Fake News and Misinformation in Science
Written by Vaish with the support of the Science London collective
We began the online wave of Science London to share ways in which we were engaging with anti-racist and inclusive practices in science communication and highlighting ways for you to do the same.
This week our focus is on news and information - developing it into broader themes. In particular we’re going to think about how and why certain types of “fake news” are popular, and the ways science and scientists are both a part of and are used by “fake news”. The fact that there is fake news all over social media is not something new. How we interact with social media has changed - it is mediated by technologies including algorithms, mobile devices, and the advent of new corporations on social media. Thus changed our consumption of news and information, making it even more crucial to be a conscious consumer of information on social media. “Fake” science news can be particularly time-consuming to get to the bottom of - rapid trending and viral sharing of an idea often means it is too late to get ahead of a trending news story to debunk it in time, especially if the technologies of spreading - twitterbots and machine learning - have been programmed to further propagate “fake” news.
Firstly, we must ask, why is there a rampant increase in “fake” news based on science? One of the most common reason is sensationalism, by trying to increase the likelihood of science being picked up by a news outlet, scientists/science communicators tend to sensationalise their research, which in turn leads to falsification and misrepresentation of facts. Are we amplifying or sensationalising science while trying to make technology more ‘approachable’ to the ‘public’? How can we think further - about what sensationalism is doing, what are these claims saying about already marginalised communities? How might this further misrepresent or marginalise people?
While it is crucial to verify the information you receive; we must also take the additional effort to think whether the data making up the article is inclusive. As Rokia says in her blog, “We must also remember that data pertaining to racialised communities is often created through the white gaze, which projects reductive understandings of identity as fact.” This is another aspect of misinformation, misrepresentation. To be a critical consumer, it is useful to think about whose voice is not included, whose knowledge has not been centred, and what that might mean for the piece you are reading. While these points below aid in being a critical consumer, it is still crucial to be critical of our own work as researchers and science communicators and not just of other people’s work.
To help think about these issues, I find a set of prompt questions helpful:
Who wrote this article? Who might have written the press release/science paper?
What’s the topic? Who is it important to? Who is the desired audience?
Who’s voice is not in this research?
Why might I have been shown this news? What biases are behind it reaching me?
Beyond just making more spectacular claims about research, applications of STEM are often used as a crucial tool in the saviour narrative the west spins on Global South countries. An example of this is the implementation of the railways in India by the British Empire. As an Indian, the majority of my secondary history education revolved around the Indian independence struggle. We learnt how the British colonised India, while exploiting the country for its economy, resources, culture and freedom. There have been countless arguments for and against Britain owing India reparations for colonialism. Many argue that, while they colonised India, they left us with the railways, the telegraph system, industrialisation, and countless other applications of science and technology. This argument plays into the narrative, that even though they exploited a rich country for two centuries, because they supplied us with applications of technology - which they still had control of and excluded Indians from using it - we gained something from being one of Britain's colonies. This is a prime example for how the Global North continues to use science and its applications to “save” other countries and bring them prosperity.
Using “science” as a saviour from the Global North is an ongoing problem. Firstly, it means that Global North scientists get to focus on “benefits” that they brought to other countries. Rather than really focusing on the experiences, needs, and impacts of the technology - like the railroads in India - a flattened, celebratory narrative is possible. This localises the power in STEM professionals of the Global North, and misrepresents the actual impact of introducing these technologies. Questions like, who has been displaced by this technology? Who is getting rich from making this intervention? Whose needs are really being satisfied? Might be helpful in guiding criticism and changing our collective communication practices.
Secondly, it means that technological solutions to problems continue to be touted as the best solutions. We can see this in the vaccine narrative for COVID-19; rich nations can throw money at developing vaccines that will then “solve” COVID-19, and can be sold elsewhere. But, community solutions, such as practicing mask-wearing, testing, and social changes are as important. In other cases, it means that local/community knowledge about cures, environmental management, biodiversity change, or sexual preference is not believed until there is a technological confirmation of this, often in Global North laboratories. This limits science to being the knowledge produced within institutions, and suggests that anything else is not legitimate knowledge. We can ask, who’s knowledge is included in this news? What type of “solution” is being discussed?
There is, also, a crucial distinction between misinformation and disinformation: Misinformed can imply that the news was incorrect by mistake, but disinformed implies that the type of information was intentionally false. This distinction has not always been made clear. Could ‘misinformation’ be used as an excuse to escape active exclusionary practices in generating the information. Which subject topics gets most qualified as misinformation or disinformation? In the case of disinformation, it can be linked to misrepresentation of racialised communities, to further propagate westernised narratives of science, technology and progress. We are able to see first-hand the negative consequences of disinformation in science in the way that the COVID-19 pandemic has been communicated by scientists and science institutions in our community, and how the uptake of biased media coverage has disproportionately been negatively affecting communities of colour. The rampant increase of disinformation is done deliberately to have control of the political, medical and economical narrative.
So, where does this leave us, as people who author content, and whose work is included in other publications, and as global citizens who consume media? Here are some thoughts:
As an author/researcher/communicator:
As we’ve covered here and in our previous blogs, being an anti-racist, inclusive science communicator is vital to improving the quality of science communication; and this has to come at all points: in writing the papers, in press releases, in writing for news articles/on social media, in talking about work with colleagues. Ask: whose research am I promoting? Whose might I have overlooked and why?
We’ve specifically discussed two ways that science and scientists can contribute to misinformation, disinformation and fake news: sensationalisation and perpetuating the “saviour” narrative; and shown some recent examples of how this might have happened. Ask: Have I sensationalised my research/Is this research sensationalised? Is there a “saviour” narrative? If so, who is being “saved” and where is their voice?
As a reader:
Be aware, for example, that social media activism gives authority to anyone who has a platform. Often how a piece of information trends defines its validity. In an attempt to make vast amounts of information regarding difficult issues, such as racism, humanitarian crises, allyship; Instagram and twitter is now being flooded with aesthetically pleasing slides packed with information regarding that specific topic. Verification can be harder - even if the source of the content is unknown, endorsements from others in the comments can overcome initial scepticism about the source. Ask: are there sources listed? Do I know who wrote it?
As @eve.ewing notes these posts can be: “Grossly oversimplifying complex ideas in harmful or misleading ways” and often “draw on the work of scholars and activists that go uncredited”. These same can be said of, for example, twitter’s character limit posts. Ask: is there a longer piece that might explore some of the nuances further so that I don’t have a one-dimensional view of this problem?
Being a critical consumer and producer of news and information about science is vital. Centering inclusion, diversity, equity, and anti-racism in your work is vital. In Part 2 of our blog this week, we’ll be taking a deeper dive into details on how to tackle fake news and misrepresentation.