Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science

Citizens and conspiratorial anti-science beliefs: Opposition versus support in 38 countries across Europe

This article aims to clarify citizens' responses to conspiratorial anti-science beliefs (e.g. "The cure for cancer exists but is hidden from the public by commercial interests"). Based on Eurobarometer 95.2 (Spring 2021, 38 countries), we examine how public opposition or support for conspiratorial anti-science beliefs is related to individual- and country-level variables. There were large differences between the countries in their opposition or support. Controlling for artifacts, the individual-level variables showed associations with science-specific variables, for example, knowledge, preferred communication sources, social evaluations of scientists, attitude toward vaccines, and more general political (dis)satisfaction. At the country level, Affluence and Women's representation were useful indicators for describing these differences. The conclusion is that the negativity of conspiratorial anti-science beliefs can be avoided by policies that highlight the rationality of science as a source of orientation and legitimation for change processes, and that are responsive to the needs of all citizens.

Making sense of a pandemic: reasoning about COVID-19 in the intellectual dark web

In this study, I examine how users of an online Reddit community, r/IntellectualDarkWeb, forged an anti-establishment collective identity through practices of "heterodox scientific" reasoning. I do so through a discursive analysis of comments and posts made to r/IntellectualDarkWeb during the COVID-19 pandemic. First, I deploy the BERTopic algorithm to cluster my corpus and surface topics pertaining to COVID-19. Second, I engage in a qualitative content analysis of the relevant clusters to understand how discourses about COVID-19 were mobilized by subreddit users. I show that discussions about COVID-19 were polarized along "contrarian" and "anti-contrarian" lines, with significant implications for the subreddit's process of collective identity. Overwhelmingly, contrarian content that expressed skepticism towards vaccines, mistrust towards experts, and cynicism about the medical establishment was affirmed by r/IntellectualDarkWeb users. By contrast, anti-contrarian content that sought to counter anti-vaccine rhetoric, defend expertise, or criticize subreddit users for their contrarianism was penalized. A key factor in this dynamic was Reddit's scoring mechanism, which empowered users to publicly upvote contrarian affirming content while simultaneously downvoting anti-contrarian content. As users participated in sense making about COVID-19, they deployed Reddit's scoring mechanism to reinforce a contrarian collective identity oriented around a practice of heterodox science. My research shows the continued relevance of the concept of collective identity in the digital age and its utility for understanding contemporary reactionary social movements.

Complexity appreciated: How the communication of complexity impacts topic-specific intellectual humility and epistemic trustworthiness

In the context of science communication, complexity is often reduced. This study employs a 2 × 2 experimental design (N = 432) to investigate how two factors, namely the communication of complexity (reduced vs not reduced) and the provision of suggestions for concrete action (suggested vs not suggested), influence individuals' productive engagement with the socio-scientific topic of sustainable energy. Measured variables include topic-specific intellectual humility, judgements of source trustworthiness, willingness to act, anxiety, and hope. As expected, communication of complexity led to higher topic-specific intellectual humility, higher epistemic trustworthiness and higher anxiety. When a concrete action was communicated, participants reported lower topic-specific intellectual humility. Participants' willingness to act was not significantly affected by the experimental manipulation. The results of the study imply that the communication of complexity does not hinder people's productive engagement with science.

Hits and Misses: Digital Contact Tracing in a Pandemic

Traditional contact tracing is one of the most powerful weapons people have in the battle against a pandemic, especially when vaccines do not yet exist or do not afford complete protection from infection. But the effectiveness of contact tracing hinges on its ability to find infected people quickly and obtain accurate information from them. Therefore, contact tracing inherits the challenges associated with the fallibilities of memory. Against this backdrop, digital contact tracing is the "dream scenario"-an unobtrusive, vigilant, and accurate recorder of danger that should outperform manual contact tracing on every dimension. There is reason to celebrate the success of digital contact tracing. Indeed, epidemiologists report that digital contact tracing probably reduced the incidence of COVID-19 cases by at least 25% in many countries, a feat that would have been hard to match with its manual counterpart. Yet there is also reason to speculate that digital contact tracing delivered on only a fraction of its potential because it almost completely ignored the relevant psychological science. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of digital contact tracing, its hits and misses in the COVID-19 pandemic, and its need to be integrated with the science of human behavior.

Lay epistemology and the Populist's playbook: The roles of epistemological identity and expressive epistemology

Salient social identities have long appeared to shape what we believe and know. But do social identities also shape how we know? This essay argues that performances of "lay epistemology" by populist leaders may shape group norms in ways that encourage supporters to orient to their worlds more through intuition and emotion and less through evidence and data (or at least to report that they do, thus constituting a form of "expressive epistemology"). We summarize research on the positive link between populist attitudes, valuing intuition and emotion over evidence and data, and belief in misinformation and conspiracy theories, and then explore how these relationships may be mutually reinforcing - and strategically beneficial to populist leaders.

Health emergencies, science contrarianism and populism: A scoping review

Populism has emerged as a central explanation employed by both media outlets and scholars for the mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis. Nonetheless, the relationship between public health and populism extends before and beyond the pandemic. This paper offers a comprehensive overview of existing evidence and theoretical conceptualisations on the intersection of populism, health emergencies, and contrarian scientific positions, drawing from a diverse range of disciplines. I conducted a scoping review of 283 original studies, analysing their analytical framework, geographic focuses, and methodological approaches. Employing quantitative text analysis, I summarised the research field into 18 common topics, organised into five coherent categories: citizen's perspective, political elites, political communication, pandemic consequences, and non-COVID-related issues. While the scholarly interest in this area has surged since the onset of the pandemic, it has predominantly concentrated on specific cases, such as Brazil and the US, often conflating different policy types. The evidence summary elucidates that populism assumes varying roles within distinct contexts, and there is no linear relationship between political populism and specific approaches to health crises and science. I further compare definitions of populism within the context of health and scientific positions. I propose that future research should employ a policy typology for health emergency responses, assessing political positions based on policy arenas. This paper contributes to the understanding of the complex interplay between political populism, contrarian scientific perspectives, and public health.

Developmental psychopathology as a meta-paradigm: From zero-sum science to epistemological pluralism in theory and research

In a thoughtful commentary in this journal a decade ago, Michael Rutter reviewed 25 years of progress in the field before concluding that developmental psychopathology (DP) initiated a paradigm shift in clinical science. This deduction requires that DP itself be a paradigm. According to Thomas Kuhn, canonical paradigms in the physical sciences serve unifying functions by consolidating scientists' thinking and scholarship around single, closed sets of discipline-defining epistemological assumptions and methods. Paradigm shifts replace these assumptions and methods with a new field-defining framework. In contrast, the social sciences are multiparadigmatic, with thinking and scholarship unified locally around open sets of epistemological assumptions and methods with varying degrees of inter-, intra-, and subdisciplinary reach. DP challenges few if any of these local paradigms. Instead, DP serves an essential pluralizing function, and is therefore better construed as a metaparadigm. Seen in this way, DP holds tremendous untapped potential to move the field from zero-sum thinking and scholarship to positive-sum science and epistemological pluralism. This integrative vision, which furthers Dante Cicchetti's legacy of interdisciplinarity, requires broad commitment among scientists to reject zero-sum scholarship in which portending theories, useful principles, and effective interventions are jettisoned based on confirmation bias, errors in logic, and ideology.

Health Behavior and Attitudes During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Vulnerable and Underserved Latinx in the Southwest USA

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted deep-rooted health disparities, particularly among Latinx immigrants living on the Mexico-US border. This article investigates differences between populations and adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures. This study investigated whether there are differences between Latinx recent immigrants, non-Latinx Whites, and English-speaking Latinx in their attitudes and adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures. Data came from 302 participants who received a free COVID-19 test at one of the project sites between March and July 2021. Participants lived in communities with poorer access to COVID-19 testing. Choosing to complete the baseline survey in Spanish was a proxy for being a recent immigrant. Survey measures included the PhenX Toolkit, COVID-19 mitigating behaviors, attitudes toward COVID-19 risk behaviors and mask wearing, and economic challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. With multiple imputation, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was used to analyze between-group differences in mitigating attitudes and behaviors toward COVID-19 risk. Adjusted OLS regression analyses showed that Latinx surveyed in Spanish perceived COVID-19 risk behaviors as more unsafe (b = 0.38, p = .001) and had stronger positive attitudes toward mask wearing (b = 0.58, p = .016), as compared to non-Latinx Whites. No significant differences emerged between Latinx surveyed in English and non-Latinx Whites (p > .05). Despite facing major structural, economic, and systemic disadvantages, recent Latinx immigrants showed more positive attitudes toward public health COVID-19 mitigating measures than other groups. The findings have implications for future prevention research about community resilience, practice, and policy.

Threatening experts: Correlates of viewing scientists as a social threat

Despite widespread trust in scientists, efforts to curtail their influence suggest some Americans distrust scientists and may even perceive them to be a social threat. Using panel survey data, we examine who holds this viewpoint and potential implications of threat perceptions. Results suggest Republicans and Evangelical identifying individuals perceived more social threat from scientists. News media uses were associated with threat perceptions in divergent ways. Threat perceptions were strongly associated with inaccurate science beliefs, support for excluding scientists from policy-making, and retributive actions toward scientists. Findings highlight the importance of social identity considerations amid concerns about partisan social sorting and politicization of science.

How orientations to expertise condition the acceptance of (mis)information

This review explores psychological barriers to the acceptance of expert guidance. Specifically, the constructs of epistemic overconfidence, institutional distrust, anti-expert sentiments, anti-establishment orientations, science populism, and conspiracist worldviews are jointly considered as orientations to expertise. I review the state of the literature on their origins, prevalence, and effects on misinformation endorsement and acceptance of corrections. Addressing these psychological barriers requires building trust in institutions, backed by transparent communication and the involvement of community-based, non-expert messengers. As the review synthesizes disparate research strands, it underscores the need for future studies to compare, validate, and consolidate different orientations to expertise, understand causal relationships, and explore generalizability to diverse contexts.

Anti-intellectualism amid the COVID-19 pandemic: The discursive elements and sources of anti-Fauci tweets

Anti-intellectualism (resentment, hostility, and mistrust of experts) has become a growing concern during the pandemic. Using topic modeling and supervised machine learning, this study examines the elements and sources of anti-Fauci tweets as a case of anti-intellectual discourse on social media. Based on the theoretical framework of science-related populism, we identified three anti-intellectual discursive elements in anti-Fauci tweets: people-scientist antagonism, delegitimizing the motivation of scientists, and delegitimizing the knowledge of scientists. Delegitimizing the motivation of scientists appeared the most in anti-Fauci tweets. Politicians, conservative news media, and non-institutional actors (e.g. individuals and grassroots advocacy organizations) co-constructed the production and circulation of anti-intellectual discourses on Twitter. Anti-intellectual discourses resurged even under Twitter's content moderation mechanism. We discuss theoretical and practical implications for building public trust in scientists, effective science communication, and content moderation policies on social media.

The Influence of News Consumption Habits and Dispositional Traits on Trust in Medical Scientists

Public trust in medical institutions is essential for ensuring compliance with medical directives. However, the politicization of public health issues and the polarized nature of major news outlets suggest that partisanship and news consumption habits can influence medical trust. This study employed a survey with 858 participants and used regression analysis to assesses how news consumption habits and information assessment traits (IATs) influence trust in medical scientists. IATs included were conscientiousness, openness, need for cognitive closure (NFCC), and cognitive reflective thinking (CRT). News sources were classified on the basis of factuality and political bias. Initially, readership of liberally biased news was positively associated with medical trust (p < 0.05). However, this association disappeared when controlling for the news source's factuality (p = 0.28), while CRT (p < 0.05) was positively associated with medical trust. When controlling for conservatively biased news sources, factuality of the news source (p < 0.05) and NFCC (p < 0.05) were positively associated with medical trust. While partisan media bias may influence medical trust, these results suggest that those who have higher abilities to assess information and who prefer more credible news sources have a greater trust in medical scientists.

What does the French public consider to be a conflict of interest for medical researchers?

Conflicts of interests have been at the core of public debate over health and medicine for decades. Social scientists have analysed the diversity of definitions of this label as well as the policies put in place to regulate the relationships between medical researchers and various actors such as private corporations. But little attention has been paid to the way the public define and use this label. In this article, we assess what the French public consider to be a conflict of interest for medical researchers. We draw on the data from a questionnaire-based survey conducted with a representative sample of the French population in December 2021 (n = 2022) where we asked respondents to decide whether different situations constituted a conflict of interest or not. These situations concerned medical researchers' relationships with economic actors but also with politicians and the media, with or without financial compensation for the researcher. We identified three main group profiles in terms of respondents' conception of what counts as a conflict of interest: i) considering that only money matters in the labelling of a given situation as a conflict of interest, ii) considering that any relationship with economic, media and political actors constitutes a conflict of interest (i.e., that medical research should be an ivory tower), and iii) indecision as to what constitutes a conflict of interest. These three groups differed in terms of social composition as well as respondents' relationships to science, politics, and the health care system.

Values and vendettas: Populist science governance in Mexico

This article aims to diversify STS perspectives on populism by addressing a sequence of episodes of Mexican science policy in terms of clashes between populism and scientific communities. The article describes a reorientation of Mexican science policy that has destabilized the academic system during the present administration. Specifically, it looks at the legislative project initiated by Mexico's National Science and Technology Council (Conacyt) to overhaul the national regulatory framework on science, technology and innovation, and controversial political actions taken by Conacyt against the scientific community. Contextualizing these grievances, the article concludes that at stake is a form of 'trickle-down populism' that, through systematic authoritarianism, seeks to impose on the academic community a model of 'populist science governance'.

Partisanship and anti-elite worldviews as correlates of science and health beliefs in the multi-party system of Spain

In a national sample of 5087 Spaniards, we examine the prevalence of 10 specific misperceptions over five separate science and health domains (climate change, 5G technology, genetically modified foods, vaccines, and homeopathy). We find that misperceptions about genetically modified foods and general health risks of 5G technology are particularly widespread. While we find that partisan affiliation is not strongly associated with any of the misperceptions aside from climate change, we find that two distinct dimensions of an anti-elite worldview-anti-expert and conspiratorial mindsets-are better overall predictors of having science and health misperceptions in the Spanish context. These findings help extend our understanding of polarization around science beyond the most common contexts (e.g. the United States) and support recent work suggesting anti-elite sentiments are among the most important predictors of factual misperceptions.

From where do legislators draw scientific knowledge? Organizations as scientific authorities in four countries' parliamentary debates

Organizations far beyond traditional academic institutions have become prolific science producers, with many now providing evidence-based advice for national governments and policy-makers. Neo-institutional sociology explains organizations' growing investment in research activities and research-based policy advice by the all-embracing scientization and the expansion of the educated population, phenomena observable throughout the world. There is, however, considerably less knowledge about how the organizations' increased knowledge production and the supply of science-based policy advice are reflected in national policy-making, including the legislative work of parliaments, and to what extent distinct organizations are deemed authoritative in different countries. In this paper, we examine how different organizations are used as scientific authorities in parliamentary debates over new legislation. Drawing on analyses of 576 parliamentary debates from Australia, Finland, Kenya, and the United Kingdom, we study what organizations are acknowledged as scientific authorities and the relative weight of different organization types in the context of political debates over new legislation. The results reveal that while organizations in general are frequently evoked as scientific authorities in all four countries, there is remarkable variation in the types of organizations considered authoritative in different national contexts. We elaborate these findings by analysing ways in which politicians evaluate organizations as sources of scientific authority. While the same set of evaluative schemas are used in all four countries, each is typically applied to certain types of organization. The results suggest that both the supply of scientific policy advice and political culture shape legislators' rhetorical practices when drawing on organizations' scientific authority.

"The chilling effect": Medical scientists' responses to audience feedback on their media appearances during the COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many medical scientists became public personas as a result of their media appearances. However, this prominence also made them likely targets of harassment from an increasingly science-skeptic public. Such experiences may lead to scientists cutting back on their public engagement activities, threatening the quality of science communication. This study examines how medical scientists evaluate feedback they received as a result of their media appearances, and how they relate their experiences to general views of the public, as well as their motivations to serve as media experts. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 24 Austrian medical scientists who served as media experts during the first year of the pandemic, we find substantial amounts of online abuse. Yet, this did not cause our respondents to avoid future media appearances, because their motivations to meet the needs of an unsettled public outweighed the experience of being harassed online.

'We will multiply the fires of resistance': The catalysts of dissent against institutional science and their interplay with refused knowledge communities

Drawing on a 12-month virtual ethnography on the main online spaces of three refused knowledge communities (RKCs) in Italy, this study aims at contributing to the debate on emerging forms of science-related populism from a two-fold perspective. First, we identify and describe the main features and the role played by an understudied figure who we label the 'catalyst of dissent' - a public influencer who does not belong to the scientific community and contributes to the spread of science-related populist narratives within a grassroots ecosystem of resistance to institutional science. Second, our research highlights how RKCs - communities proposing visions of science and medicine denied acceptance or even consideration by institutional science - can appropriate some key resources produced by the catalysts. The analysis focuses on the interplay between the catalysts and three main RKCs during the pandemic crisis in Italy: The No-5G, the Free-Vax, and the 5 Biological Laws communities.

The explanation-polarisation model: Pseudoscience spreads through explanatory satisfaction and group polarisation

This article presents an integrative model for the endorsement of pseudoscience: the explanation-polarisation model. It is based on a combination of perceived explanatory satisfaction and group polarisation, offering a perspective different from the classical confusion-based conception, in which pseudoscientific beliefs would be accepted through a lack of distinction between science and science mimicry. First, I discuss the confusion-based account in the light of current evidence, pointing out some of its explanatory shortcomings. Second, I develop the explanation-polarisation model, showing its explanatory power in connection with recent research outcomes in cognitive and social psychology.

Expert voices in the news reporting of the coronavirus pandemic: A study of UK television news bulletins and their audiences

The study examines the role of experts in UK television news at the start of the coronavirus pandemic by analysing both how they were used in coverage and perceived by news audiences. Our systematic content analysis of sources (N = 2300) used in the UK's flagship evening news bulletins found a reliance on political sources, principally from the government's perspective. We also discovered health and scientific experts received limited coverage and were only occasionally used to scrutinise public health policy. Yet, our six-week online diary study with 175 participants identified a strong preference for expert views about how the pandemic was being handled. It showed audiences favoured a range of expert sources in routine reporting - balancing government appointed and independent experts - to provide evidence-based scrutiny of the executive's decision-making. Overall, our findings contribute to a greater understanding of audience expectations, opinions, and experiences with broadcast news during a major public health crisis.

To wear or not to wear? Unpacking the #NoMask discourses and conversations on Twitter

In the context of the COVID-19 health crisis, the use of face masks has been a topic broadly debated. In many Western countries, especially at the heights of the pandemic, discussions on the use of protective facemasks were often linked to what were mainly political considerations, often fueled by health-related misinformation. Our study brings together social sciences and computer science expertise to retrospectively unpack the #NoMask discourses and conversations using both network analysis approaches on big data retrieved from Twitter and qualitative analyses on sub-sets of relevant social media data. By looking comparatively at two dataset gathered at different stages of the health crisis (2020 and 2022), we aim to better understand the role of Twitter in that interesting area where the dissemination of health misinformation became capitalized by the political narrative linking the social discontent caused by the socio-economic impacts of the pandemic to specific political ideologies. Our analyses show that there has never been a unique 'NoMask movement,' nor a defined online community. Rather, we can identify a range of relatively niche, loosely connected, and heterogeneous actors that, in the course of the pandemic, independently pushed diverse (but converging and compatible) discourses. Conversations directly linked to the #NoMask relevant hashtags are overall limited, as twitters using them are not talking to each other; nonetheless, they successfully engaged a larger audience.

[Pandemic and value change?]

Recent sociological diagnoses suggest that profound social crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic challenge our value orientations and could change them even in the relatively short term. Based on this observation, we investigate whether significant shifts in value priorities according to the Shalom Schwartz scale took place in Austria in the period May 2020 to March/April 2021. The first two waves of the Values in Crisis panel study serve as data material. Two theoretical assumptions are central to the interpretation of the results: first, the thesis of a trend toward conservatism and second, the thesis of the effective power of political discourses in times of (re)emerging populism. The article also pays special attention to a methodological discussion of changes in the meaning of questionnaire items due to the COVID-19 pandemic.The empirical analyses confirm a clear stability of value orientations. Above all, the value of conformity has changed, becoming more important for a significant part of the population; at the same time, the desire for a hedonistic lifestyle lost some of its importance. Conformity became more important, particularly for voters of the governing political parties, while this trend was not apparent, especially among voters of the FPÖ. Since the observed shift in value priorities mainly concerns "pandemic-sensitive" value dimensions, the results suggest a short-term reaction to the crisis rather than a long-term change in values.

The legitimacy of science and the populist backlash: Cross-national and longitudinal trends and determinants of attitudes toward science

Public attitudes toward science have risen for decades yet dropped in the most recent period coinciding with the emergence of anti-scientific populist discourses around the world. Controlling for a number of attitudinal and demographic factors, this study examines whether populist discourse and vote share as well as regime polity have an impact on the public legitimacy of science in the period 2005-2020. Cross-national findings suggest that populism is a consistent predictor of declining support for science across all models, regardless of the political system. While it might be too early to alert to lasting damage done by populist leaders to the public standing of science, more research is warranted to ascertain the impact of anti-scientific rhetoric in the "post-truth era."

Experts vs. policymakers in the COVID-19 policy response

We build an evolutionary game-theoretic model of the interaction between policymakers and experts in shaping the policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Players' decisions concern two alternative strategies of pandemic management: a "hard" approach, enforcing potentially unpopular measures such as strict confinement orders, and a "soft" approach, based upon voluntary and short-lived social distancing. Policymakers' decisions may also rely upon expert advice. Unlike experts, policymakers are sensitive to a public consensus incentive that makes lifting restrictions as soon as possible especially desirable. This incentive may conflict with the overall goal of mitigating the effects of the pandemic, leading to a typical policy dilemma. We show that the selection of strategies may be path-dependent, as their initial distribution is a crucial driver of players' choices. Contingent on cultural factors and the epidemiological conditions, steady states in which both types of players unanimously endorse the strict strategy can coexist with others where experts and policymakers agree on the soft strategy, depending on the initial conditions. The model can also lead to attractive asymmetric equilibria where experts and policymakers endorse different strategies, or to cyclical dynamics where the shares of adoption of strategies oscillate indefinitely around a mixed strategy equilibrium. This multiplicity of equilibria can explain the coexistence of contrasting pandemic countermeasures observed across countries in the first wave of the outbreak. Our results suggest that cross-country differences in the COVID-19 policy response need not be the effect of poor decision making. Instead, they can endogenously result from the interplay between policymakers and experts incentives under the local social, cultural and epidemiological conditions.

Public engagement and argumentation in science

Public engagement is one of the fundamental pillars of the European programme for research and innovation Horizon 2020. The programme encourages engagement that not only fosters science education and dissemination, but also promotes two-way dialogues between scientists and the public at various stages of research. Establishing such dialogues between different groups of societal actors is seen as crucial in order to attain epistemic as well as social desiderata at the intersection between science and society. However, whether these dialogues can actually help attaining these desiderata is far from obvious. This paper discusses some of the costs, risks, and benefits of dialogical public engagement practices, and proposes a strategy to analyse these argumentative practices based on a three-tiered model of epistemic exchange. As a case study, we discuss the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy, arguably a result of suboptimal public engagement, and show how the proposed model can shed new light on the problem.

Who supports science-related populism? A nationally representative survey on the prevalence and explanatory factors of populist attitudes toward science in Switzerland

Science and its epistemology have been challenged by science-related populism—a variant of populism suggesting that a virtuous “ordinary people,” and not allegedly corrupt academic elites, should determine the “production of truth.” Yet almost no studies have assessed the prevalence of science-related populist attitudes among the population and explanatory factors thereof. Based on a nationally representative survey in Switzerland, our study shows that only a minority of the Swiss exhibit science-related populist attitudes. Comparisons with reference studies suggest that these attitudes may be less prevalent in Switzerland than political populist attitudes. Those who hold stronger science-related populist attitudes tend to have no university education, less personal contact with science, lower scientific literacy, and higher interest in science. Additional analyses show that left-leaning citizens are less likely to hold science-related populist attitudes than moderate and right-leaning citizens. Our findings contribute to current debates about a potential fragmentation of science communication audiences and call for further research on the sociodemographic and attitudinal profiles of people with skeptical orientations toward science.

Poly-truth, or the limits of pluralism: Popular debates on conspiracy theories in a post-truth era

Conspiracy theories are central to "post-truth" discussions. Official knowledge, backed by science, politics, and media, is distrusted by various people resorting to alternative (conspiratorial) explanations. While elite commentators lament the rise of such "untruths," we know little of people's everyday opinions on this topic, despite their societal ramifications. We therefore performed a qualitative content analysis of 522 comments under a Dutch newspaper article on conspiracy theories to study how ordinary people discuss post-truth matters. We found four main points of controversy: "habitus of distrust"; "who to involve in public debates"; "which ways of knowing to allow"; and "what is at stake?" The diverging opinions outline the limits of pluralism in a post-truth era, revealing tensions between technocratic and democratic ideals in society. We show that popular opinions on conspiracy theories embody more complexity and nuance than elite conceptions of post-truth allow for: they lay bare the multiple sociological dimensions of poly-truth.

Conspiracy theories in digital environments: Moving the research field forward

In the past few years, the discussion of conspiracy theories has embroiled researchers, politicians and the public alike. During the COVID-19 pandemic in particular, the term 'conspiracy theory' became a buzzword in the news media, public communication and everyday discussions. The pandemic also demonstrated that conspiratorial narratives disseminated online are not benign, obscure and eventually harmless ideas, but can mislead policy making, hinder crisis relief and public health efforts, or undermine trust in institutions and science. Factors contributing to the prevalence of conspiracy theories are complex and include psychological as well as socio-political factors. This special issue focuses specifically on the role of digital media and how they shape the dissemination and mitigation of, as well as research on, conspiracy theories. The special issue includes 13 research articles by authors from 11 countries and regions, which provide timely insights into the phenomenon of conspiracy theories with cross-cultural and cross-platform advances.

Unmasking the Twitter Discourses on Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic: User Cluster-Based BERT Topic Modeling Approach

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted the politicization of public health issues. A public health monitoring tool must be equipped to reveal a public health measure's political context and guide better interventions. In its current form, infoveillance tends to neglect identity and interest-based users, hence being limited in exposing how public health discourse varies by different political groups. Adopting an algorithmic tool to classify users and their short social media texts might remedy that limitation.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to implement a new computational framework to investigate discourses and temporal changes in topics unique to different user clusters. The framework was developed to contextualize how web-based public health discourse varies by identity and interest-based user clusters. We used masks and mask wearing during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic in the English-speaking world as a case study to illustrate the application of the framework.

METHODS

We first clustered Twitter users based on their identities and interests as expressed through Twitter bio pages. Exploratory text network analysis reveals salient political, social, and professional identities of various user clusters. It then uses BERT Topic modeling to identify topics by the user clusters. It reveals how web-based discourse has shifted over time and varied by 4 user clusters: conservative, progressive, general public, and public health professionals.

RESULTS

This study demonstrated the importance of a priori user classification and longitudinal topical trends in understanding the political context of web-based public health discourse. The framework reveals that the political groups and the general public focused on the science of mask wearing and the partisan politics of mask policies. A populist discourse that pits citizens against elites and institutions was identified in some tweets. Politicians (such as Donald Trump) and geopolitical tensions with China were found to drive the discourse. It also shows limited participation of public health professionals compared with other users.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude by discussing the importance of a priori user classification in analyzing web-based discourse and illustrating the fit of BERT Topic modeling in identifying contextualized topics in short social media texts.

The Effect of Science-Related Populism on Vaccination Attitudes and Decisions

As the COVID-19 pandemic has sadly shown, the decision against vaccination is often linked to political ideologies and populist messages among specific segments of the population: People do not only have concerns about a potential health risk associated with vaccination but seem to have also adopted more populist attitudes towards science. In this study, the relationship between science-related populism and individuals' attitudes towards vaccination was examined, presuming that scientific-related populism also influences individual responses towards different vaccinations. As different types of diseases and their vaccines might be perceived rather distinctively by the public, different vaccinations were considered. The survey is based on responses from 870 people from Germany and Austria. Results indicate that science-related populism influences responses towards some vaccination types, especially for those that receive extensive media coverage such as COVID-19 and measles (MMR). There was no significant impact of science-related populism on individuals' vaccination intentions for other vaccines like seasonal influenza, human papillomavirus, or tick-borne encephalitis. In conclusion, limitations and directions for future research are addressed.

The politics of vaccine hesitancy in Europe

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy threatens public health. Some evidence suggests that vaccine hesitancy in Europe may be linked with the success of populist parties, but more systematic analysis is needed.

METHODS

We examine the prevalence of individual-level vaccine hesitancy across the European Union (EU) and its association with political orientations. We also analyze whether success of populist parties is linked with vaccine hesitancy and uptake. We draw on individual-level Eurobarometer data from 2019, with a total of 27 524 respondents across the EU. We also rely on national and regional-level populist party vote shares. Finally, for a time-series analysis, we rely on aggregated populist party support as measured in the European Social Survey waves 1-9 (2002-18), and national immunization coverage rates from the WHO from 2002 to 2018.

RESULTS

While vaccine hesitancy is confined to a minority of the population, this group is large enough to risk herd immunity. Political orientations on a left-right dimension are not strongly linked to vaccine hesitancy. Instead, vaccine hesitancy is associated with anti-elite world views and culturally closed rather than cosmopolitan positions.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccine hesitancy is not only present in all EU member states but also maps on broader dimensions of cultural conflict. Hesitancy is rooted in a broader worldview, rather than misperceptions about health risks. Pro-vaccine interventions need to consider the underlying worldview, rather than simply targeting misperceptions.

Psychological underpinnings of pandemic denial - patterns of disagreement with scientific experts in the German public during the COVID-19 pandemic

We investigated pandemic denial in the general public in Germany after the first wave of COVID-19 in May 2020. Using latent class analysis, we compared patterns of disagreement with claims about (a) the origin, spread, or infectiousness of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and (b) the personal risk from COVID-19 between scientific laypersons (N = 1,575) and scientific experts (N = 128). Two groups in the general public differed distinctively from expert evaluations. The Dismissive (8%) are characterized by low-risk assessment, low compliance with containment measures, and mistrust in politicians. The Doubtful (19%) are characterized by low cognitive reflection, high uncertainty in the distinction between true and false claims, and high social media intake. Our research indicates that pandemic denial cannot be linked to a single and distinct pattern of psychological dispositions but involves different subgroups within the general population that share high COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and low beliefs in epistemic complexity.

Science Communication at a Time of Crisis: Emergency, Democracy, and Persuasion

This commentary essay reflects on the role of science communication in contemporary democratic societies, with a particular focus on how it should be imagined and practiced in times of crisis and emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic or climate change. I distinguish between science communication that is oriented to strategic and democratic goals, and argue for the continued importance of science communication in nurturing democracy even at times of crisis. I close by suggesting principles that might guide such communication, and by relating these arguments to an understanding of science communication as ‘the social conversation around science’.

An anchor in troubled times: Trust in science before and within the COVID-19 pandemic

Researchers, policy makers and science communicators have become increasingly been interested in factors that affect public’s trust in science. Recently, one such potentially important driving factor has emerged, the COVID-19 pandemic. Have trust in science and other science-related beliefs changed in Germany from before to during the pandemic? To investigate this, we re-analyzed data from a set of representative surveys conducted in April, May, and November 2020, which were obtained as part of the German survey Science Barometer, and compared it to data from the last annual Science Barometer survey that took place before the pandemic, (in September 2019). Results indicate that German’s trust in science increased substantially after the pandemic began and slightly declined in the months thereafter, still being higher in November 2020 than in September 2019. Moreover, trust was closely related to expectations about how politics should handle the pandemic. We also find that increases of trust were most pronounced among the higher-educated. But as the pandemic unfolded, decreases of trust were more likely among supporters of the populist right-wing party AfD. We discuss the sustainability of these dynamics as well as implications for science communication.

Science-related populism declining during the COVID-19 pandemic: A panel survey of the Swiss population before and after the Coronavirus outbreak

In many countries, the COVID-19 pandemic led to increased public support for societal institutions including science, a phenomenon described as "rally-round-the-flag" dynamic. However, it is unclear if this dynamic has also reduced public resentment toward science such as science-related populist attitudes, that is, the preference of people's common sense over allegedly elitist scientific knowledge. We test this, relying on individual-level data from panel surveys before and during the pandemic in Switzerland. Results show that science-related populist attitudes decreased after the pandemic started. The decrease was more pronounced among people who had been strong supporters of science-related populism prior to the pandemic, but otherwise spread equally across different sociodemographic and attitudinal segments of the Swiss population. This shows that the Coronavirus outbreak has the potential to undermine persistent (populist) resentments toward science and its epistemology among the general population.

Public perceptions of the association between drug effectiveness and drug novelty in France during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, public debates overtly addressed the promises of new innovative drugs. Many of these debates pitted those who advocated for the development of new drugs by pharmaceutical companies against those who favored the repositioning of existing drugs. Our study explored perceptions of the association between drug novelty and effectiveness as well as perceptions of the role of the pharmaceutical industry in drug development.

METHODS

Data were collected in January 2021 from a quota sample of the French population aged 18-75years (n=1,000) during the second round of the "Health Literacy Survey 2019" (HLS₁₉).

RESULTS

We tested the hypothesis that individuals with a high level of familiarity with the health care system and those with a high level of trust in institutions are more likely to agree that new drugs are more effective than old ones and that drug development should be driven by the pharmaceutical industry. A quarter (25%) of respondents agreed that new drugs are always more effective than old ones. Agreement with this statement was stronger among respondents with a high level of familiarity with the health care system (as measured by the navigational health literacy score, OR 3.34 [2.13-5.24]). Respondents with a low level of trust in pharmaceutical companies or politicians were two times less likely to agree that new drugs are always more effective than old ones (OR 0.63 [0.42-0.95] and OR 0.68 [0.49-0.94], respectively). A high level of trust in pharmaceutical companies was reported by 42% of respondents, and 43% agreed that drug development should be driven by the pharmaceutical industry.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the perceived effectiveness of innovative drugs is associated with familiarity with the health care system and trust in institutions.

"I feel it in my gut:" Epistemic Motivations, Political Beliefs, and Misperceptions of COVID-19 and the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

This project examines the intersection of political constructs and epistemic motivations as they relate to belief in misinformation. How we value the origins of knowledge - through feelings and intuition or evidence and data - has important implications for our susceptibility to misinformation. This project explores how these epistemic motivations correlate with political ideology, party identification, and favorability towards President Trump, and how epistemic and political constructs predict belief in misinformation about COVID and the 2020 election. Results from a US national survey from Nov-Dec 2020 illustrate that Republicans, conservatives, and those favorable towards President Trump held greater misperceptions about COVID and the 2020 election. Additionally, epistemic motivations were associated with political preferences; Republicans and conservatives were more likely to reject evidence, and Trump supporters more likely to value feelings and intuition. Mediation analyses support the proposition that Trump favorability, Republicanism, and conservatism may help account for the relationships between epistemic motivations and misperceptions. Results are discussed in terms of the messaging strategies of right-wing populist movements, and the implications for democracy and public health.

Climate Change Disinformation and How to Combat It

Climate change presents a challenge at multiple levels: It challenges our cognitive abilities because the effect of the accumulation of emissions is difficult to understand. Climate change also challenges many people's worldview because any climate mitigation regime will have economic and political implications that are incompatible with libertarian ideals of unregulated free markets. These political implications have created an environment of rhetorical adversity in which disinformation abounds, thus compounding the challenges for climate communicators. The existing literature on how to communicate climate change and dispel misinformation converges on several conclusions: First, providing information about climate change, in particular explanations of why it occurs, can enhance people's acceptance of science. Second, highlighting the scientific consensus can be an effective means to counter misinformation and raise public acceptance. Third, culturally aligned messages and messengers are more likely to be successful. Finally, climate misinformation is best defanged, through a process known as inoculation, before it is encountered, although debunking techniques can also be successful.

“Swallowing the red pill”: the coronavirus pandemic and the political imaginary of stigmatized knowledge in the discourse of the far-right

Pandemic disease is not merely a biological reality but also a cognitive and socially constructed phenomenon which intensely mobilizes a multiplicity of political frames. Far-right political entrepreneurs are, despite their remoteness from actual decision-making processes, active stakeholders in the current crisis. Existential threats to societies breed a sense of urgency and heightened cultural warfare that is a hotbed for extremism. Our study seeks to map, compare and contrast the symbolic responses to the Coronavirus crisis articulated by various far-right actors in two established democracies in the transatlantic area: The United States and France. We aim to shed light on how entrenched far-right mythologies and tropes—which appear increasingly transatlantic—are channeled into a new synthesis as part of an “alternative” political epistemology. Infused with the mythos of resistance and insurgency, resolutely anti-systemic, this alternative epistemology can better be described, following Michael Barkun, as a form of “stigmatized knowledge”. Our study will employ a Critical Discourse Analysis framework to bring into focus, in the response of the Euro-American far-right to the COVID-19 crisis, the ideological semiotics of the current “infodemic”.

Disputas narrativas e legitimação: análise dos argumentos de Bolsonaro sobre vacinação contra Covid-19 no Twitter

O fenômeno nomeado de infodemia expôs o cenário de confrontação de políticos populistas de extrema-direita contra evidências científicas no tratamento e controle da Covid-19 por meio das redes sociais digitais. Tais narrativas são marcadas por crenças e posicionamentos político-ideológicos colocados em antagonismos. Este artigo busca mapear e analisar os argumentos do atual presidente do Brasil, Jair Bolsonaro, sobre a vacinação contra Covid-19 proferidos no Twitter. Utilizando as estratégias de legitimação de Van Leeuween (2007), sistematizadas por Recuero (2019, 2020), analisamos 19 postagens sobre o assunto publicadas no perfil oficial de Bolsonaro para compreender as suas formas de argumentação em relação à vacina contra Covid-19, a maneira com que ele transforma uma vacinação em uma disputa político-ideológica e como ele faz do Twitter um espaço de confrontação. Em nossa investigação, observamos que o presidente, baseado em uma lógica populista e neoliberal, se utiliza principalmente das estratégias de autorização e racionalidade para construir a narrativa de que o indivíduo tem a liberdade de escolher se vacinar ou não

Politics overwhelms science in the Covid-19 pandemic: Evidence from the whole coverage of the Italian quality newspapers

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has emerged as one of the most dramatic health crises of recent decades. This paper treats mainstream news about the current pandemic as a valuable entry point for analyzing the relationship between science and politics in the public sphere, where the outbreak must be both understood and confronted through appropriate public-health policy decisions. In doing so, the paper aims to examine which actors, institutions, and experts dominate the SARS-CoV-2 media narratives, with particular attention to the roles of political, medical, and scientific actors and institutions within the pandemic crisis. The study relies on a large dataset consisting of all SARS-CoV-2 articles published by eight major Italian national newspapers between January 1, 2020 and June 15, 2020. These articles underwent a quantitative analysis based on a topic modeling technique. The topic modeling outputs were further analyzed by innovatively combining ad-hoc metrics and a classifier based on the stacking ensemble method (combining regularized logistic regression and linear stochastic gradient descent) for quantifying scientific salience. This enabled the identification of relevant topics and the analysis of the roles that different actors and institutions engaged in making sense of the pandemic. The results show how the health emergency has been addressed primarily in terms of political regulation and concerns and only marginally as a scientific matter. Hence, science has been overwhelmed by politics, which, in media narratives, exerts a moral as well as regulatory authority. Media narratives exclude neither scientific issues nor scientific experts; rather, they configure them as a subsidiary body of knowledge and expertise to be mobilized as an ancillary, impersonal institution useful for legitimizing the expansion of political jurisdiction over the governance of the emergency.

Public perceptions of scientific advice: toward a science savvy public culture?

OBJECTIVES

Both the political appetite for a science-based coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) policy and its acceptability to the public are little understood, at a time of sharp distrust not only of governments but also of scientists and their journals' review practices. We studied the case of France, where the independent Scientific Council on COVID-19 was appointed by President Macron on March 12, 2020.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a survey on a representative sample of the French adult population.

METHODS

Our data were collected by the French Institute of Public Opinion using a self-administered online questionnaire. This was completed by a sample of 1016 people stratified to match French official census statistics for gender, age, occupation, and so on. We conducted statistical analysis using Python (Pandas-SciPy-Statsmodels) with Chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to control for statistical significance.

RESULTS

Intense media coverage has given the council a very high public profile, with three respondents out of four (73%) having heard about it. Perceptions are positive but complex. French citizens expect science to be important in political decision-making. Four of five (81.5%) want political decisions, in general, to be based on scientific knowledge. But one in two (55%) says that the government has not relied enough on science and only 36% are satisfied with the government's crisis management to date. Although most feel that the council has a legitimate advisory role even in situations of uncertainty (only 15% disagree), it is not perceived as fully independent. Only 44% think that it directly represents the scientific community, and only one of three people considers it completely independent from the government (39%) and the pharmaceutical industry (36%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms that while the transparency of scientific advice is important, it alone cannot ensure public confidence in political decision-making. We suggest that efforts made today to instill a 'science-savvy' public culture-one that allows the complex articulation between scientific knowledge, uncertainty, and political decision-making to be understood and accounted for would greatly benefit evidence-based policy in future crises.

COVID-19: Pandemie, Infodemie?

„Eine Infodemie ist ein Übermaß an angebotener Information, sowohl offline [in den klassischen Medien] als auch online“, stellen die internationalen Organisationen WHO, UN, UNICEF, UNDP, UNESCO, UNAIDS, ITU, UN Global Pulse und IFRC in einer seltenen gemeinsamen Erklärung fest 1. Sie kommen dann schnell auf den Punkt: Darin enthalten seien „gezielte Versuche, Falschinformationen zu verbreiten, um die öffentlichen Abwehr- und Hilfsmaßnahmen zu unterminieren und alternative Agenden zu befördern“. Solche Fehlinformationen könnten dann gesundheitliche Folgen haben, zu Stigmatisierungen und zur Ablehnung von sinnvollen Infektionsschutzmaßnahmen führen, einschließlich von Hygienemaßnahmen, Test- und Impfangeboten. Kurz: Falschinformationen können Menschenleben kosten, insbesondere in einer Pandemie und darüber hinaus durch Hetze und Misstrauen den sozialen Zusammenhalt einer Gemeinschaft nachhaltig schädigen. Damit wird die Pandemie in einem zweiten Schritt zum Vehikel einer nochmals die Gesundheit auf individueller und Bevölkerungsebene schädigenden „Infodemie“.

Values-Led Design Cards: Building Ethically Engaged Archaeology and Heritage Experiences

The agenda for an engaged and impactful archaeology has been set out emphatically in a variety of recent reports, positioning archaeology and heritage as important sources of public value and social benefit. While many ascribe to these aims, how to put them into practice in concrete terms remains a real challenge. Tools, methods and methodologies developed for the wider research community as it engages with the “impact agenda” at large have been adapted and applied in archaeological and heritage practice with variable success. In this paper, we discuss the creation of a values-led, card-based design toolkit and the considerations involved in customising it for use by archaeology and heritage sector practitioners. We evaluate reflexive feedback from participants in a toolkit testing workshop, together with our own reflections on the workshop experience. Building on these, we assess the potential and limitations of the toolkit and its underpinning values-led design theory to generate critically engaged archaeological and heritage experiences.

French Public Familiarity and Attitudes toward Clinical Research during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic put clinical research in the media spotlight globally. This article proposes a first measure of familiarity with and attitude toward clinical research in France. Drawing from the “Health Literacy Survey 2019” (HLS19) conducted online between 27 May and 5 June 2020 on a sample of the French adult population (N = 1003), we show that a significant proportion of the French population claimed some familiarity with clinical trials (64.8%) and had positive attitudes (72%) toward them. One of the important findings of this study is that positive attitudes toward clinical research exist side by side with a strong distancing from the pharmaceutical industry. While respondents acknowledged that the pharmaceutical industry plays an important role in clinical research (68.3%), only one-quarter indicated that they trust the industry (25.7%). Positive attitudes toward clinical trials were associated with familiarity with clinical trials (Odds Ratio, OR 2.97 [1.90–4.63]), financial difficulties (OR 0.63 [0.46–0.85]), as well as mistrust of doctors (0.48 [0.27–0.85]) and of scientists (OR 0.62 [0.38–0.99]). Although the French media provided a great deal of information on how clinical research works during the first months of the pandemic, there remains profound mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry in France. This suspicion can undermine crisis management, especially in the areas of vaccine development and preparation for future pandemics.

The "replication crisis" in the public eye: Germans' awareness and perceptions of the (ir)reproducibility of scientific research

Several meta-analytical attempts to reproduce results of empirical research have failed in recent years, prompting scholars and news media to diagnose a "replication crisis" and voice concerns about science losing public credibility. Others, in contrast, hoped replication efforts could improve public confidence in science. Yet nationally representative evidence backing these concerns or hopes is scarce. We provide such evidence, conducting a secondary analysis of the German "Science Barometer" ("Wissenschaftsbarometer") survey. We find that most Germans are not aware of the "replication crisis." In addition, most interpret replication efforts as indicative of scientific quality control and science's self-correcting nature. However, supporters of the populist right-wing party AfD tend to believe that the "crisis" shows one cannot trust science, perhaps using it as an argument to discredit science. But for the majority of Germans, hopes about reputational benefits of the "replication crisis" for science seem more justified than concerns about detrimental effects.

Como enfrentar a desinformação científica? Desafios sociais, políticos e jurídicos intensificados no contexto da pandemia

A desinformação relacionada à ciência tem sido uma das grandes preocupações atuais e os desafios para enfrentá-la tem se intensificado neste momento em que o mundo atravessa uma pandemia. A proposta deste artigo é problematizar e refletir sobre as formas como a agenda da desinformação tem sido construída, buscando discutir as ameaças ao sistema democrático. Através de revisão de literatura e análise da conjuntura política brasileira, este artigo se desdobra a partir dos seguintes eixos: 1) fatores culturais, políticos e ideológicos que tornam a desinformação um campo fértil para a dúvida e a descrença; 2) as medidas de enfrentamento à desinformação e suas limitações. 3) o processo de descrença institucional propiciada em um cenário político de contestação epistêmica e o papel da mídia nesta atuação; 4) uma agenda de guerra híbrida instaurada no campo político e jurídico, que ameaça o sistema democrático atual em nome de um inimigo indefinido: a desinformação; Por fim, este artigo busca oferecer um panorama amplo sobre os desafios e dificuldades para o campo da comunicação e informação no enfrentamento à desinformação relacionada à ciência em um contexto atual de disputas informacionais, políticas, jurídicas e tecnológicas