(Warning: this piece contains spoilers for the Netflix limited series Apple Cider Vinegar!)
A few weeks ago, I was on my second watch of the show Apple Cider Vinegar on Netflix. If you haven’t watched the show, it’s a satirical account of a real Australian wellness influencer, Belle Gibson, and the lies she peddled to her tens of thousands of online followers about curing her brain cancer naturally (she didn’t actually have brain cancer, mind you). In parallel, the show follows the story of Milla Blake, a fictional character who actually did have pleiomorphic sarcoma, a rare cancer. In the final episode of the show, it’s revealed that Milla didn’t survive, after dismissing chemotherapy in favour of “juicing” protocols and an organic vegan diet.
At Milla’s funeral, her husband says:
“Research says that smiling releases endorphins and serotonin, which are these really hectic natural pain relievers. Researchers think smiling helps the body's stress response. I don’t need research to tell me that; Milla had the best smile...”
When I heard those words, my head shot back up from my phone to the TV. First off, the irony of a half-baked “research says that…” line in a show calling out medical misinformation was perfectly placed. Also, “hectic natural pain relievers” was so absurd that it made me laugh, but also realise something about the way we consume science. Science so often gets squeezed into these short, relatable soundbites. And these snippets make their way into our daily conversations, marketing campaigns, and social media feeds. Yes, they’re memorable and relatable; but when they’re completely stripped of nuance, people are left misinformed and eventually feel like science has been “lying” to them.
The Age of the Catchphrase
We’ve seen these little catchphrases everywhere: “boost your immunity”, “gut health is everything”, and not to forget, “serotonin is our brain’s happy molecule”. They’re simple enough, quick to digest, easy to repeat, and they stick in our memory. They give us easy answers that just seem to make sense if you think about it.
But at some point, this simplicity comes at a cost.
Immune systems don’t just “boost”, because an over-charged immune system is what leads to autoimmune disorders. Gut health is important, but it’s not the only determinant of wellbeing. Serotonin does influence mood, but smiling a lot won’t help you feel less stressed. These soundbites are great for grabbing our attention, but they end up flattening complex biological processes into gimmicky one-liners.
The Risks of Oversimplification
Oversimplification of science actively distorts it, and isn’t just harmless shorthand.
As a science communication commentary from the GRRIP Project warns, “Without a careful balance, oversimplification can become a harsh noise in the communication channel that leads to the transmission of a false message.” In other words, simplification is necessary; but oversimplification undermines credibility and leaves things lost in translation.
The most evident example of this is what we’re seeing currently with the rhetoric around life-saving vaccines.
Both extremes - that vaccines are meant to be a cure-all, or an evil plot by pharmaceutical companies - are distortions. Vaccines are among the most effective public health tools we have today, and at the same time, not all vaccines are 100% effective, nor can every disease be cured by vaccines - a fact that is highly acknowledged.
Yet, conspiracy theories that frame vaccines as harmful have gained traction off late. According to a July 2024 public health survey in the US, nearly 1 in 3 Americans (28%) believed the false claim that COVID-19 vaccines have caused thousands of deaths, and belief in the myth that vaccines alter human DNA has almost doubled since 2021. Confidence in COVID-19 vaccines being safe (66%) and effective (65%) also lags behind other vaccines like MMR (81% safe, 83% effective).
Despite the fact that we have verified scientific information at our fingertips, this skepticism of life-saving vaccines is worrying. This paradox of more access yet less trust shows that half-truths are far more impactful than nuance - and as science communicators, this is our place to step in. Misinformation spreads quicker because it’s simpler, more emotional, and just easier to repeat. It’s easier to convince someone not to take a drug or vaccine because of hear-say, or to take a new supplement or try a skincare product because it worked for an influencer. But correcting misinformation takes effort and time, and ends up reaching fewer people.
When Soundbites Work (and When They Don’t)
A catchy phrase or soundbite can be the hook that gets someone to read an article, watch a video, or dig deeper into something. They aren’t inherently bad. At their best, they spark curiosity and actually make science approachable.
But then, the trouble starts when they’re left to stand on their own.
Simplicity wins over accuracy. Short claims spread more easily on social media and in marketing.
Half-truths lead to distrust. When the public later learns that the story was actually more complicated, it can then feel like scientists are “moving the goalposts” or lying out of convenience.
Complex systems get trivialised. Mental health, immunity, and nutrition become buzzwords instead of nuanced fields of study.
As professor and science communicator Sharon Dunwoody said in a 2020 article, “we typically engage in rather superficial information seeking and processing, relying on small dollops of information from a modest cadre of sources (sometimes even one source will do!) for even the most important decisions.”
Toward a New Science Narrative
If catchphrases are the door, the challenge is leading people through it. And science communication has to go beyond slogans, and push storytelling. Here are some ways we science communicators can accomplish this:
Use metaphors and context. Analogies are great at bridging the gap between science and the general public without distorting the science. For example, comparing the immune system to a thermostat - adjusting rather than turning “on” or “off” at will - is accurate and relatable.
Lead with empathy. Trust in science grows when people feel heard. We’re so caught up in explaining the data that we forget that at the crux are just regular people seeking answers. So, communicating with compassion and empathy matters just as much.
Invite dialogue, not monologue. Instead of broadcasting facts, create spaces where questions and doubts can be voiced and addressed without turning into an “I’M RIGHT!!!” shouting match.
Catchphrases definitely open doors, but the door eventually rams shut when relatability alone is no longer enough. In a world that is flooded with half-truths, we need to combat skepticism towards science by blending clarity with depth and clarity with empathy. Because science communication goes beyond knowing the right words and picking the right synonyms, and is rather about the intention to light a spark and illuminate, rather than to obscure.
