Mistrust of vaccines. Disease conspiracy theories. Social-media health hacks and miracle cures. In a modern world awash in medical misinformation, how can scientists break through with research evidence and help the public separate fact from fiction?
“Combating Misinformation through Effective Scientific Communications” was the topic of the University of Colorado Department of Medicine’s latest Research Achievement Highlights (REACH) forum, a monthly series of talks by researchers across the CU Anschutz Medical Campus.
Presenters at the March 18 forum shared a variety of strategies for engaging the public with data and research findings in ways that can counteract false or misleading information.
The challenge researchers face today is bigger than improving communication, said the forum’s moderator, Janine Higgins, PhD, the CU Department of Medicine’s vice chair for research. It’s also about the struggle to continue their vital work in a climate of mistrust.
“Research is hard, and in the current environment, we recognize that people are really struggling with how to keep on track, stay afloat, and not get distracted by all the kerfuffle that's going on,” Higgins said. “So this makes this forum even more important. How do we support each other? How do we come together to continue what we think is a vital mission to improve people’s health and lives?”
‘Connection, not correction’
A common theme of the presentations was how to convey science in ways that build trust, recognize cultural differences, and treat members of the public with respect even if they’re misinformed.
“A big challenge we have in science is bridging the gap between public perception and scientific reality,” said Aimee Pugh Bernard, PhD, assistant professor in the CU Department of Immunology & Microbiology and a leader of the “Communicating Your Science to the Public” workshop series at the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CCTSI).
Misinformation can spread to large numbers of people very quickly via social media, she said, adding that “the amount of energy needed to produce misinformation is small compared to the amount of energy and time needed to refute it.”
In trying to counter misinformation, Bernard advised that researchers “shouldn’t say things like ‘Scientists just know this is safe and effective.’ You need to listen to people’s questions, identify the gaps, and then build the bridge to science, so you have to give them information in understandable language as well as communicating in a way that is respectful and not dismissing what people are saying.”
Bernard described the approach as “connection, not correction.” She recommended avoiding jargon and politically loaded terms in talking about medicine, and also advised not attacking someone’s core beliefs. “You can build connections through empathy, and that can open the door for more productive conversations.”
She also advocated storytelling – translating research into simple, relatable narratives – as an effective way to convey science. “People love a story. It’s a powerful tool for communication. It can ignite imagination, inspire people, and make connections. It can even make people think about taking action.”
Attendees listen to a presentation by Aimee Pugh Bernard, PhD, at the CU Department of Medicine’s Research Achievement Highlights (REACH) forum on “Combatting Misinformation through Effective Scientific Communications," March 18, 2025. Photo by Mark Harden | CU Department of Medicine.
Breaking through the noise
Mark Earnest, MD, PhD, FACP, head of the CU Division of General Internal Medicine, also emphasized the power of stories, saying that anecdotes can convey an idea more powerfully than “mountains of data.”
He recalled how the U.S. Congress in 1972 agreed to allow Medicare to cover kidney dialysis for millions of Americans. In large part, he said, lawmakers acted “not from all the data of the number of people with end stage renal disease,” but because Shep Glazer, the then-president of the American Association of Kidney Patients, testified before a U.S. House committee while attached to a dialysis machine that had been brought into the hearing.
“An individual story breaks through the noise,” Earnest said, adding, “If we're good at telling stories and putting our data into those stories, those things will be meme-able – they’ll find their places in social media.”
Earnest recalled the 1998 article by Andrew Wakefield and others in The Lancet that claimed there were links between the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and autism. The study was later found to be fraudulent and the paper was retracted, but not before rates of non-vaccination spiked and measles outbreaks were reported.
He argued that the incident created a “frame” for the story of vaccines and autism. “If you have your minute and a half in front of a camera or a reporter, my advice would be, don’t put the words ‘autism’ and ‘vaccine’ in the same sentence. Your job is to create a totally new frame that is about vaccine safety. Don’t use the precious time when you have other people’s attention to repeat a frame that reinforces misinformation.”
Earnest told of his father-in-law, who died two years ago – a proud Navy veteran who worked 30 years on an auto assembly line.
“He’s the guy you need to persuade,” Earnest said, his voice cracking at times. “He was innately intelligent, curious about the world, and open to new ideas. He wanted to be persuaded in a way that respected him as a person, that respected his dignity. I think about him and the conversations we had over the years, starting out from a position of resistance, of skepticism, but engaging him from a place of love and respect.”
High context and low context
In other presentations at the forum:
- Kevin Messacar, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the CU Department of Pediatrics and an infectious diseases specialist at Children’s Hospital Colorado, talked of being thrust into the media spotlight for on-camera interviews at times when national concern flares up about disease issues, such as recent news about the measles outbreak in Texas and New Mexico. His advice: “Share what you know, and acknowledge the uncertainty of what’s unknown, rather than engage in the hotly debated speculation that occurs. Try to answer those questions with data.”
- Donald Nease, MD, professor in the CU Department of Family Medicine and CCTSI’s community engagement director, said it’s important to understand the differences of “high context” and “low context” cultures in effectively communicating with various communities. Nease – also director of the Community Engagement & Outreach Core at the CU Adult & Child Center for Outcomes Research & Delivery Science (ACCORDS) – said high context cultures emphasize relationships and non-verbal communication, and information access depends on social ties, he said, while low context cultures – including, he said, “most of us in this room” – are more accepting of communications based on data.
- Charlene Barrientos Ortiz, a CCTSI community engagement coordinator, expanded on Nease’s themes, emphasizing the importance of shared human experience in community engagement and the need for researchers to be “present” – making eye contact, for example – in their interactions with community members. “When we talk about high context cultures, we talk about engaging – like, ‘Let me look at you,’ ” she said.
Photo at top: Mark Earnest, MD, PhD, FACP, presents at the CU Department of Medicine’s Research Achievement Highlights (REACH) forum on “Combatting Misinformation through Effective Scientific Communications," March 18, 2025. Photo by Mark Harden | CU Department of Medicine.
