Search

Scientists face growing pressure to share their research with the public — an ethical and professional duty that can sometimes lead to public hostility when addressing sensitive, controversial, or unpopular topics. Negative reactions from society, often worsened by social media, threaten not only the scientists themselves but also public trust in science and the integrity of knowledge systems. This commentary presents a case study of two scientists based in southern Africa, Professor Tulio de Oliveira and Professor Sikhulile Moyo, who identified the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in November 2021. After sharing their findings with the relevant authorities, they encountered a wave of public criticism and abuse. Using insights from interviews with these scientists, we examine the different forms of this abuse, its impact, and the coping strategies they employed. We highlight the broader lessons this case offers for contemporary science communication, arguing that protecting scientists who face public backlash when sharing their research is essential for safeguarding science as a whole. We also suggest ways individuals, institutions, and the scientific community can create more supportive research environments for scientists working on potentially sensitive political or social issues.

This commentary examines the tension between the recent consolidation of academic freedom as a human right in international and Inter-American law and its systematic erosion under authoritarian regimes, using Venezuela as a paradigmatic case. Drawing on General Comment No. 13, the Inter-American Principles on Academic Freedom and University Autonomy, and an operational framework developed in regional monitoring, it analyses how Venezuelan state policies, legal and institutional engineering, criminalisation and repression, economic strangulation and judicial interference, undermine core attributes of academic freedom CESCR1999,IACHR2021a. It shows how these measures reshape the ecosystem of science communication by narrowing who can speak, what can be researched and how knowledge circulates in society. The commentary concludes by identifying gaps in regional and international protection, highlighting comparative data from the Academic Freedom Index, and proposing pathways to strengthen academic-freedom safeguards and democratic science communication in the Americas.

Public communication of science has become a central component in the relationship between science and society. However, the media exposure of research staff has given rise to new forms of hostility, especially in digital environments. The study Experiences of researchers who interact with the media and social networks in Spain ScienceMediaCentreEspana2024 investigates — via a survey (N=237) — the incidence and typology of these attacks in the Spanish context. More than half of the research staff (51.05%) reported experiencing negative incidents, with a higher prevalence among women (56.9%) than men (46.2%). The attacks differ by gender: women face more challenges regarding their scientific capacity and sexist remarks, whereas men are more frequently targeted over their professional integrity. These dynamics reveal structural gender biases that affect the wellbeing and legitimacy of female scientists, emphasising the need for institutional policies with a gender perspective.

Hostile online communication is an increasing concern in academia. This commentary focuses on online harassment victims in Finland and online harassment perpetration in Europe. Data are drawn from representative surveys of Finnish academic research and teaching staff and national samples from Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and Poland. In Finland, 30% of academics reported online harassment within the past 6 months. Victims were disproportionately senior staff, minorities, and those in the social sciences and humanities. Only approximately 18% of the perpetrators were a member of the respondent's work community at their university. Public engagement in the media heightened risk. Victims reported more distress, lower trust, and weaker workplace support. Across Europe, men reported having sent offensive or threatening online messages more commonly. Perpetration was associated with younger age, psychological distress, and higher online involvement. These findings highlight the need to strengthen institutional support and improve digital culture to protect academic freedom and well-being.

The commentary diagnoses a structural contradiction: policy, institutions, and funders often encourage outward-facing activity while outsourcing its risks to individual scholars or external institutions. Integrating interviews with climate change researchers (N=13) as a case study alongside selected scholarship (without claiming completeness), we document how institutional reputation can overshadow researcher-centered support, how training often underaddresses emotional and security burdens, and how assistance can wane when harassment escalates. While various studies — including our own — still point to inadequate support structures, there is a wide range of services on offer that could prove effective in the long term. We elaborate on some of these in more detail, with a particular focus on Germany as the authors' (academic) home country.

TikTok has become an increasingly important platform for communication, yet it remains understudied in science communication research. This commentary addresses this gap by discussing findings from an exploratory interview study with social scientists who actively communicate about science on TikTok. Drawing on in-depth, semi-structured interviews and one author's platform experience, we examine the types of hostility researchers encounter and how they cope with criticism and harassment in their digital public engagement. A central and counter-intuitive finding is that participants often normalise, and sometimes value negative responses as these inspire content, provoke discussion, and boost engagement. Thus, hostility is reframed as a form of communicative capital. This dynamic exemplifies the “Engagement Paradox,” defined here as the tension in which negative feedback simultaneously acts as validation and as a strategic resource to enhance visibility. We conclude by discussing how the infrastructural arrangements of platforms and their political-economic foundations shape science communication and highlight the norms they (re)create amid the post-normal conditions of science communication.

This study examines how information sources are indirectly related to support for quantum science. Results from a national survey of quantum science aware publics in the United States (n = 919) showed that TV news use was negatively associated with interest and knowledge and positively associated with benefit and risk perceptions. By contrast, print/online media use and social media use were positively associated with interest and knowledge. Social media use was also positively associated with risk perception. Notably, benefit perception had the strongest association with support for quantum science. These findings suggest complex relationships between media use and attitudes toward quantum science.

Invisible Rainbows is a popular astronomy book by astrophysicist and science journalist Alfredo Carpineti, organised around the electromagnetic spectrum and built around conversations with LGBTQIA+ astronomers from around the world. It is, at the same time, a celebration of modern astronomy and a clear argument about the relationship between science and the society that produces it. The book is rigorous and warm in equal measure, never letting one undermine the other, and offers science communicators a strong example of how popular science writing can hold technical depth and political clarity on the same page.

This response to the commentary “Does science communication have its goals wrong? From persuading science skeptics to promoting scientific empowerment” argues that the field would benefit from more attention to the persuasion literature, not less. A primary element of this argument is that a nuanced understanding of persuasion research can provide opportunities to achieve a wide range of goals — including empowering others — in ethical, evidence-based ways.

Publisher's note: this letter refers to Does science communication have its goals wrong? From persuading science skeptics to promoting scientific empowerment

This report presents an analysis of the communication efforts of the XXXII International Astronomical Union General Assembly, the first held on the African continent. For the first time in its history, the conference provided a fully streamed, open access experience on YouTube, complemented by a robust, multi-platform social media outreach campaign. Through metrics analysis and survey results, our study evaluates the effectiveness of diverse digital initiatives in enhancing engagement on different social media platforms to democratise scientific discourse. These findings offer critical insights for future hybrid and virtual conferences, providing social media metrics, best practices analysis and evaluation for social media scientific global communication of large-scale scientific gatherings.