Below are extracts from a new 'Manifesto for Science Communication as Collective Intelligence' and a comment from me. Read online: https://scibeh-dev.mpib.dev/scibeh.org/manifesto/
--
Why citizens need reliable knowledge
Many of the most pressing challenges societies face today—from climate change to global pandemics—require large-scale, collective decisions informed by the best available evidence. It is only when public beliefs are built on reliable knowledge, rather than poorly informed opinions, that we can successfully address these challenges. However, there are barriers to effective science communication, especially in rapidly evolving crisis situations or when evidence conflicts with political or commercial interests.
Barriers: social media
Social media notoriously prioritises emotion above evidence-based information and it is especially vulnerable to very active, extreme voices, which can skew users’ perceptions of the opinion landscape. The rejection of authoritative sources can also create an “epistemic vacuum,” leading people down the rabbit hole of conspiratorial sources and low-credibility content as they seek alternate sources and explanations.
Barriers: misinformation
Organised efforts to misinform or confuse the public, or to propagate conspiracy theories, endanger informed public discourse. For example, disinformation lobbying groups can disrupt science communication such that collectively supported opinions become treated as equal to collectively supported evidence. As a result, they restrict citizens from implementing scientifically sound solutions. Against organised disinformation campaigns, individual scientists are poorly matched, as they are vulnerable to direct attack from those opposed to specific types of scientific data.
Barriers: communicating as individuals...
Why collective intelligence can help...
What should science communication as collective intelligence look like?
It should communicate the strength of the evidence...
It should be honest about uncertainty and error...
It should be diverse...
It should be open to alternative perspectives...
It should be transparent...
It should build trust...
It should be motivated by the common good...
Science communication must be viewed as more than an opportunity to promote one’s own research or preferred scientific viewpoint...
It should be easy to understand...
We suggest scientists need to focus on the following:
- Scientists as a collective need to define what constitutes expert consensus, as opposed to just group opinion.
- More research is needed to determine how audiences perceive and understand sources of scientific uncertainty, so that scientists can communicate this effectively to society.
- Researchers and social media businesses should continue to develop powerful artificial intelligence tools for sifting through large datasets, identifying misleading content, and flagging it for users.
- Systems that allow for comments on published research could enable experts in the field to draw on scientific consensus to provide ongoing re-evaluation of peer-reviewed publications...
--
COMMENT (NPW): The manifesto makes sense but I am unclear what is new. It seems to be the emphasis on 'collective intelligence', which they describe as using 'expert consensus to weigh information'. A broader view of collective intelligence is 'the process by which a large group of individuals gather and share their knowledge, data and skills for the purpose of solving societal issues'. For example, HIFA strives to build collective intelligence around the global goal of improving the availability and use of reliable healthcare information. [See Theory of Change, HIFA Strategy 2022-2024, p4: https://www.hifa.org/sites/default/files/articles/HIFA_Strategy_2022_24.pdf ]
Also, the manifesto appears to be directed to the research community, but I would see the challenge of ensuring access to reliable information and protection from misinformation as requiring a much more multistakeholder approach. I think it's helpful to invoke here the evidence ecosystem (WHO 2021) and the evidence-based knowledge system (Godlee et al 2004)
https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/webinar-evidence-policy-impact-3-eviden...
As WHO said when HIFA was launched in 2006, "Healthcare information for all is an ambitious goal but it can be achieved if *all* stakeholders work together" [my emphasis]
Best wishes, Neil
Let's build a future where every person has access to reliable healthcare information and is protected from misinformation - Join HIFA: www.hifa.org
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is global coordinator of the HIFA global health movement (Healthcare Information For All - www.hifa.org ), a global community with more than 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting on six global forums in four languages in official relations with WHO. HIFA brings stakeholders together to accelerate progress towards universal access to reliable healthcare information.
Twitter: @hifa_org neil@hifa.org
