Trust, consensus, and debate: How scientists choose their crisis communication channels

As science communication continues to evolve, the study suggests that a hybrid approach combining both centralized and decentralized models may be the most effective strategy. Traditional media can provide authoritative, verified information, while social media enables real-time engagement and public discourse. To bridge the gap, scientists and institutions should develop strategic communication plans that leverage both models, ensuring that accurate scientific knowledge reaches a broad audience while maintaining credibility and trust.

In an era where rapid information dissemination is crucial, science communication has undergone a profound transformation, particularly during crises. The way scientific knowledge reaches the public has shifted from traditional, centralized media to more decentralized platforms such as social media. This transition - often referred to as "media-morphosis" - has significantly altered how scientists and institutions interact with the public, policymakers, and stakeholders.

A recent study titled "The Media Morphosis of Science Communication During Crises" by Rocco Caferra, Giuseppe Di Liddo, Andrea Morone, and David Stadelmann, published in Scientific Reports (2025), examines how scientists navigate different communication channels and what factors influence their preferences. By analyzing responses from nearly 8,700 scientists, the study sheds light on the evolving landscape of science communication, particularly in crisis scenarios like the COVID-19 pandemic.

The shift from centralized to decentralized science communication

Historically, science communication followed a one-directional information deficit model, where knowledge was disseminated through traditional media such as newspapers and television. This model assumed that public skepticism toward science stemmed from a lack of knowledge, which could be addressed through expert-driven education. However, the rise of the digital age, particularly social media, has facilitated a more dialogic and participatory approach to science communication.

The study contrasts two primary communication models: centralized (traditional print and broadcast media) and decentralized (social media and digital platforms). The findings indicate that scientists who trust government institutions are more likely to favor traditional media, which offers editorial oversight and structured information dissemination. In contrast, scientists who prioritize diverse perspectives - including alternative and even controversial viewpoints - tend to prefer decentralized communication channels like social media. This shift reflects a broader societal trend toward open discourse, real-time engagement, and participatory science communication.

Role of trust and perceived knowledge in communication preferences

The study highlights two critical factors that shape scientists’ communication preferences: trust in government and perception of scientific consensus. Scientists who express higher trust in governmental institutions tend to prefer centralized media, believing that these platforms provide reliable, fact-checked information that helps coordinate public response during crises. On the other hand, those who distrust government institutions or advocate for broader representation of perspectives - including dissenting or alternative viewpoints - are more inclined to use social media for science communication.

Additionally, the study finds that scientists who believe their community has a strong consensus on the costs and benefits of crisis-related decisions are more likely to support centralized media. This suggests that when the scientific community perceives its knowledge as well-established, it favors structured, top-down communication to inform the public and policymakers efficiently. Conversely, when scientific uncertainty exists or when there are competing perspectives within the field, scientists may lean toward decentralized platforms, which allow for greater discussion, debate, and real-time updates.

Benefits and challenges of decentralized science communication

Social media and other decentralized communication platforms offer several advantages, including greater accessibility, faster dissemination, and increased public engagement. These platforms enable scientists to interact directly with audiences, counter misinformation, and foster public trust in science through transparency and dialogue. Moreover, decentralized systems empower a diverse range of voices, promoting a more inclusive and democratized approach to science communication.

However, the study also highlights the inherent risks of decentralized communication. Unlike traditional media, which operates under editorial oversight and fact-checking mechanisms, social media lacks structured quality control. This creates an environment where misinformation can spread rapidly, potentially undermining public trust in science. Scientists must navigate these risks by balancing the need for open discourse with the responsibility to uphold scientific integrity.

Future directions for science communication in crises

As science communication continues to evolve, the study suggests that a hybrid approach combining both centralized and decentralized models may be the most effective strategy. Traditional media can provide authoritative, verified information, while social media enables real-time engagement and public discourse. To bridge the gap, scientists and institutions should develop strategic communication plans that leverage both models, ensuring that accurate scientific knowledge reaches a broad audience while maintaining credibility and trust.

Additionally, future research should explore how AI-driven content moderation, fact-checking systems, and targeted science communication strategies can mitigate the risks associated with decentralized platforms. Policymakers, media organizations, and scientific institutions must collaborate to ensure that science communication during crises remains transparent, reliable, and accessible.

Ultimately, the study underscores the growing importance of adaptive and strategic science communication in an era of digital media and societal polarization. By understanding the factors influencing communication preferences, the scientific community can better navigate crises, foster public trust, and ensure that scientific knowledge serves as a foundation for informed decision-making.