We are living in a digital era where people believe what they see.
In a period bogged by different problems such as pandemics, climate change, food insecurity, and poor public health systems, the integrity of information has never been so significant.
The issues highlighted largely require the input of science to find lasting sustainable solutions.
However, science faces a growing challenge in the modern era where anyone with a smartphone and the internet can speak their mind without care of authenticity.
The Covid-19 pandemic created a fertile ground for political fodder, with leaders clashing over public policies on safety and the interpretations of medicine.
As such, science misinformation has been on the rise in the past decades creating intoxicated platforms that poison public discourse.
Scientific misinformation refers to the proliferation and spread of any information that is false, inaccurate, or misleading.
This problem is multifaceted and originates from a nonprofessional public and scientists themselves.
Take an example of the recent pandemic. As the world experienced the rapid spread of Covid-19, so was the misinformation around it.
The pandemic created a fertile ground for political fodder, with leaders clashing over public policies on safety and the interpretations of medicine.
The biggest casualty of science misinformation is the public, often in a dilemma heightened by confusion, conflict, and conspiracy theories circulating on news platforms.
While many countries took the pandemic seriously and tried to get ahead of it, it was in the United States that misinformation about this virus created a public health disaster.
In October 2020, President Donald Trump compared Covid-19 to the seasonal flu virus to justify the federal government’s delay in enforcing lockdowns.
The truth is that public health scientists globally agreed that Covid-19 was more lethal than the seasonal flu virus.
At a time when Covid-19 deaths in the US reached 234515 (as of October 26, 2020), one would imagine that the President would take a backseat and let public health scientists take the lead.
Published gross images of rats
His constant meddling and anti-science public pronouncements bred a dangerous ground for misinformation and subsequent high Covid-19 mortalities in Republican districts.
This is a danger of scientific misinformation because it is a matter of life and death.
Yet, the biggest casualty of this misinformation is the public, often in a dilemma heightened by confusion, conflict, and conspiracy theories circulating on news platforms.
Whenever there is a conversation about GM foods, the link to cancer arises, usually attributed to that single Seralini publication.
Nowhere is this more volatile than the controversy surrounding genetically modified (GM) foods.
In 2012, French biologist Eric Seralini published a study that showed increased tumors in rats fed GM corn and the herbicide Roundup.
Seralini and his co-authors published gross images of rats with invasive cancers, later picked up by news channels and broadcast globally.
This publication generated severe scientific criticisms, especially around its study design, and the number and model of rats used.
We end up spending more time debunking myths attributed to misinformation rather than the public benefit of a specific scientific product or technology.
While it was later retracted, the damage was already inflicted.
What followed was a global onslaught towards GM crops based on this single publication that has since become the cornerstone of most anti-GM protests yet there is no scientific evidence that links consuming GM crops to cancer.
Dishonesty and irresponsibility of scientists
The two examples highlight the public cost of science misinformation. It distorts public policy priorities and erodes trust in our institutions.
In a world where science misinformation is fused with identity and ideology, it breeds sharp divisions in our communities with serious ramifications.
For example, whenever there is a conversation about GM foods, the link to cancer arises, usually attributed to that single Seralini publication.
We end up spending more time debunking myths attributed to misinformation rather than the public benefit of a specific scientific product or technology.
Scientific misinformation may also lead to severe illnesses and subsequent death in other cases.
Tackling scientific misinformation is a complex and long-term process that requires collective responsibility.
A famous case that comes to mind is the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine linked to children’s developmental disorders, as published by Andrew Wakefield and others in the Lancet.
Though the study was retracted owing to different flaws, such as a small sample size of 12 children, the authors’ controversial conclusions had serious public health consequences.
As usual, news outlets picked up the story and reiterated its controversial findings.
A decrease in the number of MMR vaccinations followed as parents were concerned about the risk of autism in their kids post-vaccination.
Epidemiological studies conducted and published after the Wakefield study showed no link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
Insulate the public from misinformation
In 2010, the British General Medical Council reported that the 12 children included in Wakefield’s study were carefully selected and that part of his research was funded by lawyers acting for parents suing vaccine manufacturers.
Accurate scientific knowledge must be widely accessible and communicated honestly by reliable messengers to insulate the public from misinformation.
Decades later, general vaccine hesitancy is still prime in some communities because of the dishonesty and irresponsibility of scientists such as Wakefield.
Tackling scientific misinformation is a complex and long-term process that requires collective responsibility.
While arming the public with facts is a great idea, we need a population that can verify the reliability of the source of information, even if it is beyond what they learned in school.
In addition, accurate scientific knowledge must be widely accessible and communicated honestly by reliable messengers to insulate the public from misinformation.
Identifying and debunking misinformation as soon as it arises is also critical to stamp out this vice. It starts with you and me.
____________________________________________
Dr Oria (PhD) is a Cancer Biologist at Biotech Research and Innovation Centre in Copenhagen, Denmark.