Science and Ethics of “Curing” Misinformation

Abstract

A growing chorus of academicians, public health officials, and other science communicators have warned of what they see as an ill-informed public making poor personal or electoral decisions. Misinformation is often seen as an urgent new problem, so some members of these communities have pushed for quick but untested solutions without carefully diagnosing ethical pitfalls of rushed interventions. This article argues that attempts to "cure" public opinion that are inconsistent with best available social science evidence not only leave the scientific community vulnerable to long-term reputational damage but also raise significant ethical questions. It also suggests strategies for communicating science and health information equitably, effectively, and ethically to audiences affected by it without undermining affected audiences' agency over what to do with it.Current Myopia About Misinformation "I believe that misinformation is now our leading cause of death," US Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf tweeted in April 2022, "and we must do something about it." 1 Diagnoses like this one are understandable. Normative democratic ideals assume that the best available scientific evidence informs both societal and individual decisions and crowds out misperceptions, disinformation, or conspiratorial thinking. Because of what it sees as a recent deviation from these norms in our current information environment, the World Health Organization has warned about an "infodemic," 2 or a deluge of information-some of it inaccurate-that makes it difficult for citizens to separate signal from noise.

Acceptance of Public Health Measures During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study of the Swiss Population’s Beliefs, Attitudes, Trust, and Information-Seeking Behavior

“…Public health and governmental institutions constantly communicated new rules to adapt to the rapidly changing situation. Beyond the informative objective, their communication's primary and essential goal was persuasive, aimed at generating a consensus and a stable behavioral change for adopting the preventive measures [3][4][5]. Public institutions played a crucial role in ensuring population adherence, a task that became more complex in the face of an infodemic, defined by WHO as "too much information including false or misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak" [6].…”

“…Public institutions must ensure their presence in multiple communication channels with quality information to grant timely access to critical knowledge [7][8][9] and find novel ways to leverage trusted sources, as people who believe misinformation and conspiracy theories are less supportive of public health policies [10][11][12][13]. The evidence from social sciences could guide the development of better strategies that do not risk falling into ethical pitfalls [5].…”

What can public health communicators learn from Reddit? A perspective for the next pandemic

“…Reddit users are not necessarily representative of social media users generally, and content moderation works differently on Reddit than on many other sites. Moreover, defining roles and responsibilities of private social media companies in combating disinformation and promoting vaccination remains a contentious ethical issue ( 32 , 33 ). Nevertheless, the Herman Cain Award presents an innovative approach to vaccine communication of which public health officials might consider adopting specific aspects: (1) narrative elements, (2) loss-framed messaging, (3) highlighting the dangers of disinformation, (4) knowledge co-creation, (5) and non-traditional partnerships and channels of dissemination.…”

Fostering mask-wearing with virality metrics and social media literacy: evidence from the U.S. and Korea

“…At a broader level, it shows the public health value of content regulation in social media that promotes health messages. At the same time, messaging interventions targeting user metrics on social media should be carefully implemented with strong transparency and the coordination of multiple stakeholders, including members of the public, to prevent pitfalls of (or backlash against perceived) social engineering ( Freiling et al, 2023 ).…”