Science in the age of fake news

Familiar symptoms

We know the problems we face in a post-truth era, at least on a superficial level: democracy requires informed people who, despite their different viewpoints, find common solutions. But the democratisation of knowledge over social media means that it’s becoming quicker and easier for anybody to say anything to everybody. Everybody talks, nobody listens, and as an expert, people are more likely to doubt than trust you.

In the world of social media, we move in bubbles: there is no quality control, and cat videos or controversial statements receive the most likes. On Twitter, fake news spreads faster and further than facts³.

There are reasons why people may not stick to the truth. Sometimes it’s simply about attention-grabbing or advertising revenue. In the climate space, it often revolves around political or economic interests. Back in 1988, Shell had already documented the dangers of human-driven climate change and the possible effects on the oil industry in an internal report. Yet for years, the company tried to openly cast doubt on the scientific consensus⁴.

Today, every fourth registered voter in the US still believes that there’s no such thing as global warming⁵. Even more so than in other countries, Americans’ views on climate change are influenced by the prevailing political ideology: people don’t “believe” in climate change because the possible answers to it (higher energy prices, government regulations) are at odds with the neoliberal ideal of unlimited growth and minimal state intervention.

Desperately seeking answers

Many of these diagnoses are not new – but the underlying problems are being accentuated by a decrease in quality journalism, an increase in social media hype and, as a result, an increasingly polarised society. So what’s the best way to deal with fake news?

I have no definitive answer. But it’s now clear to me, and others, that certain responses that initially seemed plausible simply don’t work. While it’s true that producing more reports with more facts is useful in helping us to make decisions and find technical solutions, it seldom sways people who have already made up their minds. On the contrary, putting the spotlight on fake news often serves only to increase their visibility.

My attempts to respond to hostile or unfounded allegations and to discuss them online have mostly proven futile. Instead, they tend to create the impression that the facts are still open to interpretation and up for debate. What’s also astonishing is that presenting both sides is similarly futile: people who voluntarily agreed to be confronted with other viewpoints every day on Twitter were even more convinced of their own opinions afterwards⁶.

Getting involved anyway

But there is some hope: more recent studies have shown that readers are better at dealing with misinformation when they’ve been warned of its existence in relation to a given issue⁷. I’m still convinced that – despite all the information overload and lack of time – we have to think over relevant questions and discuss them openly.

In my experience, a dialogue on an equal footing works best when we try to separate facts from opinions. A thermometer is neither politically right nor left, just as there are not two sides of gravity. We don’t vote on physics. We can agree on the facts and still have a debate on how we should react to them. As a scientist, I don’t dictate to society what needs to be done. But I believe it is my duty not only to produce figures, but also to organise them critically and present them in an understandable way, with no PR agenda – a balancing act at a time in which researchers are fighting for money and jobs⁸.

In addition to common facts, I also try to find common values and goals during discussions. The way a problem is framed is extremely important in this regard. Respect for other peoples’ opinions and the ability to listen can foster trust and build bridges. Stories are also significant, as is who conveys the message. This all takes time – but for me, it's essential.

Sometimes it takes a few more characters

Controversy makes for good headlines, but not for constructive discussions. There’s plenty of enthusiasm surrounding new media and big data – but for genuine discourse, I prefer a in-depth synthesis from a reputable newspaper and an informed reader over propaganda-driven tweets from internet trolls. Not to mention algorithms, which will eventually decide on social platforms what’s right and what’s wrong. Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter, once said: “One could change the world with one hundred and forty characters.” And he was probably right. But to understand the world and shape it for the next generation, we need a few more characters.

This blog post appeared also in the newspaper Schweiz am Wochenende.