Science Mis/Disinformation Is A Major Problem

 National Academies releases report on science misinformation

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has posted a 394-page consensus study report that contains 13 main recommendations about interventions, policies, and future research. [Understanding and Addressing Misinformation About Science. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, The National Academies Press, 2024] Highlights of the report are provided in a four-page document
 that includes these points:

• Misinformation about science is information that asserts or implies claims inconsistent with the weight of accepted scientific evidence at the time (reflecting both quality and quantity of evidence). Which claims are determined to be misinformation about science can evolve over time as new evidence accumulates and scientific knowledge regarding those claims advances.
• Misinformation has greater potential for influence when it originates from authoritative sources, is amplified by powerful actors, reaches large audiences, is targeted to specific populations, or is produced in a deliberate, customized, and organized fashion.
• There is a critical need for continuous monitoring of the current information ecosystem to track and document the origins, spread, and impact of misinformation about science across different platforms and communication spheres.
• It has become increasingly common for journalists outside the science beat to be assigned science stories. Insufficient scientific expertise and/or training may make it more challenging for journalists to correctly interpret research and properly contextualize the findings in their reporting.
• Some individuals and organizations have spread misinformation about science by feigning scientific expertise, thereby co-opting the relatively high trust in science.
• While some features of social media platforms contribute to the production and spread of misinformation, there are opportunities to leverage these platforms to proactively increase the supply of high-quality science information. For example, working closely with nonprofit, non-partisan professional science societies and organizations, these platforms could prioritize and foreground evidence-based science information that is understandable to different audiences.
• Misinformation about science can cause harm at individual, community, and societal levels. If someone is exposed to misinformation about science and develops misbeliefs, it may influence their ability to make informed decisions for themselves or their community, such as important choices about their personal health or how their community responds to a natural disaster.
• Providing warnings about common manipulative techniques and false narratives, providing corrective information (especially when accompanied by explanatory content), and encouraging evaluative thinking (e.g., lateral reading, accuracy nudges, friction) are effective solutions to specifically prevent belief in misinformation about science and reduce the sharing of misinformation about science by individuals, although the durability of these interventions is a common challenge.
• The impacts of misinformation and potential interventions beyond the individual level (i.e., institutional and societal levels) are understudied.

==============

Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Consumer Advocate

7 Birchtree Circle

Chapel Hill, NC 27517

Telephone: (919) 533-6009