ALLEA Discussion Paper #5

Fact or Fake?
Tackling Science
Disinformation
May 2021
About this Series

The ALLEA Discussion Paper series is an initiative to provide

up to date and informed perspectives from the academic
world on some of the most pressing issues facing societies
across Europe and beyond. The objective is to contribute to
and connect debates in the fields of science, society, and
policy. It serves as a transnational forum of the academies of
sciences and humanities for outstanding scholars to present
and discuss their work within ALLEA. Issues may draw on
workshop reports, statements, and position papers by ALLEA
working groups or other ALLEA initiatives. The series provides
an intellectual space to reflect on complex questions and
potential solutions and seeks to inform policy decisions as well
as the public debate.

About this Paper

ALLEA has a keen interest in the interrelationship of trust,

science, and society, especially where it concerns or includes
science communication. To understand and respond more
effectively to the underlying causes of science disinformation,
ALLEA and its Member Academies, with the support of
Fondazione Compagnia di San Paolo, initiated the project ‘Fact
or Fake? Tackling Science Disinformation’, the findings of which
are presented in this paper by an interdisciplinary scientific
committee (listed at the end).

Published in Berlin by ALLEA - All European Academies

May 2021

Citation

For citation purposes, please use the following:

ALLEA (2021). Fact or Fake? Tackling Science Disinformation.

ALLEA Discussion Paper, 5. Berlin. DOI: 10.26356/fact-or-fake

Licence

The text of this work is licensed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution licence which permits unrestricted use,
provided the original author and source are credited. The
licence is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0

Images are not covered by this licence.

Credit for pictures, unless otherwise indicated: Shutterstock

Executive Summary
The information landscape has undergone dramatic How can we protect the pillars
changes with the expansion of the internet and digital
social media platforms. Information can be spread
of science from the severe
more rapidly and can reach more people than ever consequences of disinformation
before. While this offers excellent possibilities to teach while maintaining openness and
and educate and to disseminate information about
democratic principles?
research results and scientific evidence, it also comes
with a downside: False information can be propagated
After discussing concrete challenges for
with equal ease and speed.
implementation in the three areas of concern
- climate change, vaccines, and pandemics -
This discussion paper describes and discusses the paper offers recommendations on how to
the problems and the consequences of science encourage those with a factual knowledge base,
disinformation in three areas of concern, namely i.e. scientists, to respond to misinformation, how to
climate change, vaccines and pandemics, and what encourage science communicators and journalists
we can do to increase awareness and minimize harm to carefully check facts and sources, and finally how
caused by the spread of disinformation. It does so by to raise awareness among policymakers about the
highlighting the societal value of the scientific method, importance of checking claims and the senders'
research integrity, open science communication and underlying motives and intentions.
the resulting trust in science. The underlying question
is how to protect the pillars of science from the severe
In a nutshell, the scientific committee and ALLEA
consequences of disinformation while maintaining
call for
openness and democratic principles.
» initiatives to raise science literacy and digital
media literacy,
This paper presents the central characteristics of science
disinformation, its roots, its spread, and potential » more dialogue in science communication
solutions. The mere existence of disinformation is hard practices,
to prevent in open societies with strong protection of » a stronger focus on communicating how science
individual rights and freedom of expression. The paper works,
identifies underlying cognitive, social and economic » serious engagement with the public when
mechanisms that amplify the spread of disinformation exercising or communicating research,
and evaluates potential solutions. » valuing the virtue of intellectual humility when
communicating scientific evidence,
Extensive research over the past several years has » the maintenance of good research practices and
identified cognitive features of the human mind, as high ethical standards to ensure integrity and
well as fast and efficient transmission channels, that trustworthiness,
contribute to the prevalence of science disinformation » accountable, honest, transparent, tailored and
in our societies. Potential solutions cover a range effective science advice mechanisms.
of psychological, technical and political measures
including inoculation, debunking, recommender The paper concludes with the suggestion to
systems, fact-checking, raising awareness, media create a European Centre/Network for Science
literacy, and innovations in science communication Communication which could develop central
and public engagement. Together, they contribute guidelines and recommendations in a European
to tackling problems such as knowledge resistance, Code of Conduct for Science Communication,
pseudoscience, undermining of trust, confirmation as well as coordinate initiatives to raise science
bias, filter bubbles, echo chambers, and other problems and media literacy, and ultimately tackle science
related to science disinformation. disinformation.
 Key Recommendations

» Initiatives to raise science literacy and digital

media literacy

» More dialogue in science communication practices

» A stronger focus on communicating how science

works

» Serious engagement with the public when

exercising or communicating research

» Valuing the virtue of intellectual humility when

communicating scientific evidence

» The maintenance of good research practices and

high ethical standards to ensure integrity and
trustworthiness

» Accountable, honest, transparent, tailored and

effective science advice mechanisms

2 ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021

Introduction
Science Mis- and Disinformation ‘Science disinformation’ can be understood as factually
incorrect information regarding claims that concern
False information is as old as humankind. Any scientific matters and that is fabricated or deliberately
knowledge void can be filled with beliefs or manipulated with the intention to deceive. It also
assumptions that are incorrect. Here we will focus includes claims that deliberately look and sound
on information that is known to be false, but that is scientific although they are not. This can include the
deliberately planted and disseminated nevertheless. deliberate spread of science misinformation; incorrect
Further distribution of this false information can, information regarding scientific matters that has been
again, happen either with or without awareness of the produced by mistake but without the intention to cause
lack of evidential support for the claims it contains. harm, caused for instance by scientific misconduct,
Any information that is incorrect is generally described lack of research integrity, or poor communication of
as misinformation. Disinformation is a subcategory of scientific results.
misinformation: information that is incorrect and that
has been produced deliberately, i.e. with the intention Much of the progress and welfare of human societies
to deceive.1 The focus of this discussion paper is on has been made possible by remarkable efforts in the
disinformation, although it can be difficult to establish systematic collection of information about our world
intent and hence distinguish between mis- and carried out by human cultures across the globe.
disinformation in practice. When observations and experiments are carried out

Credit: Claire Wardle & Hossein Derakshan, 2017.

1 Cf. Wardle, C. et al (2018). Information Disorder: The Essential Glossary. Harvard Kennedy School. Online Source: https://
firstdraftnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/infoDisorder_glossary.pdf (accessed 07/04/2021)

ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021 3

systematically and interpreted using well-established paradoxically, scientific language is often adopted
rules of evidence, they can be described as using at the same time as scientific activities themselves
scientific methods, and hence as ‘scientific’.2 The are being questioned. An extreme and particularly
progress made through scientific methods has been harmful form of anti-scientific activity appears in the
so spectacular that products and approaches without form of conspiracy theories with notable examples in
a scientific basis are often marketed using scientific the three areas chosen for analysis in this discussion
terms or jargon. Scientific research has become an paper: climate change, vaccines, and pandemics.3
envied and prestigious endeavour, and its language
frequently plagiarized. Science disinformation is one of the major challenges
of our times, with consequences for society at large
The overall success of the scientific method also and for (trust in) science.4, 5 This paper sheds light
means that when someone wants to make claims on the characteristics and mechanisms of science
that go against established scientific knowledge disinformation and discusses what scientists, science
and are not grounded in the scientific method, communicators and policymakers can do about it.
they must seek to undermine the trustworthiness
of the scientific method or scientists per se. Thus,

Research Integrity and Trust in Science

To guarantee scientific progress, established standards for research integrity are in place that help to
ensure the trustworthiness of science and scientists. Cases of plagiarism, insufficient or insufficiently
communicated responses from academia and the limited possibilities (even legally) to adequately solve
these cases show clearly that assuring research integrity and other critical mechanisms of good scientific
conduct, as well as their public communication, are essential for establishing and maintaining the high
societal trust that is placed in science and scientists. Research integrity, the trustworthiness of science and
the question of whether science is losing trust are core priorities for ALLEA. See, for instance:

» Research Project: PERITIA - Policy, Expertise and Trust (2020-2023)

» ALLEA Discussion Paper #1: Loss of Trust? Loss of Trustworthiness? Truth and Expertise Today (2018)

» ALLEA Discussion Paper #2: Trust Within Science - Dynamics and Norms of Knowledge Production (2019)

» ALLEA Discussion Paper #3: Trust in Science and Changing Landscapes of Communication (2019)

» Conference Report: Democracy in a Digital Society - Trust, Evidence and Public Discourse (2019)

» Conference Report: Science in Times of Challenged Trust and Expertise (2018)

» The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017)

2 We use the words ‘science’ and ‘scientist’ to cover academic research in general, regardless of discipline, and thus explicitly
include the humanities and social sciences. ‘Science’ is used here in the wider sense of the German term Wissenschaft.
3 For a comprehensive guide on conspiracy theories see Lewandowsky, S., & Cook, J. (2020). The Conspiracy Theory Handbook. Online
Source: http://sks.to/conspiracy (accessed 14/04/2021)
4 Research integrity and other ‘ internal’ factors within the scientific community play an important role for trust in science and
expertise and have been discussed elsewhere (see box).
5 For examples of continuously high and even growing levels of trust in science and scientists see, for instance, Wissenschaft im
Dialog (2020). Science Barometer 2020. Online Source: https://www.wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/en/our-projects/science-barometer/science-
barometer-2020/ (accessed 06/04/2021)

4 ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021

What is the Problem with Science
Disinformation?
While science disinformation and misinformation is Politically motivated refusal to
common in many different areas, we have chosen to
focus on three that strike us as particularly important:
accept climate change has received
climate change, vaccine safety and pandemics. strong financial support from
business interests, further amplified
Climate change in the form of global warming by certain sectors of the media.
resulting from human activities was first predicted
more than a century ago. Continuous monitoring of
various physical and chemical parameters shows that and its causes are countered with false claims about
the process of warming has accelerated during recent cause-and-consequence relationships, this will delay
decades. Signs of global warming include melting actions to reduce global warming, potentially with
glaciers, thawing permafrost, and rising sea levels. disastrous consequences.
These changes are caused by growing concentrations
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Findings
Vaccines are considered one of the most important
in many areas of research are almost unanimously
inventions ever for the benefit of humankind. The World
interpreted to mean that the large number of humans
Health Organization has estimated that vaccines save
and their activities have prominent roles in these
2-3 millions of lives every year, especially children,
developments.6
and prevent unimaginable suffering.7 High immunity
at the population level arising from vaccinations leads
Major concerns are now if the increase in carbon to reduced transmission of an infectious disease and
dioxide levels and temperatures mean that efforts may even eliminate it completely. Those who have
to break the rising curves will come too late. Models been vaccinated will serve as a protective barrier by
predict rising sea levels and flooding of large coastal not transmitting the disease to those who have not
areas, thereby reducing areas for human settlements been vaccinated (so called ‘herd immunity’).
and food production. This is predicted to displace
hundreds of millions of people, resulting in an
Nevertheless, opposition towards vaccination
increased population density and raising the potential
has existed since vaccination programmes were
for violent conflicts. Together, these processes will
introduced. The reasons for this resistance have
extinguish habitats for many species of organisms
varied over time and have at times been based on
and exacerbate the ongoing mass extinction.
valid doubts as to the vaccine’s efficacy. However,
some vaccines have been used for decades and
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, politically all vaccines are consistently monitored to ensure
motivated refusal to accept anthropogenic global a high ratio of benefits over risks. In addition, high
warming (increasing temperatures due to human standards for the approval of new vaccines have
influence) has been intense and has used both been implemented worldwide. Nevertheless, public
‘cherry-picking’ and conspiracy theories in order to resistance to vaccines prevails in some pockets of
counter widely accepted scientific evidence. This our societies, sometimes keeping vaccination uptake
resistance has received strong financial support below the threshold required for herd immunity.
from business interests, further amplified by certain
sections of the media. If the facts of climate change
6 See, for instance, IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.
Online Source: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-PartA_FINAL.pdf (accessed 06/04/2021)
7 Cf. WHO (2019). Immunization. Online Source: https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/immunization (accessed
14/04/2021)

ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021 5

False information, exaggerated/unjustified claims marketing campaigns run by proponents of various
about side effects, or conspiracy theories regarding pseudoscientific treatments, but with a total lack
underlying objectives for global vaccination of evidence from clinical studies and devoid of any
programmes may ultimately lead to an insufficient plausible biological mechanisms of action.
rate of vaccination and therefore inadequate levels of
immunity at the population level. Vaccine hesitancy The origin and spread of the pandemic have been
can not only lead to unnecessary disease outbursts, the subject of much speculation, some of which has
but also puts those at risk who have not yet been involved fanciful conspiracy theories such as linking
vaccinated, especially infants, and those who cannot the pandemic to 5G mobile phone technology or
be vaccinated, such as individuals with immune suggesting the virus was man made and introduced
deficiencies. Misinformation that increases vaccine into the population on purpose. In addition, there
hesitancy may cause more people to suffer from an have been numerous cases of fraudulent marketing
epidemic, more people to show severe symptoms, of health care products, ranging from face masks to
and more people to die. ventilators. Even political leaders in several countries
have promoted regimens that completely lacked
Pandemics have repeatedly struck humankind. It has clinical or biological evidence. Those who complied
never been a matter if further pandemics will come, may have caused themselves unnecessary harm
but when. When a new infectious virus is transmitted and/or felt unduly safe and have displayed more
from animals to humans, careful research is required risky behaviour, either by exposing themselves to
to find ways to treat the disease and limit the spread individuals infected with the virus or by ignoring their
of the virus. At the time of writing, the Covid-19 own symptoms and thereby exposing others. This
pandemic has been ravaging for more than 15 ‘infodemic’ coined by the WHO may have contributed
months and is still escalating with the discovery of to the spreading of the pandemic and may have
novel virus mutations. The initial lack of knowledge increased the number of patients with severe
about how to treat patients or prevent the virus from symptoms requiring intensive care, as well as the
spreading was immediately exploited by frivolous number of deaths.

6 ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021

Characteristics and Mechanisms of
Science Disinformation
Roots of Disinformation Knowledge Resistance & Confirmation Bias

Generating disinformation can be incited by different We humans are generally prone to absorbing
motivations in different actors and in numerous information that supports our established personal
combinations. The most apparent motivations are beliefs and opinions based on previous information
financial profit and ideological conviction. Both can or emotional appeal, an effect known as 'biased
at times deviate from norms of rationality and moral assimilation'8 that often leads to ‘motivated
standards when individuals ignore or are unable to reasoning’9 and may even result in self-deception.
recognise harmful consequences for others. In other This often leads to counterarguing or finding reasons
instances, the aim of disinformation is to deliberately to disparage sources of evidence. It can be both
cause confusion, instability, or mistrust for political value-based and identity-protective. Opinions can
purposes. also rely on misplaced trust, i.e., trust in authorities

Instead of finding ways to prevent disinformation from being generated

in the first place, efforts will have to focus on limiting the spread of
disinformation and minimising the damage it may cause.

Deliberate construction of false information is very that turn out to be unreliable sources of information,
difficult to prevent. When lies are generated wilfully, which may be unpleasant to admit.
the responsible individuals have already committed
themselves to fraud. Likewise, it may also be hard to We filter out information that contradicts personal
convince those who knowingly disseminate existing views with such ease that we hardly notice it. Once
misinformation to change their behaviour. In open information that we judge to be likable or convincing
societies with strong protective individual rights has been established in our minds, it becomes
and freedom of expression, it is difficult to stop difficult to replace it with diverging information, even
disinformation at its roots, except by appealing to if this new information is more accurate. Hence, we
humanitarian values and hoping that those who are by nature prone to confirmation bias. Resistance
produce and spread disinformation will consider with to new knowledge may prevail because of the
empathy the consequences for other people and then cognitive dissonance that may arise when novel facts
stop themselves and change their behaviour. contradict previous notions.10 However, bias is not the
only mechanism; it has also been proposed that a lack
Instead of finding ways to prevent disinformation of reasoning or lack of thinking in an analytic way,
from being generated in the first place, efforts will described as ‘lazy thinking’, leads to susceptibility to
have to focus on limiting the spread of disinformation disinformation.11
and minimising the damage it may cause.
By explaining and informing people that it is normal
to automatically reject new facts that contradict

8 Biased assimilation: Tendency to interpret information in a way that supports a desired conclusion. Cf. Greitemeyer, T. et al (2009).
Biased assimilation: the role of source position. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 39, 22–39.
9 Motivated reasoning: Constructing seemingly reasonable justifications to arrive at conclusions that you want to arrive at. Cf. Kunda,
Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.
10 Cf. Wikforss, Å. (2019). Critical thinking in the post-truth era. In: Kendeou, P. et al. Misinformation and Fake News in Education,
279–304.
11 Cf. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning
than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50.

ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021 7

a habitual notion, whether based on previous The Dunning-Kruger Effect
information or on emotional appeal, it may be
possible to increase their willingness to consider new It appears that the tendency to think highly of
information. Awareness can be raised by explaining ourselves is so common for many people that it
confirmation bias, thereby reducing knowledge can be considered part of human nature. Scientific
resistance, and the spread of disinformation. investigations have examined how well our opinion
of ourselves relates to our actual performance. Many
Knowledge gaps are challenging of those studies show that even the individuals with
the lowest actual performance scores tend to think
to most people, which is why we
that they performed better than average. A study
tend to fill missing links in our published in 1999 found that those who had the
chains of knowledge with invented lowest test scores overestimated their performance
explanations rather than the the most, succinctly summarized in the article's title:
"Unskilled and unaware of it".13 This has since been
acceptance that our knowledge is known as the ‘Dunning-Kruger effect’ and has been
temporarily incomplete. observed in individuals who are against vaccination
because of fear that it would cause autism. Those
who knew the least even thought they knew more
Sense-Making Stories than doctors about autism.14

Many misconceptions resulting from misinformation The impact of the Dunning-Kruger effect on the spread
have become established as common beliefs because of misinformation may be reduced by increased
they have a certain appeal. They are stories that appear awareness of the level of personal knowledge. The
to make sense. Knowledge gaps are challenging to aforementioned study by Kruger and Dunning shows
most people, which is why we tend to fill missing links that fact checking provides people with insights
in our chains of knowledge with invented explanations into their personal level of knowledge and can lead
rather than the acceptance that our knowledge is to a reassessment of the degree of comprehension
temporarily incomplete.12 Stories without knowledge in relation to the complexity of the matter. It also
gaps are easier to remember because they offer provides opportunities to upgrade and increase
continuous chains of explanations. Made-up stories personal knowledge. The major challenge here is to be
can usually be recognized because they are typically able to judge what is a reliable source of information.
vague about the sources of information, for instance This can be done by comparing different sources of
so-called ‘urban myths’. Furthermore, personal information and checking if these sources may have
anecdotal episodes or testimonies may have a specific underlying motivations, for example if they
strong emotional appeal. However, anecdotes cannot are run by certain interest groups, have commercial
be compared with the explanatory power of large interests or ideological agendas.
scientific investigations when it comes to determining
whether a correlation between observations also has Psychological Awareness
a causal relationship.

Many of the mechanisms that enable the spread of

If an incorrect description is to be replaced by a correct misinformation are closely associated with human
explanation, the new information should completely psychology. The way the human mind works seems to
replace the misconception in a way that makes sense, favour acceptance and further dissemination of many
i.e. no knowledge gaps should remain and it should kinds of false information. Furthermore, humans tend
address the emotional appeal and sense-making of to be eager to share information with others quickly.
the (mis-)information it is trying to replace.
12 See Duffy, B. (2018). The perils of perception: Why we’re wrong about nearly everything. Atlantic Books.
13 Cf. Kruger J. & Dunning D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to
inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol, 77, 1121–34.
14 Cf. Motta et al. (2018) Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning-Kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy
attitudes. Social Science & Medicine, 211, 274–281.

8 ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021

 Studies show that even the individuals with the lowest actual performance
scores tend to think that they performed better than average.

These features of human behaviour are well known Critical thinking skills help people evaluate premises
to many who plant and disseminate disinformation. and tackle intellectual blind spots caused by often
One countermeasure is therefore to inform potential unreliable, intuitive methods. To fight the spread of
recipients of misinformation about these human disinformation and limit its impact, we need to know
inclinations and how they are being exploited how to test the validity of information, identify, assess
by disinformers. By raising awareness of human and reconstruct arguments, and distinguish between
vulnerability, we can strive to handle these fallacies of causal and probabilistic drawing of conclusions
the human mind more efficiently and thereby protect (‘inference’).15 Teaching such skills is essential to
ourselves and others from misinformation. combat science disinformation, especially at times
of changing communication patterns and growing
Media Literacy polarisation.

A viable first step would thus be to make common New tasks for education in order to prevent the
human predispositions to being seduced by certain spread of disinformation must therefore also consider
types of information or communication strategies education about new (digital) media. One reason
known to the public and especially to young people. behind the spread of misinformation is the lack of
The psychology of information processing and experience with digital media and their underlying
behaviour should be taught in schools and discussed mechanisms and dynamics. Education programmes
in public. Special attention both in education and should focus more on (digital) media literacy.
public discussion should also be paid to the media
and recurring structural patterns of misinformation. Efforts to raise the general public's awareness and
Increased awareness may strengthen abilities to competence regarding media and information already
resist the temptation to embrace unfounded claims exist. In 2013, UNESCO initiated a global alliance
and thereby serve as consumer protection. encompassing more than 500 organizations called
the Global Alliance for Partnerships on Media and

15 Cf. Lyons, J., & Ward, B. (2017). The New Critical Thinking: An Empirically Informed Introduction. Routledge.

ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021 9

Debunking Steps

1. Describe the facts.

2. Warn that there is a myth.
3. Explain in what way the myth
is incorrect.

4. Repeat the facts to

consolidate this information.

Information Literacy (GAPMIL). The alliance aims to disinformation, it has the potential to limit its spread
enable people to "access, find, evaluate, [and] use the in social media and elsewhere.19
information they need in ethical and effective ways;
understand the role and functions of media and other Debunking
information providers such as libraries, museums
and archives, including those on the Internet […];
Another major strategy is to respond to misinformation
understand the conditions under which media and
by explaining why it is incorrect, and to provide correct
information providers can fulfil their functions; [and]
information after this misinformation has been
critically evaluate information and media content".16
exposed and explained. If it is a case of deliberate
disinformation, it is also relevant to uncover the
Inoculation tactics and potential intentions of its sender. For
debunking to have the intended effect, it is important
To limit the harm caused by disinformation, it has to carry it out in a pedagogical way so that the correct
been shown that it is "better to prevent than to cure".17 information is not confused with the misinformation
This strategy aims to provide protection against it is intended to debunk. It is essential both to explain
falsehoods by informing people beforehand about why the misinformation is false and to provide the
misinformation tactics and presenting its contents in true information instead (see box). As mentioned
weakened form. This approach has been given a term above, the fact-based explanation should ideally
borrowed from immunology: ‘inoculation’. It is also replace the myth entirely. Naturally, the explanation
known as ‘pre-bunking’. Pre-exposure is intended to should be intelligible, i.e., it should avoid unfamiliar
trigger a cognitive process that generates counter- terms and can be aided by diagrams as a pedagogical
arguments to disinformation like a form of "cognitive tool. Multiple arguments against the misinformation
antibodies".18 The method has been shown to work in may weaken it further.20
different contexts. As it makes it possible to recognise
16 Cf. UNESCO (2021) UNESCO MIL Alliance. Online Source: https://en.unesco.org/themes/media-and-information-literacy/gapmil
(accessed 07/04/2021)
17 Cf. Van Der Linden, S. et al (2017). Inoculating against misinformation. Science, 358(6367), 1141–1142.
18 Cf. Van der Linden, S., & Roozenbeek, J. (2020). Psychological inoculation against fake news. In: Greifeneder et al. The Psychology of
Fake News: Accepting, Sharing, and Correcting Misinformation.
19 Cf. Lewandowsky, S. et al (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the ‘post-truth’ era. Journal of applied
research in memory and cognition, 6(4), 353–369.
20 Cf. Lewandowsky, S. et al (2020). The Debunking Handbook 2020. Online Source: https://sks.to/db2020 (accessed 07/04/2021)

10 ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021

Pseudoscience - Plagiarising the Language The quality of sources can be difficult to judge, but
of Science in general an article in a scientific journal is likely to
have undergone some degree of peer review, making it
Contributions from science to human health and more trustworthy than many other sources. However,
welfare over the past centuries have been remarkable, this is complicated by the fact that the quality of
including medicine, food production, technology, scientific journals can vary considerably and some
education, and communication (although the benefits journals publish studies without peer review by
of science are still unevenly distributed within qualified experts.
societies and across the globe, and the achievements
of science have often been abused or misused). The Undermining Trust in Science and Scientists
extraordinary human progress thanks to science also
means that products and ideas can be marketed Scientists are generally held in high esteem in many
more efficiently by using the terminology of science, societies due to their extraordinary contributions
even in the absence of a scientific base for their to human health and welfare, and are also involved
claims. Such false pretensions are usually denoted in addressing current societal challenges.22 At the
as ‘pseudoscience’. However, it is not always easy to same time, as the progress of science is envied
see through pseudoscientific claims. Studies have and its terminology appropriated, trust in science is
shown that several psychological factors may explain paradoxically under attack.
the temptation to be persuaded by pseudoscientific
jargon, including unfamiliarity with the meaning of Purported disagreement among scientists has
terms and a lower degree of analytic thinking.21 been used to sow doubt about scientific evidence
by spreading disinformation about the degree of
Science literacy and understanding the meaning disagreement, for instance regarding evolution versus
of terms are again key to judging the plausibility of creationism, or regarding the health problems caused
claims that may be false or exaggerated (see box). For by smoking. A few scientists have been paid by special
instance, some early claims about efficient treatments interest groups such as commercial companies or
of Covid-19 were not only too quick to be able to be ideological organizations to interpret and exaggerate
tested on Covid-19 patients, but also cited old studies scientific findings to their patron’s advantage or to
that had been performed long before the Covid-19 criticize scientific investigations that do not fall within
virus appeared. Those studies sometimes concerned their own areas of expertise.23 It is essential for efforts
completely different types of viruses and therefore to respond to and debunk science disinformation that
could not be trusted. such anti-scientific behaviour - even if it comes from

How to check an unfamiliar topic

1. Check whether references to sources are provided.

2. Check if those sources are reasonably recent (if products are
marketed with references to old sources, this may indicate that
the results have not been verified, have not held up to scrutiny, or
have not been worth pursuing).

3. Check if the sources are credible scientific journals.

21 Cf. Pennycook G. et al (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10,
549–563.
22 Cf. Smith, M. & Ballard, J. (2021) Scientists and doctors are the most respected professions worldwide. Online Source: https://today.
yougov.com/topics/economy/articles-reports/2021/02/08/international-profession-perception-poll-data (accessed 07/04/2021)
23 Cf. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. (2010) Defeating the merchants of doubt. Nature 465, 686–687.

ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021 11

sources that might appear credible at first glance - is certain level of media literacy. This means that, for
exposed, so that trust in science and scientists can be instance, conspiracy theories can quickly reach a
maintained at a high level. larger number of people than ever before.24

Science’s great achievements build upon its Time is also a precious commodity for communication
ability to self-correct. This may occasionally be an professionals, e.g. for journalists and science
irritatingly slow process, and can be delayed further communicators. Nevertheless, it is essential for them
by personal and commercial interests. There is to take the time needed to check claims and sources.
usually a sufficient number of scientists who are For communicators, transmission of misinformation
eager to challenge prevailing views and question can have serious consequences for reputation and
common claims. This constant challenge ensures the trust.
progress of science. Moreover, science is a collective
enterprise, encompassing an ever growing number Biased Information and Filter Bubbles
of collaborators who not only contribute to new
discoveries and ideas, but also are a safeguard and
Social media companies have constructed algorithms
corrective measure against error and fraud. These
that constantly feed consumers with information
features of science - its continuous questioning and
similar to what they have shown interest in the past.
pursuit of new knowledge and its reliance on other
This can lead to the consolidation and amplification
scientists to confirm or refute their findings - make
of already established ideas and opinions, even if they
accusations against scientists as members of a united
are incorrect.25 Similarly, the internet offers excellent
powerful secretive conspiracy highly implausible.
opportunities for people with similar interests to
congregate and interact. Sometimes such interest
Speed of Communication in a Digital World groups meet in closed fora where content moderators
decide which information is allowed. People who ask
In our societies today, information transfer takes critical questions are blocked and discharged. When
place to an increasing extent via digital social media, repeated exposure to similar types of information
especially among younger generations. Digital is combined with filter bubbles in closed groups,
media offer excellent opportunities to disseminate confirmation bias may intensify and result in
information about science, including popular science. knowledge resistance. Thus digital media and its
Thanks to the internet, reliable and intelligible algorithms may feed a spiral of echo-chambers, filter
information is more readily available than ever before bubbles and confirmation bias, thereby facilitating
from a variety of sources, including open access yet further transmission of misinformation. Social
scientific journals and numerous popular-science media platforms may have subordinated expertise
websites and lectures (provided they are not censored to a logic of likability, leaving institutional experts
by governments). However, digital media are a mixed trailing behind.26
blessing, as they make it just as easy to propagate
false information. There is still much ongoing debate in the research
literature about how accurate the described
The speed of communication in social media means mechanisms actually are. What is clear, however, is
that little time and effort is spent on checking the that the algorithms are not under public scrutiny
quality of information and the trustworthiness of its or control, and that the platforms can change the
sources. Although it would require just a few extra world over night by changing their algorithms. That
clicks, it takes time to read, contemplate and evaluate is undeniable and should be sufficient cause for
the plausibility and reliability of the claims, and a concern.
24 For the question of how the changing media landscape affects communication patterns and trust in science see All European
Academies (2019). Trust in Science and Changing Landscapes of Communication. ALLEA Discussion Papers, 3. Berlin.
25 Cf. Lewandowsky, S. et al (2020). Technology and Democracy: Understanding the influence of online technologies on political
behaviour and decision-making. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
26 See O’Callaghan et al (2015). Down the (white) rabbit hole: The extreme right and online recommender systems. Social Science
Computer Review, 33(4), 459–478. See also Marchal, N. & Au, H. (2020). Coronavirus EXPLAINED: YouTube, COVID-19, and the Socio-Technical
Mediation of Expertise. Social Media + Society, 6(3).

12 ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021

Socio-Technological Aspects appealing user interfaces, information and advertising
to make the web site attractive. Thus the end user and
Commercial or other sponsorship to make information the public at large must be aware and vigilant to the
freely available for target groups is widespread; it is fact that what is being sold is whatever generates the
actually more the rule than the exception. Thus – highest profit, rather than what is likely to meet the
to put it bluntly – the notion of objective or factual user’s needs.
information in digital media is generally not to be
expected. As a consequence, the end user must This problem that has been created by information
exercise considerable acuity to obtain the information technology, especially by search engines and the
that is most useful or pertinent to their needs. Even world wide web, does not have a simple solution.
when the information presented is accurate, the However, there are constructive ways forward. End
choice of information that is presented to the end users can ‘consult’ general purpose or specialised
user may depend on the commercial interests and its Software Recommender Systems.27 An end user may
potential for generating a revenue. Thus, for instance, feed a recommender system with its actual needs
the response to a search that an end user performs on and requirements. The recommender system may
a commercial website will receive the response that also learn from the end user’s reactions to the advice
maximises the website’s income. This is automatically offered by various web search engines, as well as
carried out with sophisticated and finely attuned from the recommendations of other similar systems.
algorithms. The user can then use the recommender system – or
several specialised systems that deal with different
The website provider must in turn expend subjects – to make the best choices from suggestions
considerable funds to invest in up-to-date computer that the web services provide. Of course, the user’s
and telecommunications equipment that offers end recommender system should not be funded by the
users a fast and technologically reliable response, same sources as the websites; it should presumably
in up-to-date software and software maintenance, be paid for by the end users’ subscriptions.
in competent technical and business personnel to
manage its operations, in massive usage of costly There are notable initiatives by companies for
electricity, and in visually and psychologically voluntary commitment and self-regulation, especially

27 Cf. Serrano, W. & Gelenbe, E. (2018), The Random Neural Network in a neurocomputing application for Web search. Neurocomputing,
280, 123–134.

ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021 13

 Policymakers can regulate content need to regulate them in a manner that allows us to
access the accurate information and exploit emerging
directly, provide someone with the information technologies, e.g. automated fact-
authority for regulating content, checking and recommender systems.
redesign the structures (platforms)
in which content is generated and It is extremely difficult to regulate content directly
without raising legitimate concerns about censorship.
distributed, or support the creation It is very hard to clearly distinguish disinformation
of instruments that can raise citizen from, for example, irony or satire, in a standardized
awareness and enable them to way, as such designations would depend on both the
intention of the actor and the context of the given
identify and prevent the dangers of
information.
misinformation.
the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation.28 A viable alternative could be to mandate content to
They can be a valuable instrument for ensuring be regulated. Media outlets and platforms could be
greater transparency of platforms' policies against mandated to ensure that their content is constantly
disinformation, but have significant shortcomings checked by independent and constantly audited
mainly due to the Code's self-regulatory nature.29 researchers and fact-checkers. They could apply
flexible approaches that do not need to be regulated
Translating into Legislation in much detail. Some major platforms have already
installed internal fact-checkers for this purpose.
Policymakers have at least four ways to prevent the Governments could also require platforms more
spread of misinformation: They can regulate content realistically to limit misinformation to a certain level
directly, provide someone with the authority for instead of eliminating it entirely. Some countries have
regulating content, redesign the structures (platforms) already introduced legislation in this regard, such as
in which content is generated and distributed, or the German Network Enforcement Act.
support the creation of instruments that can raise
citizen awareness and enable them to identify and Using knowledge about cognition for redesigning
prevent the dangers of misinformation.30 social media platforms and their algorithms
(‘technocognition’) could be another way to prevent
One way forward is to ask public regulators of news the spread of misinformation. An example is simply
media to intensify their regulation of social media reducing the numbers of times that certain content
platforms and websites. Web services are often can be shared with others, slowing the distribution of
sources of news and information while also financed information down and forcing people to consult the
by advertising agencies. This leads to an obvious source or even validate the information.
conflict of interest that needs to be examined and
constantly regulated. Last but not least, governments have the option of
strengthening incentives for empowering recipients
However, search engines and social media platforms of information to identify and cope with mis- and
should not be viewed as a threat to our democracy disinformation, either themselves or with the help
per se. We should act in an enlightened manner of machine learning systems. (Digital) media literacy
to nurture and guide the rich value of diverse is crucial here for evaluating the content and
commercial sources of digital information, as we context of information and ultimately detecting its
do with newspapers and television channels. We accuracy. Several endogenous cues (content) and

28 See, for instance, EU Code of Practice on Disinformation. Online Source: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_

id=54454 (accessed 06/04/2021)
29 See the EC’s Assessment of the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation. Online Source: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/
document.cfm?doc_id=69212 (accessed 06/04/2021)
30 See Lewandowsky, S. et al (2020). Technology and Democracy..., 87ff for a detailed account of the challenges for regulation and
potential solutions mentioned here.

14 ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021

exogenous cues (context) can help test the validity of science communication practices. A stronger focus on
information.31 However, such cues to disinformation communicating how science works, i.e. standards and
and their uptake for regulation remain largely methods, will raise science literacy as well as media
underexplored. literacy.

Science Communication and Public Communication with the public must be open and
Engagement inclusive. Open conversations on an equal footing
between scientists and nonscientists, with room
Trust in science, the recognition of trustworthy scientific for uncertainties, assumptions, values ​​ and social
information and its distinction from misinformation questions, could lead to greater mutual understanding
is always mediated. The communication practices and trust. For instance, the model of citizen assemblies
of researchers and journalists thus play a central on science based policy is designed to bring science
role in tackling science disinformation. Like any part closer to the people and engage the public, e.g.
of the media landscape, science communication on climate science.32 The virtues of openness and
is also heavily affected by the transformation intellectual humility allow for a plurality of voices
into a globalised, technologically mediated and and apply to experts even more than to the end users
commoditised environment. This transformation of information.33 However, openness and humility
provides opportunities to reach new audiences should not lead to an attitude of ‘anything goes’
with new methods, but also paves the way for the which neglects certain aforementioned (scientific)
problematic mechanisms described above and puts standards and methods.
even more financial and time pressure on science
communicators.

In addition to such external factors, there is an apparent

lack of exchange between science communicators and
scientists. There is clearly a need for more dialogue in

31 Cf. Lorenz-Spreen, P. et al (2020) How behavioural sciences can promote truth and autonomy and democratic discourse online.
Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 1102–1109.
32 See Suiter, J. et al (2016). When do deliberative citizens change their opinions? Evidence from the Irish Citizens’ Assembly.
International Political Science Review, 37(2), 198–212.
33 See Alfano, M. et al (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Humility. Routledge.

ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021 15

Challenges for Implementation
Climate Change The heated debate around climate
change shows us how challenging
The opposition to scientific evidence on climate
change, more specifically anthropogenic global
it is to find, understand and
warming (AGW), has an interesting history with communicate scientific evidence.
academic, political, and financial roots. Opposition
has continuously been voiced by economic interests
in fossil-based fuels and other industries causing 2018 concluded that "human influence on climate has
large emissions of carbon dioxide. Studies show that been the dominant cause of observed warming since
attitudes towards climate science are highly polarised the mid-20th century".37
and divided along political lines.34 Among political
leaders, for instance, denial of AGW is more common Urgent action on a global scale is necessary to mitigate
among right-wing representatives, especially those these processes. However, many political leaders and
who support free markets. Interestingly, warning large proportions of populations still deny the factual
signals from climate scientists in the 1990s were observations, the observed or inferred causes, and
initially also questioned by some academic scholars the predicted consequences. This causes necessary
from Science and Technology Studies35 who were decisions to be insufficient both in extent and time.
sceptical towards knowledge claims of natural Thus scientists and science communicators are facing
scientists based on mathematical models.36 an immense challenge to explain the chains of causal
events, the ongoing global warming and the predicted
The heated debate around climate change shows us future consequences.
how philosophical and theoretical debates in and
across academic disciplines can (temporarily) lead Vaccine Hesitancy
to contradicting claims, demonstrating the complex
and non-linear scientific progress, as well as how The overall evidence for the usefulness of vaccines
challenging it is to find, understand and communicate is overwhelming. The risk-benefit ratio leans
scientific evidence. Nowadays, the overwhelming overwhelmingly towards the continued development
majority of leading scientists in this field stand united of vaccines against infectious diseases and other
in their conclusions as described in the reports of the health problems. A large part of the world population
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). is eagerly awaiting opportunities to be vaccinated
Experts on the IPCC panels have been criticised for against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19.
exaggerating the prognosis of global warming, but also Overall support for Covid-19 vaccines seems to remain
for underestimating the temperature change. IPCC high in many countries despite the misinformation
has admitted to some errors and some speculation, surrounding it.38 Scientists in pharmaceutical
but by and large their assessments have been companies and academia have developed a number
reasonably correct and their predictions sometimes of vaccines in an impressively short period of time.
too modest. The most recent IPCC report released in Expectations are high.

34 Cf. Lewandowsky, S. et al (2015), Seepage. Climate change Denial and its Effect on the Scientific Community. Global Environmental
Change, 33, 1–13.
35 STS, Science and Technology Studies, are the study of how society, politics, and culture affect scientific research and technological
innovation, and how these, in turn, affect society, politics and culture.
36 Cf. Hansson, S. O. (2020). Social constructionism and climate science denial. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 10(3), 1–27.
37 Cf. United Nations (2014). Human cause of global warming is near certainty, UN reports. Online Source: https://news.un.org/en/
story/2014/01/460872 (accessed 07/04/2021)
38 See, for instance, Johns Hopkins University (2021). KAP COVID. Vaccine Acceptance Around the World. Online Source: https://public.
tableau.com/views/JHUCOVID-19KAPVaccineAcceptance/VaccineAcceptanceStory (accessed 14/04/2021)

16 ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021

 It is difficult to use rational adapted for those who hesitate and are uncertain
so that they can have access to factually correct
arguments to reach ardent information and make an informed decision.42
opponents to vaccines. Evidence-
based information should therefore The Covid-19 Pandemic
be adapted for those who hesitate so
that they can have access to factually Covid-19 is a devastating pandemic for human health
and societies. Its highly variable symptoms, ranging
correct information. from unnoticeable to death, have triggered intense
There have been some causes for concern regarding interest in disease mechanisms and efforts to
vaccines in the past, which have probably contributed minimize its spread. Immediately after the pandemic
to vaccine hesitancy. Some previous vaccines provided started, many cures were marketed, often derived
low protection due to poor quality or incorrect from traditional medicine although there had been
handling. In some countries, there is mistrust in no experience whatsoever in treating Covid-19 as
authorities due to corruption and in pharmaceutical it was caused by a new virus. Conspiracy theories
companies due to scandals (unrelated to vaccines). emerged regarding both the origin and spread of
Some individuals fear injections or unintended the virus.43 The flood of misinformation forced many
effects of vaccine stabilisers. In general, there is agencies and academies to compile evidence-based
limited knowledge among citizens about how vaccines information to debunk the false information and
work and an exaggerated fear of side effects. Vaccine warn against relying on claims that are not based on
hesitancy has been ranked by the WHO as one of the scientific studies.44
ten most important threats to human health.39
Scientists have made tremendous progress at an
Recent research has shown that those who know impressive rate. The short time taken to develop
the least about vaccines and are misinformed about Covid-19 vaccines has surpassed even the most
their side effects are the most likely to think that they optimistic expectations. Importantly, Covid-19 has
know more than medical professionals.40 This is in offered excellent opportunities to explain how
line with the Dunning-Kruger effect described above. science works and has informed the general public
In addition, vaccine opponents display trust in fake that science at the research front is uncertain and
experts, including one who was found guilty of fraud conclusions can be premature. This has been clearly
and lost his licence to practice medicine. Other anti- illustrated in relation to the predominant mode
vaccine activists have been found to endorse bizarre of virus transmission (aerosol, drops or contact),
racist conspiracy theories.41 the efficacy of face masks (and which types), which
pharmacological treatments can reduce symptoms
Studies show that it is difficult to use rational and shorten recovery time, and whether the most
arguments to reach ardent opponents to vaccines. severe symptoms are caused by the virus itself or the
Evidence-based information should therefore be immune response it evokes.

39 Cf. World Health Organization (2019). Ten threats to global health in 2019. Online Source: https://www.who.int/vietnam/news/
feature-stories/detail/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019 (accessed 07/04/2021)
40 Cf. Callaghan, T. et al (2021). Correlates and disparities of intention to vaccinate against COVID-19. Social science & medicine, 272,
1136–42.
41 Cf. Hornsey M. J. et al (2018). The Psychological Roots of Anti-Vaccination Attitudes: A 24-Nation Investigation. Health Psychology
37, 307–315.
42 See Lewandowsky, S. et al (2021). The COVID-19 Vaccine Communication Handbook. A practical guide for improving vaccine
communication and fighting misinformation. Online Source: https://sks.to/c19vax (accessed 14/04/2021). See also Goldenberg, M. J. (2021).
Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science. University of Pittsburgh Press.
43 See Leibovits T. et al (2021). COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs: Relations with anxiety, quality of life, and schemas. Personality and
Individual Differences, 175.
44 See WHO (2021). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public: Mythbusters. Online Source: https://www.who.int/
emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters. (accessed 07/04/2021). See also Lewis, T. (2020). Eight
Persistent COVID-19 Myths and Why People Believe Them. Scientific American. Online Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/
eight-persistent-covid-19-myths-and-why-people-believe-them (accessed 07/04/2021)

ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021 17

 Conspiracy theories emerged The continued scientific progress is expected to
increase our understanding of this evasive virus
regarding both the origin and
and will hopefully facilitate development of many
spread of the virus. The flood different types of vaccines as well as pharmacological
of misinformation forced many treatments that can be used to reduce infection,
alleviate symptoms and reduce the time required
agencies and academies to compile
for recovery. In the meantime, scientists and
evidence-based information to communicators must keep on disseminating evidence-
debunk the false information and based information so that Covid-19 precautions and
warn against relying on claims that restrictions are respected.

are not based on scientific studies.

The avalanche of scientific studies of Covid-19

inevitably means that a few reports may have drawn
conclusions from findings that will turn out to be
random and thus not possible to replicate. Others
may have exaggerated conclusions or may be based
on poorly designed studies. The scientific process
will eventually weed out the studies that cannot be
replicated or do not hold up to scrutiny.

18 ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021

What can Scientists do?
As producers and purveyors of information based on It is essential to avoid elitist
scientific evidence, scientists are in a unique position
to make this knowledge useful for members of our
attitudes; instead, efforts should
societies. A considerable proportion of all research is be made to present science in a
carried out at universities and academic institutions, way that is comprehensible to
and many of these are to a large extent funded by
the target group, and to seriously
tax-payers' money. Hence, it seems reasonable that
the general public should have access to useful engage with the public when
information resulting from this research. Scientists exercising and communicating
may thus be considered to have an obligation research.
to engage in outreach activities to share and
communicate scientific knowledge. It is essential to
avoid elitist attitudes; instead, efforts should be made The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has brought scientists
to present science in a way that is comprehensible to the centre stage to explain what is happening on
to the target group, and to seriously engage with the the research frontier. It may have been somewhat
public when exercising and communicating research. surprising for the general public to experience that
scientists may differ in the way they interpret the
same observations. The ongoing pandemic provides
However, the amount of misinformation in our societies
opportunities to describe in real time how research is
is rather extensive and it may take considerable time to
done and how results are debated among scientists
investigate a particular claim to determine its degree
to reach the most plausible conclusions.
of support from research. But if many scientists take
responsibility and contribute, it should be possible to
limit the impact of misinformation.

To maintain a high level of trust in science and

scientists, it is crucial to ensure that good research
practice and high ethical standards are maintained,
as described in ALLEA's European Code of Conduct for
Research Integrity.45 Suspected researcher misconduct
must be investigated. Young scientists and PhD
students must be properly educated in these matters.
This together with openness about the scientific
process can sustain the good reputation of science
and scientists. Trust must be deserved and earned.

Scientists also need to interact with science

communicators and policymakers. Close contact with
communicators helps to ensure that the disseminated
information is correct and the conclusions reasonable.
Contact with policymakers will alert them to signs of
potential misinformation.

45 See All European Academies (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Online Source: https://www.allea.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf (accessed 06/04/2021)

ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021 19

What can Science Communicators do?
Science communicators such as science journalists It is crucial to check plausibility,
have important roles in making scientific research
accessible and comprehensible for policymakers
reliability and sources and
and the general public, as well as for scientists to remain up to date in a fast
in other fields of research. Close contact with changing information landscape.
researchers is necessary to ensure accurate reporting.
Communicators and scientists alike must strive to
If misinformation or untrustworthy sources are
explain science at a level suitable for the intended
detected, science communicators too can make
audience.
important contributions to debunking. Often
exposures of fraudulent claims and pseudoscience
Good science communication also includes refraining
make excellent news stories. It is imperative to
from writing exaggerated headlines in news releases,
describe not only the misinformation, but also replace
as such hyperbole may strike back and undermine
the fraudulent claims with correct information and
trust. Thus, it is important not to oversell science.
strive to consolidate this as described for debunking.
Communicators may even have a role in harnessing
over-enthusiastic reports by scientists.
Furthermore, science communicators, like scientists,
can help inform the public about the scientific
In addition to explaining research results, science
methods and the nature of scientific research such
communicators must carefully trace sources of
as replicability and self-correction. The scientific
information. It is especially important that science
meaning of the commonly used terms ‘uncertainty’,
communicators do not transmit any type of
‘significance’ and ‘evidence’ may not (yet) be part of
misinformation. It is crucial to check plausibility,
every citizen’s vocabulary, but they are very useful
reliability and sources and to remain up to date in
concepts that should be widely known. Indeed, one
a fast changing information landscape. It is essential
important aspect of scientific research that must
to identify the sender, not only to avoid spreading
be conveyed is that new evidence ‘on the frontier
disinformation, but also to avoid falling into the trap
of knowledge’ necessarily has some degree of
of disseminating pranks. Made-up results as well as
uncertainty as the evidence can still be falsified and
fraudulent research may have such an appeal that
be subject to change.
journalists cannot resist the temptation to write
about the alleged findings.

For policymakers it seems especially important to check if the sources

of information have specific commercial interests or ideological
agendas that may conflict with the best available evidence.

20 ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021

What can Policymakers do?
Several science advice mechanisms aim to provide responsibilities and they are also very understandably
policymakers with the best available scientific short of time. This is why they must have access
evidence on which to base decisions.46 Not only to experts that can supply the best evidence-
decisions in politics should be informed by scientific based information available and provide a broad
evidence, but also in industry and finance and other perspective on the matter. This includes pointing out
parts of our societies. Large organisations may what evidence is still uncertain or incomplete. Expert
have their own science advice and communication science advice is especially vital concerning highly
functions that can ensure that accurate information complex matters such as climate change and novel
is available and used. challenges like Covid-19.

Naturally, policymakers may need to consider a range For policymakers it seems especially important to
of considerations, including scientific, economic, check if the sources of information have specific
cultural and social. But it should nevertheless be commercial interests or ideological agendas that
emphasized that decisions must be made on the basis may conflict with the best available evidence. Such
of the most reliable information. The negation test special interests are known for all three topics in this
proves the applicability of this concept: Who would discussion paper. For instance, conspiracy theories
dare to make decisions based on misinformation? are nurtured by stakeholders in debates about climate
change, vaccines, and Covid-19. All three matters also
High-ranking policymakers do not have expert involve commercial interests.
knowledge about all topics relevant to their

Relevant European Commission reports

» Tackling COVID-19 disinformation - Getting the facts right. (2020) https://ec.europa.eu/info/

sites/info/files/communication-tackling-covid-19-disinformation-getting-facts-right_en.pdf

» Action Plan against Disinformation. (2018) https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/

headquarters-homepage/54866/actionplan-against-disinformation_en

» Tackling online Disinformation: a European Approach. (2018) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/

legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0236

» Code of Practice on Disinformation. (2018) https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.

cfm?doc_id=54454

» A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation. Report of the independent High-level

Group on fake news and online disinformation. (2018) http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/
document.cfm?doc_id=50271

46 See the work of SAPEA and the European Commission’s Science Advice Mechanism as a prominent example: https://www.sapea.
info/. For a concise analysis of science advisory ecosystems and the science–policy interface see Gluckman, P.D. et al (2021). Brokerage at the
science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8(84).

ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021 21

 How to Tackle Science Disinformation

22 ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021

Concluding Thoughts
Misinformation is frequently accepted and spread Even though there seems to be
uncritically without checking its origin or possible
underlying motivations. Extensive research over
widespread awareness of the
the past several years has identified psychological problems and harm caused by
features of the human mind, as well as fast and disinformation, there is still no
efficient transmission channels, that contribute
coordinated European effort to
to its prevalence in our societies. Such fascinating
information about the characteristics of human respond to this with increased and
thinking and new communication media can better science communication.
greatly enhance our understanding of ourselves
and other individuals regarding attitudes towards
misinformation. This new knowledge brings the humble
realization that we can easily be misled. Fortunately, decisions and therefore must make sure that they are
the new research also suggests strategies to protect not deceived by false information.
ourselves from both commercial and ideological
manipulation. If insights about these mechanisms Multiple initiatives are in progress to raise awareness
could be widely disseminated, the harm caused by about science disinformation and the attempts to
misinformation, and especially disinformation, would undermine trust in science, especially for European
hopefully be considerably reduced. policy, illustrated by a number of documents
produced by the European Commission Services (see
As acceptance of misinformation can happen so easily, box on page 21). They provide constructive advice on
we should be careful about accusing one another of how to counteract misinformation and disinformation
holding factually incorrect views (unless there are and how to encourage people to consider arguments,
good reasons to express it clearly). Instead, it can plausibility, and sources. These initiatives are valuable
be advisable to offer opportunities for those who sources of information for those who have important
have been factually misled to consider more well- roles in society to reduce misinformation, primarily
founded explanations. This can be done by raising scientists, science communicators, and policymakers.
awareness of the sources of the misinformation and
the mechanisms that may lead to its absorption. A As evidenced in this paper, there is still a need for a)
much more constructive discussion is likely to follow initiatives to raise science literacy and digital media
upon the phrase "maybe you have been misinformed" literacy, b) more dialogue in science communication
rather than the confrontative "you are wrong". After practices, c) a stronger focus on communicating how
all, what we want to achieve is increased knowledge science works, d) serious engagement with the public
that agrees with facts as well as to improve protection when exercising or communicating research, e) valuing
against future misinformation. the virtue of humility when communicating scientific
evidence, f) the maintenance of good research
Special responsibility to limit the spread of practices and high ethical standards, g) accountable,
misinformation rests upon those who have the honest, transparent, tailored and effective science
knowledge and tools to diagnose and counteract it: advice mechanisms.
scientists who can present the facts that contradict
the fake; science communicators who can make Even though there seems to be widespread awareness
scientific results easier to understand and who of the problems and harm caused by disinformation,
know which information channels and strategies to there is still no coordinated European effort to
use to counteract misinformation; and policymakers respond to this with increased and better science
who need to have a reliable evidence base for their communication. While mechanisms of science advice

ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021 23

for policy have been introduced on different levels to
bridge the gap between scientists and policymakers,
no central pan-European mechanism or institution is
in place to coordinate existing initiatives and develop
coherent guidelines and recommendations on science
communication in an inclusive manner.

The solution could be a European centre or network

for science communication which, among others,
could aim at defining central guidelines and
recommendations in a European Code of Conduct for
Science Communication, similar to the European Code
of Conduct for Research Integrity. This network could
also coordinate initiatives to raise science literacy
and media literacy by developing curricula, courses,
guidelines, etc.

For important matters such as climate change and

lethal pandemics, our destiny relies on the successful
communication and use of scientific evidence, both
as individuals and as societies. Only facts can provide
a basis for appropriate decisions. Fakes cannot!

24 ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021

Scientific Committee

Member Affiliation

Dan Larhammar (Chair) Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Maria Baghramian PERITIA; Royal Irish Academy

Piero Bianucci Academy of Sciences of Turin

Garvin Brod Die Junge Akademie

Dalibor Dobiáš Czech Academy of Sciences

Erol Gelenbe Bilim Akademisi

Risto Kunelius The Council of Finnish Academies

Stefano Leonardi National Academy of the Lincei

Stephan Lewandowsky University of Bristol

Mariëtte Oosterwegel Samenweten; Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

Alison Powell London School of Economics and Political Science

Jane Suiter Royal Irish Academy

Coordination & Support: Daniel Kaiser (ALLEA)

ALLEA Discussion Paper - May 2021 25

 About ALLEA

ALLEA is the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities,

representing more than 50 academies from over 40 EU and non-EU countries.
Since its foundation in 1994, ALLEA speaks out on behalf of its members on the
European and international stages, promotes science as a global public good,
and facilitates scientific collaboration across borders and disciplines.

Academies are self-governing bodies of distinguished scientists drawn from all

fields of scholarly inquiry. They contain a unique human resource of intellectual
excellence, experience and multidisciplinary knowledge dedicated to the
advancement of science and scholarship in Europe and the world.

Jointly with its members, ALLEA seeks to improve the conditions for research,
to provide the best independent and interdisciplinary science advice available,
and to strengthen the role of science in society. In doing so, ALLEA channels the
expertise of European academies for the benefit of the research community,
decision-makers and the public. Outputs include science-based advice in
response to societally relevant topics, as well as activities to encourage scientific
cooperation, scientific reasoning and values through public engagement.

ALLEA is constituted as a non-for-profit association and remains fully

independent from political, religious, commercial or ideological interests.

CONTACT US

ALLEA | All European Academies

Jägerstraße 22/23
10117 Berlin
Germany

+49 (0)30-3259873-72
[email protected]
www.allea.org
@ALLEA_academies