Science Communication Has Failed
Where to go from here...
Science communication has failed.
Less Americans trust scientist compared to the past. Vaccine hesitancy has grown in recent years.
On an anecdotal level, I just notice more distrust in science as an enterprise and institution overall. This could tie into the growing levels of polarization and extremism, but there could be other factors in the mix.
Overall, its tough to be a science communicator. It is well known that science communicators are harassed online. At the same time, I think the approach and understanding needs to change.
The more I engage in the online world the more I understand that social media as a medium is limited in potential for communication. Perhaps this limit is a function of its literal purpose to generate ad revenue for the corporations in charge of the platform.
The point of this essay is to perhaps lean into what is already known… the problems of misinformation and disinformation are systemic, not individualistic.
The solution to false or misleading information online will not be solved by a couple of debunking videos or other short-term interventions. While these interventions can certainly help, they do not address the root of the issue.
The “root” of the issue lies in our education system, our economic system, our information ecosystem, and probably more. The rise of misinformation and its persistence reflects the failure of science communication.
For the sake of this essay, I will cover some considerations in education, economics, and our information ecosystem.
This essay will uncover some of the reasons why science communication efforts have failed and where we can possibly go from here.
Misinformation and Education
I made a post a while back tying in educational attainment and belief in conspiracy theories.
We know conspiracy theory beliefs and the adoption of misinformation are connected. We also know some of the protective factors against the adoption of misinformation are media literacy and scientific literacy.
Achieving this literacy can come from classes and changes to the overall education system.
One report from the University of Stanford’s Graduate School of Education talks about how to tackle misinformation via public forms of education. This report looked at the recommendations from numerous science education and media literacy experts to describe the current need for educational institutions to focus on combatting misinformation.
education has a vital role to play in helping young people to develop the basic competencies required of a non-expert to identify misinformation.
Without the support of educational institutions, the fight against misinformation is in vain. Certain skills and educational resources need to be given in an appropriate format that goes with student’s developmental levels.
While education attainment alone doesn't make one immune from misinformation, having important skills to rely on (especially for non-experts) is extremely helpful.
Skills such as ‘lateral reading’ can be extremely helpful by allowing non-experts to look into certain claims or topics in a better way.
Hopefully, by teaching these skills and techniques to younger generations we can help ease the issues of misinformation online. But this does not go far enough in my opinion.
Misinformation and Corporations
It doesn’t come as a surprise to learn social media giants like Facebook and YouTube make a LOT of money from anti-vax and climate-denialist content.
With financial incentives like this will big tech deal with the problem of misinformation? I would argue no.
With the decentralization of information in the internet age it is greatly more difficult to regulate what information and content people are consuming.
The advent of social media and the attention economy only added to the issues of regulation.
Who is to determine what content people see, read, or listen to? Why would they determine that? How can we enforce that determination?
While social media companies have tried a few strategies such as limiting political content and having teams aimed at limiting misinformation, these strategies often have mixed success for various reasons.
However, If corporations in big tech are financially complicit in the use of misinformation on their platforms can we rely on them to govern themselves?
I would argue that without the coercive power of a governing body, big tech (like any other corporate entity) will not robustly govern itself. The market, as shown by numerous financial crises, probably isn’t the best arbitrator of itself.
There is a Forum of Information and Democracy spearheaded by numerous countries which released a report on regulation for infodempics. In case you were unaware, infodempics describe too much information including false or misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak.
Some of the regulations included in the report are:
Transparency requirements.
Human Rights principles for content moderation.
The creation of a Digital Standards Enforcement Agency.
And more…
While the merit of each initiative should be questioned and experimented with, the need for regulation seems greater, especially given the waning precedent to fund initiatives to combat misinformation.
The problem is a bit clear… we cannot depend on companies who profit from the problem to solve the problem. As seen, their solutions are only temporary, performative, or inadequate.
The Ecosystem of Misinformation
Misinformation, false or misleading information that can influence people’s understanding, is regularly shared on social media platforms and within media ecosystems.
By media ecosystem I mean how media impacts human perceptions and how our interaction with media interacts with our environment. A very contentious topic that you can look into
The media ecosystems where misinformation seems to be prominent are those who are predominately right-wing. This can be for a number of reasons outlined by researchers, but I am more so interested in the impact these ecosystems have.
The Harvard professor Yochai Benkler gives us an understanding of right wing media outlets in the 2016 US presidential election which is helpful for us in the past 2024 election. Economic, technological, and political interests aligned to create an ecosystem which serves the right wing conservative party in the US. This ecosystem helped Donald Trump get elected… twice!
“Other than Rush Limbaugh….almost nothing here existed before Fox was created in 1996. None of this existed when Ronald Reagan was elected, none of this existed when Bill Clinton was elected, it’s all brand new. It starts with AM talk radio after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in ‘85, moves on in ‘96 when cable comes to enough households that the market strategy of aiming narrowly to a politically committed audience becomes viable. Then most of what we’re seeing here, other than Breitbart, which is in 2007, emerges after Obama as the foundation of the Tea Party.”
Professor Yochai Benkler
The decentralization of media, where more people get their news information from social media than in the past definitely plays into what Benkler is talking about. Right wing legacy outlets feed into and support alternative media sources in the form of right wing social media accounts, influencers, and podcast. These alternative media sources also reinforce the legacy outlets such as Fox News.
While there are diverse alternative media sources within the left who can also spread misinformation, it is not as reinforced and supported as within right wing media spaces. This support has lead to vast consequences.
Let me give you an example.
The social media account on Twitter called “Libs of Tiktok” has routinely spread outright disinformation about gender affirming care, the LGBTQ+ community, educators, and more. This disinformation was routinely repeated and shared by Fox News. This rampant disinformation has lead to death threats and bomb threats against many medical providers, educators, hospitals, and libraries.
While liberals are not immune to misinformation, they’re often less likely to spread and engage with it.
However, all media regardless of professed political orientation is never unbiased and shares information in such a way to support an agenda. This is a discussion for another essay, but I suggest folks read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The usual response I would have gave in the past would range from government reforms and a defense of institutions. But my perspective has changed.
The failure of science communication is reflective of the failure of institutions themselves to instill confidence and hope in the people. This shaken confidence in the institution of science is reflective of larger problems with public trust in government in general.
Americans have historically low trust in government and government institutions. This lack of trust stems from very real issues related to war, the cutting of social services, growing wealthy inequality, etc.
The response of most science communicators I know is to ‘trust the science’ and trust in our institutions. However, the loss of trust in science is reflective of the loss of trust government and institutions generally.
I am not disputing the value of science or it’s correctness. I am calling attention to the socially constructed nature of science. Science is tied to the political, cultural, and economic base by which it was constructed in.
Science has been used as a justification for racism. Scientific discoveries have been tied to imperial conquest. Even the funding of scientific research is connected to political and social trends.
Science is not a process, institution, or practice that is devoid of human impact. Human beings produce scientific knowledge, this knowledge will be shaped by the various workings and interactions of political, cultural, and economic.
In order to combat misinformation we need to do the heavy lifting of overhauling the inadequacies of our political and economic system. Trust needs to be rebuilt between governing bodies and the masses. Science communication is not enough. The wealthy elite few in our society should not determine or influence laws and institutions.
Get involved with political organizations that reflect your interest, read political theory, and connect with people with different perspectives.