Have you heard that the devastating riots across England were caused by a chemical deficiency in the brain? Or that we will soon be able to cure such behaviour with a nasal spray?

Over the past two weeks, such news stories have been read by potentially millions of people across many countries on at least three continents. Yet these claims are entirely bogus and we know this because we are part of the team of scientists who did the research on which they were based.

Such proliferations of falsehood are dangerous, not only because they misinform the public, but also because they undermine public respect for science and support for the use of taxes to fund it.

Our team recently made an interesting discovery: that in a certain part of the brain, the concentration of a neurotransmitter called GABA – which regulates signalling between neurons – is related to a certain type of impulsive personality.

More specifically, we found that people who had lower levels of GABA in a part of their frontal lobe also reported higher "rash impulsivity". People who score higher on rash impulsivity tend to act more rashly in response to strong emotions or urges. Our results tallied with recent genetic findings that linked GABA to alcoholism and drug abuse: disorders in which high rash impulsivity is a common feature. We wrote up our study for publication in a scientific journal and, as standard, we were encouraged by our university to issue a press release.

As the riots unfolded, news stories based on our research began appearing. On Tueday 9 August, a newswire story by the Press Association announced that "Brain chemical lack 'spurs rioting'", with 'spurs rioting' printed mischievously in quote marks, falsely implying these were our words. In a further creative leap, The Sun heralded a "Nose spray to stop drunks and brawls", and that a "cure could be developed in the next ten years". The Sun has since retracted its article following a complaint from us, although the original text of the article can still be found.

The Daily Mail asserted that "Rioters have 'lower levels' of brain chemical that keeps impulsive behaviour under control", and repeated these false assertions in the caption of a subsequent opinion piece: "Do rioters, pictured looting a shop in Hackney, have lower levels of a brain chemical that helps keep behaviour under control? Scientists think so". Before long these dangerous claims had been repeated across many news outlets and blogs in the UK and worldwide (on Thursday 11 August a Google search for "Riot", "GABA" and "Dr Frederic Boy" produced 25 stories, including articles from India, Russia and Malaysia, and pieces in Polish and Finnish).

As scientists we are naturally dismayed by the distortion of our research by the Press Association, The Sun, and the Daily Mail. But beyond our frustration with these individual outlets, this case has given us pause to reflect on three general issues that seem central to the way science is reported to the public. First, why is research of this kind so appealing and why is it so readily misunderstood? Second, how much damage is done when science is distorted in the press? And third, what can we, as a community of scientists and journalists, do to prevent this from happening?

The idea that certain types of behaviour could be directly caused by a chemical (or lack of it) in the brain carries intrinsic appeal, as does the implication that certain behaviours reflect a type of brain disease that might be "cured" by drugs. Even more provoking is the suggestion, taken up in several blogs, that scientists claim rioters are somehow less responsible for their own actions – of course they can't help it, they have too little GABA in their brains!

Let us be absolutely clear. Our research has almost nothing to say about rioting, and certainly can't be used to justify or excuse any type of behaviour. Our work shows that people with lower GABA report being more impulsive, and there is already much evidence linking impulsivity and aggression. This in turn suggests that GABA might have a role in mediating impulsivity and aggression.

But this does not mean that a lack of GABA simply causes impulsivity and aggression. It is more likely that differences in GABA are just one aspect of, and possibly even a result of, the complex network of subtle differences that make each of us unique. And even if GABA levels do directly make aggression more or less likely, should deepening our biological understanding of personality lead us to change our ideas about individual responsibility? To argue so is equivalent to suggesting that people with an "aggressive personality" are inherently less responsible for their own actions.

Yet in the public mind (and even in the scientific world), biological findings are generally taken as more causal and concrete than psychological discoveries. In the reporting of neuroscience, it is nearly always assumed that physical or chemical factors cause associated feelings and behaviours, rather than the other way around. Yet if we stop to think about it, we all know that different cognitive states can cause chemical changes in our brains and bodies (as happens when we get afraid, or excited, or sexually aroused) and that behaviours such as practising a skill can cause permanent changes in the brain.

Does misreporting of science really cause much damage? After all, in terms of importance our case is a far cry from the scandal surrounding the MMR vaccine, where lives are at stake if parents refuse to inoculate their children. When potentially millions of readers read a hyped-up science story do they even believe it, or do they take it with a pinch of salt?

Although most people might claim not to trust journalists, interestingly there is little reflection of such views in the comments below the articles or the blogs we have seen. Instead, where the content of the article is challenged, that challenge is most often aimed at the scientists, with comments such as "why are they wasting public money on such rubbish?"; "it's typical of scientists to try to excuse people for their actions!"; and "scientists are always claiming cures are around the corner". In our case, we have seen only one comment that actually questioned whether an article about our research was a true reflection of the science.

To a large degree then, either the reader accepts the story, propagating the misunderstanding of science and leading to potentially dangerous views (in this case, that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions or that some people are biological no-hopers and destined to be an underclass), or the reader rejects the story and so continues the erosion of trust in science and scientists. Misunderstanding and mistrust then contribute to the consequences when a story such as MMR breaks, or in the case of climate change, where an overwhelming majority of scientists are simply not believed by a large proportion of the public.

What can we do to break this damaging cycle of misinformation and distrust? The first step is for scientists to accept the reality that a large amount of "news" is now produced through the zombie-like repackaging of press releases and newswire feeds, without any attempt to obtain information directly from the source. On top of this, some journalists and editors clearly play fast and hard with the truth, with little regard for the reputations of the scientists and no regard at all for the public.

Sadly, once this cycle has begun, scientists have little control over the situation. We have written to several newspapers, and some articles have been amended or removed (such as the report in The Sun). But the damage had already been done in the first wave where rushing copy to press fed the proliferation of misinformation around the world.

Some scientists might claim that the intrinsic nature of tabloid journalism is incompatible with the standards of objectivity required for science reporting. Thus, in the face of continual misrepresentation, many scientists may simply stop issuing press releases and cease engaging with journalists (an issue discussed recently in an excellent article by David DiSalvo).

This is an unacceptable proposition. The enormous public impact of tabloid news necessitates a strong involvement in the reporting of science, and, as we have argued before, scientists and journalists share a collective responsibility to ensure that new discoveries are reported honestly and accurately to the public.

A more moderate alternative would be for scientific press releases to be distributed with the strong encouragement for journalists to confirm basic facts before publication. Most scientists we know would be more than happy to make themselves available for the speedy fact-checking of articles based on their research. News reports that have benefited from factual "hand-shaking" like this could be marked as "fact-checked with source", providing a measure of quality control that the public can trust, while at the same time respecting complete journalistic independence to report critical views of the research.

Boosting the interaction between journalists and scientists would also help journalists learn more about scientific fundamentals – principles such as hypothesis testing, experimental control, uncertainty in evidence, and the often confused distinction between correlation and causation.

Against this backdrop, we fully understand that journalists are under extreme time pressure to produce copy and to make it appealing to their readership. But in an age where traditional journalism is under threat, where unregulated information can be found widely on the internet, and where the taxes spent on scientific research fall under ever increasing scrutiny, a focus on getting the facts straight is more important than ever.

Dr Petroc Sumner, Dr Frederic Boy and Dr Chris Chambers are at the School of Psychology, Cardiff University