I oversaw rigorous review of NSF-funded research on misinformation: Now the Trump administration is cancelling it

Politicians, not scientists, are the ones engaged in censorship

For the last three years, I was the director of the Science of Science: Discovery, Communication, and Impact program at the NSF. This program funded research on the social science of science - how we discover science, communicate science, and the impact of science investments on society. Part of that work involves helping people understand what is real, and what is not; in other words, combating misinformation.

Now, much of that work is being eliminated by NSF, as part of a broader purge of research on misinformation that has cancelled 400 grants. The cuts appear to follow a blueprint laid out by Senator Ted Cruz, who labeled misinformation research as “taxpayer funded censorship.” Let me explain why Cruz is wrong and is, in fact, engaging in censorship and political interference in peer-reviewed science.

Days before he resigned, the NSF director, Sethuraman Panchanathan laid out new priorities. The NSF would continue its mission to “promote the progress of science, advance the national health, prosperity and welfare, and secure the national defense", but now when assessing the Broader Impacts criterion of proposals, it would focus on broadening participation that creates “opportunities for all Americans everywhere” and does not “preference some groups at the expense of others”. Nothing in the new priorities mentioned specific areas of research. However, a bit further down the page, under Frequently Asked Questions they noted they would be terminating awards that “do not align with these priorities” including awards focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and misinformation/disinformation.

My unit funded projects on science communication including science communication to the public (e.g. how can experts deliver complex science information to community members), communication of public priorities to scientists (e.g. what are the public needs and demands that should drive decisions about how we spend public money on science), and citizen engagement and participatory science (e.g. scientists and community members collaborating on designing research, collecting data, implementing projects). Its mission includes showing “how science advances evidence-based policy making and the creation of public value”. Achieving this mission becomes harder if we cannot study basic disputes about what constitutes evidence, and why people believe or act on disinformation.

Why is science communication (and misinformation) research important and how is it used?

If we invest billions in scientific research, those investments will not fully pay off if the public is skeptical of the results. There are large gaps between what scientists do and how they communicate their knowledge and how people understand scientific information. As the information and media environment has become faster, louder, and more complex, this gap is widening.

Research on science communication (and misinformation) advances our understanding about how science is communicated to the public, how the public learns and thinks about science, and how scientific knowledge is put into practice. Federally funded research advances open access to this knowledge - the foundation of Democracy.

Results of misinformation research informs knowledge and practice in a variety of ways. Misinformation research advances knowledge on how we produce, process, and understand information. Research findings tell us about how the public understands (or misunderstands) science, especially in ever growing digital media environments, and in the face of science skepticism. Additionally, this research informs our understanding of how misinformation is related to trust – trust in science, trust in political institutions, trust in our communities. It also informs our understanding of how ethics, religion, morality, science, and politics are interrelated and how those values shape human behavior.

Matthew Motta, an NSF funded researcher and expert on science communication, notes that:

Studying why some people accept misinformation as true, and making an effort to combat it, isn't about trying to infringe on people's freedom of speech. Our goal, as researchers, is to provide people with the information they might need to make decisions that reflect the best available science. Our research doesn't force people to live their lives in a certain way; nor do we claim to be the sole arbiters of what constitutes scientific fact.

Many of the projects we funded sought to narrow the information gap between scientists and the public by helping scientists improve their communication approaches and making materials more consumable for the public. Additionally, this research sought to help Americans wade through the information environment to identify reliable, credible sources and misinformation.

How is this research used? The Trump administration suggests that government trying to address misinformation is a form of censorship. The reality is that understanding misinformation helps to improve communication. In practice, misinformation research is used to improve science education materials, develop science education programming, design public service announcements, create effective weather warnings, tailor emergency response broadcasts to specific communities, design health advisories, implement product recalls, integrate weather or rain data into farming practice, monitor fish or bird populations, and so on.

For example, research we funded helped develop a tool kit for creating effective data visualization and scientific graphics, provide science communication training for scientists, create communications protocol for best practices for engaging social media influencers in science, and identify best practices and lessons learned from scientists communicating with the public via two-way social media communication tools. Nothing about this should be especially controversial or political: we should all want the public to better understand science.

What does misinformation research look like?

We supported a myriad of projects including research on mis/disinformation.

• For example, one project looked at how misinformation about science and medicine spreads in all communities, but specifically in Black communities where there are generally lower levels of trust. The researchers were developing community-driven strategies for combating misinformation and low trust in science and medicine.

• Another project looked at the role of social media influencers in spreading misinformation about a new vaccine to protect pregnant persons and their newborns from respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The researchers were looking at how social media influencers shape knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs.

• A third example is research that investigated how goodwill and communication shape responses to scientific information among agricultural land operators - farmers, foresters, ranchers. The researcher built community connections and cooperation among land operators, climate scientists, and natural resource professionals. The multi-year project helped advanced community building, trust, and the application of science in practice. The project also developed educational curriculum and support for agricultural communities in the Midwest.

• A fourth grant supported efforts at a local museum to develop strategies to expand access to its biological collections, which were only accessible to a small number of in-person visitors. They used NSF support to develop online digital media strategies to expand their reach and public access to scientific collections.

All these projects went through peer review to ensure their scientific merit and public value. Do they sound like “taxpayer funded censorship” to you?

Researching misinformation does not threaten free speech

The claim that discontinuing “misinformation” research somehow protects free speech is laughable. Communication research teaches us about how misinformation spreads, how health information does NOT reach those who need it most, how science education fails or succeeds, how museums can better reach audiences, and how to communicate conservation science with farmers.

People use scientific information to make decisions that affect their lives, making it vital that we understand how scientific results are effectively communicated to the public. Federally funded scientific research actively advances free speech and access to information. It gives people the tools to better sort through information, discerning what they can rely on to make decisions about their lives. And it does so based on a commitment of transparency to the public. Researchers who receive funding from the NSF (or any other federal agency) are subject to open access policies, requirements, and expectations, including making their publications and underlying data free and publicly accessible.

Research in general, but especially research on science communication and misinformation helps create an informed public. They reflect the Jeffersonian idea that “Whenever the people are well informed, they may be trusted with their own government.”

Research on misinformation is not “censorship” but cancelling it is. Such grants were peer-reviewed by scientific experts, recommended by agency employees, and awarded through previous Congressional appropriation. Cancelling them violates the NSF’s duty to honor contracts and ethically manage the funds appropriated by the US Congress. I am much more worried about how the current regime’s political agenda threatens our rights and the advancement of science rather than fictional negative outcomes of research on misinformation.

The NSF was established in 1950 to support fundamental research and education in all the non-medical fields of science and engineering. It was the result of Vannevar Bush’s Science the Endless Frontier, which outlined a vision of a nation that promoted progress of science by making known to the world our contributions to scientific knowledge, advancing the war of science against disease, aiding research activities by public and private organizations, and advancing discovery and development of scientific talent in American youth.

Bush’s closing call to the president noted: “Scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress.” Bush also emphasized the centrality of academic freedom to that vision: “freedom of inquiry must be preserved and should leave internal control of policy, personnel, and the method and scope of research to the institutions in which it is carried on.”

Since 1950, the US has been a leader in research investments. The NSF cuts and the current regime’s attacks on rigorous research as a threat to free speech works against this vision and the public good. Vannevar Bush must be rolling in his grave. China need only sit back and watch Trump destroy America’s status as the leading producer of research in order for them to claim the mantle.

What can you do?

Here are eight tangible things you can do. Some might be more relevant if you are a researcher, but everyone can do something:

1. Call your congressional representatives and demand an end to DOGE and OMB interference in executive agency spending and decision making. 5Calls.

2. Push your local universities to advocate against scientific research cuts.

3. Activate your professional associations to advocate against scientific research cuts.

4. Attend a protest.

5. Follow researchers working in these areas.

6. Educate your neighbors, friends and family on the important social, health, security, and economic value created by federally funded research. Write an op-ed. Host a town hall.

7. Join a group: Science for the People, Union of Concerned Scientists, something local.

8. Demand federally funded scientific research be free of partisan interference. Research and knowledge advancement is a public good that benefits us all.

You might also like…