Microbes and Infection xxx (xxxx) xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Microbes and Infection
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/micinf
Commentary
Headlines and hashtags: communicating science during an outbreak
a b s t r a c t
Keywords:
Coronavirus
Epidemic
Science communication
Misinformation
Science and medical professionals are often looked to as experts in the event of a health crisis, but
relatively few have received formal training in science communication. We provide a brief review of the
current outbreak situation and suggestions for engaging in reliable, effective science communication
online.
© 2020 Institut Pasteur. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
In a time of crisis, curation of accurate information by scientists
on social media is especially crucial. While experts in their content
area, few scientists are formally trained in science communication,
particularly when it comes to risk communication in a time of uncertainty. Lines between generally-accepted facts within the scientific community and opinions of a single or small number of
scientists may be blurred or uncertain. Twitter in particular is a medium where most tweets (posts of 280 characters maximum) are
public and available to the general populace. Re-tweets can lead
to the expansion of a tweet’s reach through the medium, so that
in some cases posts of an individual who may have a small number
of followers end up having a disproportionate reach and effect. For
scientists, this potential virality can be a benefit or a disadvantage:
it can serve as an excellent way to spread important information,
but what if an inaccurate tweet ends up “going viral”? There is potential for lost trust in an individual (and the broader scientific
community as well), as a new source of misinformation must be
countered. When communicating on social media, scientists need
to know what engages the general public and how to communicate
complex scientific information in a responsible way that can be
accurately understood by the general public. Here, we suggest
some best practices for scientific communication in a time of crisis,
using examples from the current SARS-CoV2 epidemic.
1. Misinformation and coronavirus (SARS-CoV2)
In December 2019, reports of an atypical pneumonia surfaced
out of China. After approximately a month of reported cases, a novel
coronavirus was identified as a cause on January 9 [1]. The epidemic
quickly spread from dozens of cases to tens of thousands in a matter
of weeks. Several large cities in China were quarantined in an
attempt to stem the spread, but cases were soon found in other
countries, spreading to all continents except Antarctica by March.
Individuals turned to traditional as well as social media in order
to gain information about the epidemic.
Misinformation regarding coronavirus quickly became ubiquitous, especially on social media. Platforms such as WhatsApp,
Facebook, and Twitter have all been used to spread fear and panic
about the virus [2,3]. In late January, 2020, Facebook, Twitter, and
Google began providing a link to the CDC’s summary page about
the illness whenever a user entered the search term “coronavirus”
[4]. However, providing a link to the CDC or WHO summary page
does not necessarily mean that users will click on it, and even if
they do, the structure and presentation of credible information are
not as accessible, interactive, and stimulating as that found on social
media. Preference for user-generated social media posts over traditional news sources and health organizations has been documented
previously with the Zika virus [5]. Fig. 1 shows evidence (generated
by the software platform, Brandwatch) that this trend is also true of
social media discussions of Coronavirus between January 21 and
February 3, 2020 as the number of mentions is driven by individuals
rather than organizations. As such, while communication by organizations is important, users are really searching for trusted individuals for information on topics such as SARS-CoV2.
Scientists face a challenging information environment when it
comes to disseminating public health information during emerging
crises. In response to prior disease outbreaks (e.g., 2009 H1N1 flu,
2014 Ebola outbreak), the news media tended to highlight deathrates and severe outcomes while inadequately balancing information that might enhance perceived efficacy to control and manage
infection [6,7]. It can be difficult to effectively elicit concern (rather
than panic) and public vigilance that will encourage proactive action from the public (e.g., effective illness management practices
like hand washing), rather than maladaptive fear management
practices like information avoidance and denial [8]. The uncertain
environments in which these crises emerge add additional
complexity. Unsurprisingly, social media conversations not only
reflect these uncertainties, but may also amplify them [9]. The
resulting sensationalism, combined with heightened misinformation, presents significant health communication challenges.
1.1. Maximizing the message
Given that media coverage of emerging public health crises
often contributes to fear and anxiety, scientists and public health
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.07.004
1286-4579/© 2020 Institut Pasteur. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: N. Egbert et al., Headlines and hashtags: communicating science during an outbreak, Microbes and Infection, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.07.004
2
Commentary / Microbes and Infection xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 1. Comparison of individual versus organizational twitter mentions over time.
practitioners should be mindful of not contributing to these problems. The CDC’s Guide to Writing for Social Media provides a
comprehensive overview of how to use social media platforms
effectively, including examples and exercises [10]. In an emergent
crisis, responsible scientists using social media platforms must
consider much more than how many characters their message includes. Communication experts Lin, Spence, Sellnow, and Lachlan
provide seven best practices for leveraging social media during a
crisis [11]. These practices include integrating different forms of social media; engaging actively in ongoing dialogue with the audience; optimizing the distinct characteristics of each social media
platform; creating unique and identifiable hashtags; partnering
with other credible experts and organizations (especially if they
have large followings); and monitoring and correcting misinformation and rumors. When utilizing social media platforms (especially
Twitter), content creators must do so in a way that parallels the
tone, content, and presentation of other social media producers.
Posts should be conversational, action-oriented, culturally appropriate, visual, interactive, and timely.
2. Sharing information responsibly
In the age of social media and 24-h news, the implication is often
that speed is essential. However, responsible communication should
place value on accuracy and context over speed and sensationalism.
Fact-checking and being careful not to spread rumor or innuendo are
critical aspects of a trusted communicator, as are distinguishing fact
from opinion and providing clarity on that which we currently know
to be true versus that which we believe to be true based on various
assumptions or extrapolations [12]. Although adding hype and hyperbole may have short-term payoffs for the scientist (increased
number of followers, invitations for media appearances that prioritize clicks over accuracy), it can result in long-term negative implications on an individual’s scientific reputation and, more critically, on
the public’s understanding of and reaction to the epidemic. Studies
have shown that scientists and medical professionals still rank highly
among trusted professions [13], and we should be cognizant of that
trust as a community in the midst of a public health emergency.
3. Summary
An epidemic is a constantly moving target, and information may
change daily. It is challenging to balance the communication
necessary to respond quickly, accurately, and with minimal sensationalism, but scientists and other perceived experts involved in
sharing information on social media need to consider carefully
the ramifications of each tweet or post sent out to a public audience. These words carry extra weight as individuals look to them
for guidance and knowledge in an emergency situation. We serve
our communities best when we promote facts over fear and preparedness over panic.
Declaration of Competing Interest
There is no conflict of interest.
References
[1] WHO. WHO statement regarding cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China.
2020. https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/09-01-2020-who-statementregarding…. [Accessed 11 March
2020].
[2] Herrera S. Coronavirus misinformation lives online, despite efforts to stamp it
out. Wall St J 2020 March 3.
[3] Romm T. Fake cures and other coronavirus conspiracy theories are flooding
WhatsApp, leaving governments and users with a ‘sense of panic’ the Washington Post. 2020 March 2.
[4] Zarocostas J. How to fight an infodemic. Lancet 2020;395:676.
[5] Fu KW, Liang H, Saroha N, Tse ZTH, Ip P, Fung IC. How people react to Zika virus outbreaks on Twitter? A computational content analysis. Am J Infect Contr
2016;44:1700e2.
[6] Goodall C, Sabo J, Cline R, Egbert N. Threat, efficacy, and uncertainty in the first
5 months of national print and electronic news coverage of the H1N1 virus. J
Health Commun 2012;17:338e55.
[7] Ihekweazu C. Ebola in prime time: a content analysis of sensationalism and
efficacy information in U.S. Nightly news coverage of the Ebola outbreaks.
Health Commun 2017;32:741e8.
[8] Witte K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process
model. Commun Monogr 1992;59:329e49.
[9] Kilgo DK, Yoo J, Johnson TJ. Spreading Ebola panic: newspaper and social media coverage of the 2014 Ebola health crisis. Health Commun 2019;34:811e7.
[10] CDC. Guide to writing for social Media. 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/
socialmedia/tools/guidelines/guideforwriting.html. [Accessed 11 March 2020].
[11] Lin X, Spence PR, Sellnow TL, Lachlan KA. Crisis communication, learning and
responding: best practices in social media. Comput Hum Behav 2016;65:601e5.
[12] Hanage WP, Lipsitch M. How to report on the COVID-19 outbreak responsibly.
Scientific American February 2020;23. 2020, https://blogs.scientificamerican.
com/observations/how-to-report-on-the-covid-19-outbreak-responsibly/.
[Accessed 11 March 2020].
[13] Funk C, Kennedy B. Public confidence in scientists has remained stable for
decadesMarch, vol. 22; 2019. 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/
2019/03/22/public-confidence-in-scientists-has-remained-stable-fordecades/. [Accessed 11 March 2020].
Please cite this article as: N. Egbert et al., Headlines and hashtags: communicating science during an outbreak, Microbes and Infection, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.07.004
Commentary / Microbes and Infection xxx (xxxx) xxx
Nichole Egberta, Catherine E. Goodalla, Jennifer L. McCullougha,
Tara C. Smithb,*
a
School of Communication, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA
b
School of Public Health, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA
3
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tsmit176@kent.edu (T.C. Smith).
12 July 2020
Available online xxx
Please cite this article as: N. Egbert et al., Headlines and hashtags: communicating science during an outbreak, Microbes and Infection, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.07.004
