Is rage bait in content creation a survival strategy for underpaid students and early-career scientists, or a symptom of what happens in the absence of media and communication training?
This article is part of the BioBuzz Expert Contributor Hive, a community of life sciences leaders and innovators who share ideas that move our industry forward. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of BioBuzz. Interested in joining? The Hive offers two flexible pathways — quarterly thought-leadership articles or bi-annual Career Catalyst talks — to help you grow your influence and reach BioBuzz’s nationwide audience. Learn more.
Over the holidays, I tried to do what many chronically online professionals do each holiday season: relax, recuperate, and pretend I am capable of a meaningful brain break. Instead, I let myself get pulled into a deep-dive. My much-needed decompression was interrupted by a nonstop stream of Instagram reels featuring laboratory student scientists using consumables to make Christmas ornaments and other trinkets. Reel after reel showcased the same idea in slightly different forms, and as I watched, my algorithm articulately served me more of the same. My first thoughts ranged from “aw I love seeing people having fun in the lab” to “they must have a lot of money to burn,” to “they probably don’t know what it costs to stock a lab,” before landing on a more uncomfortable realization: “they are probably doing this on purpose to drive views.” When I dove into the comment sections, the pattern became obvious. If creators clarified that materials would be reused or otherwise thrown out, negative discourse was minimal. If they doubled down on using lab supplies just for fun, engagement skyrocketed. This type of behavior has a name: “rage bait,” the 2025 Oxford Word of the Year. While rage baiting in mainstream social media content has been covered by major new outlets, I was surprised to find virtually no discussion of its role within the science communication space.
Once my algorithm locked onto this genre, another trend quickly appeared on my timeline: short reels comparing women in traditional gender-based scenarios vs. working in the lab, an obvious piggyback onto the viral “#TradWives” corner of the internet. At this point, the broader cultural controversy surrounding “#TradWives” is well known and guaranteed to generate a steady stream of both positive and negative engagement. Personally, I found these posts to be rather short-sighted. They were not educational or reflective, mainly because there was not any sort of commentary in the caption or in the reels themselves. Meaning, they were engineered to drive traffic to the comment sections rather than explain why a career in the lab is fulfilling and worthy of respect. While everyone has the right to express and promote their views, I do not find it productive to contribute inflammatory content into a cluttered digital content ecosystem that non-scientists already struggle to navigate when seeking out science-centered media.
Observing these posts struck a nerve because I have previously encouraged scientists to share bite-sized insights into their day-to-day work as a way to better connect with the public. Science authorities often lose in the attention war because anti-science and pseudo-science creators tend to be more relatable than credible scientific voices. Of particular concern is that this emerging wave of science-centered content creators producing rage bait rather than educational, relatable humor, or entertainment content, appear to be predominantly lab-based trainees and early-career professionals who are, presumably, copying what works in high-traffic, mainstream media. It is hard to fault them for that. Views lead to visibility, visibility leads to engagement, and consistent engagement often leads to supplemental income through additional opportunities like brand deals and app-based paychecks… something desperately needed in a system that rarely pays a living wage for those just starting out. From that perspective, rage baiting looks a lot less like poor judgement and more like intuitive adaptation. However, when and if the salary-discrepancy issue is fixed, the content will still live on.
This brings me back to my familiar soapbox: we need formal media and communication training in university science programs to better prepare the next generation of scientists to represent their profession. I am not opposed to scientists sharing opinions and controversial talking points online, nor do I discount the value of developing skills outside the lab. A science trainee who is also adept at storytelling, video editing, and marketing is indeed well-rounded and resourceful. There is clearly a demographic of up-and-coming scientists who are comfortable and confident on social media, have the desire and discipline to create engaging content, and are not afraid of controversial reception. I think this existing aptitude and interest can easily be refined through formal communication-focused training that occurs in tandem with lab-focused training. The intentional performance of being “problematic” is what makes me uneasy, but I also recognize the economic realities that are likely pushing these young scientists toward attention-driven content. Without training, it is easy to fall into predatory engagement trends without fully understanding how that content is perceived by the public, or how it may dampen professional credibility. If we accept that the public needs media literacy to avoid manipulation, then we should also accept that scientists need communication literacy so they don’t become unintentional participants in the same rage bait economy as their anti-science and pseudo-science counterparts.
References
Oxford University Press. (2025, December). The Oxford Word of the Year 2025 is “rage bait”. https://corp.oup.com/news/the-oxford-word-of-the-year-2025-is-rage-bait/
Associated Press. (2025, December). Oxford Word of the Year: Rage bait, biohack, aura farming. https://apnews.com/article/oxford-word-rage-bait-biohack-aura-farming-205cad01227a75198aaebdea02f6409b
The Guardian. (2025, December 1). Rage bait named word of the year by Oxford University Press. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/dec/01/rage-bait-named-word-of-the-year-by-oxford-university-press?utm_source=chatgpt.com
BioBuzz. (2025, November 25). More than an acquired taste: What chemists and other scientists could learn from popular chefs about appealing to the public’s palate. https://news.biobuzz.io/2025/11/25/more-than-an-acquired-taste-what-chemists-and-other-scientists-could-learn-from-popular-chefs-about-appealing-to-the-publics-palate/
