Science is the pursuit of truth and facts, which at times can require expert interpretation in their application. However, when interpretation is presented as fact, promulgated, and sensationalized, it can undermine science and the decisions and polices it informs. This phenomenon has periodically manifested in the domain of ecotoxicology, but why and how? Those are complicated questions, but have to do, at least in part, with human nature and emotion. The empirical evidence regarding how emotion, particularly negative emotion, can affect (i.e., over‐ride) logic and reasoning is clear (Jung et al. 2014). Generally speaking, humans tend to tilt (i.e., bias) toward negative emotion (Soroka et al. 2019). For example, people are typically more outraged over losing a hundred dollars than they are happy about gaining same. This helps explain why the news media tends to be dominated by negative stories; negative stories invoke a more visceral and polarizing reaction than positive news stories (Soroka et al. 2019). In terms of measurable reaction, good news has in fact been found to be synonymous with the absence of news (Soroka et al. 2019). This propensity to fixate on the negative is evident in the hard sciences including ecotoxicology. Anecdotally, our proclivity for negative results in ecotox is so profound in fact that graduate students often express disappointment when finding “no effect” during their course of study, suggesting a preconceived bias or expectation for more provocative outcomes. Consequently, the challenge, as pointed out by Moore (2006), is that science is increasingly being marketed to the media as a result of sensationalism incentivization: the more sensational the claim, the greater the likely circulation and exposure.

In attempting to understand why many media outlets tend to sensationalize and exaggerate research purporting adverse effects, the explanation may be that humans are attuned to negative information from an evolutionary perspective. Davis and McLeod (2003) analyzed front‐page news stories over the course of a 300‐yr period and found the sensational content varied little over time, suggesting the topics were not socially constructed on the basis of time or local cultural values. In contrast, evolutionary psychology was suggested as the basis for the observations (i.e., they reflect universal human behavior). The reproductive success of our ancestors was likely enhanced by gaining information about certain adverse factors such as predators, parasites, and tainted food (Davis and McLeod 2003). Consequently, millions of years later, humans are still perceptively biased toward negative information, even though the contemporary potential for such adverse factors is generally low (Davis and McLeod 2003). Is the media therefore exploiting this evolutionary human susceptibility to sensational negative news? The data tend to overwhelmingly support this in the affirmative. Based on a targeted review (see the Supplemental Data) of the 10 most accessed “news” sources in the United Kingdom/Europe (Daily Mail, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, and The Independent), Canada (National Post and The Globe and Mail), and the United States (New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal) over the past 10 years (2010–2020) using the search terms “atrazine” and “neonicotinoid” as a case study, we found associated headlines were overwhelmingly negative (65% on average; see the Supplemental Data). No headlines were found to be positive in orientation. This is perhaps not surprising given the policy debate over the ultimate moratorium on neonicotinoid use in Europe, and the fact that European news outlets were over‐represented in terms of number of stories. The proportion of negative stories was greatest in the United States (USA Today and New York Times) and the United Kingdom (The Independent). Even though we used a limited subset of potential “anthropogenic” search terms, this analysis supports the contention of a negative spin in news coverage as it relates to ecotoxicology topics.

If we are hardwired to respond acutely to negative information, and presuming the popular press orients media coverage accordingly, does this influence our conduct, behaviorally, as individuals as well as scientists? Purists would emphatically answer in the negative, but the influence may be more salient than we realize. More than 60% percent of adults in the United States now obtain news from social media outlets (Gottfried and Shearer 2016), which has dramatically increased the efficiency and efficacy of news transmission. However, the potential downside has been a concomitant rise in the propagation of “fake news” or misinformation (Gottfried and Shearer 2016), which has been exacerbated by the impulsive nature of platforms such as blogs, posts, Tweets, and so on, where content is often relayed without meaningful or consequential (i.e., effective) third‐party filtering, fact‐checking, or editorial judgment. Herein lies a significant problem—popular media can now be used as a tool (to great effect) for disseminating, influencing, inspiring, and potentially even incentivizing perspective or opinion rather than fact. What is the potential downside? To put it bluntly, fake news (or misinformation) tends to make you less knowledgeable and more misinformed, biased, and/or polarized (Mitchell et al. 2020). Moreover, our propensity for sensationalism, catalyzed by our predisposition toward negative information, can undermine the objectivity of peer review (Campbell 2014). These are decidedly unvirtuous attributes in the pursuit of truth and fact.

Thus, assuming we are evolutionarily predisposed toward viewing the world through a negative emotional lens, how do we transcend our susceptibility to sensationalism? In a word, think. Always question what you are being told, weigh the facts, and consider the evidence. However, you must be willing to put in the time and effort to gather, review, and interpret the facts as a fundamental prerequisite to freethinking. To advance fact over narrative in scientific discourse we need to promote logic over emotion. That is not to confuse emotion with passion; the latter is essential to pursuing something meaningful, but the former can undermine the pursuit of truth and fact. Therefore, we suggest being passionate about the following:

Be an independent thinker of media reports. Do not overtly believe anything that you are being told. Be suspicious and skeptical, take under consideration what you see and hear, weigh it against the evidence, and decide for yourself. Your mind is essentially a court, your conscience the jury, and the collective evidence the case. Seek truth in debate, disagreement, and discourse because knowledge is power, and ignorance is weakness.

Be your own worst/harshest critic. If you believe something to be true, systematically evaluate your position. If the evidence does not support your position, you should re‐evaluate and/or reconsider your interpretation. Acknowledge that it is perfectly OK to be wrong. If the experiment was poorly conceived and/or executed, then repeat it. If the evidence is contradictory, perform additional studies, but if the opposing evidence is overwhelming, reconsider your hypothesis.

Resist the temptation to sensationalize or overinterpret your results with the media. Observing or concluding that no significant effect(s) were found should not be considered unwelcome or inconsequential news. Maintain your objectivity without anticipation or expectation of negative results. Sensationalism may sell, but truth, fact, and integrity are more valuable commodities.

Confront chaos and uncertainty with truth and virtue. As Moore (2006) points out “although it is easy to blame sensationalism and scandal‐mongering by the media, the scientific world, including scientific journals, are willing accomplices in many cases.” Unfortunately, in life, and by extension, in science, the potential for misinformation is omnipresent, and we are foolish and/or naïve to think otherwise. Thankfully, curiosity and skepticism are integral to the human condition, and that is a good thing. Don't be afraid to ask questions and challenge prevailing narratives, especially those willfully emphasized over fact. To quote Bertrand Russell, “one of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.” Let doubt continue to serve as our collective motivation to pursue truth and virtue.

科学是对真理和事实的追求，有时在应用中需要专家的解释。然而，当解释被作为事实呈现、公布和耸人听闻时，它可能会破坏科学以及它所告知的决定和政策。这种现象在生态毒理学领域定期出现，但为什么以及如何出现？这些都是复杂的问题，但至少在一定程度上与人性和情感有关。关于情绪，尤其是消极情绪，如何影响（即超越）逻辑和推理的经验证据是明确的（Jung 等人，  2014 年）。一般来说，人类倾向于向负面情绪倾斜（即偏见）（Soroka et al.  2019）。例如，人们通常对损失 100 美元的愤怒，而不是获得同样的快乐。这有助于解释为什么新闻媒体往往以负面报道为主；与正面新闻报道相比，负面报道会引起更内在和两极分化的反应（Soroka 等人，  2019 年）。就可衡量的反应而言，实际上已经发现好消息与没有消息是同义词（Soroka et al.  2019）。这种关注负面的倾向在包括生态毒理学在内的硬科学中很明显。有趣的是，我们对生态毒理学负面结果的倾向是如此深刻，以至于研究生在学习过程中发现“没有效果”时经常表示失望，这表明存在先入为主的偏见或对更具挑衅性的结果的期望。因此，正如摩尔（2006 年）所指出的，挑战在于，由于耸人听闻的激励，科学越来越多地向媒体推销：声称越轰动，传播和曝光的可能性就越大。

在试图理解为什么许多媒体倾向于耸人听闻和夸大声称不利影响的研究时，解释可能是人类从进化的角度适应了负面信息。Davis 和 McLeod ( 2003 ) 分析了 300 年期间的头版新闻报道，发现耸人听闻的内容随时间变化很小，这表明这些话题不是基于时间或当地文化价值观而在社会上构建的。相比之下，进化心理学被建议作为观察的基础（即，它们反映了普遍的人类行为）。我们祖先的繁殖成功率可能通过获取有关某些不利因素（例如捕食者、寄生虫和受污染的食物）的信息而得到提高（Davis 和 McLeod，  2003 年））。因此，数百万年后，人类仍然在感知上偏向于负面信息，即使这些不利因素的当代潜力普遍较低（戴维斯和麦克劳德，  2003 年）。因此，媒体是否正在利用这种进化的人类对耸人听闻的负面新闻的敏感性？数据倾向于压倒性地支持这一点。基于对英国/欧洲（《每日邮报》、《卫报》、《每日电讯报》和《独立报》）、加拿大（《国家邮报》和《环球邮报》）访问量最大的 10 个“新闻”来源的有针对性的审查（参见补充数据）) 和美国 (《纽约时报》、《华盛顿邮报》、《今日美国》和《华尔街日报》）在过去 10 年（2010-2020 年）中使用搜索词“阿特拉津”和“新烟碱类”作为案例研究，我们发现相关的标题绝大多数都是负面的（平均 65%；见补充数据）。没有发现在方向上具有积极意义的头条新闻。鉴于关于欧洲最终暂停使用新烟碱类药物的政策辩论，以及欧洲新闻媒体在报道数量方面过多的事实，这也许并不奇怪。美国（今日美国和纽约时报）和英国（独立报）的负面报道比例最高。）。尽管我们使用了有限的潜在“人为”搜索词子集，但该分析支持新闻报道中负面旋转的论点，因为它与生态毒理学主题相关。

如果我们天生就对负面信息做出敏锐的反应，并假设大众媒体会相应地调整媒体报道的方向，这是否会影响我们作为个人和科学家的行为、行为？纯粹主义者会强调否定的回答，但影响可能比我们意识到的更显着。现在，美国 60% 以上的成年人从社交媒体渠道获取新闻（Gottfried 和 Shearer，  2016 年），这极大地提高了新闻传播的效率和效力。然而，潜在的不利因素是“假新闻”或错误信息的传播随之增加（Gottfried 和 Shearer  2016)，博客、帖子、推文等平台的冲动性质加剧了这种情况，其中内容经常在没有有意义或相应（即有效）的第三方过滤、事实核查或编辑判断的情况下被转发. 这里有一个重要的问题——大众媒体现在可以被用作传播、影响、激励甚至可能激励观点或观点而不是事实的工具（效果很好）。潜在的缺点是什么？坦率地说，假新闻（或错误信息）往往会让你知识不足，更容易被误导、有偏见和/或两极分化（Mitchell 等人，  2020 年）。此外，我们倾向于耸人听闻的倾向，由我们对负面信息的倾向催化，会破坏同行评审的客观性（坎贝尔 2014 年）。在追求真理和事实的过程中，这些显然是不道德的属性。

因此，假设我们在进化上倾向于通过消极情绪的视角看待世界，我们如何超越我们对耸人听闻的敏感性？一句话，想想。始终质疑您被告知的内容，权衡事实并考虑证据。但是，您必须愿意投入时间和精力来收集、审查和解释事实，这是自由思考的基本前提。为了在科学话语中推进事实胜于叙述，我们需要促进逻辑胜于情感。这不是将情感与激情混为一谈；后者对于追求有意义的事情是必不可少的，但前者会破坏对真理和事实的追求。因此，我们建议对以下方面充满热情：

做媒体报道的独立思考者。不要公然相信别人告诉你的任何事情。保持怀疑和怀疑，仔细考虑你所看到和听到的，将其与证据进行权衡，然后自己决定。你的思想本质上是一个法庭，你的良心是陪审团，以及案件的集体证据。在辩论、分歧和话语中寻求真理，因为知识就是力量，无知就是弱点。

做你自己最糟糕/最严厉的批评家。如果您相信某事是真实的，请系统地评估您的立场。如果证据不支持您的立场，您应该重新评估和/或重新考虑您的解释。承认犯错是完全可以的。如果实验构思和/或执行不当，则重复它。如果证据相互矛盾，请进行额外的研究，但如果相反的证据是压倒性的，请重新考虑您的假设。

抵制使用媒体炒作或过度解释您的结果的诱惑。观察到或得出未发现显着影响的结论不应被视为不受欢迎或无关紧要的消息。保持客观，不要预期或期望负面结果。耸人听闻可能会出卖，但真相、事实和诚信是更有价值的商品。

用真理和美德来对抗混乱和不确定性。摩尔 ( 2006)) 指出“虽然很容易指责媒体的耸人听闻和散播丑闻，但科学界，包括科学期刊，在许多情况下都是自愿的帮凶。” 不幸的是，在生活中，进而在科学中，错误信息的可能性无处不在，我们很愚蠢和/或天真地不这么想。值得庆幸的是，好奇心和怀疑主义是人类生存环境不可或缺的一部分，这是一件好事。不要害怕提出问题并挑战流行的叙述，尤其是那些故意强调事实的叙述。引用伯特兰·罗素的话，“我们这个时代最痛苦的事情之一就是那些感到确定的人是愚蠢的，而那些有任何想象和理解的人却充满了怀疑和优柔寡断。” 让怀疑继续成为我们追求真理和美德的集体动力。