Published November 15, 2023 | Version v1
Other Open

The role of scientific communities in disarming misinformation

  • 1. European Chemical Society (EuChemS)

Description

Covid vaccines contain microchips. 5G networks control our brains and cause cancer. The moon landing is fake. And, of course, world governments are full of lizard people. We all have heard conspiracy theories. Maybe their absurdities even elicited a chuckle, or we just scoffed at them before ignoring them. But for an increasing number of people, statements only barely less crazy than the ones above may sound credible - causing unnecessary harm, generating risks, and leading to significant political and social turmoil. Think about the reoccurrence of measles in anti-vaccination communities, the spread of the COVID pandemic due to disregard towards security measures, or the violence committed by followers of the Q-anon conspiracy in the United States.

It is crucial to acknowledge that misinformation is not just an act of fate – it is very much instrumentalised by political and other actors having something to gain from the destabilisation of democratic systems. Today's information society landscape, filled with filter bubbles and echo chambers (Pariser, 2012), also provides a fertile breeding ground for populist actors thriving in an environment enwebbed with misinformation. In the face of the upcoming 2024 European elections – which, amongst a wide range of other topics, will also define the future of research in Europe – one must be alert to the threat misinformation poses. The spread of misinformation is often helped by large masses of unsuspecting victims, who – perhaps due to socioeconomical, psychological or personal reasons – fall into a "rabbit hole". The fight against the sources, perpetrators and profiteers of misinformation, as well as ensuring that private social media platforms take responsibility, is an ongoing policy challenge. However, engaging with and helping people who fell victim to misinformation, or ensuring that science is communicated in a way that prevents the public from falling on this slippery slope, is something inclined scientists and educators can potentially take upon themselves.

Files

The role of scientific communities in disarming misinformation.pdf

Files (259.2 kB)

Additional details

References

  • Crow, D. A., DeLeo, R. A., Albright, E. A., Taylor, K., Birkland, T., Zhang, M., Koebele, E., Jeschke, N., Shanahan, E. A., & Cage, C. (2022). Policy learning and change during crisis: COVID‐19 policy responses across six states. Review of Policy Research, 40(1), 10–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12511 Hammack, P. L. (2011). Narrative and the politics of meaning. Narrative Inquiry, 21(2), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.21.2.09ham Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science : language, learning and values (p. XI). Ablex. Padian, K. (2018). Narrative and "Anti-narrative" in Science: How Scientists Tell Stories, and Don't. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 58(6). https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icy038 Pariser, E. (2012). The filter bubble : how the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. Penguin Books. Polleri, M. (2022). Towards an anthropology of misinformation. Anthropology Today, 38(5), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12754 van der Bles, A. M., van der Linden, S., Freeman, A. L. J., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2020). The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(14), 7672–7683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913678117 xkcd comics. (2021). Average Familiarity. Xkcd. https://xkcd.com/2501/