I Fucking Love Science (IFLS) started in 2012 as a Facebook page created by Elise Andrew and ended up gaining 50,000 in just one month. At this point, the site that revamps science, technology and health news to attract the masses brings in 21 million followers.
IFLS reaches more people than Popular Science, Scientific America, The New York Times and US Weekly combined, according to SkepChik. The blog is now highlighting how some of the info presented on IFLS (especially in the headlines) can be misleading, and ex-admins have spoken about the practices within IFLS “walls.”
As SkepChik‘s Kavin Senapathy pointed out, the headlines can end up being more clickbait than factual information, which in some ways defeats the purpose of having a site dedicated to science.
When Investment Rhymes with Canada
Canada has a proud history of achievement in the areas of science and technology, and the field of biomanufacturing and life sciences is no exception.
“Teens Invent Condoms That Change Color When They Detect STDs”, a recent IFLS headline declared. Unbelievable! As in you shouldn’t believe it, because it’s not true. These color-changing wonders don’t exist and won’t exist for a long time if ever. For an organization of self-proclaimed science lovers which reaches millions of readers, one would hope for a bit more fact-checking. And besides, isn’t the best time to find out someone has chlamydia long before tearing open a condom?
Other headlines that Senapathy pointed out as being deceiving include “Link Found Between Gut Bacteria And Depression” and “Are Hospitals The Safest Place For Healthy Women To Have Babies? An Obstetrician Thinks Twice,” which both lacked evidence and sufficient fact-checking within the story.
But during the site’s presence, there has been a mix of praise and criticism, some of which Andrew and previous employees have been vocal about.
A 2014 Columbia Journalism Review story, which was criticized as not exactly hard-hitting, touted Elise Andrew as “journalism’s first self-made brand.” Self-made? Hardly. The proof is in the IFLS admin team pudding. And when ex-admins began chatting on social media about their early involvement, and though they never expected nor made a dime from IFLS, Andrew threatened to sue the group for speaking out.
The main complaint seemed to be that Andrews claimed full responsibility for the publishing of the content, when in reality it involved a team of people. But not only that, there have been multiple claims of plagiarism and copyright infringement. In fact, there have been 6000 accusations reported.
There is a really important and essential aspect to sharing knowledge about developments in science and technology, and Andrew seems to have that in the forefront of her mission with IFLS, but it’s important that details and facts are the priority otherwise, what’s the point?
As Senapathy put it:
Andrew fails to grasp what both credentialed scientists and science enthusiasts alike know: Fervor doesn’t necessarily make good science communication. Conveying scientific findings accurately does. While passion is great, it’s just icing on the cake. Let the recent criticism help IFLS reclaim the real science that once fueled its content and commitment. Andrew has done great things with IFLS, but she could be teaching her vast audience about the power of the scientific method, of accuracy, and of science’s most raw purpose: to perpetually seek the objective truth.
She also added:
It’s more complex than a pretty picture of some stars with a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson on it.
