"We have to ask the deniers to start showing some evidence"

 

Bulos científicos: de la tierra plana al coronavirus (Scientific Fake News: From Flat Earth to Coronavirus; Oberon, 2020) is the title of the book recently published by Alexandre López-Borrull (Barcelona, 1974), a professor with the Faculty of Information and Communication Sciences at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) whose qualifications include a PhD in Chemistry and a bachelor's degree in Information Science. López-Borrull takes a look at some of the major false scientific beliefs in history, while also examining the rumour-mongering and fake news generated by the coronavirus pandemic. The crisis caught the book's author unawares in the midst of producing his study. He believes that the pandemic is an opportunity for scientists to explain things more and better.

 

Bulos científicos: de la tierra plana al coronavirus (Scientific Fake News: From Flat Earth to Coronavirus; Oberon, 2020) is the title of the book recently published by Alexandre López-Borrull (Barcelona, 1974), a professor with the Faculty of Information and Communication Sciences at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) whose qualifications include a PhD in Chemistry and a bachelor's degree in Information Science. López-Borrull takes a look at some of the major false scientific beliefs in history, while also examining the rumour-mongering and fake news generated by the coronavirus pandemic. The crisis caught the book's author unawares in the midst of producing his study. He believes that the pandemic is an opportunity for scientists to explain things more and better.

The initial idea was to cover issues that scientific communication and scientific journals had raised awareness of in social articles and that had then been shown to have been based on falsehoods as, from a scientific point of view, they ended up being refuted. When the coronavirus hit, we saw that it was worth adding a number of chapters in which we could discuss the principal fake news that had appeared in relation to the new virus, such as its origin and 5G. That allows us to go on to talk about another issue: the deniers. 

Society looks to science for answers to the great uncertainties. Everything to do with explaining the science has become more important; society is more forewarned now. I think it's an opportunity for science to be at the heart of things when it comes to taking more reasoned decisions, both in terms of public management and everyday life. The fact that both the media and the public are discussing and talking about science is also an opportunity for scientists to come out and explain things more and better. That's why leading figures like Oriol Mitjà, Antoni Trilla and Fernando Simón have emerged, as people follow and listen to them. It's good that society has leading figures who are scientists.

Science has mechanisms to evolve. If something ends up being true, it's because science will prove it. Deniers have to start showing some proof and evidence, and then we'll enter into discussion. But sometimes, what they do is give a very simple answer to a very complex situation. What we have to ask them is to provide some evidence that proves what they're claiming. I agree that no critic should be seen as a crank, but I do ask for groups that are critical to provide some evidence. If we're playing by scientific rules, we have to do it properly. 

This is a consequence of living in a technological society, which makes people end up trusting others because on their own not even the most specialized person can know everything. At some point, they will have to trust what someone else is saying. 

In this case, what I do is put it in the context of the rumour and explain what is true and what's a lie. I was interested to see that there's an urban myth that spreads through cultural inertia, such as cold shock response. When you dig deeper, you see that cold shock response can happen at any time, not just after lunch. Even so, we allow ourselves to be led through inertia and find it hard to change our habits. This effect can perpetuate something that may be dangerous at any time. Some rumours are false, while others need some context. 

There are certain patterns that repeat themselves and make rumours go viral. There are some that are classic. But there are also other dynamics, such as people who don't trust official information. They're the ones who say the Moon landing was fake or that the Earth is flat. We're seeing that false information related to health can start up because there's a scientist who sees something differently, and they end up finding some celebrity to act as a spokesperson, and that's when the rumour does the rounds. They go viral on YouTube and Facebook. They're not new rumours, but the way they spread on social media is. We've had years to learn with social media, but everything is new and we're still learning to fight against all that.

People have to have a basis of scientific knowledge and make an effort. Also in terms of medial literacy, we need to be literate to recognize information sources, to be able to check and make sure they're reliable. Experts have been studying this phenomenon for a long time, and educationalists are slowly taking it on board. But we also need older people to learn to put the information they receive into quarantine before disseminating it. It's a question of digital skills in an information society. 

The geopolitical aspect; for example, right now the vaccine is a new space race for the twenty-first century. The mix of geopolitics and science is important. Sometimes, depending on the country where you live, it's like sides have been created. Boris Johnson was caught unawares by the 5G issue when he had to decide whether Huawei would be the operator in the UK. Similar things go on with coronavirus, and they're exploited in the geopolitical space.

I like the way all sorts of companies have said that the vaccine doesn't care about elections and that they couldn't guarantee that there'd be one before the elections in the States, which has reduced Trump's expectations. If we mix public health and the needs of governments, there's a lot of political communication, a lot of emotional management, to the detriment of science. As we've seen, the language is different if the statements are made by the military, the politicians or the scientists. The discourse is contaminated by the political arena and can sully management of the crisis.

A more technical figure puts people's minds at ease. A scientist who shows they know what they're doing offers greater peace of mind. That's not a weakness of the politician, but shows instead that you know how to surround yourself with the best team. It's good that scientists have stepped up to the plate and have this visibility.

There has to be a joint approach by the state, social media and users' groups to understand everyone's rights and obligations. We need regulation that sets a threshold beyond which something ceases to be freedom of expression because it may cause panic, for example. We need to think about this; in Europe, this is happening. It's evident that a state's legal approach needs the platform to delete content actively instead of reactively. Everyone has their challenge and social media platforms are risking their future.