Currently, many studies challenge the information deficit model as it ignores the cognitive, social, and affective factors that influence one’s formation of attitude and judgements toward science and technology.
Due to the recent growth of scientific research and subsequent discoveries, the deficit model suggests that this has led to a decrease in interest surrounding certain areas of science.
But the increase in new information systems, such as the Internet and their ease of accessibility, has led to a greater cumulative knowledge of scientific research and the public's understanding.
However, critics state that the deficit model can also produce an unintended cumulative advantage system: growing inequality between and within the knowledge-attitude-practice (KAP) gap of individuals and groups due to a wide variety of possible moderators.
The deficit model, however, has been discredited by a wealth of literature that shows that simply giving more information to people does not necessarily change their views.
A 2019 study, for example, showed that exposure to the stories of an individual converted from opposing to supporting genetically modified organisms led to more positive attitudes toward GMOs.
In fact, some have called for more democratic accountability for bioethicists and scientists, meaning public values would feedback onto the progression/acceptance of scientific technology.
Mass media representations, ranging from news to entertainment, are critical links between the everyday realities of how people experience certain issues and the ways in which these are discussed at a distance between science, policy, and public actors.
[5] Numerous studies show that the public frequently learns about science and more specifically issues such as climate change from the mass media.
The actual processes behind the communication and dissemination of information from experts to the public may be far more complex and deep-running than the deficit model suggests.
This so-called 'spin'[24] (see Frank Luntz) is reported by the world's press under a combination of commercial and political pressure.
[6] Framing can be used to reduce the complexity of an issue, or to persuade audiences, and can play into the underlying religious beliefs, moral values, prior knowledge, and even trust in scientists or political individuals.
[26] Further, the transmission of scientific ideas and technological adoption may be strongly linked to the passage of information between easily influenced individuals,[27] versus the widely accepted "two-step flow" theory where a few opinion leaders acted as intermediaries between mass media and the general public.
[28] Decreasing the knowledge deficit is a complicated task, but if we know how the general public thinks, or how they go about learning and interpreting new information, we can better communicate our message to them in the most unbiased, objective way possible.