Biologist C\u00e9sar Favacho, who makes videos about insects and arachnids, and has 322,000 followers on TikTok, adopts a procedure when receiving invitations to do advertising campaigns on social networks: he consults other science communicators about possible conflicts of interest and risks of compromising his reputation. In 2023, he received an invitation to make videos for a mining company and, after speaking with colleagues, turned it down. \u201cAlthough the money could have helped with my work as a communicator, a field I intend to continue in, I felt that my credibility is my most important value,\u201d he says. According to Favacho, who is taking a PhD in biodiversity and evolution at the Em\u00edlio Goeldi Museum of Par\u00e1, in Bel\u00e9m, the company\u2019s activity caused environmental damage and the compensatory measures in which it invested were timid. Today, he is discussing a proposal made by a pharmaceutical company with his colleagues.<\/p>\n
Capable of reaching millions of people on social networks, science communicators are sought to advertise products ranging from smart watches to cosmetics, or to promote companies in institutional films. Their choices are not always well received by followers and have triggered a question: what ethical boundaries should be respected when accepting to do advertorials, a euphemism for advertisements disguised as informative content. Associating your image with a company is a sensitive topic because advertising is seen as a personal endorsement of the product or service. In the case of science communicators, there is an additional issue since their credibility stems from publishing content backed by scientific evidence.<\/p>\n
This discussion gained traction at the end of 2024 after microbiologist and science communicator \u00c1tila Iamarino, with a million followers on Instagram, took part in a campaign indicated as a \u201cpaid partnership\u201d on his social networks. Three videos published between September and October 2024 for the oil company Shell address the qualities of the ethanol the company produces, the complexity of replacing fossil fuels\u2014which are still of significant economic importance\u2014with sustainable options, and the company\u2019s expertise in reliably manufacturing petroleum derivatives. The latter sparked controversy due to a part in which Iamarino states that Shell has the technology to safely extract the raw material, \u201cproviding essential energy and helping to power lives.\u201d<\/p>\n
Posted on October 16, the video had already received over 3,000 comments by the following day, many of them negative\u2014the posts remained online, but comments were disabled after the backlash. The main complaint relates to the microbiologist having accepted money to endorse the ideas of a company whose core activity results in the emission of greenhouse gases. Criticism was also directed at the influencer, known for combating scientific denialism during the pandemic, for defending \u201cclimate denialism,\u201d although the videos neither contest nor minimize the role of fossil fuels in the climate crisis. When contacted by Pesquisa FAPESP<\/em> Iamarino did not answer the requests for an interview.<\/p>\n It was not the first time that the microbiologist has left his audience upset. In 2020, Iamarino published the video O livre mercado \u00e9 um computador<\/em> (the free market is a computer) on YouTube channel Nerdologia, which was sponsored by the Brazilian stock exchange, the B3, and the brokerage firm Nova Futura Investimentos. The video discusses the factors that determine price fluctuations and draws a comparison with the workings of ant nests. A favorable mention of the free market, in contrast to the ideas of \u201csocialism\u201d acted as a flashpoint for criticism. A study published in January 2022 in Revista Fronteiras \u2013 Estudos Midi\u00e1ticos<\/em>, the journal of the University of Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS), analyzed reactions on X to the video and classified them into four categories. One of them included individuals who questioned a biologist\u2019s authority to discuss economics and social sciences, fields outside their expertise. Another attacked Iamarino for supposedly supporting \u201cneoliberal stances.\u201d A third dealt with an alleged contradiction between the communicator\u2019s history of combating misinformation and the publication of a video with \u201cmisguided\u201d ideas. And a fourth censured him for accepting financial support from B3.<\/p>\n \u201cFor the general public, what the science communicator says is like an endorsement from science. For this reason, the credibility that he has built comes with great responsibility,\u201d observes biologist Luiz Bento, science communicator of the Foundation Center for Science and Higher Distance Education of the State of Rio de Janeiro (CECIERJ) and one of the coordinators of the Scientific Culture, Education, and Communication research group from the University of Campinas (UNICAMP). \u201cScience communication has a social function. There is an ethical issue when a scientist lends their image to a company whose practices include actions that ignore evidence-based science,\u201d he assesses.<\/p>\n The dilemma arises because the work of internet content creators needs to be remunerated for sustainability, and one of the main ways to achieve this is through advertising contracts. \u201cDigital influencers are typically individuals who make a living from their image and visibility,\u201d explains public relations professional Carolina Terra, from the School of Arts and Communication of the University of S\u00e3o Paulo (ECA-USP) and author of the book Marcas influenciadoras digitais: Como transformar organiza\u00e7\u00f5es em produtoras de conte\u00fado digital<\/em> (Digital influencer brands: How to transform organizations into digital content producers; Difus\u00e3o, 2021). Unlike traditional media outlets, they are both the creators of informative content and the faces of advertising at the same time.<\/p>\n To organize this fluid environment, in which paid advertising can mix with spontaneous recommendations, in 2021 the National Council of Advertising Self-Regulation (CONAR) launched an advertising guide for digital influencers, in which it stresses that all paid content must be labeled as such. \u201cThe goal is for consumers to have no doubt that it is advertising content,\u201d explains Terra. \u201cBut ethical issues concerning conflicts of interest are not covered. It is up to each individual, in their specific field, to assess them.\u201d<\/p>\n The boundaries may not be clear for science communicators on the internet, but for journalists, including those specialized in science, there are ethical codes with standards that govern the professional activity. Media outlets traditionally separate advertising from the production of public interest information. \u201cIt is rare for a journalist, in the course of their work, to lend their image to a brand. Advertising is managed by the company\u2019s commercial department. Journalists who appear in commercials are those whose careers have shifted towards entertainment,\u201d notes Luiz Bento.<\/p>\n Journalist Eug\u00eanio Bucci, from ECA-USP and author of the book Sobre \u00e9tica e imprensa<\/em> (About ethics and the media; Companhia das Letras, 2008), suggests looking at the history of journalism to understand what led to the establishment of autonomous rules for regulating the issue. He highlights that the important codes of ethics in the media are just over 100 years old and that major newspapers had already separated opinion, business, and reporting. \u201cThis emerged to protect the value of journalistic credibility and to ensure that the public understood the rules guiding media outlets. And at the time, this increased the readership of newspapers,\u201d he explains, emphasizing that his observations apply to journalism as a whole, not specifically to influencers.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a new and important ethical issue, to which little attention has been given until now, at least in the UK and in Europe,\u201d said science journalist Clive Cookson from the Financial Times <\/em>to Pesquisa FAPESP<\/em>. For him, if a type of ethical code were to be discussed, it should take two issues into account\u2014which, in his view, are problematic: \u201cThe first is the fact that people use their scientific reputation to advertise things outside their field of expertise.\u201d The second, according to Cookson, involves influencers with a scientific background who promote views that go against evidence to influence the political debate, such as in the case of climate change\u2014without necessarily earning money from it. \u201cThis appears to be the main problem that we are facing here [in the UK],\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Strategies of science communicators Upon gaining visibility on the internet, scientists seek or are sought by specialized agencies. Brazilian astrophysicist Du\u00edlia de Mello, vice dean of the Catholic University of America, in Washington, USA, is among the clients of publicist Juliana Gongora, founder of V\u00e9sper Assessoria, a firm specialized in guiding scientists for advertising, lectures, and media relations.<\/p>\n Among the contracts signed is a television campaign for Mercado Livre Latin America, starring Mello. \u201cWhen a brand request for an advert or lecture arrives, the first thing to do is assess the risks and benefits. The entire script of the campaign needs to be negotiated. If the scientist\u2019s image is tarnished, the damage can be huge,\u201d says Gongora. She says that she has turned down persistent offers from betting companies that the company has received.<\/p>\n Du\u00edlia de Mello says that she relies on the agency\u2019s support to assess and screen the companies for which she agrees to do lectures and advertising. \u201cAs scientists, we need to show our face and what we do, even to inspire young people to pursue this career, but we must carefully consider whom we associate our image with,\u201d reflects the astrophysicist.<\/p>\n Pharmaceutical biochemist Laura Marise and biologist Ana Bonassa, creators of the science communication initiative Nunca Vi 1 Cientista<\/em> (which translates to I have never seen 1 scientist), which has 1.1 million followers across YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok, also work with an agency specialized in content creators. Marise explains that, when a brand asks her to speak about the effectiveness of a certain product, they request scientific publications and documents that support the data. \u201cThere have been cases where, after making this request, the company never got back to us,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n Even with the criteria they adopt, they have not gone unscathed from criticism for the choices they have made. In 2024, Marise and Bonassa agreed to host the Petrobras podcast Nossa Energia <\/em>(our energy, in English). Although it was not an advertorial, they were questioned for associating their names with an oil company in the context of climate change. \u201cWe decided to accept because we felt that having two female science communicators leading a project for the largest state-owned company in the country, in a space generally occupied by men, would bring good representation and visibility,\u201d explains Bonassa.<\/p>\n Since 2022, they have left their research careers to focus entirely on science communication online. Last year, they lent their image to 40 campaigns. \u201cThere\u2019s this romanticized idea that you can make a living from science communication solely through channel monetization and some financial support from followers. Some months have fewer views, and algorithm changes can affect performance,\u201d states Marise.<\/p>\n Journalist Sabine Righetti, from the Laboratory of Advanced Studies in Journalism (LABJOR) of UNICAMP, suggests that science communication projects, including those of communicators on social media, should have predefined ethical criteria. This includes establishing the types of funding or advertising that the influencer cannot accept, whether because they contradict scientific evidence or fall within a field of knowledge outside the scientist\u2019s expertise. She stresses that there is still a lack of support and funding mechanisms for science communication in Brazil. As a result, she suggests that if advertising is rigorously evaluated, it can play an important role. \u201cIf the private sector is going to fund somebody\u2019s work on social media, it is best that it be a serious science influencer who has clear criteria for the types of funding they accept,\u201d she concludes.<\/p>\n The story above was published with the title “Credibility in the balance<\/strong>” in issue in issue 349 of march\/2025.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Online science communicators discuss limits for advertising campaigns","protected":false},"author":684,"featured_media":562944,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[166],"tags":[230],"coauthors":[2721],"class_list":["post-562943","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-policies-st-en","tag-ethics"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/562943","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/684"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=562943"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/562943\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":565409,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/562943\/revisions\/565409"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/562944"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=562943"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=562943"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=562943"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=562943"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n<\/strong>Without shared guidelines, many scientists rely on common sense when accepting or rejecting advertising campaigns. Paleontologist Beatriz H\u00f6rmanseder, who has 244,000 followers on TikTok and is doing her PhD in animal biology at the Federal University of Esp\u00edrito Santo (UFES), says that she refused to advertise for a store that sells imported fossils\u2014this is a line she says she does not intend to cross. \u201cThe store doesn\u2019t have fossils from Brazil but sells Moroccan fossils. You can\u2019t put a price on heritage; I am against the sale of all types of fossils,\u201d she observes. She seeks funding from areas in which she does not see conflicting values. In 2023, she made a commercial partnership with a US processor manufacturer. As part of the agreement, the company sent her a computer\u2014according to her, with an estimated value of between R$15,000 and R$20,000\u2014in exchange for a series of videos that she recorded for the brand, published on YouTube, demonstrating how a scientist can use the computer (in her case, for research involving the 3D scanning and preservation of fossils).<\/p>\n