Tips on Being a Responsible Consumer of Science
Especially now in the time of COVID-19, it’s important that people are responsible consumers of scientific information. Perceptions of science can affect personal health decisions and political views, among other things. In fact, the current spread of COVID-19 misinformation has made the pandemic worse. As reported by the AP, one Kansas medical official summarized “rhetoric around herd immunity and deliberate infections, masks don’t work, and other inaccurate information, is hurting our efforts to contain the spread of this virus.” So, good communication between scientists, media, and the public is essential. With that in mind, how can you responsibly process information that purports to be scientific?
First of all, you need to avoid outright misinformation. While misinformation can be deceptive, it usually only takes a small amount or research to find out whether a claim is true or not and the context around it. Check whether other credible sources agree, if there is clear evidence for the statement, and if it has been fact-checked. Remember to consider the biases of people involved (politics, sponsorships, etc.) including yourself when making judgments. Plus, just generally don’t trust memes; they have the power to make claims compelling with very little context or evidence. If you don’t know where to start on getting better at spotting unsupported claims, I would recommend using some of the tools provided by the News Literacy Project, which you can find in the links below.
Unfortunately, outright falsehoods in media are not the only cause of people consuming inaccurate information. Going farther back, the claims of studies can often be miscommunicated in more mundane ways. Much of this stems from science press departments, which try to convey the results of scientific investigations to the public and are vulnerable to both simple error and trying to get more coverage. Mistakes such as confusing correlation and causation, exaggeration, and drawing other unsubstantiated conclusions that weren’t included in the original study can pop up.
Falsehoods and misleading claims about science are especially frustrating because science itself is not perfect. Though the way science is communicated to the public focuses on new findings, ideally scientific knowledge is not built on findings from single studies. One study is not usually a good way to make a factual claim. The data sample could be too small, the observations too subjective, etc.
Furthermore, like scientific press departments, scientists themselves are incentivized to produce lots of papers that have statistically significant findings; it can influence tenure and reputation. So, there is pressure to adopt practices that exaggerate the evidence of the study. These factors fuel the infamous “replication crisis”, the phenomenon that many scientific papers’ findings can’t be replicated, which is especially widespread in fields like psychology and medicine where research involves more hard-to-control variables and is more subjective.
For example, in the early 2010s, a Cornell research scientist published a paper in a respected journal about precognition. The study purported to have results that in a variety of tests, humans had appeared to have shown the ability of precognition. Basically, it seemed that humans could sense the future.
This may seem like an amazing discovery, but when other scientists tried to replicate it, they didn’t find compelling evidence for the claim. This doesn’t necessarily mean the claim is not true, but it does mean that the study is not scientific proof that humans can see the future. The original researcher didn’t appear to be working in bad faith, but he did make many small methodological choices that could add up over time to false positives in each of his tests. Meanwhile, many outlets reported the findings in unsurprisingly clickbait-y ways, collectively showcasing how many errors can occur along the chain of information from scientists to the public.
While there are efforts to combat misinformation and misleading claims in media and science, for now, a lot of the responsibility falls on regular people to evaluate what information they believe and share. This doesn’t mean people should never trust science. It just means that there’s a huge difference between large rigorous vaccine tests and a small study saying chocolate can cure cancer that you learned about through a meme.
Sources
https://newslit.org/tips-tools/information-hygiene-sanitize-before-you-share/
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-kansas-misinformation-3c3488f40b5e1bb52a9404ef1ab8220e
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/21504366/science-replication-crisis-peer-review-statistics
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/15/precognition-studies-curse-failed-replications
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/6/11/18652225/hype-science-press-releases
