by Kavin Senapathy and Yvette d’Entremont



EDIT 8/17/15 12:22pm ET by Rebecca Watson: Please see a response from Elise Andrew immediately following this article.

“Thanks To Reduced Solar Activity, We Could Be Heading For A Mini Ice Age In 2030”

“There Probably Won’t Be A “Mini Ice Age” In 15 Years”

“No, We Aren’t Heading Into A ‘Mini Ice Age’”

“The ‘Mini Ice Age’ Hoopla Is A Giant Failure Of Science Communication”

With mixed messages like these leaving most readers with the impression that science is without consensus, it would be prudent to pin these headlines as the work of four disparate publications. However, in the landscape of rush to publish journalism, the once fun yet reliable source of science news, I Fucking Love Science published all four of these headlines within days of each other.

So what became of an organization that once strove to popularize science? How did they become the less-than-reliable tabloid of science journalism? And with sensationalized headlines that hardly resemble the scientific work from which they preen clickbait, how can readers separate science fact from science fiction?

The I Fucking Love Science Big Bang

Known as the brainchild of Elise Andrew, I Fucking Love Science (IFLS) began in 2012 as a fledgling Facebook page that amassed an impressive 50,000 followers within a month of launching. Today over twenty-one million followers tune in for the IFLS brand of “the lighter side of science.” In other words, Andrew is a veritable media mogul running one of the biggest sci comm kingdoms of all time. In her early twenties when she launched the page, she had already tried her hand at other science-popularizing Facebook pages. “The Universe” and “Evolution” were earlier works but neither had the je ne sais quoi of IFLS. That explosion remains hugely valuable to science communication, exposing millions every day to the joy and excitement of science. Andrew has been a trailblazer; journalists cutting their teeth today are learning an environment that the powerful IFLS river carved into the media landscape.

From that tiny Facebook page, IFLS has managed to become a bastion of information, reaching more people on social media than Popular Science, Scientific American, New York Times, and US Weekly combined. The empire that started as a Facebook page and now boasts a product line, website, and an online video series, was the first to truly leverage the power of the “like” button. With easily accessible memes and soundbites, IFLS played the social media game and played it well.

With so many followers on IFLS, it stands to reason that a majority of them aren’t intimately versed in the scientific method. It’s a grueling, often boring process that every now and then leads to exciting discoveries and awesome headlines to accompany them. A love of the interesting, beneficial, and just plain cool results of science can help inspire the masses to appreciate the hard work of scientists. And if a handful of these masses are young and impressionable, IFLS may just inspire them to pursue education and careers in STEM fields.

So where’s the problem?

Pop Sci’s Bubble Popped

The awesome headlines IFLS promotes have become increasingly misleading. Rather than doing her part to mitigate the problem, Elise Andrew has gone from a modern pop sci champion to contributing to the very media misinformation that scientists work hard to combat.

“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?

On July 28th, another overreaching IFLS headline declared a “Link Found Between Gut Bacteria And Depression.” “Link” is one of those weasel words that in science communication means “we’ve got nothing.” The headline and the article are two entirely different things. The study itself, published in open access journal Nature Communications, tested behavior of mouse models with and without normal microbiomes when exposed to stress. When asked about gut bacteria in people influencing depression, the lead author Premysl Bercik stated, “So far, the data is missing.” IFLS needed a clickbait headline, and they pounced on a study with no data.

And in a stunning display of recklessness, on June 9th they ran the headline “Are Hospitals The Safest Place For Healthy Women To Have Babies? An Obstetrician Thinks Twice.” In America, where over 46% of IFLScience.com readers reside, hospital births are the safest by far. With studies showing the infant mortality rates in home deliveries to be 3-9 times higher than that of a hospital births, moms and babies are in danger if unexpected complications arise last minute. Often, mother and medical staff only find out there are problems as the delivery is happening, with devastating results.

“There is a good chance that your grandparents were born at home. I am going to go ahead and assume they turned out fine,” the article opened. The author leaves out that your grandparents had up to a 30% chance of dying within the first year of life. And there are parts of the world where medical care is so scant that childbirth is an affront to your health.

If you’re an expectant mother looking at a page that represents itself as a science site, you deserve better. You deserve to be told about the safest technology that science has to offer, including… hospitals.

Love Science, or Love Clickbait?

IFLS’ science-challenged and arguably ethics-challenged snafus don’t stop there. Remember the four Ice Age headlines mentioned earlier? In their first headline in the series, “Thanks to Reduced Solar Activity, We Could Be Heading for a Mini Ice Age in 2030″, the site jumped on a media hype bandwagon, grossly misinterpreting University of Northumbria research on reduction in sunspot activity over the next few decades. While this decline in solar activity is based on solid science, there was no conclusive research on the potential impact to Earth’s climate. Though multiple outlets jumped on the story, IFLS was undoubtedly the biggest media source featuring the story with an alarmist headline and a picture of streets frozen over to match.

When that failed, they moved on to scapegoating. After speaking with head researcher Valentina Zharkova, the site wrote a follow up, “There Probably Won’t Be A “Mini Ice Age” In 15 Years.” The very next day, IFLS re-published a story from news site The Conversation called “No, We Aren’t Heading Into a ‘Mini Ice Age’” from Space Physics professor Jim Wild with the opening line, “Wouldn’t it be great if scientists could make their minds up?” It’s important to make the distinction that scientists never told us to stock up on down jackets, it was IFLS’ staff in search of a their daily headline.

In their most recent article in the Ice Age debacle, “The ‘Mini Ice Age’ Hoopla Is A Giant Failure Of Science Communication,” the blame is on the media for not fact checking, and on Zharkova for presumably not critically evaluating literature content.

So the media source that published four disparate headlines on one subject is blaming the media. And they’re also blaming the researcher when it was IFLS that passed on due diligence before hitting the “publish” button.

One small step for science, one giant clickbait leap for I Fucking Love Science.

Credit Where Credit Is Due

I Fucking Love Science’s questionable version of the truth doesn’t only apply to headlines. One of the most critical ongoing allegations against IFLS and its founder and head honcho is lack of credit where credit is due. “I created the page and uploaded all the content I’d been posting to my personal profile, and then I went to bed,” Andrew told Mashable in 2013 about starting IFLS. “I woke up, and I had over 1,000 followers. Of her dedication, Andrew stated “it’s still just me on the page and it probably always will be. It’s hard to find people who are as obsessed as I am, but still happy to do things my way.” She still asserts that she had little help in establishing and popularizing IFLS. Though the story of a meteoric one-woman rise is a compelling one, according to ex-admins on the IFLS Facebook page, it’s also science fiction.

The original administrators at IFLS- Shawn Bailes, Javier Eduardo Estrada, and Neal David Mackie- were happy to speak with us about what happened on the other side of the computer screen. Mackie, who today is an admin of a new page, explained that “Elise created the page, but we were all on-board before a single post was made. For finding and creating of content, Shawn and I exceeded everyone, including Elise, by a huge amount. When we were admin, we all dug in with the legwork and posting. Elise was full time studying at the time.”

The original team working together with Elise truly did, and still do love science. “Our combined love of science, tenacity in researching, appreciation of comedy, and admin from all over the globe ensured constant, successful postings that went viral often,” Mackie reminisced. He enjoyed the work, but never expected to earn a single penny.

Estrada explained, “When we started the page, we were moved for a passion to educate, to inform, to share what we loved, and engage people.” Bailes echoed the sentiment about not expecting compensation. “Didn’t expect money at all. We talked about keeping it non-profit.”

Andrew unceremoniously and unexpectedly dumped the original group of admins who helped build IFLS from the ground up. Shortly thereafter, it became clear that IFLS was becoming a very profitable empire; one that Andrew had no intention of sharing.

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.

When asked why she would threaten them, Bailes explained, “I think she knew that I was involved in trying to get information together to show she was lying about being the only person running the page.”

And Andrew wasn’t beyond bullying. Says an admin of “The Universe” Facebook page, one of Andrew’s early projects, “That was her go-to back then. When she felt slighted in any way she’d send IFLS fans to report the page until Facebook removed the page.”

She also didn’t keep the page true to original form. After reading a recent IFLS headline, “Scientists Reveal What The Perfect Penis Looks Like,” Javier Estrada lamented, “it is sad to see how something we worked hard to achieve get insulted this way.”

When asked to elaborate, Estrada explained, “when we started the page, most of our work was based around hard science. At least the few articles I wrote were not about recent discoveries, but about explaining things. In comparison, that IFLS article is, in my opinion, click bait.”

Along with accusations of click bait, Andrew has consistently re-shared others’ work with no credit given. Between several allegations of plagiarism and accounts indicating over 6000 reports of copyright infringement in 2013 alone, we reached out to Andrew via email. When asked for comment about IFLS’ growth, recent accusations of plagiarism, and content that some have asserted is less than scientifically sound, her response was:

“We’ve never been accused of plagiarism, so I’d start by getting that right. We were accused of incorrectly citing images on our Facebook page, but that was more than two years ago and was addressed long ago.”

When pressed further Andrew replied, “I’m sorry, but I no longer give interviews except under exceptional circumstances. If you send the article to me after it has been written, I will fact-check it.”

We rejected Andrew’s offer to fact-check, considering her history of pulling fast ones. For example, back in 2012 Andrew didn’t bother to check whether the edgy “I Fucking Love Science” name was up for grabs. Established on Facebook in 2011, the original “I Fucking Love Science” page was the creation of Axl Dyer. After seeing the page of the same name, Dyer asked her to change it. Andrew refused, and the rest is history.

IFLS’ Place in the Science Communication Future

If you ask a non-scientist what science is, you’re likely to hear a collection of subjects from astronomy to zoology. When asking someone steeped in the riches of science, the answer is more nuanced.

Science is a systematic and dynamic practice that gleans and organizes information from the universe around us. It encompasses the vast body of knowledge from the natural, formal and social branches. It is a never-ending process; a system for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. For the scientific community to deem anything “science,” it must be based on hard evidence subject to testing and confirmation.

Though we may not realize it, we already loved science. Our very way of life depends on it. Science has given us everything from space shuttles to smart phones, precision medicine to internet porn. It helps us learn about the origins of life on earth and the possibility of life on other planets.

It’s more complex than a pretty picture of some stars with a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson on it.

But is there room for eye-catching memes in this landscape of internet information sharing?

Yes. In a day and age where the average person may not set foot in a college level science classroom or peruse a peer-reviewed scientific paper, I Fucking Love Science serves its place with daily, funny, punchy reminders that life is enhanced by science. That little nudge that science is in our pores is important.

People need that reminder, and we love that Andrew is giving it to them.

“If I had the opportunity, I think I would do about 10 different degrees, five different master’s degrees, probably as many Ph.D.s, and you can’t do that,” Andrew explained to Mashable in 2013. Whether or not that level of academic achievement is realistic, the fervor is inspiring, and has translated to the science media empire she runs today.

But 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.

***Special thanks to ex-IFLS admins Shawn Bailes, Javier Eduardo Estrada, and Neal David Mackie for speaking to us about their experiences. In addition, we appreciate Ahmed Al-Rayyis, Hashem Al-Ghaili and another anonymous source for recounting their interactions with IFLS and Elise Andrew during their work with sister sites.***

Note: Former IFLS writers reached out to share their experiences for this story. Though we chose not to include them due to anonymity, we appreciate these writers reaching out.

Yvette d’Entremont holds bachelor’s degrees in theatre and chemistry along with a master’s degree in forensic science. With a background working as an analytical chemist, she currently runs Science Babe full time. Her site has become a reliable mix of debunking pseudoscience with humor and science. She lives in southern California with her dog, Buddy. Follow her at fb.com/sciencebabe and scibabe.com.

EDIT 8/17/15 12:22pm ET

by Rebecca Watson

Upon being made aware of this article, I reached out to Elise Andrew for a response. (In full disclosure, I consider Elise to be a friend). Here is her point-by-point rebuttal to several facets of this piece:

In her early twenties when she launched the page, she had already tried her hand at other science-popularizing Facebook pages. “The Universe” and “Evolution” were earlier works but neither had the je ne sais quoi of IFLS.

The Universe, Evolution and The Earth Story were all created after IFLS. Easily checked just by looking at the “started” date on the pages themselves.

So the media source that published four disparate headlines on one subject is blaming the media.

Well yeah. The media. Including ourselves. That was sort of the idea, you know? We screwed up, and so we criticized ourselves.

The original administrators at IFLS- Shawn Bailes, Javier Eduardo Estrada, and Neal David Mackie- were happy to speak with us about what happened on the other side of the computer screen. Mackie, who today is an admin of a new page, explained that “Elise created the page, but we were all on-board before a single post was made. For finding and creating of content, Shawn and I exceeded everyone, including Elise, by a huge amount. When we were admin, we all dug in with the legwork and posting. Elise was full time studying at the time.

They weren’t on board before a post was made, they came on board shortly after I created it. They were existing friends of mine, and offered to help me out. They certainly didn’t exceed me in content and that’s directly at odds with what Mackie has stated in the past – that the conflict occurred because I was a control freak, made them feel like they were working “for” me, and insisted on approving everything that went up. Honestly, that’s probably more accurate. I’m a total control freak.

They were involved for around three or four weeks. I honestly don’t remember the specifics. They were definitely not involved by the time I finished university, which was in May. That’s a full 18 months before I created a website, sold T shirts, or anything else that generated revenue.

Bailes echoed the sentiment about not expecting compensation. “Didn’t expect money at all. We talked about keeping it non-profit.”

No, we didn’t. Or at least, no one ever discussed that with me. It was a Facebook page. It was a fun hobby. Honestly, the idea of it generating revenue didn’t cross my mind for years.

Andrew unceremoniously and unexpectedly dumped the original group of admins who helped build IFLS from the ground up. Shortly thereafter, it became clear that IFLS was becoming a very profitable empire; one that Andrew had no intention of sharing.

I had serious medical issues, ones that are still ongoing. I was hospitalized, and when I returned, I logged back into Facebook to read some incredibly nasty messages about me that they thought I couldn’t read. I was devastated beyond all belief, as I believed these people were my friends. I shut down the page entirely, and never planned to open it again. A mutual friend got in touch, and talked me into continuing.

I then didn’t hear from these people for more than a year. They never got in touch, apologized, or explained. They never asked to continue their involvement in the page. The next time I heard from them was years later, when I started receiving press. To this day, they’ve never contacted me directly. This was an incredibly, incredibly painful time for me.

As I mentioned above, this was a full 18 months before there was a website or merchandising line. The page was a fun hobby, and it honestly never crossed my mind it would ever be anything else.

At the time they left, the page had under 100k followers. Really not quite a “profitable empire”. To claim that I ditched them when it started to become popular is just dishonest. It was the infancy of the page.

Andrew threatened to sue the group for speaking out

Actually, I asked them to sue me. I even offered to pay their legal bills. At the time, they were claiming THEY had created the Facebook page and telling people I “stole” it from them. I’m glad to see they’ve stopped claiming that. My point was that if they truly believe what they are saying, then they should pursue me legally and give me the chance to defend myself legally.

accounts indicating over 6000 reports of copyright infringement in 2013 alone

Hashem Al-Ghali talking nonsense again? I honestly don’t even know this guy. He reached out to me once, wanting to work with me. I got shitty with him because he was claiming to ALREADY work with me, putting my logo on his info graphics. I guess he didn’t like my tone, because ever since then he’s made up all sorts of bizarre stories.

He claims to have been informed by a person at “Facebook” that I received 6,000 copyright complaints in January 2013 alone.

Well first, Facebook doesn’t release that info. At all. Second, on average we receive around 1 copyright complaint every few months. It’s usually a misunderstanding, and every single one has been cleared up quickly.

For those who don’t understand the copyright complaint process on Facebook, it’s very simple. You submit a DMCA form, the image in question is removed around 24 hours later. There’s a chance to appeal, but only after the image has been removed. I honestly don’t even remember the last time I had an image removed for a copyright complaint.

Let’s do the basic math here – at the time, I posted around 10-15 images a day. Meaning in January 2013, being generous, I posted around 465 images. So he’s claiming 465 images received 6,000 copyright reports, but none were removed. Even though Facebook auto removes ANYTHING reported for copyright infringement.

Maybe he meant ever? Let’s be generous. Let’s say that 465 number holds up since the beginning of the page. It doesn’t, because I posted once or twice a day at the beginning, but whatever. Began in March, he was claiming this figure in January of the year after. So 11 months of 465 images a month is 5,115. So 5,115 images received a total of 6,000 copyright infringement reports. Hmm. And not one was ever actually removed. Hmmm.

Hashem Al-Ghali has been claiming this for years, with zero evidence. He claims he was “told” this, but has never told anyone WHO told him this or given any evidence of what he’s saying. And it doesn’t make any sense.

Established on Facebook in 2011, the original “I Fucking Love Science” page was the creation of Axl Dyer. After seeing the page of the same name, Dyer asked her to change it. Andrew refused, and the rest is history.

I had no idea his Facebook page even existed until months after I made mine. It had around 200 followers, and he’d posted about 3 items since he created it. He never asked me to change it, and to my recollection has never communicated with me directly. It’s also impossible to change the name of a Facebook page after a certain point (used to be 200 followers, no idea what it is now) so even if he had asked, and I had wanted to oblige, I wouldn’t have been able to.

In addition, we appreciate Ahmed Al-Rayyis, Hashem Al-Ghaili and another anonymous source for recounting their interactions with IFLS and Elise Andrew during their work with sister sites.

I’ve never worked with Hashem Al-Ghaili. I have literally no idea who Ahmed Al-Rayyis is. Maybe you should have taken me up on my offer to fact-check this article …