Filter by author: Luiz Felipe Fernandes Neves

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed tensions between science, politics, and public trust in Brazil. Amid the rise of far-right populism, denialist narratives, and disinformation, scientific evidence became entangled in ideological disputes. Drawing on studies of media coverage, social media dynamics, and public perception of science, this commentary argues that traditional deficit-model approaches are insufficient in polarized contexts. Rebuilding trust requires rethinking science communication as a democratic and culturally embedded practice, grounded in dialogue, empathy, and participation. Strengthening institutional communication, engaging diverse actors, and recognizing multiple knowledge systems are essential to restoring public relevance and legitimacy of science.

We analyzed 95,970 stories on COVID-19 published in 2020 by newspapers in US, UK, China and Brazil — countries marked by controversial management of the crisis. Through a text mining approach, we identified main topics, subjects, actors and the level of attention. The coverage was politicized in “The New York Times” and “Folha de S. Paulo”; focused on health aspects in “The Guardian”; and emphasized the economic situation in “China Daily”. In this sense, the pandemic has motivated a deeper approach to the multiple dimensions of science and health, pointing to a broader perspective of science communication.

The article presents the results of a survey of science journalists from six world regions about their work during the COVID-19 pandemic. The responses show perception of increasing workload for most participants. Local scientists and peer-reviewed articles are the main sources. According to the respondents, scientists have become more available during the pandemic. The use of preprint articles was a frequent practice, but a considerable proportion declared they did not adopt different procedures when reporting them. Most also said they take fake news into account when writing their stories.