Reacción a "51.5 per cent of the Spanish population feel capable of spotting misinformation about science, but only 18.1 per cent believe others are capable of doing so"

The Report on Scientific Disinformation in Spain 2026 is an accurate and detailed analysis of this highly complex and multidimensional phenomenon. The outlook is not encouraging, but only by understanding it in detail can we take action to reduce the prevalence of pseudoscience and conspiracy theorists who, far from being isolated, individual actors, operate in the service of political and corporate agendas, shielded by the opacity of social media algorithms and the decline in the public’s consumption of news media, with the aim of undermining trust in science and democratic institutions.

This report, once again masterfully led by Iberifier in Spain, concludes, first and foremost, that disinformation has become a problem of which society is generally aware: it is no longer an isolated incident. 51.5 per cent of the population feel very or fairly confident in their ability to spot hoaxes, but, at the same time, only 18.1 per cent believe that the rest of the population can spot them. In other words, we have more confidence in our individual abilities than in those of the population as a whole. However, disinformation is not an isolated problem affecting only others, but a systemic and organised threat to democratic societies that can only be tackled through coordinated civic, political and business engagement.

Secondly, hoaxes are spread in complex ways, exploiting the multiple channels through which we receive information, particularly social media, video platforms and artificial intelligence. A third of the population uses ChatGPT or Gemini weekly to find out about science, health and the environment, a proportion similar to the percentage of people who do so via radio and television. This shift away from consulting the media by the public, coupled with the rise in incidental consumption – where seemingly informative messages reach us in isolation, without us seeking them out and, in many cases, without knowing their sources or origin, usually via social media – should prompt reflection on society’s growing reluctance to turn to credible and professional news sources.

Finally, specifically in the scientific sphere, this gives rise to a bipolar scenario: whilst trust in individuals working in science remains high, trust in institutions and political actors is declining, as they are considered to be primarily responsible for disinformation (57 per cent). The discrediting and polarisation of politics are exploited by those who spread hoaxes as a means of sowing doubt about those who are supposed to ensure the proper functioning of the institutions that underpin our democracy. To offer a glimmer of hope, 63.8 per cent would support government restrictions on false information.

We now have an analysis that highlights the weaknesses of the socio-political system in the face of disinformation. Hopefully, this comprehensive report will assist those who are attempting to devise a ‘vaccine’ against this problem.