Social media is a powerful tool for science communication, allowing information to be shared at the speed of a swipe. Researchers, funders and communicators can use platforms such as Bluesky, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok and X (formerly Twitter) to share information about their discoveries, engage with the public and build trust in research. The appeal is clear, but can reputable science thrive in a space made for virality? In this article, I consider the benefits and risks of sharing science on social media and explore the importance of combining creative communication with credibility.
The rise of social media
For better or for worse, social media has revolutionized the way we communicate. Recent analyses indicate that, as of early 2025, there were more than 5.5 billion internet users and 5.2 billion social media identities, equating to 65.7% of the global population.1,2 As one of the fastest and most accessible forms of communication,1 social media provides a global stage for everyone – including scientists – to share information quickly and across geographical and socioeconomic barriers.
Harnessing social media for scientific communication
Social media enables scientists and healthcare communicators to bypass traditional gatekeepers of knowledge to engage with diverse audiences in real time. It’s a space in which data meet storytelling, and complex ideas become relatable. As Social Media Scientist Morgan McSweeney (also known as Dr Noc) explains, if used correctly, social media can help the research community build trust in complex health science data. “Data without human connection is easily ignored …”, Morgan noted in this recent article. “Building trust is not really so much about the data that I present, but the glimpses of humanity I reveal.”3
Some pharma companies are already using social media to communicate with the public transparently and creatively – whether through patient stories, behind-the-scenes lab content or interactive Q&As.4 Popular social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, and YouTube enable two-way engagement, allowing users to comment on posts and take part in real-time discussion and feedback . This function gives experts the opportunity to engage directly with the public to address health concerns without being overtly promotional.
The plague of mis- and disinformation
Yet the same features that make social media engaging also make it risky. Misinformation refers to false information that is created or shared unintentionally – it is not deliberate or malicious. In contrast, disinformation is false information intended to mislead or sow discord.5 In 2022, a World Health Organization (WHO) meta-analysis revealed that up to 60% of social media posts relating to pandemics and up to 50% of posts about vaccines contained misinformation. From COVID-19 myths to mental health misinformation on TikTok, the consequences can be serious and even fatal.6 A 2024 survey of Canadian social media users revealed that, for many, misinformation had led to delays in seeking medical advice (35%) or delays in using effective treatments (29%).7 This same survey demonstrated that social media users are hesitant to trust news about health, yet most believed it would be ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ easy to find accurate, unbiased and helpful healthcare information online.7
Unfortunately for well-meaning science communicators, social media algorithms are programmed to reward sensationalism, helping misinformation and disinformation to spread further and faster than truths in all categories of information.8 “False news is more novel, and people are more likely to share novel information”, explains Sinan Aral (David Austin Professor of Management, Marketing, IT and Data Science at the MIT Sloan School of Management). The sheer volume of social media posts published daily makes correcting medical mistruths nearly impossible, leaving healthcare communicators struggling to stem the tide of misinformation that erodes trust in healthcare providers, medical institutions and governments.
Building trust through policy
Trust is the cornerstone of effective science communication. As Open Pharma advocates, transparency in authorship, data sources and intent are essential, especially in digital spaces in which context can be lost.
Many social media platforms have policies and features designed to curb the spread of health misinformation and promote transparency in communication. In December 2020, TikTok announced measures to combat vaccine misinformation and enhanced moderation guidelines to strengthen the platform’s ability to remove such content. TikTok has since partnered with the WHO to provide users with reliable, science-based evidence. Through a year-long partnership, the two organizations will work together to “translate science-based information into relatable and digestible video content” and provide science content creators with additional support and guidance.9
However, many platforms are not doing enough to combat health and science misinformation. Since Elon Musk’s takeover of X (formally Twitter) in October 2022, the platform’s misinformation policies – including its COVID-19 misleading information policy, which aimed to reduce harmful misinformation on viruses, vaccines and treatments – have been rolled back or revoked.
Vigilance in the digital age
While social media platforms have a responsibly to curb the spread of misinformation, we all have a role to play in learning how to spot it and protect ourselves against it. The SIFT method – coined by Mike Caulfield (Freelance Consultant and Manager of Academic and Classroom Technology at the University of Washington) – encourages us to:
- S – stop: take a step back, and avoid getting sucked in by emotive language
- I – investigate: determine the purpose of the information and consider any financial ties, political leanings or personal biases
- F – find: look for more reliable coverage
- T – trace: track the claim back to its original source.
This work is licensed under a CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution) 4.0 licence.
A call for responsible engagement
Social media is a double-edged sword; it offers powerful methods of engagement but also risks perpetuating mistruths that could damage public health. Science communicators must lead with responsibility, blending creativity with credibility and reach with rigour.
During my time as an Open Pharma intern, I learned that transparency and trust should underpin every action taken by publication professionals. By embracing the potential of social media and meeting people where they are while remaining mindful of its pitfalls, we can help science not just survive but also thrive in the digital age.
References
- Datareportal. Digital around the world. 2025. Available from: https://datareportal.com/global-digital-overview?utm_source=Global_Digital_Reports&utm_medium=Report&utm_campaign=Digital_2025&utm_content=Country_Link_Slide (Accessed 6 August 2025).
- Statistica. Number of internet and social media users worldwide as of February 2025. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/ (Accessed 6 August 2025).
- STAT. I’m a social media scientist with 3.5 million followers. Here’s what I’ve learned about public health communication. 1 July 2025. Available from: https://www.statnews.com/2025/07/01/dr-noc-social-media-science-influencers-tiktok-data-relatability/ (Accessed 6 August 2025).
- Econsultancy. Four pharma campaigns that made an impact on social media. 29 May 2025. Available from: https://econsultancy.com/pharma-healthcare-brands-success-social-media/ (Accessed 6 August 2025).
- The Lancet. Health in the age of disinformation. The Lancet 2025:405;173. Available from: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)00094-7/fulltext (Accessed 6 August 2025).
- King’s College London. When health misinformation kills: social media, visibility and the crisis of regulation. 2025. Available from: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/when-health-misinformation-kills-social-media-visibility-and-the-crisis-of-regulation (Accessed 6 August 2025).
- Abacus Data, Canadian Medical Association. Canadian Medical Association 2024 health and media annual tracking survey. Ottawa: The Association; 2024. Available from: https://digitallibrary.cma.ca/link/digitallibrary29 (Accessed 6 August 2025).
- Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S. The spread of true and false news online. Science 2018;35:1146–511. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559 (Accessed 6 August 2025).
- World Health Organization. WHO and TikTok to collaborate on more science-based information on health and well-being. 2024. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/26-09-2024-who-and-tiktok-to-collaborate-on-more-science-based-information-on-health-and-well-being (Accessed 7 August 2025).
- Clark College Libraries. Evaluating information: SIFT (The Four Moves). 2025. Available from: https://clark.libguides.com/evaluating-information/SIFT (Accessed 9 August 2025).
The views expressed in this blog post are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of Open Pharma or its Members and Supporters.
Ellen Gattrell is a Student of Natural Sciences at the University of York and previous intern at Oxford PharmaGenesis
