The Faculty of Science Foundation hosted an event on Sept. 13 discussing the adverse effects misinformation has on public health along with research that is being done to combat it. The event – titled “Infodemic! Is Misinformation Killing Us?” – was led by Timothy Caulfield, a bestselling author, professor from the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta, and current Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy. The event had an entry fee of $15 and included a book signing and reception with catered food and non-alcoholic drinks. 

After a brief introduction by Chris Houser, dean of science at UW, and a land acknowledgment by Lili Liu, dean of health at UW, Caulfield was quick to establish that the issue of misinformation has been a cause of concern for decades. “I have studied this topic for decades, and I can tell you it’s been bad for a long time,” Caulfield said. 

Caulfield laid down a historical picture of the increasing tolerance for pseudoscience within everyday life – beginning with the counterculture movement of the 1960s, to the promotion of “wellness culture” in the 1980s, to the rise of celebrities like Dr. Oz and Gwyneth Paltrow within the wellness space during the 2000s, the latter marking the turning point when pseudoscience was embraced by mainstream pop-culture, but also the first time we saw pushback against misinformation from both institutional regulators and society at large.

Caulfield highlighted how studies have shown that embracing seemingly harmless misinformation has a consistent negative effect on treatment outcomes. He mentioned several recent examples, such as vaccine skepticism during the COVID-19 pandemic and the push to avoid sunscreen by the likes of actress Gwyneth Paltrow and influencer Brian Johnson (a.k.a. Liver King). Caulfield mentioned how vaccine skepticism often bleeds into several areas of public health – from claims that Matthew Perry’s recent death was caused by the COVID-19 vaccine, to people refusing to vaccinate their pets to avoid “dog autism,” to even completely unrelated fields of science and policy such as climate action and nuclear power. According to Caulfield, recent studies show by 2040 we can expect up to a 68 per cent increase in melanoma deaths in the U.S. due to the increasing trend of not wearing sunscreen amongst the general population.

Caulfield emphasized the massive effect that social media and emerging technologies such as AI have on how we engage with information on a daily basis. According to him, recent studies showed that not only ChatGPT is capable of convincingly fabricating scientific research articles out of thin air, but people are unable to detect whether content they engage with is AI generated or not, even when it is labelled as such. Another study showed that brand-new TikTok accounts are presented with an average of 30 per cent misinformation when first joining the platform, with information on topics such as vaccines being as high as 80 per cent. “The algorithm knows sensationalism and extremism ups engagement, so misinformation is baked into the system,” Caulfield said. 

He highlighted how social media content is also designed to exploit or all sorts of cognitive biases – whether the simple-yet-effective negativity bias, appeals to nature (Gwyneth Paltrow), appeals to masculinity (Liver King), or appeals to authority (celebrities at large). According to Caulfield, recent studies have shown that upwards of 20 per cent of misinformation shared online can trace its original source back to an influencer or celebrity. 

However, he also mentioned how these same cognitive biases can be a useful tool for breaking the cycle and understanding how people fall for misinformation in the first place. He highlighted one study which proposed a clear cognitive pipeline that conspiracy theorists tend to follow – starting with uncertainty, leading to curiosity, and lastly finding connection amongst a community of like-minded peers. This indicates that one pathway to breaking down online echo chambers is allowing them to experience meaningful relationships outside the online sphere, or simply encouraging them to take longer breaks from social media, both of which are shown to have positive outcomes in other studies according to Caulfield.

Caulfield also highlighted another major driver behind our current misinformation climate – politics. “Appeals to ideology are at the core of the dilemma – if it fits into your personal identity, you’re more likely to believe it,” he said. 

According to Caulfield, studies have shown that political preference is a better predictor of increased death rates across U.S. states than race, education, income, insurance status, or age, which strongly correlates with decreased vaccination rates across red states. Another study showed that amongst U.S. licensed physicians, trust in the COVID-19 vaccine strongly correlated with cable news preference, and not the existing scientific evidence. “If you think about it, that means that whether a doctor watches Fox News or CNN had a greater impact on vaccination rates than the actual science… Politics is killing people,” Caulfield said. 

However, Caulfield was also quick to point out that while mistrust in science is currently driven by the right-wing, this hasn’t always been the case. “Back in the 1970s it was the left-wing that was largely anti-science – think Vietnam and Agent Orange, or wellness culture and its rejection of GMOs,” he said.

When it comes to modern mainstream media, Caulfield emphatically opposed the continued rise of “false balance” amongst traditional journalists. He highlighted how when you frame something as a one-on-one debate (as is often done on cable news), you present a narrative that both sides are equally valid, ignoring the mountains of scientific literature that back one side over the other. 

“As scientists, we need to do a better job of educating the public about both scientific consensus and scientific uncertainty,” Caulfield said. “We need to make it clear when consensus exists, but also that it not existing is not a flaw. Science is not an institution, it is not a list of facts – it is a process, one that is inherently uncertain and constantly evolving, but one that should be trusted above individuals or results.” 

On a similar note, while Caulfield recognized the act of “debunking” misinformation within public discourse as a matter of civic responsibility amongst the scientific community, he emphasized the need to minimize confrontation and favour positive messaging, empathy, and patience above all else. “Sometimes, maintaining relationships is more important than changing minds,” he said.

Caulfield emphasized that the problem of misinformation is a complex one that demands to be attacked from multiple angles. “This is a generational problem, and institutions need to be part of the solution,” Caulfield said. He commended UW’s efforts towards the issue with the formation of the Trust in Research Undertaken in Science and Technology (TRuST) Network in January 2023. “Much like any healthcare issue, it’s not about solving the problem overnight – it’s about moving the needle over time,” he concluded.