Two or so weeks ago, there was a discussion on this subreddit regarding this issue wherein the UP Institute of Enviromental Science and Meteorology (IESM) apparently was claiming that, according to their models, Slater Young's Monterazzas "did not make the flooding worse within its own watersheds".
This statement by the UP IESM was the follow-up to that, but while looking at the UP IESM presentation (available in Facebook via the Environmental Hydrology Laboratory page, just search it I cannot link FB here) makes it obvious to those who are well-versed in the sciences that there are limitations to the study, some of the public and even Slater Young had misinterpreted it as an exoneration solely based on the conclusions slide. That misinterpretation of the study went pretty bad that the research group was even accused of being paid off by the Monterazza project to conduct the stuff here in the subreddit.
While those people who accuse researchers of being paid off really have no idea on how academic researches work (significant number of research projects and developments are funded, either partially or in full, by private entities but its findings are still accepted and is the basis of modern society) and how the academic community auto-corrects itself despite the potential for conflicts of interests and fraud, the laymen do deserve a clear, concise and sensitive communication of the studies being publicised so as they do not induce unwarranted panic, be used as a means for mis- and dis-information, and make the public jump into misguided conclusions.
It is indeed the sickness of the academe for a long time that results are publicized poorly that the general public do not understand well and the media doesn't help either that they may also twist or exaggerate a study to generate clicks. In this case, IESM did not emphasize the limitations of the study and put disclaimers to avoid the public from using the *incomplete* study as a definitive proof for anything.
Furthermore, while I don't mind publicizing research work for the laymen, extra caution must be taken account when publishing them in mass media and social media. When the study is incomplete or inconclusive, there is no rush or reason to be posting them. I get why media rushes to publish stories, even with a half-assed verification but I don't get why some research groups are rushing to publicize findings to the media without consulting anyone.
In the government sector, many agencies have an information or communications office that deals with press releases and official statements. They decide what goes public and what does not, not because of a lack of transparency but because they know how bad communication can make things worse than they actually are and security concerns. The academe, traditionally, are free to communicate on their own but most of them do not know how to do it properly when not facing their colleagues and subject matter experts.
Public trust in science is already poor worldwide; shit like flat earth, climate change denial and vaccine hesitancy are prevalent because of how bad people understand the science behind it. While poor education is the primary reason for the lack of understanding, it doesn't help when most scientists and academicians can't even make people understand their work and implications without being a subject matter expert. There must be something to be done to make academe not be an ivory tower where only those who know, know.