Antiscience Movements Research Articles

The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence.

Science is humanity's best insurance against threats from nature, but it is a fragile enterprise that must be nourished and protected. The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2. Yet, the theory that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in and escaped from a lab dominates media attention, even in the absence of strong evidence. We discuss how the resulting anti-science movement puts the research community, scientific research, and pandemic preparedness at risk.

Bridging the gap between science deniers and voice of reason

In the 2021 book “How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason”, Lee McIntyre introduces different anti-science movements and their reasoning. Based on personal interactions with committed science deniers and literature from various disciplines including cognitive psychology, he argues that all these communities use the same playbook in terms of reasoning about evidence, argumentation, demands on scientific certainty and recruitment of new members. Such observations allow McIntyre to propose a universal strategy to combat these beliefs by using respectful in-person engagement and effective science communication tools. His argument is rooted in the idea that anti-science beliefs are built on identities, not on the content of specific beliefs.

Koncepcja „patocenozy” a naukowe struktury narracji o pandemii COVID-19. Doświadczenia i perspektywy

The concept of “pathocoenosis” and the scientific structures of the narrative about the Covid-19 pandemic. Experiences and perspectives The author considers to what extent “pathcenosis”, the concept of the Croatian- French historian of medicine Mirko Grmek (1924–2000), can provide a theoretical framework for contemporary and historical research on pandemics. This term denoted the set of diseases occurring in a given population at a given time and the relationships between them. The current COVID-19 pandemic is the impetus for contemporary research. Research on the scientifi c discourse in the reports of the COVID-19 Advisory Team at the President of the Polish Academy of Sciences allowed for the diagnosis of the theoretical usefulness of pathocoenosis. The area of these analyzes includes historical and medical interpretations, scientifi c myth and social myths about science, scientifi c consensus and the dissemination of science. These studies showed two dangerous tendencies: 1. discrepancies in the understanding of the strategy of fi ghting the pandemic between the multidisciplinary world of science and the state authorities; 2. slight social impact of scientifi c authorities on negationist social attitudes. Both trends have a real impact on the shaping of the pandemic situation. Prospects for the continuation of this research concern, among others searching for the possibility of modifying the concept of „pathocenosis” with the epidemiological consequences of globalization processes, the use of „pathocenosis” as a narrative structure in the historiography of medical sciences, the use of the concept of „pathocenosis” as an inspiration for theoretical approaches in studies on the history of social practices towards health and disease. The prospects for continuing the research carried out also take into account the presence of the socio-cultural context and the dynamics of changes in the pandemic in the scientific discourse. And also the great importance of the narrative of anti-science movements in Poland. All these factors infl uence the nature of the Polish pathocoenosis.

Fake Research: How Can We Recognise it and Respond to it?

ABSTRACT Fake research produces results that are invalid from the start. I take such research to be characterised by three jointly sufficient features. It is severely methodologically defective, and the relevant defects support certain nonepistemic (social, political, economic) interests and objectives, while the relevant objectives typically concern the interference with attempts at political regulation. I deal with two kinds of claimed fake research. One is agnotological ploys in which scientific dissent is created by interested parties from industry or politics in order to support their own partisan goals. Another one is the populist antiscience movement that suspects fake research in the scientific mainstream. I suggest three remedies to reduce or eliminate the impact of fake research: disclosing fallacies, improving the understanding of scientific methods, and distinguishing more clearly between science and politics in political decision-making.

Effective or predatory funding? Evaluating the hidden costs of grant applications.

Researchers are spending an increasing fraction of their time on applying for funding; however, the current funding system has considerable deficiencies in reliably evaluating the merit of research proposals, despite extensive efforts on the sides of applicants, grant reviewers and decision committees. For some funding schemes, the systemic costs of the application process as a whole can even outweigh the granted resources-a phenomenon that could be considered as predatory funding. We present five recommendations to remedy this unsatisfactory situation.

Protecting the Researcher in Digital Contexts

In recent years, a growing need for protecting researchers has become necessary as online risks such as death threats and “doxing” are more frequent risks in relation to an increased digital landscape of anti-gender, far right extremists, and anti-science movements. This paper suggests resources and strategies for preventing threats and protecting researchers. By improving safety and support, entities such as universities, departments, and research groups can avoid the negative impact of online harassment on researchers’ reputation and health, on academic research and for democracy.

Proposal of guidelines to assist managers to face pressing challenges confronting Latin American universities: a complexity theory perspective

The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated pre-existing problems in Latin America and posed unprecedented challenges for Latin American universities (LAU). These challenges can be characterised as complex problems that cannot be understood through reductionist approaches. This paper aims (i) to provide a complex system perspective of the challenges confronting LAUs and (ii) to propose guidelines for managers of LAUs to address them in practice. A multidisciplinary group was formed and conducted an iterative process of research, brainstorming and debate of potential solutions to the following problems considered particularly important by their universities: mental health issues in the university environment, student learning gaps, brain drain, and anti-science movements. Complexity theory and E/HF concepts are integrated to demonstrate that understanding what LAUs are experiencing in a fragmented manner is impossible, and that the interactions between the challenges should be at the centre of the managers’ actions plans. Practitioner summary: Managers of LAUs can benefit from the guidelines proposed to understand the pressing challenges confronting universities and develop systemic approaches to address them.

Understanding conflict origin and dynamics on Twitter: A real-time detection system

Social Network Sites provide a venue for people worldwide to share their point of view and interact with each other, offering a virtual space with freedom for expressing ideas and opinions. The interaction dynamics often creates clusters of users sharing similar interest and opinions, thus creating an information bubble or echo chamber. In certain topics, such as politics, different groups tend to collide and start arguments characterized by conflicts of opinion. This fact has been increasingly observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, fed by misinformation and anti-science movements. One approach to address these issues is to use statistical measures of the posts revolving around the topic of interest, such as the number of shares, likes, and replies. In this paper we propose a methodology to extract a feature set from trending topics of the Twitter social network and apply two white-box models, a Symbolic Regression, named ITEA, and a Decision Tree, for the automated detection and understanding of conflicts. Our experiments show that both models obtain close extrapolation accuracy to the baseline black-box model (Random Forest). As a highlight of this paper, both white-box models are fully described to be used by any practitioner. Additionally, the model created by ITEA allows us to extract some insights from the generated models. Although these models do not allow for a complete comprehension of the dynamics of a conflict, it certainly points towards a direction for a more thorough investigation.

Editorial

The last two years have undoubtedly been marked by the COVID-19 pandemic. While 2020 was the year in which we discovered SARS-CoV-2 and its consequences for human heath, economy, and our way of life in general, 2021 was the year of the vaccines. We have now started a more hopeful 2022, precisely because of the positive impact of the vaccination effort. Vaccination has also evidenced a two-fold duality: on the one hand, between the countries that have had access to the vaccine and those where it is not yet accessible. This has highlighted the lack of solidarity in a world where local events lead to global consequences. On the other hand, however, we have also witnessed an internal duality in countries that have monopolised vaccination resources: among those who had access to vaccines, anti-vaccination and anti-science movements have emerged that have undermined vaccination effectiveness. Hence, while in Spain more than 80 % of the population has received the COVID vaccine (with percentages close to 100 % among the elderly and other groups most vulnerable to the disease), in the USA and other European countries, reluctance to vaccinate has led to the governmental vaccination plans stalling. This paradox has meant that countries with large reserves of vaccines still have high percentages of unvaccinated citizens, while in some parts of the world vaccination coverage is still below 3 %.

Offline: Where is America?

The pessimism is overwhelming. During a series of meetings convened by a US foreign policy think tank last week (I am forbidden from naming the organisation), participants (whom I am barred from identifying) explored prospects for American engagement in global health. The opportunity is surely there for the taking. After 2 years in which a pandemic has gripped and ground down the world, America's superior resources, intellectual and material, should place the country in a prime position for leadership. But that was not the consensus among the foreign policy glitterati brought together in this mysteriously secret gathering. On the contrary, the mood was decidedly downcast. Gone, they concluded, was the romantic paradise of the George W Bush years. In its place came the dark times of Donald Trump. America entered a period of vicious nationalism. Diplomatic relations with allies frayed. The reputation of the most powerful nation in the world was shredded. Trump's legacy lives on in the more placid times of President Joe Biden. Domestic polarisation has reached record levels. American institutions have been browbeaten into passivity. Political commentators entertain the idea of American decline, even the ebbing of American democracy itself. Friends have lost trust in America's reliability. A disastrous US withdrawal from Afghanistan is Exhibit A in the case against US competency. Flourishing anti-science movements and an open contempt for public health are garlands around the neck of a dying nation. A contrast was drawn with the political climate post-9/11. Even at that moment of national crisis, Congress was able to mount a bipartisan investigation to learn lessons from a terrorist attack. The idea that politicians could join together to conduct a similar exercise in the aftermath of COVID-19 is a pipedream. American culture has regressed since 2019. The system is broken and there is little evidence that it can be repaired. Amid this internal anarchy, the notion that America could step forward to lead the world out of its pandemic-induced stupor is a fantasy. Viewed from a European perspective, these arguments from America's diplomatic and security cognoscenti are utterly specious. The Bush years were not an idyll to be looked back upon with affection. His regime manufactured new wars that continue to cast a shadow over the world. To American colleagues I would say that many of your European partners saw the election of President Biden as an example of your ability to reinvent your national purpose. We have welcomed a more collaborative and constructive vision from your leaders. And we seek opportunities to strengthen your resolve to revivify American leadership, including your leadership in science, medicine, and global health. An especially important moment comes later this year with your hosting of the seventh replenishment round for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Your commitment to a redesigned Global Fund, whose mission is likely to be broadened to include pandemic preparedness and antimicrobial resistance, would inspire, support, and guide countries at a critical time of uncertainty. This is your moment to lead. Do not waste it. Those who travel in the slipstream of politics should recognise this moment for what it is—our best opportunity for a generation to project values of universality, equity, and inclusivity on those with political power. The pandemic provided a platform for scientists and health professionals to speak directly to the public, explaining the dangers of insidious infection, putting centre stage those in society who face particular vulnerabilities, and emphasising the importance of resilient health and education systems. We have built a strong bridge of trust between science and the public. The rebirth of the state as a means to protect people from economic hardship provides a firm foundation to remake the case for universal health care. We have a time-limited opportunity to shape the attitudes and practices of governments. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about a world filled with people of great importance and extreme insignificance. Scientists and health workers have played important parts in limiting the adversities of the pandemic. But whether those contributions will one day be seen to have been significant remains an open question. For scientists and health workers in America and elsewhere, we must not allow this pandemic to announce an age of pessimism that defeats us twice over.

Not Only Why but Also How to Trust Science: Reshaping Science Education Based on Science Studies for a Better Post-pandemic World.

Many authors blame postmodernism and studies on Sociology and Anthropology of Science (Science Studies) for the rise of relativism and anti-science movements. Despite such criticism, Science Studies have always been concerned with the construction of the common world (a shared reality), while the anti-science movement goes in the opposite direction, denying science to defend economic and political interests of specific groups. In this sense, the post-truth movement is part of a political agenda and therefore science education will not be able to face the dilemmas of such scenario unless it takes a clear political stance. Thus, our objective is to present a discussion on why we should trust science as well as what it means to trust science precisely from the so-called ontological turn of science studies. We argue that, based on this sociological framework, it is possible to recognize the value of science as a community capable of producing networks and actors that mobilize the world and that respond to day-to-day problems. Next, we discuss the fact that trusting in science does not mean blind trusting specialists. It is necessary to increase the participation of different actors in the construction of the common world, especially by calling into debate those who were made invisible in the process of colonialism. Finally, we argue that recovering confidence in science is a political process, in a way that public opinion can only changed by politically organizing the field of science and science education.

Mourning and memorializing in the COVID-19 era

ABSTRACT This short essay engages the efforts of artists, activists, and mourners to memorialize those who have died during the COVID-19 pandemic. These commemorative sites provide needed correctives to the physical absences, political opportunism, and statistical abstractions that have tended to personify the pandemic. As with the AIDS Memorial Quilt, the tropes of individualism and tactility materialize frequently in conversations about these displays. Despite the generative impulses of these memorials, it is imperative that these creations move beyond performative gestures of sentimentality to ensure that the civic agony inflicted by anti-science and far-right movements is not repeated.

Thinking out loud: how science faces crises

Thinking out loud: how science faces crises

Divinity in nursing: The complexities of adopting a spiritual basis for care.

In this paper, the historical alignment of nursing with divinity-based perspectives and modern New Age nursing theories are explored. The nature of divinity in nursing is examined, together with the complexities and issues that arise in adopting a spiritual basis for care. The work of the key theorists in this area (Rogers, Newman, Parse, Watson, Dossey) is reconsidered and fundamental epistemological problems inherent in this approach reviewed. Specific concerns with the interpretation of holistic care, adoption of doxastic logic, faith-based rationales, influence of Caucasian Judeo-Christian and New Age values, misappropriation of science, use of pseudoscience and development of divinity as social consumer product are discussed. Practical problems with using a spiritual basis in contemporary nursing practice are also explored and the alignment of divinity-based nursing theories with the modern antiscience movement is examined. Overall, the re-emergence of divinity-based nursing and spiritual basis for care may be problematic, and would seem to counter the development of an inclusive profession. Additionally, the alignment of nursing with antiscience movements rejecting biomedicine has significant public health implications. This is argued as a regressive step for the advancement of the profession.

America's deadly flirtation with antiscience and the medical freedom movement.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been exacerbated in the US by misinformation and disregard for public health recommendations. In this Viewpoint, Peter Hotez explores the anti-science movement in America, emphasizing our unique historical connections to health and medical freedom.

O terraplanismo e o apelo à experiência pessoal como critério epistemológico

Movimentos negacionistas vêm ganhando destaque nos últimos anos, disseminados principalmente pelas mídias sociais. A crescente receptividade às suas ideias, assim como a notícias com conteúdos inverídicos, pode ser apontada como indício de uma crise epistemológica relacionada à perda de confiança nas instituições fundamentais da sociedade, na ciência inclusive. As pessoas descrentes nessas instituições tornam-se cada vez mais dependentes das próprias experiências e crenças, até mesmo para avaliar aquilo que se encontra no campo científico. Neste trabalho abordamos uma das características do movimento terraplanista atual: o apelo à experiência pessoal como critério epistemológico incontestável. Para tanto, apoiamo-nos sobretudo nas discussões desenvolvidas por Alfred Schutz relacionadas a formas de experienciar a realidade, seja no campo cotidiano, seja no científico. Identificamos nas concepções terraplanistas modos de caracterização da realidade que são típicos do campo cotidiano, mas acentuados e extrapolados para o contexto científico, em especial para avaliar o formato da Terra e seu movimento. Apresentamos, ainda, exemplos de ideias expressas por adeptos do terraplanismo que apontam para essa direção. Consideramos importante que professores de ciências se apropriem do fenômeno recente da crescente disseminação de movimentos negacionistas e anticientíficos, buscando compreender suas características e discuti-las com estudantes, principalmente sob o ponto de vista epistemológico, esclarecendo seus critérios simplificadores e limitantes.

O ensino da Natureza da Ciência como forma de resistência aos movimentos Anticiência: o realismo estrutural como contraponto ao relativismo epistêmico

As discussões realizadas neste trabalho se situam no debate sobre a Natureza da Ciência (NdC) no ensino de ciências. Defendemos que os conteúdos metacientíficos que dão forma às abordagens histórico-filosóficas no ensino precisam sofrer atualizações que façam frente aos desafios políticos, sociais e educacionais impostos pelos nossos tempos, nos quais movimentos anticientíficos e discursos exageradamente relativistas ganham força. Advogamos por discursos críticos às visões “positivistas ingênuas” sobre a ciência, mas que ao mesmo tempo seja capaz de dar conta de suas virtudes epistêmicas, configurando uma estratégia de resistência a formas exageradas de relativismo epistêmico. Mais especificamente, localizamos este debate dentro do problema da mudança científica, tópico da filosofia da ciência que dialoga com temas considerados relevantes no ensino da Natureza da Ciência. Apresentamos as contribuições do realismo estrutural para a construção de um discurso moderado frente aos dilemas relacionados ao caráter provisório e descontínuo da ciência por um lado e, por outro, sua possibilidade de progresso e compromisso com a verdade e com a realidade.

Coalition-Making and the Practice of Feminist STS in the time of COVID-19

In this lab meeting, six feminist scholars who engage with the sciences from various perspectives and have been collaborating over the last decade as members of the NeuroGenderings Network, share a sustained discussion on the responsibilities of a feminist scientist—particularly in light of our current moment. In a time when ongoing acts of anti-Black racism and police brutality have converged with a global pandemic and anti-science movements, we ask ourselves, how do we express solidarity and also hold ourselves accountable at the crossroads of science and social justice?

Power as knowledge. The reverse logic of the post-scientific world

This article deals with the causes and effects of a surrender to anti-science in social development. Populist governments support the idea of anti-science in an attempt to win over poorly-educated electors. The text analyses the fundamental characteristics of the pressure mechanisms adopted by populist movements, and points to the system of measures in various spheres which help in fostering general ignorance and support anti-scientific operations. For the agents of power science, and the system of values which accompanies it, becomes a target to attack. Simultaneously, for the average person scientific knowledge ceases to be the basis of analysis and interpretation of different phenomena. Anti-science regimes support anti-science movements in order to manipulate society and disrupt potential opposition. This is possible thanks to superficial education and not enough emphasis on critical thinking within the education system, because less discerning citizens will go along with an anti-science regime.
 Analysis leads to the conclusion that the narrow short-term material interest of the regime is its only value, to which all others are subordinated, including Plato’s triad. In the face of a lack of understanding on the part of the authorities, education based on episteme is not possible, at least not entirely. This article suggests the need for change in the philosophy of education to one where the major emphasis is on quality and prioritised content.

Combating antiscience: Are we preparing for the 2020s?

In the last half of the 2010s, we saw an upswing in antiscience movements and unprecedented attacks on scientists in the United States and elsewhere. All indications suggest that this trend will not slow or reverse anytime soon, and it is now increasingly apparent that it will fall to the scientists themselves to respond, engage a skeptical public, and lead the defense of science. Accordingly, we must recognize opportunities to both reorganize science doctoral and postdoctoral training and incentivize senior scientists as a means to establish a new ecosystem for science public engagement. Such activities may become essential if the assaults on our profession continue or expand. Today, the commitment of young scientists to public service is at an all-time high. However, we must work quickly to capture that enthusiasm and channel it into a social good, lest we lose this opportunity. Potentially, open-access publishers could play a central role.