New report addresses misinformation about science
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released a report on December 19 that explored the nature and scope of misinformation about science, and offered recommendations for limiting its spread and reducing its potential harms. K. Vish Viswanath, Lee Kum Kee Professor of Health Communication at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and chair of the report committee, recently spoke about its findings.
Q: How did the committee define misinformation about science?
A: Even as research in this field has grown in recent years, there has been a lack of a consistent definition. Research on misinformation has been and is being pursued in many disciplines, each offering its own definition. To guide our analysis of the evidence, the definition the committee arrived at is: information that asserts or implies claims that are inconsistent with the weight of scientific evidence. It’s important to note that claims that are determined to be misinformation about science can evolve over time as new evidence accumulates.
Q: What were the findings around the scope and impact of misinformation?
A: People focus on bad actors intentionally spreading misinformation on social media, but we found that the problem is more complicated. There are many sources of misinformation, including politicians, entertainment and pop culture figures, for-profit companies, even reputable science organizations and universities. In addition, individuals share it within their own social circles. Sometimes the spread of misinformation is very unintentional.
It’s important to note that the existence of misinformation doesn’t mean everyone is equally exposed to it. In my research, I’m interested in social vulnerability and issues of equity. Who has access to accurate scientific information, either individually or institutionally? And what are the consequences of this differential access to information?
When people are exposed to misinformation, it can have negative consequences because they may make the wrong choices for themselves or for their communities. People are particularly hungry for information during times of crisis, and that provides an opportune time for misinformation to spread.
Misinformation can exacerbate health disparities within certain marginalized communities, especially when it is targeted towards those groups—for example, when anti-Asian racism spiked during COVID-19. And on the societal level, misinformation can distort public opinion and potentially further erode trust in institutions.
I must add that most of the work on impact of misinformation focused on harms to individuals and we know much less about harm to institutions or society.
Q: The report looked at interventions to address misinformation about science. What were some of those and how could they help?
A: Interventions could be designed along four points: supply, demand, distribution and uptake though most of the evidence comes from interventions on uptake of misinformation. One approach is to try to reduce the supply of misinformation—for example, by deplatforming accounts that are sources of misinformation—or to increase the supply of accurate information, for example, through science journalism. Another approach is on the demand side, reducing the consumption of misinformation and supporting people as they seek out answers to pressing questions. When people need accurate information and they don’t have access to it, they may be more receptive to misinformation. We can address this online with moderation policies and accuracy nudges, for example, by making it harder to access misinformation in search results. We can also “prebunk” misinformation by providing warnings about common manipulative techniques and false narratives.
But while most of the work in this area has focused on individuals, more attention needs to be paid on the institutional aspects of misinformation. How do we build capacity and capability to generate more accurate science information and increase its supply rather than focus on censoring inaccurate information?
Given the complexity and the scope of misinformation about science, it’s important to note that everyone has a role to play in reducing its production and spread.
Q: Are there any additional conclusions or recommendations from the report that you would like to highlight?
We made a number of recommendations that highlight the fact that the responsibility for addressing misinformation lies with multiple actors and not just individuals. Universities, professional science societies, and community-based organizations have a role to play in stopping the spread and mitigating the impact of misinformation. To this end, we made a series of recommendations to build institutional capacity and capability to promote the supply of accurate science information and to ensure that it is available to all groups, especially underserved groups.
