Science 2.0 – Bias and Credibility

Science 2.0 - Pro Science - Non Biased - Credible

Factual Reporting: High - Credible - Reliable


These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence based through credible scientific sourcing.  Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words.  These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.

  • Overall, we rate Science 2.0 as a Pro-Science source based on reliance on scientific journals and studies.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: United States
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic



Founded in 2006, Science 2.0 is an open-publishing science blog. According to its about page, “Science 2.0 was created in 2006 to modernize science communication, publishing, collaboration, and public participation. It is a pro-science educational outreach nonprofit.” The goal of the site is to “Create a place where world-class scientists write articles and discuss issues without being filtered by size or editorial limitations, where there are no political or cultural agendas, and the audience can read great science directly from the sources and maybe learn some new things.”

Read our profile on the United States media and government.

Funded by / Ownership

Science 2.0 is an outreach nonprofit under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Advertising and donations generate revenue.

Analysis / Bias

Science 2.0 usually summarizes scientific research and news. Articles and headlines often contain loaded emotional wording and reflect the opinions of the author, such as this Alternative Meat Is Failing Because They Made Enemies Of Everyone Who Wanted To Be On Their Side

When reporting on politically related science issues like climate change, they support the consensus that global warming is human-influenced and also do not promote alarmism such as this No Scientific Cliff Edge Of 12 Years To Save Planet (or 18 Months) – Can IPCC Challenge ‘Deadlines Make Headlines’ Misreporting? Further, they report accurately on Covid-19 and vaccines like this Bill Gates Will NOT And CANNOT Inject Us With A Microchip In A Vaccine – Fails Basic Fact Check. In general, Science 2.0 is a Pro-science source.

Failed Fact Checks

  • None in the Last 5 years

Overall, we rate Science 2.0 as a Pro-Science source based on reliance on scientific journals and studies. (D. Van Zandt 01/22/2023)


Last Updated on June 30, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check

Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

MBFC Ad-Free 


MBFC Donation

Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources

Found this insightful? Please consider sharing on your Social Media: