Since September 2024, the World Health Organization (WHO) has embarked on a year-long partnership with TikTok to deliver science-backed health content, aiming to improve global health literacy. This partnership is an acknowledgement that traditional media platforms historically leveraged by science communication, such as blogs and news reports, no longer achieve the desired reach and impact.
At the same time, brain rot, a term frequently associated with the low-value, short-form content found on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram, was named Oxford Dictionary’s Word of the Year in 2024. It would seem counterintuitive, then, that this digital ecosystem would be an effective tool for science communication.
In a digitalized world, can embracing short-form content turn trends into education without losing nuance or sacrificing public trust? Or will doubling down on TikTok-style content for communicating science derail from an already struggling public engagement with scientific topics?
What is Brain Rot?
Unless you are chronically online, or part of Generation Z (Gen Z) or Alpha (Gen Alpha), it might be difficult to define or understand this latest internet cultural phenomenon. Officially, it has been defined by Oxford Dictionary as “a perceived loss of intelligence or critical thinking skills…attributed to the overconsumption of unchallenging or inane content or material”. In reality, it has been used by Gen Alpha to describe both the feeling associated with endless doomscrolling on social media, and a genre of content that is highly stimulating, incredibly viral, yet mostly nonsensical. With over 2.2 million reels on TikTok tagged with ‘#brainrot’, it is perhaps best perceived as an internet trend filled with nonsensical AI-generated content alongside a glossary of social media slang.
If this is the climate on social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, how does science fit in? Despite its negative connotations, ‘brain rot’ culture has had an incredible reach that extends beyond the online world. Most recently, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese achieved internet virality by incorporating 'brain rot’ slang in a parliamentary session, calling the opposition ‘delulu with no solulu’ – delusional, with no solution.
Science and Culture
The strongest argument for whether science communication needs to become fluent in ‘brain rot’ is the fact that contemporary science communication is a reflection of popular culture. Scientific blogs, as this article is published in, became a vital communication tool for science due to the advent of the internet age and popularisation of blogs in the early 2000s. Preceding this, emails were once suggested as a future science communication tool. Celebrity scientists, such as Sir David Attenborough, and the mass consumption of scientific documentaries also came at a time when on-demand television and docuseries were gaining global popularity. Similarly, the rise of YouTube fuelled the immense popularity of TED Talks, which could suddenly be shared beyond single events and viewed at leisure. This continuous, and mostly successful, adaptation in science communication methods based on prevailing technologies and preferences is prevalent throughout history.
Yet, when it comes to embracing social media trends for communicating science, there appears to be a sense of hesitancy. At times, some within the scientific community have dismissed social media content as shallow, and fear that aligning science with ‘brain rot’ content risks oversimplification, the spread of misinformation, and an undermining of scientific credibility. Systemically, there is also a lack of support and funding for specialised training that would equip science communicators with the necessary skillset to navigate creating scientific content for social media.
However, dismissing social media overlooks the fact that these very platforms have become a dominant and normalised mode of communication for younger generations. By refusing to adapt, science risks being sidelined in the very spaces where public opinion and discussions are now being shaped.
If It’s Not on My Feed, Did It Even Happen?
Today, social media is no longer solely used for entertainment. According to a 2024 Pew Research Center report, 54% of U.S. adults at least sometimes get their news from social media. In 2024, 52% of TikTok users regularly turned to the platform for news, representing a more than two-fold increase since 2020. Although most prominent amongst Gen Z, this seismic shift in information consumption habits is also evident across age groups.
With algorithms supercharging the visibility of trends, we have seen everyone from news outlets to politicians and corporations embracing viral formats to engage their audiences. Across sectors, hopping on internet trends is a recognized strategy for staying relevant. This is where science currently tends to fall short, at worst risking being left out of the conversation altogether.
Science and the Public
When we look to the theoretical communication models that have also played a big part in guiding the evolution of science communication, a contemporary iteration of the participation-based model could best fit the current climate. This model is built on the notion that productive and educational scientific discussions require multi-directional, collaborative contributions from both scientists and the public. In this model, science and the public are viewed as a cooperative.
In today’s information-saturated society, the advent of genAI tools like ChatGPT transports the public beyond passive retrieval of information (i.e. googling) to an active, dialogue-based exploration. Scientific information is therefore more readily accessible, more independently unpacked, and more easily digestible than ever before. Consequently, discussions amongst the public are already thriving in the comments section of various social media platforms, regardless of whether there is a credible scientific presence. Therefore, for science to work with the public, it needs to be present in such spaces.
Amongst existing social media platforms, TikTok’s style of content is particularly primed for such public participation. It is packed with collaborative features, such as content remixing and an active comment section, all of which allow science shared in this space to become part of an interactive, collective dialogue.
Joining the Brain Rot
Social media has blurred the lines between content and culture, and content creators and algorithms now play a central role in shaping public opinion. To reclaim space in public conversations, science communication needs more than just facts – it needs to feel familiar and culturally fluent. Across platforms, science communicators who have successfully engaged with everyday culture have been repaid with an ever-expanding reach and viewership.
Take @bigmanny1, the UK and Ireland’s TikTok Education Creator of the Year 2024, for example. By presenting scientific concepts using local slang and cultural references, not intuitively associated with scientific education, he educates and inspires millions with his at-home experiments. Meanwhile, creator @emonthebrain has built a following by making neuroscience feel relevant and relatable to everyday life with content like her now-viral ‘neuroscience backed plan’ for getting over an ex. At the same time, other science-related reels on Instagram that have fully tapped into ‘brain rot’ trends have also garnered millions of views.
Indeed, joining the ‘brain rot’ is not about watering down scientific credibility, rather it is about embracing current internet culture and being digitally fluent. It is about being reactive to the latest internet trends and adding educative value to short-form content that are usually valueless. It is about packaging science into visually stimulating formats to remain at the forefront of people’s minds.
When done right, such short-form content acts as a bite-sized entry point that grabs attention and sparks curiosity. From there, long-form formats can step in to build a deeper, more well-rounded understanding of a topic. Journalist Cleo Abram expertly demonstrates this by using short-form media platforms to pull viewers into her YouTube series Huge If True, where she unpacks emerging technologies with clarity and depth. By embracing new formats and social culture, science can become a more integrated part of daily conversations, many of which happen online these days. This approach expands reach whilst building trust and understanding. The challenge is to creatively incorporate social trends whilst preserving scientific integrity and clarity, all in under a minute.
Make Science Great Again?
More than ever, science needs to remain visible. When digital platforms and algorithms dominate our lives, the question is no longer whether science should join the ‘brain rot’, but whether it can afford not to. Bridging the gap between scientific credibility and cultural resonance is essential. Shifting information consumption habits and a growing reliance on social media further highlights the need for science to be communicated in formats that are familiar to today’s audiences, as it always has done. The WHO-TikTok collaboration has provided legitimacy to this shift.
Science needs to be part of the doomscroll, and not just accessible through seminars or blogposts. By leaning into current trends, humour, and ‘brain rot’ culture, short-form content helps science feel approachable, interactive, and embedded into everyday life. The more audiences encounter science outside of formal settings, the more it becomes a normal, integrated, and trusted part of their digital habits and worldview. In a world where trends shape opinions, science must go viral too.
Scimpact Fellow
Die Beiträge auf dem Reatch-Blog geben die persönliche Meinung der Autor*innen wieder und entsprechen nicht zwingend derjenigen von Reatch oder seiner Mitglieder.
Comments (0)