One of these strategies is called “prebunking”: it refers to short texts or videos that warn about misinformation and manipulation on social media, for example, before people come across it. Since Covid-19 at the latest, “prebunking” has been considered a kind of vaccination against fake news.
“Unfortunately, fake news spreaders “vaccinate” their readers in a similar way”, writes a team led by Andrew Beers, from the University of Washington, in the magazine “Science Advances”. i.e. They also warn against subsequent content that is not in line with their approach – and thus discredit serious and credible research results.
“Obsessive interest in science”
Adopting the strategy of “prebunking” is far from the only similarity between serious and manipulative scientific communication, says Andrew Beers; Above all, citing study results and using technical jargon full of “random control experiments” and “statistical significance”, even among those who spread fake news. And this is nothing new, Beers tells science.ORF.at: “As a review of history shows, conspiracy theory communities have been constantly and obsessively interested in scientific studies and the language of science.” risk to the anti-vaccination movement for climate change deniers.
What was new about the “mask issue” in the pandemic was the magnitude and speed of the phenomenon. “In the beginning there was no type of conspiracy literature about masks, regardless of the direction. People had never discussed this before in the US,” Beers said. The corresponding ideas therefore had to be developed from scratch within a few months. “This was a unique opportunity to examine how public consensus develops on an issue on which there was previously little material.”
Science vs. communication on the “mask issue”
The University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, opened just before the pandemic began, seized this opportunity. Andrew Beers and his team examined two processes: on the one hand, how consensus in science on the “mask issue” was formed – at a time when evidence was still scarce – and, on the other hand, what science communicators they thought about it.
In the first case, the usual approach was evident: “Scientists try to discuss a problem,” says Beers. An analysis of the Web of Science online citation database describes how they do this. Beers and his team searched the database for the most cited studies on the topic of masks in the first year of the 2020 pandemic. As the graph shows, these approximately 80 studies can be attributed to three main groups: The first deals with the physical properties of masks; the second with its contribution to epidemiology, that is, the prevention of infections; the third with a public health perspective on the specific use of masks, for example in hospitals and homes. Analysis of citations from mask studies leads to a topical structure.
Andrew Beers et al, Science Advances 08/22/23 Different citation behaviors: science on the left, science communication on the right
“Science communicators cite in a completely different way, namely according to points of view,” says Beers. “On the one hand, all the studies that support masks, on the other hand, all those that do not – regardless of the subject area.” Beers draws this conclusion from the second part of the current analysis. He and his team examined five million messages on Twitter (today: X); specifically, these were responses to official announcements from US governors that had to do with mask-wearing. Often these responses included links or references to studies designed to provide evidence for or against.
Interests: measure of credibility
Comparing the most cited science and science communication studies showed that they are mostly the same – but they are used very differently. “Scientists are very concerned about their own discipline, their own craft, their own methods when they cite – but they are not collecting evidence to support a point of view. The opposite happens with communicators.” This is not a bad thing, on the contrary. “It’s great that they are looking for evidence to support a point of view. Because if you want to make a decision yourself, it’s good to have someone investigating the science and advocating a position.”
The “unfortunate reality” is that “the other side” does the same thing – ultimately it depends on who has more credibility. And there are standards for this, such as the push to publish texts. “If science journalists publish conspiracy theories all day long, they will lose their jobs. If other people do this and get attention on social media, they can make a lot of money from it,” says Beers. From the perspective of the “other side”, however, this will probably not be an argument, because they see “mainstream media” science communication as a business model with blinders on.
Against context collapse
So it’s worth taking a look at the specific studies cited by both sides. This is most common in a study from April 2020, when the evidence on mask use was just beginning to explode. “The study exists in a dual form, with seemingly completely contradictory conclusions,” write Beers and his team. Mask supporters cite them for their cause, as do masked opponents — but in completely different places. The quotes are therefore very selective.
This also applies to another of the most cited studies: it dates back to 2015, that is, from the time before SARS-CoV-2, when there was still very little reliable knowledge on the subject, and spoke out against the use of cloth masks in the healthcare sector. The anti-mask side has often used this study as a key witness — although lead author Raina MacIntyre, an Australian epidemiologist, later clearly supported the use of masks during the pandemic in several follow-up studies.
This only works if the study is taken out of context; In technical jargon, this is called context collapse. Non-experts are unable to correctly classify information that was produced for another group (namely experts). Manipulative communicators, in turn, take advantage of exactly this. This would also be possible – and this is where the circle comes full circle – for the current analysis of Andrew Beers and his team. His conclusion could also be mischievously conveyed with the slogan “anti-mask arguments are as scientific as pro-mask arguments.”
What can we do about this context collapse? “Good question,” says Andrew Beers. “If our review really goes viral, I would first look at what people are posting. I would then briefly summarize my point of view – preferably in just one sentence – and then publish it. This is good for spreading it further on social media.” If the matter gets completely out of hand, Beers would hold the editors accountable: they could attach additional information boxes to the misused studies, in which the authors explain the connections and warn against misuse. Information boxes must be clearly visible and not, as in this case, hidden under footnotes.
Consensus: Socially constructed, but not immediately credible
The fact is that even in the third year after the start of the pandemic, strictly scientific evidence on the use of masks is scarce and inconclusive, as shown in a general study by Cochrane Germany from March 2023 (which itself has to be classified) . However, the consensus that supporters and opponents of masks quickly found was clear – both are “socially constructed,” according to the basic assumption of Beers and his team.
But this in no way means that both are equally credible. The consensus you choose should depend on the diversity and strength of your security clearance. While on one side there are people from academia and journalism who have developed various systems to verify truth and accountability, on the other side there is an “informal coalition of conspiracy theorists and content creators on alternative platforms” who rarely have a scientific background and a accountability to the public.
According to Beers, scientists should therefore be more aware that they are not only researching and publishing in their community, but that their work is also used in public. He now wants to pursue this issue long-term with his colleagues at the Center for an Informed Public at the University of Washington. Controversial issues are not ignored – from global warming to the “extremely politicized issue” of healthcare for transgender children.