Polarizing scientific information can be harmful.
A study published in JCOM tries to identify it.

“Vaccines are 100% safe, and anyone who doubts this is ignorant”: Have you ever come across messages like this during the pandemic crisis a few years ago? If you often feel that certain public debates—such as those on vaccines or the climate crisis—boil down to a black-and-white clash between two sides demanding, with harsh tones, unquestioning allegiance to their view, you're not entirely wrong. We are rightly accustomed to being warned about pseudoscientific misinformation and fake news, and much research has been devoted to identifying the characteristics of such messages in order to debunk them. Yet, even those "on the side of science" sometimes use a form of polarized communication that doesn't align with a genuinely scientific approach, which should foster critical thinking and the ability to evolve over time. A certain type of scientific message, like the example above, often amplifies these forms of polarization by reinforcing extreme viewpoints, deepening divisions between different audience segments. Therefore, it is important to recognize not only scientific misinformation but also polarized scientific information.

A new study just published in the Journal of Science Communication (JCOM) elucidated, based on available scientific literature, the characteristics of polarized scientific digital messages, proposing a system of codification for identifying and characterizing polarized discourses in science communication digital messages.

“Polarized messages in online science communication often present extreme views about a specific scientific topic, which can stir strong emotions, reinforce group loyalty, and deepen divisions in society," explains Thiago Cruvinel, professor at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, and coordinator of the research. “These polarized views can affect various social aspects. For example, to make people feel certain and comfortable, a one-sided message might use terms related to conflict or separation, even when talking about well-known scientific topics like climate change caused by humans.”

As Cruvinel explains, simplifying and polarizing scientific information is not always the best approach, as it can limit critical thinking. Presenting scientific agreement as unquestionable may unite supporters but push away skeptics, making the issue even more divisive. When one dominant view takes over, it can hold back scientific progress by discouraging people from challenging existing ideas, which is a key part of advancing science. Cruvinel and his colleagues' work mapped the scientific literature that examined the syntactic and lexical features of polarized messages in online science communication, as well as studies measuring the effects of these messages on readers' opinions, which also involved more specialized audiences like journalists, scientists, and health professionals. This scoping reviewmapped the available literature, identifying ten studies that allowed Cruvinel and his colleagues to develop a system to identify polarized scientific messages.

“Our codification system is grounded in a framework that encompasses 20 distinct codes, categorized into four key dimensions: sideness, criticism, emphasis, and discordance," explains Cruvinel. “This structured approach enables a nuanced analysis of the underlying elements contributing to polarization within scientific discourse.”

According to Cruvinel, an important contribution of this study is that this coding system can serve as a valuable tool for science researchers and journalists, supporting the systematic identification of polarized materials within the realm of science communication.