denial, even if effective for brief periods of the story, still end up unsuccessful.

This narrative undoubtedly helps the film emphasize an urgency of combating (climate) science denial, and it does conform with empirical research showing that interventions against anti-science perceptions can have little success or might even backfire [Lazić & Žeželj, 2021 ]. But it neglects that such perceptions can indeed be effectively alleviated, for example through inoculation or debunking interventions [Lewandowsky & van der Linden, 2021 ]. Public anti-science resentments can thus not be conceived in terms of the apocalyptic, inevitable consequences that Don’t Look Up insinuates.

The pathologizing of social and entertainment media. Media play a crucial role in Don’t Look Up : the film includes several sequences featuring TV talk shows, social media, and a Hollywood blockbuster that adapts the events shown in Don’t Look Up for a film entitled “Total Devastation.” Most of those sequences portray these media and their users rather negatively: TV hosts dismiss the urgency of the comet threat, trying to “keep the bad news light”, as they put it. Social media are repeatedly depicted as pervaded by hate speech, hypes, and misinformation. And the film industry is conceived as an unscrupulous business seeking to monetize the apocalypse.

Don’t Look Up therefore paints a dark picture of current media and communication ecologies. In the vein of cultural pessimism, it assumes that social and entertainment media harbor and catalyze science denial [see Fuchs, 2016 ]. Scholarship suggests that some of these media may indeed promote — or do not challenge — simplifying, misleading, and sensationalist depictions of science as well as anti-science sentiments, conspiracy theories, and misinformation [Kaplan & Dahlstrom, 2017 ; Scheufele & Krause, 2019 ]. Yet on the contrary, social and entertainment media have also been found to cultivate pro-science views, for example through edutainment formats, positive portrayals of scientists, and dialogue between science and the public [B. Huber, Barnidge, Gil de Zúñiga, & Liu, 2019 ; Nisbet & Dudo, 2013 ]. Don’t Look Up barely shows this, thus pathologizing science communication via popular media to some extent unwarrantedly.

4 How Don’t Look Up (mis)conceives science communication within public discourse about science

The spread of critical, hostile, and populist reservations against scientific expertise is closely intertwined with the media and communication ecology of contemporary societies: for example, newspaper reporting may feature (and challenge) climate change skeptics [Brüggemann & Engesser, 2014 ]. Social networking sites may harbor (and deplatform) conspiracy theorists [Mahl, Zeng, & Schäfer, 2021 ]. Instant messaging services may allow users to share (and debunk) mis- and disinformation [Rossini, Stromer-Galley, Baptista, & de Oliveira, 2021 ]. Election campaigns may articulate (and criticize) anti-academic resentment [Dunlap et al., 2016 ]. And entertainment media — such as Don’t Look Up itself — may popularize (and satirize) science denial and similar sentiments [Rousseau, 2015 ]. Don’t Look Up portrays several of these dynamics. It can thus be understood not only as an allegory for societal conflicts over scientific issues, but also for the intricacies of science communication within such conflicts.

Generally, the film discusses multiple timely issues of science communication scholarship and practice: for example, Don’t Look Up suggests that popular media should be acknowledged as a potent route of science communication [Allgaier, 2012 ], showing how two pop stars perform a hit song that urges their fans to “listen to the goddamn qualified scientists.” Moreover, it alludes to the role of source credibility in science communication [Sanz-Menéndez & Cruz-Castro, 2019 ], showing how President Orlean mocks the protagonists as allegedly mediocre Michigan State University scientists who should be replaced by proper “Ivy Leaguers.”

More specifically, Don’t Look Up portrays science communication strategies against science denial in particular [see Hansson, 2018 ]. For example, it emphasizes — albeit only for brief parts of the plot — that public reservations against science can be reduced through advocacy and counter-speech by scientists like Dibiasky and Mindy [Betsch, 2017 ]. The film also illustrates that storytelling can be a promising strategy to mitigate these reservations [Wang & Huang, 2021 ], showing how Mindy is advised before a TV interview that he is “just telling a story” and must “keep it simple.” And it suggests that emotions can play a crucial role within such strategies [Scheufele & Krause, 2019 ], showing how Sesame Street kid actors feel saddened and frightened by Mindy. Don’t Look Up may thus have also stroke the nerve of science communicators in particular.

However, communication researchers and practitioners could still raise concerns about the film’s portrayal of science communication approaches against anti-science phenomena. For example, they may criticize that Don’t Look Up portrays science communication primarily as a unidirectional top-down process through which a somewhat authoritative scholarly community transports “science du chef” [Bucchi, 1998 , p. 2] to a passive public: the film shows Mindy trying to reach out to “the people out there,” Dibiasky preaching to an anonymous TV audience, and pop stars advocating for science in front of an indistinct concert crowd. It therefore insinuates that the go-to approach against science denial is “putting more and more information in front of an unaware public” [Nisbet & Scheufele, 2009 , p. 1774]. However, this approach has been described as ineffective, as just communicating the “best available evidence” [Rynes, Colbert, & O’Boyle, 2018 , p. 2995] and waiting for people to come find it is often unsuccessful in reducing public resentment against science [Scheufele, Krause, & Freiling, 2021 ]. The film does show this, for example when Dr. Mindy asks in despair: “Why aren’t people terrified? What do we have to say? What do we have to do?” But it barely considers alternative strategies that are common practice in science communication, i.e. participatory, dialogue-oriented, bottom-up approaches that conceive science communication as a bidirectional process [Akin & Scheufele, 2017 ]. The group of activists, who could serve as protagonists of such an approach [Fähnrich, Riedlinger, & Weitkamp, 2020 ], yet plays an insignificant role in the film, and its members are depicted as marginalized, weird outsiders. Meanwhile, Don’t Look Up does not only reproduce stereotypes of activist movements, but it also reiterates clichés of scientists themselves, as it portrays Mindy — at least in the beginning of the film — as a socially insecure, jargon-using ivory tower scientist and stereotypes Dibiasky as an emotionally unstable, geeky PhD student.

Another blind spot of the representation of science communication in Don’t Look Up concerns its conception of which science should be communicated in times of crisis: in Don’t Look Up , scientists are astrophysicists, geologists, and spacecraft engineers — but not social or behavioral scientists, albeit psychologists, sociologists, and communication scholars contribute substantial knowledge to the solution of societal crises in general [Moser, 2016 ; Van Bavel et al., 2020 ] and the combatting of science denial specifically [Ecker et al., 2022 ; Vraga & van der Linden, 2020 ]. The film thus suggests a natural-scientific rather than a social-scientific science communication perspective on solutions to science denial, similar to the way it proposes a “techno-fix” rather than a “socio-fix” in order to avoid the comet impact [van Zyl-Bulitta, Ritzel, Stafford, & Wong, 2019 , p. 316]. Single scenes do not only ignore but almost ridicule social science expertise, for example those that show rather dumb polling results indicating that “people […] wanna manage the comet to create jobs.”

After all, Don’t Look Up barely shows ways in which science communication can successfully and sustainably address denial and skepticism of science. This was most probably not the film’s objective, but it might still leave the viewer with the idea that science communication is eventually incapable of preventing anti-science resentment. So on the one hand, Don’t Look Up may indeed be considered a felicitous primer on science denial and science communication strategies against it [Sinatra & Hofer, 2022 ]. But on the other hand, it adopts a dated, narrow, and stereotypical perspective on recent science communication scholarship and practice.

5 Conclusion

This commentary argued that the 2021 Netflix film Don’t Look Up presents vivid depictions of contemporary anti-science phenomena — but also features simplified, exaggerated, stereotypical, antiquated, and overly pessimistic portrayals of these phenomena, the social setting in which they are embedded, and the science communication ecology surrounding them. The film did not, perhaps, aspire to make these portrayals comprehensive and entirely accurate. However, discussing how it (mis)represents science denial and ways to respond to it can still go beyond complaining about flaws Don’t Look Up never aimed to avoid: analyzing the film’s merits and limitations, similar to those of films like “The Social Network” or documentary-dramas like “The Social Dilemma” [Preston, 2020 ], can spark worthwhile reflection about how the public (and Hollywood) views scientists. Such analysis is particularly important for science communication researchers and practitioners, because Don’t Look Up is science communication: it has potentially affected attitudes toward science among some of its millions of viewers, motivated online discussions about it, and may inspire other depictions of science in popular media. The film therefore deserves debate within and beyond science communication scholarship. This commentary sought to contribute to such debate — and may hopefully even inspire further empirical research on science communication within public controversies, as well as popular media representations thereof.


Akin, H., & Scheufele, D. A. (2017). Overview of the science of science communication. In K. Hall Jamieson, D. M. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 25–33). doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.3

Allgaier, J. (2012). On the Shoulders of YouTube. Science Communication 35 (2), 266–275. doi: 10.1177/1075547012454949

Besley, J. C. (2018). Audiences for Science Communication in the United States. Environmental Communication 12 (8), 1005–1022. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2018.1457067

Betsch, C. (2017). Advocating for vaccination in a climate of science denial. Nature Microbiology 2 (7). doi: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.106

Björnberg, K. E., Karlsson, M., Gilek, M., & Hansson, S. O. (2017). Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015. Journal of Cleaner Production 167 , 229–241. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.066

Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2020). Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization . doi: 10.3386/w26669

Bromme, R., Mede, N. G., Thomm, E., Kremer, B., & Ziegler, R. (2022). An anchor in troubled times: Trust in science before and within the COVID-19 pandemic. PLOS ONE 17 (2), e0262823. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262823

Brüggemann, M., & Engesser, S. (2014). Between Consensus and Denial: Climate Journalists as Interpretive Community. Science Communication 36 (4), 399–427. doi: 10.1177/1075547014533662

Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and the Media: Alternative routes to scientific communications (1st ed.). doi: 10.4324/9780203064870

Byrne, J., Hughes, K., Rickerson, W., & Kurdgelashvili, L. (2007). American policy conflict in the greenhouse: Divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green energy and climate change policy. Energy Policy 35 (9), 4555–4573. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.02.028

Chryst, B., Marlon, J., van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., & Roser-Renouf, C. (2018). Global Warming’s “Six Americas Short Survey”: Audience Segmentation of Climate Change Views Using a Four Question Instrument. Environmental Communication 12 (8), 1109–1122. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2018.1508047

Desch, S. (2021). If a humanity-ending asteroid heads our way, will anyone believe scientists? Slate . Retrieved from https://slate.com/technology/2021/12/dont-look-up-scientists-denialism-asteroids-dinosaurs.html

Dimock, M., & Wike, R. (2020). America is exceptional in the nature of its political divide. Pew Research Center . Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/13/america-is-exceptional-in-the-nature-of-its-political-divide/

Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M., & Yarosh, J. H. (2016). The Political Divide on Climate Change: Partisan Polarization Widens in the U.S. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 58 (5), 4–23. doi: 10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995

Dupree, A. H. (1990). Science policy in the United States: The legacy of John Quincy Adams. Minerva 28 (3), 259–271. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41827241

Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., … Amazeen, M. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology 1 (1), 13–29. doi: 10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y

Fähnrich, B., Riedlinger, M., & Weitkamp, E. (2020). Activists as “alternative” science communicators — Exploring the facets of science communication in societal contexts. JCOM 19 (06). doi: 10.22323/2.19060301

Fuchs, C. (2016). Critical Theory of Communication: New Readings of Lukács, Adorno, Marcuse, Honneth and Habermas in the Age of the Internet . doi: 10.16997/book1

Gauchat, G. (2008). A test of three theories of anti-science attitudes. Sociological Focus 41 (4), 337–357. doi: 10.1080/00380237.2008.10571338

Goldberg, R. F., & Vandenberg, L. N. (2021). The science of spin: targeted strategies to manufacture doubt with detrimental effects on environmental and public health. Environmental Health 20 (1). doi: 10.1186/s12940-021-00723-0

Hansson, S. O. (2017). Science denial as a form of pseudoscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 63 , 39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.002

Hansson, S. O. (2018). Dealing with climate science denialism: experiences from confrontations with other forms of pseudoscience. Climate Policy 18 (9), 1094–1102. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2017.1415197

Harambam, J. (2017). “The truth is out there”: Conspiracy culture in an age of epistemic instability (Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands).

Huber, B., Barnidge, M., Gil de Zúñiga, H., & Liu, J. (2019). Fostering public trust in science: the role of social media. Public Understanding of Science 28 (7), 759–777. doi: 10.1177/0963662519869097

Huber, R. A., Greussing, E., & Eberl, J.-M. (2021). From populism to climate scepticism: the role of institutional trust and attitudes towards science. Environmental Politics , 1–24. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2021.1978200

Humprecht, E., Esser, F., & Van Aelst, P. (2020). Resilience to Online Disinformation: A Framework for Cross-National Comparative Research. The International Journal of Press/Politics 25 (3), 493–516. doi: 10.1177/1940161219900126

Kalmus, P. (2021). I’m a climate scientist. Don’t Look Up captures the madness I see every day. The Guardian . Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/29/climate-scientist-dont-look-up-madness

Kaplan, M., & Dahlstrom, M. F. (2017). How narrative functions in entertainment to communicate science. In K. H. Jamieson, D. Kahan, & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), Oxford handbook on the science of science communication (pp. 311–319). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Kleemans, M., & Hendriks Vettehen, P. (2009). Sensationalism in television news: A review. In R. P. Konig, P. W. M. Nelissen, & F. J. M. Huysmans (Eds.), Meaningful media: Communication research on the social construction of reality (pp. 226–243). Tandem Felix.

Krause, N., Scheufele, D. A., Freiling, I., & Brossard, D. (2021). The Trust Fallacy. American Scientist 109 (4), 226. doi: 10.1511/2021.109.4.226

Lazić, A., & Žeželj, I. (2021). A systematic review of narrative interventions: Lessons for countering anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and misinformation. Public Understanding of Science 30 (6), 644–670. doi: 10.1177/09636625211011881

Lewandowsky, S., Mann, M. E., Brown, N. J. L., & Friedman, H. (2016). Science and the public: debate, denial, and skepticism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology 4 (2), 537–553. doi: 10.5964/jspp.v4i2.604

Lewandowsky, S., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Countering Misinformation and Fake News Through Inoculation and Prebunking. European Review of Social Psychology 32 (2), 348–384. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983

Maeseele, P. A. (2007). Science and technology in a mediatized and democratized society. JCOM 06 (01). doi: 10.22323/2.06010202

Mahl, D., Schäfer, M. S., & Zeng, J. (2022). Conspiracy theories in online environments: An interdisciplinary literature review and agenda for future research. New Media & Society , 146144482210757. doi: 10.1177/14614448221075759

Mahl, D., Zeng, J., & Schäfer, M. S. (2021). From “Nasa Lies” to “Reptilian Eyes”: Mapping Communication About 10 Conspiracy Theories, Their Communities, and Main Propagators on Twitter. Social Media + Society 7 (2), 205630512110174. doi: 10.1177/20563051211017482

McAdam, D. (2017). Social Movement Theory and the Prospects for Climate Change Activism in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science 20 (1), 189–208. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-052615-025801

McLamore, Q., Syropoulos, S., Leidner, B., Hirschberger, G., Young, K., Zein, R. A., … Burrows, B. (2022). Trust in scientific information mediates associations between conservatism and coronavirus responses in the U.S., but few other nations. Scientific Reports 12 (1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07508-6

Mede, N. G., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science 29 (5), 473–491. doi: 10.1177/0963662520924259

Mede, N. G., & Schäfer, M. S. (2022). Science-related populism declining during the COVID-19 pandemic: A panel survey of the Swiss population before and after the Coronavirus outbreak. Public Understanding of Science 31 (2), 211–222. doi: 10.1177/09636625211056871

Merkley, E. (2020). Anti-Intellectualism, Populism, and Motivated Resistance to Expert Consensus. Public Opinion Quarterly 84 (1), 24–48. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfz053

Moser, S. C. (2016). Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 7 (3), 345–369. doi: 10.1002/wcc.403

Nisbet, M. C., & Dudo, A. (2013). Entertainment Media Portrayals and Their Effects on the Public Understanding of Science. In D. J. Nelson, K. R. Grazier, J. Paglia, & S. Perkowitz (Eds.), ACS Symposium Series. Hollywood chemistry (Vol. 1139, pp. 241–249). doi: 10.1021/bk-2013-1139.ch020

Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96 (10), 1767–1778. doi: 10.3732/ajb.0900041

Nogrady, B. (2021). ‘I hope you die’: how the COVID pandemic unleashed attacks on scientists. Nature 598 (7880), 250–253. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-02741-x

Oppenheimer, R. (2021). Hollywood can take on science denial: ‘Don’t Look Up’ is a great example. Scientific American . Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hollywood-can-take-on-science-denial-dont-look-up-is-a-great-example/

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. (2010). Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming . New York, NY, U.S.A.: Bloomsbury Press.

Preston, P. (2020). The Social Dilemma: Partial insights amidst fuzzy frames. The Political Economy of Communication 8 (2), 76–88. Retrieved from https://polecom.org/index.php/polecom/article/view/131

Rekker, R. (2021). The nature and origins of political polarization over science. Public Understanding of Science 30 (4), 352–368. doi: 10.1177/0963662521989193

Rossini, P., Stromer-Galley, J., Baptista, E. A., & de Oliveira, V. V. (2021). Dysfunctional information sharing on WhatsApp and Facebook: The role of political talk, cross-cutting exposure and social corrections. New Media & Society 23 (8), 2430–2451. doi: 10.1177/1461444820928059

Rousseau, S. (2015). The Celebrity Quick-Fix. Food, Culture & Society 18 (2), 265–287. doi: 10.2752/175174415x14180391604404

Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2018). When the “Best Available Evidence” Doesn’t Win: How Doubts About Science and Scientists Threaten the Future of Evidence-Based Management. Journal of Management 44 (8), 2995–3010. doi: 10.1177/0149206318796934

Sanz-Menéndez, L., & Cruz-Castro, L. (2019). The credibility of scientific communication sources regarding climate change: A population-based survey experiment. Public Understanding of Science 28 (5), 534–553. doi: 10.1177/0963662519840946

Scheufele, D. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (Supplement 3), 14040–14047. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1213275110

Scheufele, D. A., & Krause, N. M. (2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (16), 7662–7669. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1805871115

Scheufele, D. A., Krause, N. M., & Freiling, I. (2021). Misinformed about the “infodemic?” Science’s ongoing struggle with misinformation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 10 (4), 522–526. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.10.009

Sinatra, G. M., & Hofer, B. K. (2022). ‘Don’t Look Up’: Hollywood’s primer on climate denial illustrates 5 myths that fuel rejection of science. The Conversation . Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/dont-look-up-hollywoods-primer-on-climate-denial-illustrates-5-myths-that-fuel-rejection-of-science-174266

Van Bavel, J. J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., … Willer, R. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour 4 (5), 460–471. doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z

van den Bulck, H., & Hyzen, A. (2020). Of lizards and ideological entrepreneurs: Alex Jones and Infowars in the relationship between populist nationalism and the post-global media ecology. International Communication Gazette 82 (1), 42–59. doi: 10.1177/1748048519880726

van Zyl-Bulitta, V. H., Ritzel, C., Stafford, W., & Wong, J. G. (2019). A compass to guide through the myriad of sustainable energy transition options across the global North-South divide. Energy 181 , 307–320. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.111

Vraga, E., & van der Linden, S. (2020). Responding to climate science denial. In D. C. Holmes & L. M. Richardson (Eds.), Research Handbook on Communicating Climate Change (pp. 79–91). doi: 10.4337/9781789900408.00015

Wang, W., & Huang, Y. (2021). Countering the “Harmless E-Cigarette” Myth: The Interplay of Message Format, Message Sidedness, and Prior Experience With E-Cigarette Use in Misinformation Correction. Science Communication 43 (2), 170–198. doi: 10.1177/1075547020974384

Weingart, P., & Joubert, M. (2019). The conflation of motives of science communication — causes, consequences, remedies. JCOM 18 (03). doi: 10.22323/2.18030401


Niels G. Mede is a science communication researcher and PhD student at the Department of Communication and Media Research (IKMZ), University of Zurich, Switzerland. In his research, he focuses on public perceptions of science, populism, digital communication, and survey methodology. E-mail: n.mede@ikmz.uzh.ch .