The consequences of bad science communication

Authors

  • Guilherme Brockington Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Departamento de Ciências Exatas e da Terra
  • Lucas Mesquita Universidade Federal de São Paulo. Departamento de Ciências Exatas e da Terra

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7594/revbio.15.01.03

Keywords:

Science communication, popularizing science, neuroscience communication, bad science communication

Abstract

Science communication seems to be the ideal instrument for communication between science and society. With high potential to attract the non-specialized public, it seeks to reduce the inherent complexity of scientific knowledge. However, there is a harmful side of scientific journalism, when it is done carelessly or in a sensationalist way. In this article we discuss the consequences of bad science communication through the presentation of facts and research data on the topic. We will discuss some emblematic examples of how the circulation of erroneous or biased scientific information can be harmful and how to minimize these problems

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2018-04-23

Issue

Vol. 15 No. 1 (2016)

Section

Ensaio

License

We ensure that our journal does not retain any copyright and that these are exclusive of the author(s) of the text. In that sense, we intend to break any restrictions to the published material and to achieve more intensely our goal of communicating science.

How to Cite

Brockington, G., & Mesquita, L. (2018). The consequences of bad science communication. Revista Da Biologia, 15(1), 29-34. https://doi.org/10.7594/revbio.15.01.03