If you have friends on Facebook that are even remotely interested in scientific topics, you’ve probably encountered an article by IFLScience at one point. However, as intriguing as these articles may be, the reliability of the content itself may be questionable at times. IFLScience, better known as I F****** Love Science, is a website that aims to offer a unique form of scientific journalism through discussing “the lighter side of science”.
IFLScience was founded by Elise Andrew in 2012, when it began as a Facebook page. By catering to the preferences of social media users through various ways, Andrew’s page gained an incredible amount of followers in a very short period. Through eye-catching article titles and astonishing stories, Andrew successfully popularized science with her page, which now has over 25 million followers.
Elise Andrews – Source: Wikimedia Commons
The website has received substantial criticism for using clickbait as opposed to trying to foster genuine public interest in science. Personally, I don’t necessarily criticize IFLScience’s approach in this regard. In a sea of information being advertised through clickbait, it is understandable to use the same method to a degree for scientific journalism. By focusing on the exciting results of science, IFLScience has removed the details that are generally regarded as boring and grueling. This somewhat sensationalized approach has made it much more likely for individuals who are not versed in science to read it and appreciate the importance of such work by simply looking at the results.
Source: Flickr Commons
An Example of IFLScience Reporting Intriguing News in Science Source: YouTube
However, the issues arise when popularizing scientific content infringes upon misinformation. For example, one headline read “Link Found Between Gut Bacteria and Depression”. In actuality, the study being discussed was only based on mice. The lead author of the study himself explicitly stated that, “So far, the data is missing” for bacteria influencing depression in humans. Of course there is a possibility for finding similar data for humans, but the title of the article has been formulated in a misleading way, with the intention of using it as captivating clickbait. Personally, IFLScience has trained me to expect disappointment after reading any of their articles, in comparison to the initial fascination elicited by the title.
This problem of misinformation is especially exasperated in a culture where social media users often tend to avoid reading articles properly. Ironically and amusingly, IFLScience highlighted this online behaviour themselves when they intentionally mislead social media users by titling an article as “Marijuana Contains ‘Alien DNA’ From Outside Of Our Solar System, NASA Confirms”. To the surprise of the people who actually clicked on it before sharing it, the article was actually about a study that argued social media users like sharing articles more than actually reading them.
Source: Flickr Commons
IFLScience is absolutely a great resource for developing public interest in science, but that should never come at the price of the misrepresentation of facts. Going forward, I hope IFLScience is able to find the right balance between conveying the fascinating aspects of science and maintaining credibility.
Uzair Ahmed
One response to “IFLScience: Popularity vs Credibility”