Scientific (Mis)Communication: A Case Study

Molly Cannon
Mentored by: Dr. Amy Berger
HNR 455: Senior Honors Project
May 4, 2024
List of Figures:

Figure 1: Media Bias Chart 2024 with 6 red dots representing the news sources investigated in
this study.

Figure 2: Small structure constructed from urea and lunar moon dust in Pilehvar et. al 2019

Figure 3: Lunar space habitat image generated by Foster and Partners Architecture (2019) for
news releases about Pilehvar et al. (2019).

Figure 4: Picture included in headline of MSNBC article depicting hair products and “cancer
cells”
Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank my mentor Dr. Amy Berger for mentoring this project and providing
insight about her experience with scientific communication. All of her help throughout this
semester was appreciated greatly.

I would also like to thank Rob Weiner for providing beneficial information from their research
experience as a graduate student at Purdue University.
Abstract:
Public science communication is an important but often overlooked part of science, since it is
instrumental in determining whether nonscientists can understand or use the information.
Sources responsible for reporting useful information may unintentionally or even intentionally
misrepresent information supplied by the scientific community by creating misleading or false
headlines, changing or oversimplifying words from official scientific publications, or producing
exaggerated imagery to attract attention from readers. This case study reviews two different
scientific reports and follows how they were communicated to the general public. One report
investigated urea as a potential stabilizing compound for lunar sediments. This result is not
generally useful for the average citizen, however news outlets parlayed the amusing concept of
pee as a building material component to garner readers. The second case study follows a
scientific report on the relationship between hair dye use and cancer. This more personally
relevant information created more opportunities for attention-grabbing distortion and even an
accusation of racism. We should be vigilant for alterations of scientific claims between original
reports and how the reports are presented to the general public, these changes are likely
compounded for research involving multiple authors working on related topics. One prominent
example is potential risks from climate change. Each participant in the scientific communication
process is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the communication: the scientists in
presenting their results, the news resources that listen and report on them, and the general public
that follows those reports.

Introduction:

History of science communication

Science communication has changed repeatedly as new forms of communication have been

developed throughout history. For centuries, science was only communicated through writing

and word of mouth amongst elite citizens. As writing grew as a form of communication, so did

the records that we still have access to today. As the general public became more educated,

spreading scientific ideas and inventions to the public was popularized. Scientific ideas could

now be spread in books and newspapers. Writing stayed in popular practice as the main form of

scientific communication until more efficient methods were developed. One of the major

developments in communication was the radio. This allowed for scientific information to be

relayed to many people very quickly. After the radio, the television and telephone were invented.

The TV spread scientific information quickly through news channels, this is how many
Americans tuned into groundbreaking scientific events such as the moon landing. The telephone

was more common and allowed scientists to communicate to each other more quickly about

ideas. After these inventions, technology started to develop even further to the devices we use

today. In the late 1980s and early 1990s we saw the rise of computers, the internet, email, and

more portable phones. This not only allowed scientific communication to spread across the

globe, but it also allowed for people to view scientific information on their own time whenever

they wanted to. Later on in the 2000’s the internet became even more popular as well as websites

like YouTube and other social media platforms like Instagram and Facebook. Many new forms

of scientific communication have come into popular practice, including podcasts, videos, social

media posts, etc. While these forms of scientific communication are much more efficient and

accessible, they also have their downsides, as all communication practices do.

Style of communication with target audience

Communication styles such as scientific articles, videos, podcasts, etc. are an important aspect to

consider when communicating with different target audiences. The style you communicate

information in can really determine if your audience understands it or not, or if it keeps your

audience engaged enough to want to understand the science you are trying to communicate. For

example, if you are presenting a scientific topic to someone who is not familiar with the topic,

then you probably don’t want to give them a 20-page scientific article to try to teach the topic to

them. Instead, you might want to first find a simple website to understand or a short video

discussing introduction or background information about the topic. As your target audience

advances in knowledge, you can move on to more advanced communication methods like reports

and manuscripts. We see this in many reports, for example, the IPCC report. This report has a
specific short and simplified section that is meant for policymakers to read because the IPCC

understands that the target audience will not have as much knowledge about the topic as a

scientist would. Not only does the knowledge level of the target audience influence which style

of communication should be used, but also the size of the audience. If you want to reach many

people, you might be better off using a more broad communication type, like a social media post,

over something like email. This also goes for large audiences, like at scientific conferences when

people present presentations in front of large groups but posters in front of more intimate

audiences.

Fig 1: Media Bias Chart 2024 with 6 red dots representing the news sources investigated in this
study.
Case studies:

Can we build with Space Pee

Can urea be used as a geopolymer to make structures out of lunar dust? This was the

question Pilehvar and his team (2019) were investigating for the scientific article “Utilization of

urea as an accessible superplasticizer on the moon for lunar geopolymer mixtures”. This area of

research, although it sounds funny, could reduce the necessary weight of space shuttles for future

space exploration. In this paper, they found that the mixture with urea could bear heavy weights

shortly after mixing and could be used to build a small structure without noticeable deformation.

Emphasis on small; this study only built structures that were 27 cm3 (Figure 2). The researchers

concluded that this study is in the beginning stages with much more research needed to verify

that these structures would actually hold up in space: for example, how these structures behave

under a vacuum or large temperature fluctuations. For now, these researchers are saying the

possibility is there, but there most definitely will not be space urea-based structures on the moon

by tomorrow.
Figure 2. Small structure constructed from urea and lunar moon dust in Pilehvar et. al 2019

With how absurd this topic sounds, it was picked up by multiple news outlets. This

review covers articles from Science News, CNN, and Daily News. These news sources have

different political leanings with Science News being neutral, CNN more left-leaning, and Daily

News more right-leaning. Science News had the most accurate report on the research. The

headline states “Astronauts may be able to make cement using their own pee”. ScienceNews

consistently has accurate headlines because their primary audience is fellow scientists, or people

really interested in science topics and this is an expectation in science fields. These people are

less likely to believe over-exaggerated headlines since they are more educated in the field.

Removed from strictly science reporting, CNN and The Daily News have less incentive to keep

the accuracy of the headline. CNN reports this story under the headline “Moon bases could be

built using astronaut urine” and The Daily News goes further to claim “Astronauts could use

their own URINE to help build bases on the Moon and save on the cost of transporting materials
from Earth”. These claims are a large jump from just making a Rubik’s cube-sized block of

cement. These headlines are very attention-grabbing to the general public, but also very

exaggerated from the results of the scientific article. The Daily News also highlights the potential

price benefit. This is for audience attention. As a right-leaning source, Daily News has an

audience that is interested in fiscal responsibility.

In all of these articles, the first image you see is of a grand lunar base that looks like it

could be out of a sci-fi movie (figure 3). In reality, this image was generated by an architecture

company that did not work on the scientific report but instead was modeling what a potential

lunar base built from lunar materials could look like. Later on in the articles, you get an actual

picture from the report. This is the small block that the scientists created. This small block is

starkly different from the leading image of the lunar base, and is a great example of how news

articles will exaggerate results to grab readers’ attention.

Figure 3. Lunar space habitat image generated by Foster and Partners Architecture (2019) for
news releases about Pilehvar et al. (2019).
Do Hair Dye and Chemical Straighteners Give You Cancer?

Does hair dye and chemical straighteners have a direct link with breast cancer? This was the

question that Eberle et al. were trying to figure out in their study “Hair dye and Chemical

Straightener Use and breast cancer risk in a Large US population of black and white women”

(2019). Many scientific research papers have been published about the potential link between

hair dye and cancer. This potential link is suspected because of the carcinogenic ingredients that

make up the hair dye. Although these chemicals are present in hair dye, no direct link has ever

been found because of the numerous outside factors that could be contributing to increased

cancer risk. This study chose a large cohort of women who lived in the US. The researchers

recorded the hair dye use of women before the study started and periodically throughout. The

women had to get health exams every few months to add to the data set. Overall, the study found

that women who consistently used hair dye and straighteners were more likely to develop breast

cancer. However, the study did not conclude that cancer was exclusively caused by the hair

products. The researchers discuss in the conclusion that they did not assess other lifestyle choices

which also are major factors in breast cancer risk.

Due to how common hair dye and chemical straightener usage is, many news sources

reported on this article. The news stories looked at in this report are NBC, MSNBC, and Fox

News. These sources have different political leanings with NBC being neutral, MSNBC being

left-leaning, and FoxNews being right leaning. (Figure 1). Similar to the space pee, the neutral

source, NBC, has the most accurate headline stating “Women who dye or straighten hair could

have increased breast cancer risk”. Stating “could'' in the headline is an important addition

because the results of the study were not proven to be solely caused by hair dye and

straighteners. Taking a completely different viewpoint, the MSNBC article solely highlights the
race aspect of the paper. They then title the headline “There’s a straight line between natural-hair

discrimination and a higher risk of cancer”. MSNBC put this headline in their opinion section. It

is promising that MSNBC put this in the opinion section, because what the headline claims is not

proven factual by the scientific article. MSNBC may be highlighting the racial aspect of the

research because it is more of an interest of their readers to learn about that aspect of the

research. Finally, the Fox News article titled their headline, “Permanent hair dye, increased

breast cancer risk linked in new study”. This headline is also choosing to highlight a specific

section of the research. It is different from NBC and MSNBC because Fox News leaves out

chemical hair straighteners as a breast cancer risk; they only highlight hair dye. Again, this is

probably because hair straightener is not a common product used among their target audience.

As we can see one scientific article is being represented differently by all 3 media sources

represented here. Fox News and MSNBC decide to highlight specific results of the research to

make a more compelling headline which is more eye-catching to their target audience.

Interestingly, these headlines do not feature many eye-catching pictures like the space

pee articles do. This is likely due to the topic of cancer being difficult to represent in picture

form, plus the extreme article headline being attention-grabbing enough. The only picture

featured in these articles is in the MSNBC article. It is a picture of women’s hair, straightener

cream, and what MSNBC claims to be cancer cells of a fibroma tumor. While this is eye-

catching to many readers, the caption of the picture is not true. Fibroma tumors are benign

tumors that can grow almost anywhere on connective tissue in the body; they are non-cancerous,

meaning that cancer cells cannot be present (Cleveland Clinic). This picture is purely in the

article for attention-grabbing effect and does not present factual information.
Fig 4: Picture included in headline of MSNBC article depicting hair products and “cancer cells”

Why is this Important?

As seen above, scientific research is oftentimes over exaggerated or misrepresented by news

sources to make their headlines more attention grabbing. While the consequences might be minor

in the headlines in this paper, normalizing this misrepresentation of science can have large-scale

impacts on major issues. One of the most popular examples of this is how news sources represent

climate change research. Just like less dire scientific topics, climate change research is

miscommunicated in the media. This miscommunication is the major cause of the climate change

debate. While scientists find similar results in each study, news sources miscommunicate the

results to create compelling headlines for their readers. These headlines can claim that climate

change isn’t as bad as scientists are predicting, or they can state that climate change is way

worse, some even say climate change isn’t happening at all. While these headlines are based on
the same data, they state very different things. This makes the reader believe that scientists are

finding different results about climate change leading to the climate change debate. By creating

disagreements like these, it causes divided opinions which limits change for major crises like

climate change. As we see currently, not everyone can agree climate change is occuring because

of media sources, which means not everyone agrees we need to invest money into preventing

climate change. Unfortunately, this is just one of many examples where the media is preventing

change because of miscommunication of scientific information.

Conclusion

Scientific miscommunication is a major problem currently, and will continue to grow as

information available becomes less and less curated and more information sources are created.

To combat this, it is important that each party in this process takes on responsibility for factual

communication. The scientists can be responsible for putting their results into understandable

terms, the media can be responsible for accurately reporting what the scientists say, and the

general public can be responsible for being aware of the potential biases of what they’re reading.

By doing this, the cumulation of bias will decrease and the awareness of bias will increase,

hopefully leading to both more trust of scientists and media sources.

Works Cited
Astronauts could use their own URINE to build bases on the Moon | Daily Mail Online. (n.d.).
Retrieved April 24, 2024, from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8175707/Future-
astronauts-use-URINE-build-bases-Moon.html

Astronauts may be able to make cement using their own pee. (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2024,
from https://www.sciencenews.org/article/astronauts-lunar-exploration-cement-urine-urea-3d-
printing

Hair dye and chemical straightener use and breast cancer risk in a large US population of black
and white women—Eberle—2020—International Journal of Cancer—Wiley Online Library.
(n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2024, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ijc.32738

Lunar Habitation | Architecture Projects. (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2024, from
https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/lunar-habitation

Moon bases could be built using astronaut urine | CNN. (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2024, from
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/world/astronaut-urine-moon-base-scn/index.html

New study finds concerning link between common hair product and cancer: ‘One more thing
women can do to reduce their risk.’ (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2024, from
https://news.yahoo.com/study-finds-concerning-between-common-113000669.html?
guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=A
QAAAMcX5P0lg0ZpAyG-YeWKIe-vFpatFjJRbj-
pvjILM_HFQetxH_usSfZp1e_3ZYgpAeV04CuGp-
BtVgxmaUMUJmuajVTbmsYBp0AreMA1cPmzVCkikVT55BRmtRxQ7SnXyVmBjxh8rrRt6ml
ehOOvn39nS0HwPWA0lVYLoKT4QPii

Permanent hair dye, increased breast cancer risk linked in new study | Fox News. (n.d.).
Retrieved April 24, 2024, from https://www.foxnews.com/health/permanent-hair-dye-breast-
cancer-risk-linked-study

Pilehvar, S., Arnhof, M., Pamies, R., Valentini, L., & Kjøniksen, A.-L. (2020). Utilization of
urea as an accessible superplasticizer on the moon for lunar geopolymer mixtures. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 247, 119177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119177

Reports linking hair relaxers to cancer risk in Black women make case for CROWN Act. (n.d.).
Retrieved April 24, 2024, from https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/hair-relaxers-
cancer-black-women-crown-act-rcna121498
Women who dye or straighten hair could have increased breast cancer risk. (n.d.). Retrieved
April 24, 2024, from https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/women-who-dye-or-
straighten-hair-could-have-increased-breast-cancer-risk-74516037886