The report "Experiences of researchers who interact with the media and social networks in Spain" collects and analyses data from a survey—the first survey of its kind in Spain—which aims to analyse the experiences of scientists who spoke to the media about science in the last five years.

The report, carried out by FECYT's Science Media Centre Spain (SMC) in collaboration with the Gureiker research group at the University of the Basque Country, examines the habits of scientists when it comes to engagement with the media, as well as the benefits and obstacles they perceive. It also analyses the personal and professional consequences of negative experiences; the coping mechanisms scientists use and the response they say they receive from their institutions.  

The survey and the analysis of the data obtained were carried out under the scientific direction of Maider Eizmendi, Ainara Larrondo and Simón Peña, from the Gureiker research group. The data collection was carried out by means of an online survey sent via software that guaranteed confidentiality. The participants were experts in various areas of science and technology that the SMC Spain contacted to be a source of information from March 2022 to July 2024 (1,405 people). The response rate was 17%, with 237 respondents, a high figure compared to similar studies in other countries. Surveys were sent out in three waves in June and July 2024. 

The participation of researchers in the media is necessary for journalists to have adequate sources and for the public to receive honest and rigorous science information through the media. It is therefore essential to understand the media profiles of researchers who speak to the media and on social networks, as well as the negative experiences they face.  

Previous studies commissioned by journals such as Science and Nature—the latter in collaboration with Science Media Centres in other countries—had also studied these experiences.  

"This is a relevant issue, especially now that there is increasing talk about the importance of researchers participating in science communication activities, and at a time when misinformation and the need for expert sources to contribute are being widely discussed," explained Maider Eizmendi during an briefing organized by SMC Spain to present this report.

"The study stems from our commitment as science journalists not only to carry out our daily journalistic work but also to generate evidence on a topic where we already have considerable data, such as the relationship between the media and expert sources," added Pampa García Molina, coordinator of SMC Spain.

Experiences of speaking to the media 

One of the study’s main takeaways is that, overall, scientists have a positive or very positive perception of their participation in the media (83.12%).

Getting their message across is the main benefit for them, and the opportunity for their studies to have greater visibility and impact is also a motivating factor for more than half of those surveyed.  

In terms of obstacles, fear of misrepresentation of their message is the main barrier cited by scientists.

Respondents say they have mainly been involved in the production of news content, and less so in talk shows, where opinion plays a big role. 79.71% of respondents have participated in videos for websites and social networks in the last five years; and 66.50% in podcast interviews, two formats that are gaining importance. 

However, the results show that scientists involved in science communication activities also face a hostile reality. 51.05% of survey respondents say they suffered an attack after communicating science. The incidence is higher for women: 56.86% of female scientists surveyed report having suffered such attacks compared to 46.21% of male scientists. 

Insults (30.38%), comments about their professional capacity (28.69%) and opinions about their professional integrity (17.72%) are the most frequent attacks suffered by researchers who communicate about science. They are followed by comments about researchers’ origin, ethnicity, ideology, religion or beliefs (13.50%), intense and repetitive contact (10.97%), comments about their physical appearance (4.64%), publication of personal data (2.95%) and comments about their sexual orientation or gender identity (2.53%). Some also report being threatened with physical and sexual violence (2.11%), as well as death threats (1.69%). 

The data show different patterns according to gender. For example, more than one in three female researchers (34.31%) say they have received comments about their scientific ability, with a difference of more than 10 percentage points compared to men (24.24%). Meanwhile, men receive significantly more comments on their professional integrity. 

The most frequently harassed respondents are those who communicate about environmental and health issues. For example, 74.19% of respondents who speak about covid-19 were attacked, and this proportion is 53.33% among those who speak about climate change. In terms of the channels through which scientists receive attacks, the social network X (formerly Twitter) is the most common one (59.86%). However, public comments published on the websites of online media themselves (21.13%), as well as in person, in public (11.97%) or in private (7.39%) are also significant in percentage terms. 

Regarding the consequences of this type of experience, a large percentage say that they have not experienced any type of impact. As for the rest, personal insecurity, anxiety or other types of psychological problems and loss of productivity are the most common effects. There are gender differences in this regard, as men are the most affected by the loss of productivity.

As for measures taken in response to attacks, the most frequent ones are those related to the management of social networks. In 16.55% of negative experiences, the consequence was to stop communicating science or speaking to the media. The percentage of cases in which the researchers affected sought help is relatively low and limited to the most serious cases.   

"That 16.55% of negative experiences have resulted in stopping communication with the media or ceasing outreach seems serious to me because, to do good science journalism, we need sources who are willing to talk to us," highlighted García Molina.

Proposals to strengthen science communication 

The study also collates representative testimonies about the negative experiences recalled by respondents—leaving out identifying details—as well as proposals to help researchers who speak to the media and on social networks. 

As science communication is gaining more and more social relevance and recognition in scientific careers, respondents say that institutions should encourage and support communication work and give it more relevance. 

In addition, they ask institutions for more training and information on science communication in order to avoid negative experiences. They also ask for protection mechanisms against attacks and greater involvement of institutions or companies. 

"It is about supporting them and making them see how important their activity is because many of the proposals made by scientists to their institutions focus on giving recognition to this work. Up until now, science communication has been a personal choice," Eizmendi stated.

Finally, they call for formal channels to report their negative experiences after communicating about science, urge extreme caution on social networks and call on institutions to get involved.

"This study is a starting point that serves to bring to the table an issue that institutions and other media outlets should analyze within their own scope and take measures on," emphasized Eizmendi.