Can Communication be "anti-science"? A Scoping Review

'Contemporary public discourse about science is increasingly referencing a perceived threat of ‘anti-science’ (Nature Editorial, 2017). While the term has previously been criticized for its vagueness (Holton, 1992), and for creating an apparent dichotomy between rational science and a purportedly 'ignorant' or inadequately informed counterpart (Amend & Barney, 2016), we are currently witnessing a resurgence of its significance in public, political, and academic debates. These debates often allude to ‘anti-science’ movements (e.g., Ezell, 2022), beliefs and attitudes (e.g., Philipp-Muller et al., 2022), or even “aggression” (e.g., Hotez, 2021, p. 1). Additionally, a growing body of scholarly literature refers to forms of public communication that are ‘anti-science’ (e.g., Erviti et al., 2020; Hameleers & van der Meer, 2021) and attributes potentially dangerous consequences to these debates. However, it remains unclear whether communication can be ‘anti-science’ and to what extent it is analytically valuable to characterize communication in such a manner. Thus, this article presents a scoping review of the interdisciplinary scholarly literature on ‘anti-science’ communication, investigating how this literature conceptualizes ‘anti-science’ communication, ascribes consequences to it, and whether any reflection on the terminology—questionable as it may be—exists. Preliminary findings indicate that references to ‘anti-science’ communication stem from a variety of different disciplines and have been increasing since the Covid-19 pandemic. ‘Anti-science’ communication is predominantly examined in a political context, with political actors – primarily populist politicians – emerging as the principal sources of this type of communication. The term is rarely scrutinized; rather, it appears to serve as a popular catchphrase encompassing a range of heterogeneous concepts related to political communication and science communication, such as conspiracy theories, mis- and disinformation as well as verbal attacks and political criticism of science, scientific actors, institutions and scientific knowledge. Furthermore, the majority of articles are theoretical, resulting in lack of empirical research on the scope and consequences of these communicative phenomena. The implications of this ambiguous use of the term ‘anti-science communication’ for research and society are discussed. References: Amend, E., & Barney, D. (2016). Getting It Right: Canadian Conservatives and the “War on Science.” Canadian Journal of Communication, 41(1), 9–35. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2016v41n1a3104 Erviti, M. C., Codina, M., & León, B. (2020). Pro-Science, Anti-Science and Neutral Science in Online Videos on Climate Change, Vaccines and Nanotechnology. Media and Communication, 8(2), 329–338. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2937 Ezell, J. M. (2022). The medicalization of freedom: How anti-science movements use the language of personal liberty and how we can address it. Nature Medicine, 28(2), 219–219. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01640-y Hameleers, M., & van der Meer, T. G. L. A. (2021). The Scientists Have Betrayed Us! The Effects of Anti-Science Communication on Negative Perceptions Toward the Scientific Community. International Journal of Communication, 25. https://doi.org/1932–8036/20210005 Holton, G. (1992). How to think about the `anti-science’ phenomenon. Public Understanding of Science, 1(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/012 Hotez, P. J. (2021). Anti-science kills: From Soviet embrace of pseudoscience to accelerated attacks on US biomedicine. PLOS Biology, 19(1), e3001068. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001068 Nature Editorial. (2017). Beware the anti-science label. Nature, 545(7653), Article 7653. https://doi.org/10.1038/545133b Philipp-Muller, A., Lee, S. W. S., & Petty, R. E. (2022). Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(30), e2120755119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120755119'