Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 1-43

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 1...
... Inaccurate scientific information can be generated unintentionally through publication or poor science communication, or intentionally if specific biases are involved in the generation and release of information. Unlike in prior centuries when information flow to various audiences was limited to journalists and scientists, scientific information, regardless of whether it is peer reviewed or otherwise verified as accurate, can be found on, shared, and spread through numerous internet and social media sites in ways that may be reinforcing to particular views.
From page 2...
... As part of this evaluation, the committee will suggest a community engagement strategy for developing an international network of scientists to address claims about biological threats resulting from inaccurate and misleading information. Specifically, this activity will: 1.
From page 3...
... Working collaboratively, scientists from the life, social, and computer sciences and other relevant disciplines could produce and disseminate accurate scientific information; peer review and correct inaccurate scientific information; and ensure that scientific information is communicated in an unbiased, objective, and culturally informed manner. Based on this conclusion, the committee developed a strategy for engaging scientists: Recommendation 1: Leaders of established scientific networks in Southeast Asia jointly should create a distributed network of individuals and organi zations (i.e., a network of networks)
From page 4...
... Specific considerations for scientists to determine whether and how to address misinformation and communicate accurate science and uncertainty effectively are detailed in the report. These collective outcomes have been translated into a how-to guide for scientists,2 which includes a decision tree and guiding questions, to determine whether and how to address particular inaccurate information and broader misinformation, and to whom and how to communicate the corrective actions.
From page 5...
... This study focuses on misinformation about emerging infectious diseases (e.g., influenza strains and Ebola virus) ; targeted disinformation about biological events and materials; inaccurate claims about the purpose of pathogen research and facilities; and poor-quality scientific information such as studies that have little statistical power, methods that do not match the conclusions drawn, or poor reporting of results.
From page 6...
... Although the focus and framing of the report and recommendations are within the lens of Southeast Asia, the scholarship of network design, misinformation, and science communication may inform efforts by scientists in other parts of the world to counter inaccurate and misleading information given the international nature of mis- and disinformation. In addition, international networks may offer certain advantages to engaging scientists with different expertise and accessing resources from international organizations.
From page 7...
... Drawing on the scholarship presented in this report, the how-to guide2 provides clear instructions for scientists to determine whether and how to address particular claims. COMPOUNDING THREATS OF FALSE INFORMATION AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES AND OTHER BIOLOGICAL THREATS Misinformation is defined as the unintentional spread of false or misleading information that is shared by mistake or under the presumption of truth (Sedova 2021)
From page 8...
... Consequences of the spread of inaccurate, misleading, or even hyped scientific information include loss of trust in the public health system and/or ineffective public health responses during epidemics, international conflict about the source and responsibility of epidemics, or the targeting of individual scientists and research institutions associated with particular claims. This section provides examples of inaccurate and misleading claims about biological threats.
From page 9...
... , and/or limit efforts to enhance safety and security of field and laboratory-based research of emerging infectious diseases. The volume and variability of scientific information communicated have led the World Health Organization (WHO)
From page 10...
... Scientific Information Overload: A New Threat Landscape Digital communication technologies, in particular the internet and social media, profoundly have changed the way scientific information is produced, consumed, and disseminated and have contributed to access to and spread of mis- and disinformation (Okeleke and Robinson 2021)
From page 11...
... For example, during the SARSCoV-2 pandemic, individuals, including scientists, discussed the virus, illnesses, and other health- and science-related issues on social media platforms, which included sharing unconfirmed and misleading information (Cinelli et al.
From page 12...
... First impressions of information can be challenging to counter so anticipating and preemptively addressing problematic narratives can help fill information gaps with the correct information before misleading claims have an opportunity to spread. Partnerships with social and mainstream media are critical to reduce the risk of amplification of inaccurate or misleading information.
From page 13...
... . During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, computer scientists also bring to infectious disease outbreaks their knowledge of information transfer via social media and other online platforms, and advanced data analytics such as AI for quickly identifying effective existing therapies and near-real-time surveillance during outbreaks (Basu 2021; Begley 2021; Bridgman et al.
From page 14...
... Finding 1: During the past few years, numerous virtual platforms, including and independent of social media platforms, were created to foster communication and collaboration among scientists, share data, and crowdsource analysis. These platforms created opportunities for scientists throughout the world to interact with each other.
From page 15...
... What is needed is the establishment of a structure for human interactions, favorable policies for data sharing and analysis, and a process for collaboration to correct inaccurate and misleading information before it has the potential to fuel misinformation. STRATEGY OF THE TRUSTED NETWORK OF SCIENTISTS A strategy for engaging scientists in addressing inaccurate and mis­leading information builds on the role that scientists play in curbing the spread of ­mis­information of biological threats, benefits from leveraging local and inter national networks in a dynamic and distributed network, and enables scientists to interact on an ongoing basis to improve scientific accuracy and excellence.
From page 16...
... The executive team should work with individual members and external stakeholders to identify claims and determine which claims to address before activating relevant expert members of the network. Recommendation 1.2: The network should include scientists from all rel evant disciplines -- specifically a variety of life and other natural ­sciences, computer and information science, social sciences including science communication experts, and political science including researchers of ­misinformation -- to ensure that the most relevant expertise is leveraged in addressing inaccurate and misleading information and can be com municated effectively to the appropriate stakeholders, whether within or outside the network.
From page 17...
... non-technical organizations, such as established, credible fact-checking organizations, to assist with identification of inaccurate and misleading information, determination about whether to address the inaccurate information, and communication of corrective information. Recommendation 1.6: The network should focus initially on addressing inaccurate and misleading information relating to infectious disease and other biological threats.
From page 18...
... leverage existing initiatives in responsible science. Empowering Local and Regional Talent A critical element for the trusted network is having a diversity of scientific experts who work collaboratively to address inaccurate and misleading information.
From page 19...
... Furthermore, an inclusive network of scientists can enable all groups to work toward a common goal of addressing misinformation about emerging infectious diseases and biological threats by leveraging each other's expertise and diverse perspectives. Finding 2: Training scientists on science communication, public engagement, and science policy is critical to countering misinformation.
From page 20...
... As scientists become motivated to contribute to the network, enhance scientific excellence, and address misinformation, continuous engagement and involvement in the network can be promoted. Continuing engagement can be measured via the ability of scientists to receive continuous professional development opportunities for improving their skills in addressing inaccurate and misleading claims, and enhancement of existing and innovative capacities for addressing inaccurate information at institutional and national levels.
From page 21...
... Inclusion of diverse views, expertise, and experiences enables the network to incorporate new and innovative approaches; promote scientific responsibility; enhance accuracy and accessibility of science among various audiences; and be nimble, flexible, responsive, and proactive. Box 2 highlights the values of the trusted network.
From page 22...
... Although the need for addressing misinformation about biological threats has been recognized by several international organizations (e.g., WHO, the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute) , prioritizing regional and national efforts that involve scientists as part of the solution toward addressing inaccurate and misleading information that leads to or otherwise enhances misinformation would provide high-level support for the trusted network and other related activities.
From page 23...
... Implementation Plan Developing an implementation plan for the creation and maintenance of the distributed network is a critical next step in engaging scientists from a variety of disciplines and sectors to assist in countering misinformation based on inaccurate and misleading information. The recommended strategy lays the foundation, including key considerations for its successful implementation, for the development of this distributed network.
From page 24...
... Furthermore, the plan should define the role that scientists play in addressing inaccurate and misleading information and scientific responsibility. This role should be considered within the broader context of other societal and international actors who may be addressing mis- and disinformation.
From page 25...
... Therefore, designing the network such that it can activate different members based on changing needs is important for addressing inaccurate information about emerging infectious diseases and other biothreats. Both models described here incorporate these considerations in network design.
From page 26...
... Finding 5: If a network of individuals is created to address inaccurate and misleading information, it would need to have a structure that provides credibility and stability, and be agile and fluid in times of crisis. Network as a Consortium (of Science Societies and Institutions)
From page 27...
... A consortium creating resources and tools for societies that can then be passed down as resources for individual smaller network members is creating value for all through the shared cost and the non-duplication of efforts. Finally, consortia may provide institutional protection to members who contribute to addressing inaccurate information, helping to protect individuals' privacy and security for particularly sensitive topics.
From page 28...
... As with many regions around the world, each Southeast Asian country has different laws governing scientific activities and data sharing and access, which are helpful to know when determining whether and how to counter inaccurate information. At the heart of some of these policies are different perspectives on trust, respect, and reciprocal benefit of regional countries and scientists and international scientists (Merson et al.
From page 29...
... . The Malaysian government created a platform to cross-check information spread through social media, and Malaysia's Ministry of Health Malaysia (2021)
From page 30...
... . Finding 7: Although studies analyzing social media platforms for patterns of influence and ways to minimize bias are being conducted, similar research does not exist for understanding the flow of scientific information generated and communicated through different sources and platforms, and about the influence of different types of information among scientists, members of the public, journalists, and policymakers.
From page 31...
... Media platforms, especially social media platforms, allow misinformation to thrive (Mourão and Robertson 2019)
From page 32...
... Scientists with the appropriate domain expertise and/or with scientific or media communication training may not be on these channels to correct any inaccurate or misleading information presented in these clips or texts. Science Communication Figure 2 illustrates critical questions that scientists and other stakeholders can consider when exploring ways of communicating, building trust, and engaging with each other, policymakers, journalists, lay or religious leaders, or other members of the broader public.
From page 33...
... Scientists and science communicators need to stop using the knowledge deficit model in favor of other science communication models (NASEM 2017b)
From page 34...
... • Trust and Confidence at the Interfaces of the Life Sciences and Society: Does the Public Trust Science? : A Workshop Summary (NASEM 2015)
From page 35...
... Communicating Uncertainty During emerging infectious disease outbreaks or other incidents involving biological threats, the scientific foundation may be inconclusive or in flux because of lack of available data, availability of relevant and verifiable scientific literature to the particular events, the newness of the events, and/or new information being produced as events unfold over time. These uncertainties present significant challenges to individual and national-level policymaking.
From page 36...
... . Correcting inaccurate or misleading information before it has a chance to spread via online platforms, social media, or mainstream media can be an effective strategy for preventing misinformation (Sedova 2021)
From page 37...
... Engaging various public and policy audiences is a two-way street, with scientists understanding the key questions these audiences have before providing them defensible, accurate, and objective information, and with these audiences supporting the generation of new knowledge or updating existing scientific knowledge. To do this effectively, collaboration is needed among domain experts, including life, computer, and social scientists with expertise in public engagement and science communication, to monitor public opinion(s)
From page 38...
... . UNDERSTANDING UNCERTAINTY IN CORRECTING INACCURATE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION Scientific information and conclusions rarely are absolutely certain at any given time, and scientific knowledge always is open to revision.
From page 39...
... Considerations of member expertise, availability of resources, ability to protect members, sustainability, credibility and authoritative knowledge, inclusivity, and collaborative and cross-disciplinary approaches were identified as critical characteristics associated with a successful, effective network aimed at enhancing the scientific knowledge about emerging infectious diseases and other biological threats. A visualization of online platforms through which scientists continue to engage, collaborate, share data and information, crowdsource scientific analysis, and peer review scientific information are available online.4 Effectively addressing inaccurate and misleading information involves a careful examination of several factors.
From page 40...
... Claims that may result in significant harms (e.g., presenting significant barriers to public health response during an epidemic or accusation of deliberately malicious action) and that are caused or perpetuated by inaccurate or misleading information could be addressed through the development and/or communication of accurate and evidence-supported science.
From page 41...
... 2021. Infodemic Pathways: Evaluating the Role That Traditional and Social Media Play in Cross-National Information Transfer.
From page 42...
... 2019. Disinformation and Disease: Social Media and the Ebola Epidemic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
From page 43...
... 2021. Bots and Misinformation Spread on Social Media: Implications for COVID-19.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.