The Loeb Scale for science PR disasters

Sloppy or intentionally misleading science communication is widely recognized as damaging and potentially disastrous. But how disastrous? Clearly, an embarrassing typo in a paper is not of the same magnitude as research fraud. To resolve this ambiguity, this article presents the Loeb Scale, a qualitative logarithmic scale for the magnitude of scientific public relations disasters inspired by the Richter scale for the magnitude of earthquakes.

The Loeb Scale is named in honor of Jacques Loeb, a famous early 20th-century biologist who inspired literary characters and appeared frequently in newspapers and magazines. Any perceived reference to other persons, real or fictional, is purely coincidental.

The scale described here should not be confused with the Loeb Scale for rating interstellar objects recently proposed by sports psychologists Omer Eldadi and Gershon Tenenbaum and the scale's namesake, astronomer Avi Loeb.

Magnitude 1

Not felt. Recorded only by spellcheck.

Example: Mistaking "effect" for "affect" in the paper abstract

Magnitude 2

Felt slightly by some researchers in the epicenter field. No reputational or emotional damage.

Example: This post, hopefully

Magnitude 3

Often felt by colleagues within the epicenter subfield, but rarely causes any damage. Professional reputation can be noticeably shaken. No public damage.

Example: Saying something to a journalist that results in an article titled "Does Coffee Cause Cancer? This Researcher Says Yes," inspiring one particularly cocky grad student to start calling you "Coffee Cancer Guy" behind your back until the nickname becomes a kind of departmental inside joke that sticks around long after everyone's forgotten about that embarrassing newspaper article.

Magnitude 4

Noticeable shaking of email inbox. Felt by most colleagues in the epicenter field, but only slightly outside. Potentially embarrassing, but generally causes zero actual harm and only minimal damage to poorly reinforced reputations. Bombastic statements that do not fall over on their own may need to be publicly debunked.

Example: Arsenic life

Magnitude 5

Felt by everyone who spends too much time reading the news. Can cause damage of varying severity to poorly reinforced reputations. Scandal-resistant instigators may experience minor reputational damage. Zero to slight damage to the public. Felt by all colleagues within the epicenter field.

Example: Most overhyped biosignature press releases (e.g., Venus phosphine, ALH84001 microfossils, K2-18b DMS)

Magnitude 6

Moderate emotional damage to a number of colleagues in the epicenter field and potentially severe emotional damage to those that attempt debunking. Scandal-resistant instigators survive with slight to moderate professional damage. Poorly reinforced reputations receive moderate to severe damage and may collapse. Felt in the wider public, up to two degrees of separation away from people who read the New York Times. Strong to violent shaking of public trust within the epicenter. Potential to inspire satirical parody.

Example:

Magnitude 7

Causes moderate emotional and real damage to many scientists within the field and severe damage to the directly involved researchers. Debunking is likely and can be resource-intensive. Even scandal-resistant instigators may partially or completely collapse under public pressure or at least receive severe reputational damage within their field. Poorly-reinforced reputations are completely destroyed. Felt widely, with the potential to waste substantial scientific resources and inflict major damage to public trust.

Example: Ranga Dias' high-temperature superconductor fraud

Magnitude 8

Major damage to public trust in science and moderate to severe damage to entire scientific fields or institutions. Will cause moderate to heavy reputational damage to even the most scandal-resistant personalities, potentially requiring evacuation to the right-wing podcast circuit. Causes real and lasting public harm. Scandal felt extremely widely beyond the academic epicenter.

Example: Andrew Wakefield's MMR autism vaccine fraud

Magnitude 9

Near total destruction of the epicenter field. Severe damage or even collapse of scientific institutions. Sweeping, often traumatizing damage to entire populations. Permanently reshapes the scientific landscape.

Example: Lysenkoism

Thanks for reading

• Subscribe, if you haven't already!
• Share this post on Bluesky, Twitter/X, LinkedIn, Facebook, or wherever else you hang out online.
• Become a patron for the price of 1 cappuccino per month
• Drop a few bucks in my tip jar
• Send recommendations for research to feature in my monthly paper roundups to elise@reviewertoo.com with the subject line "Paper Roundup Recommendation"
• Tell me about your research for a Q&A post (email enquiries to elise@reviewertoo.com)
• Follow me on Bluesky
• Spread the word!