Open science, COVID-19, and the news: Exploring controversies in the circulation of early SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology research

Abstract

Some early English language news coverage of COVID-19 epidemiology focused on studies that examined how SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) was evolving at the genetic level. The use of phylogenetic methods to analyse pathogen genetic sequence data to understand disease dynamics is called 'molecular' or 'genomic' epidemiology. Many research groups in this subfield utilise open science practices, which can involve the circulation of early unreviewed findings on publicly-accessible venues online. From March to May 2020, media outlets covered early SARS-CoV-2 genomic studies that claimed to have discovered types of SARS-CoV-2 that had mutated to be more transmissible. We use methods from Science and Technology Studies (STS) to examine three cumulative cases in which unripe facts about SARS-CoV-2 genomics moved out of scientific publics and into mainstream news. The three cases are: (1) 'A More "Aggressive" Strain of SARS-CoV-2?', (2) 'Eight SARS-CoV-2 Strains?', and (3) 'A "More Contagious," "Mutant" Strain?' In each case, findings were called into question and reporters' framing was overly sensational. We interpret the COVID-19 pandemic as a 'stress-test' for open science practices, and argue that it is important for stakeholders to understand changes in scientific publication and dissemination processes in the wake of the pandemic.

Making science public: a review of journalists’ use of Open Access research

“…(2016) as an example. Molldrem et al . (2021) have also noted that arXiv preprints have at least occasionally been (mis)used by journalists before the pandemic, as evidenced by widespread coverage of a problematic study of cold fusion posted to the server in 2013.…”

“…The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic delivered exactly the type of widespread coverage of preprints in controversial, health-related fields that Fox and Sheldon feared, bringing new urgency to what had been a mostly theoretical debate back in 2018 ( Molldrem et al ., 2021 ). The early months of the crisis saw a sharp increase in the volume of available COVID-19-related preprints ( Else, 2020 ; Horbach, 2020 ; Watson, 2022 ) and an “Increased permeability between scholarly circles, the news media, and the lay public” ( Molldrem et al ., 2021 , p. 1470), with preprint servers such as medRxiv and bioRxiv becoming key disseminators of pandemic research ( Vergoulis et al ., 2021 ). Given the lack of peer-reviewed evidence about the virus available at the time, COVID-19-related preprints became a key source of information for journalists ( Fraser et al ., 2021 ; Majumder & Mandl, 2020 ).…”

“…Given the lack of peer-reviewed evidence about the virus available at the time, COVID-19-related preprints became a key source of information for journalists ( Fraser et al ., 2021 ; Majumder & Mandl, 2020 ). While much of the resulting media coverage was helpful or benign, flawed and controversial preprints also made headlines (see Majumder & Mandl, 2020 ; Molldrem et al ., 2021 ; Scheirer, 2020 ; van Schalkwyk et al ., 2020 , for reviews of these cases). Concerns about misinformation—similar to those discussed back in 2018—resurfaced, with scholars arguing that “conversations surrounding individual non-peer-reviewed preprints has made it difficult to extract meaningful signals about reliable, cumulative scientific evidence from the noise of sometimes short-lived findings” [sic] ( Brossard & Scheufele, 2022 , p. 614) and warning that “uncontrolled and potentially misleading information will reach the general public, directly or via the media, leading to incorrect, sometimes fatal, responses to the pandemic” ( Chirico et al ., 2020 , p. 300).…”

“…A study of the German media landscape before and after the pandemic found similar results, with descriptions of preprints becoming more tentative during the pandemic—even for stories that were unrelated to COVID-19 ( Simons & Schniedermann, 2023 ). The lack of consistency in reporting can be problematic, given that “the framing of a reporter’s coverage … can sensationalize and distort preliminary findings, particularly when there is uncertainty, disagreement, and confusion among experts” ( Molldrem et al ., 2021 , p. 1476). To prevent such distortions, scholars have argued that journalists should adopt more standardized procedures for covering preprints, such as drawing on outside expertise to vet the results and labeling results as “under review” or “preprint research” ( Ginsparg, 2021 ; Dunwoody, as quoted in Hamilton, 2020 ).…”

Politics and pandemics

“…The final group of papers in the Special Issue focuses on the politics of science and technology. The first article in this section, by Molldrem et al, 'Open science, COVID-19, and the news: Exploring controversies in the circulation of early SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology research' (Molldrem et al, 2021), draws on methods from science and technology studies to analyse media coverage of 'unripe facts' from early SARS-CoV-2 genomics. Precisely because many research groups in 'molecular' or 'genomic' epidemiology utilise open science practices that involve dissemination of early unreviewed research findings on online venues that are publicly accessible, media outlets were able to report on genomic studies claiming to have discovered more transmissible strains of SARS-CoV-2 caused by genetic mutations.…”