Dealing with digital misinformation: a polarised context of narratives and tribes

Zollo, Fabiana

doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170720

Cited by 32 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, more research does not necessarily increase confidence in risk assessments or trust in decisions (Jaffe, ). New scientific information quite often reveals previously unknown complexities, increasing the sense of uncertainty (van der Sluijs, ) and emphasising differences between competing perspectives (Sarewitz, , ; Zollo, ). To account for the uncertain nature of facts and inconclusiveness of information, the ‘precautionary’ model has been proposed.…”

Section: Models Of Science–policy Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Efforts to address current and future communication challenges on science and society must first recognise the irrefutable evidence that the landscape of communication has changed and will continue to change, with implications at the individual, group, societal and global levels (Bucchi, ; Smith et al., ; Zollo, ). The internet and the rise of social media have opened a veritable Pandora's box, providing unparalleled access to thousands of sources of information about any given topic.…”

Section: Fit‐for‐purpose Food Safety Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conducting fit‐for‐purpose food safety risk assessments

Devos

Elliott

Macdonald

et al. 2019

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interplay between science, risk assessment and risk management has always been complex, and even more so in a world increasingly characterised by rapid technical innovation, new modes of communication, suspicion about authorities and experts, and demands for people to have a say in decisions that are made on their behalf. In this challenging era where scientific advice on food safety has never been in greater demand, risk managers should effectively navigate the interplay between facts and values and be able to rely on robust and fit-for-purpose risk assessments to aid them. The fact that societal resistance is often encountered when scientific advice on food safety operates at a distance from social values and fails to actively engage with citizens, has led to increasing emphasis on the need to advance forms of risk assessment that are more contextual, and socially sound and accountable. EFSA's third Scientific Conference explored how risk assessments could be constructed to most usefully meet society's needs and thus connect science with society, while remaining scientifically robust. Contributors to the conference highlighted the need to: (1) frame risk assessments by clear policy goals and decision-making criteria; (2) begin risk assessments with an explicit problem formulation to identify relevant information; (3) make use of reliable risk assessment studies; (4) be explicit about value judgements; (5) address and communicate scientific uncertainty; (6) follow trustworthy processes; (7) publish the evidence and data, and report the way in which they are used in a transparent manner; (8) ensure effective communication throughout the risk analysis process; (9) involve society, as appropriate; and (10) weigh risks and benefits on request. Implementation of these recommendations would contribute to increased credibility and trustworthiness of food safety risk assessments.

show abstract

Section: Models Of Science–policy Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fit‐for‐purpose Food Safety Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conducting fit‐for‐purpose food safety risk assessments

Devos

Elliott

Macdonald

et al. 2019

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This could be achieved by: (1) framing risk assessments in food safety with clear policy goals, decision‐making criteria and a problem formulation (Devos et al., ,c); (2) addressing value‐laden judgements transparently (Elliott, ); (3) reflecting social and ethical priorities (Patel, ); and (4) engaging with interested and affected parties (Smith et al., ). Social context requires trustworthy and open communication that acknowledges the importance of epistemic uncertainty, and societal views ought to be included in the evidence base for decision‐making (Bucchi, ; Devos et al., ; Smith et al., ; Zollo, ). Hence, greater discussion and interaction between risk assessors and risk managers is essential to clarify the policy goals and decision‐making criteria.…”

Section: Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The social dimension for scientific advisory bodies largely concerns science communication and public engagement (Bucchi, ; Devos et al., ; Smith et al., ; Zollo, ). The political, economic and technological transformation of contemporary societies is challenging conventional structures and approaches in these areas.…”

Section: Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

EFSA's third Scientific Conference ‘Science, Food, Society’: concluding remarks

Verhagen

Robinson

Gallani

et al. 2019

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From 18-21 September 2018, EFSA hosted its third Scientific Conference on Science, Food and Society in Parma, Italy. This paper summarises the overall recommendations on future actions and research priorities of the conference and complements the earlier multi-authored papers in this issue. The conference started and closed with the plenary sessions 'where science meets society: putting risk assessment in context' and 'staying relevant in a changing world', respectively. In between, there were seven breakout sessions five of which aimed at advancing risk assessment science in the areas of human health, the environment, biological hazards, nutrition and managing evidence, and two of which were dedicated to the societal aspects of risk assessment: engaging with society and envisioning the expertise of the future. During the 4 days of the event, participants addressed the complex interplay between science, risk assessment, policy and society, and explored how to advance food safety risk assessment to address the challenges of a changing world and ensure preparedness. Acknowledging that good science alone is no longer sufficient to ensure fit-for-purpose food safety risk assessments, EFSA must further build on its current five Strategic Objectives. To ensure that its risk assessments remain scientifically robust and sound, EFSA should strive for robust and fit-for-purpose risk assessments; consider food in the context of safety, nutrition and sustainability; and explore further how EFSA can work with other organisations to achieve the One Health/One Environment goals. In addition, EFSA should base scientific risk assessments on reliable science while capitalising on scientific advances; address scientific uncertainties; and fully publish the evidence and data used. In line with societal expectations, EFSA, in coordination with risk managers, should frame risk assessments through clear policy goals and problem formulation; be explicit about value judgements; communicate clearly and consistently and in coordination with risk assessors and risk managers; involve society; avoid conflicts of interest; and follow trustworthy processes.

show abstract

“…As more science is pushed in ‘real time’ into the public domain without being filtered by professional mediators, greater responsibilities fall on researchers, institutions, and the users of information to develop productive forms of communication (Bucchi, ). Creative strategies for alleviating polarisation and confirmation bias are needed, especially on social media (Zollo, ). In order to foster effective communication and engagement in the future, regulatory agencies will need to work across disciplines and grapple with cutting edge developments in artificial intelligence and citizen science (Naydenova et al., ; Noel‐Storr, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%