Rebuttal of the arguments put forward in the Letter to the Editor by Nizzetto et al

In their Letter to the Editor, Nizzetto et al. challange a recent article in which I show that there has been unwarranted alarmism about biodegradable mulch films due to the publication of numerous articles based on preliminary data that are irrelevant for drawing conclusions on environmental risk. The tendency to over-emphasise results in order to attract attention is a growing problem in the scientific world and has been studied by many scholars. Nizzetto et al. accuse me of not using scientific methodology and of not disclosing that I am a scientist working for a company that produces biodegradable plastics. In this rebuttal I show that Nizzetto et al.'s accusations suffer from a number of logical fallacies, in particular the "straw man" fallacy and the "ad hominem" fallacy.

The pathology of hype, hyperbole and publication bias is creating an unwarranted concern towards biodegradable mulch films

The idea that it is a risk to promote biodegradable mulch films on a large scale is becoming established at academic level based on a series of articles similar in approach and conclusions. However, a critical analysis shows that the results do not justify the alarmist tones. The negative effects of hand-cut pieces of virgin material added in pots at concentrations up to 714 times the application doses are ascribed to the "accumulation" and "contamination" of "residues" and "debris" of biodegradable plastics. Yet, no accumulation and no contamination of biodegradable microplastics has actually been shown. No Predicted Environmental Concentration was established, thus the use of the term risk is inappropriate. The hypothesis of transient phytotoxicity of organic matter under decomposition i.e., an artificial outcome of the experimental scheme used, was not considered. A scrupulous approach to terminology is very important for the quality of communication and for the development of innovations. Scientific communication is a delicate process in which and to avoid hyperbole, there must be strict logical and lexical consistency between results and conclusions. Guidelines on the communication of the results of studies on biodegradable mulch must be developed to avoid the spread of unjustified concerns.

Neurofeedback on twitter: Evaluation of the scientific credibility and communication about the technique

Neurofeedback is a popular technique to induce neuroplasticity with a controversial reputation. The public discourse on neurofeedback, as a therapeutic and neuroenhancement technique, encompasses scientific communication, therapeutic expectations and outcomes, as well as complementary and alternative practices. We investigated twitter publications from 2010 to 2022 on the keyword "neurofeedback". A total of over 138 k tweets were obtained, which originated from over 42 k different users. The communication flow in the neurofeedback community is mainly unidirectional and non-interactive. Analysis of hashtags revealed application fields, therapy provider and neuroenhancement to be the most popular contents in neurofeedback communication. A group of 1221 productive users was identified, in which clinicians, entrepreneurs, broadcasters, and scientists contribute. We identified reactions to critical publications in the twitter traffic and an increase in the number of tweets by academic users which suggest an increase in the interest on the scientific credibility of neurofeedback. More intense scientific communication on neurofeedback in twitter may contribute to promote a more realistic view on challenges and advances regarding good scientific practice of neurofeedback.

Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health evidence needs to be communicated and disseminated in a manner that is clearly understood by decision-makers. As an inherent component of health knowledge translation, communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, represent a set of essential instruments to reduce the gap between science and practice. The advancement of digital and social media has reshaped the concept of health communication, introducing new, direct and powerful communication platforms and gateways between researchers and the public. The objective of this scoping review was to identify strategies for communicating scientific evidence in healthcare to managers and/or population.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Library, Embase®, MEDLINE® and other six electronic databases, in addition to grey literature, relevant websites from related organizations for studies, documents or reports published from 2000, addressing any strategy for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and/or population.

RESULTS

Our search identified 24 598 unique records, of which 80 met the inclusion criteria and addressed 78 strategies. Most strategies focused on risk and benefit communication in health, were presented by textual format and had been implemented and somehow evaluated. Among the strategies evaluated and appearing to yield some benefit are (i) risk/benefit communication: natural frequencies instead of percentages, absolute risk instead relative risk and number needed to treat, numerical instead nominal communication, mortality instead survival; negative or loss content appear to be more effective than positive or gain content; (ii) evidence synthesis: plain languages summaries to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews to the community were perceived as more reliable, easier to find and understand, and better to support decisions than the original summaries; (iii) teaching/learning: the Informed Health Choices resources seem to be effective for improving critical thinking skills.

CONCLUSION

Our findings contribute to both the knowledge translation process by identifying communication strategies with potential for immediate implementation and to future research by recognizing the need to evaluate the clinical and social impact of other strategies to support evidence-informed policies. Trial registration protocol is prospectively available in MedArxiv (doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922).

Advice as a Form of Structural Coupling: Intersystem Organizations and Scientific Communication in the Japanese Response to COVID-19

A critical issue in the study of scientific communication from a systems theoretical perspective is its role in multiple intersystem relationships. During COVID-19, politics has adopted scientific findings to inform political decisions. However, science has in response actively coordinated its operations for providing desired stimuli to politics. Luhmann identified advice as a form of structural coupling that links political and scientific systems. Advice is not a monolithic intervention by which one side acts on the other but is rather an interface that enables the two systems to relate through distancing. In this article, I empirically illustrate how the structural coupling of the political system and scientific system through advice manifests itself in an examination of the roles that various organizations (expert meeting and cluster task forces) have played in Japan's response to COVID-19. Through this analysis, I provide a theoretical insight regarding these organizations and a more detailed case analysis of the transformation of certain organizations to re-describe the system theoretical insights of advice in the form of scientific communication between politics and science.

The new therapy for Alzheimer's disease: from a hope for a few to a false hope?

Since the late ninety, research on Alzheimer's disease has been focused on the search of drugs able to modify the disease course. Patients and caregivers waiting for news on this topic, received enthusiastically the advice of the approval of Aducanumab-anti-amyloid β monoclonal antibody-by the FDA, and that of its rejection by the EMA with even greater disappointment. To estimate the number of patients that we would be able to treat-hypothesizing a possible future approval by EMA- in the memory clinic of the IRCCS S. Giovanni di Dio FBF of Brescia, we analyzed 1561 patients undergone a first geriatric visit in January 1st to December 31st 2019. Applying the EMERGE and ENGAGE studies criteria, only 15 of them (1%) could be eligible for Aducanumab. The communication of scientific news should be transparent, more balanced and less sensationalistic, to avoid the rise of false hopes and consequent disillusionment.

Are Virginia opossums really ecological traps for ticks? Groundtruthing laboratory observations

Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana) are a common synanthrope in North America, and serve as host to many species of ectoparasites. Research on captive Virginia opossums estimated that opossums eat, on average, 5500 larval ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) per week. To investigate this apparent preference exhibited by opossums for ingesting ticks, we comprehensively analyzed stomach contents of 32 Virginia opossums from central Illinois. Using a dissecting microscope, we searched the contents exhaustively for ticks and tick body parts, without sieving or pre-rinsing the stomach contents. We did not locate any ticks or tick parts in the stomach contents of Virginia opossums. We also performed a vigorous literature search for corroborating evidence of tick ingestion. Our search revealed 23 manuscripts that describe diet analyses of Virginia opossums, 19 of which were conducted on stomach or digestive tract contents and four of which were scat-based analyses. None of the studies identified ticks in their analyses of diet items. We conclude that ticks are not a preferred diet item for Virginia opossums. Considering that wildlife unconditioned to laboratory conditions may exhibit non-typical behaviors, we recommend that lab-based studies of wildlife behavior be groundtruthed with studies based in natural conditions.

The Cyclical Return of the IQ Controversy: Revisiting the Lessons of the Resolution on Genetics, Race and Intelligence

In 1976, the Genetics Society of America (GSA) published a document entitled "Resolution of Genetics, Race, and Intelligence." This document laid out the Society's position in the IQ controversy, particularly that on scientific and ethical questions involving the genetics of intellectual differences between human populations. Since the GSA was the largest scientific society of geneticists in the world, many expected the document to be of central importance in settling the controversy. Unfortunately, the Resolution had surprisingly little influence on the discussion. In 1979, William Provine analyzed the possible factors that decreased the impact of the Resolution, among them scientists' limited understanding of the relationship between science and ethics. Through the analysis of unpublished versions of the Resolution and exchanges between GSA members, I will suggest that the limited impact of the statement likely depended on a shift in the aims of the GSA due to the controversies that surrounded the preparation of the document. Indeed, the demands of the membership made it progressively more impartial in both scientific and political terms, decreasing its potential significance for a wider audience. Notably, the troubled history of the Resolution raises the question of what can make effective or ineffective the communication between scientists and the public-a question with resonance in past and present discussions on topics of social importance.

Communication vs evidence: What hinders the outreach of science during an infodemic? A narrative review

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic is placing significant pressure on national and international health organizations and the measures taken to combat it are having many impacts beyond health. At the same time, misleading communication practices and what has been called an “infodemic” by the World Health Organization have been hampering the uptake of coronavirus-related scientific information. Moreover, public awareness about the dangers of the infodemic remains poor, and misinformation may lead to hazardous behaviours. We therefore analysed factors potentially undermining communication of scientific evidence and proposed strategies to counteract this phenomenon.

Methods

We sought official academic and institutional publications of any type, published in English and analyzed their approaches to communication used during the pandemic.

Results

The factors that might undermine appropriate communication include but are not limited to (a) the exponential increase of COVID-19-related publications, often including biases in the peer-review and editorial process; (b) the role of traditional media; (c) politicization of the virus; and (d) the impact of social media. We argue that evidence synthesis and knowledge translation are useful tools to communicate accurate scientific evidence to decision-makers.

Conclusion

Clear and concise messages in this form can help decision-makers to interpret data correctly, take consequent actions, and avoid being compromised by low-quality or even misleading information.

Bridging the Information Gap Between Science and Society: A Solution to Nonpoint Source Contamination?

The dissemination of information associated with scientific achievement serves to advance research and guide future experimentation. In the sphere of environmental science, such advancements aim to better characterize harmful chemicals and the factors that influence in situ toxicity, which is central to the protection of the environments upon which humans depend. While some information regarding the dangers associated with common anthropogenic contaminants reaches wider audiences, the nuance of this information is often lost, potentially leading to ineffective solutions, specifically as it relates to nonpoint source contamination. Bridging the divide between scientific research, regulatory implementation, and product innovation is imperative in order to find meaningful and lasting environmental solutions. Road de-icing salts are applied to impervious surfaces to protect human health and maintain the efficient transportation of goods by roadways during winter months. The toxicity of these salts in freshwater ecosystems is well understood and researched within the scientific community. Tentative regulations and solutions developed to mitigate the environmental damage caused by road de-icing salts, however, perfectly represent the disconnect between the scientific community and the general public. Here, we use road de-icing salt as an example of how such a disconnect can manifest in the form of ineffective solutions and regulatory standards, and we present a general framework by which environmental scientists can more effectively bridge the gap between the scientific community and society at large. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;16:415-420. © 2020 SETAC.

Decision-making under uncertainty in environmental health policy: new approaches

Decision-making in environmental health policy is a complex procedure even in well-known conditions. Thus, in the case of uncertainty, decision-making becomes a hurdle race. We address scientific uncertainty, methods to reduce uncertainty, biomedical doubt and science communication, and the role of stakeholders, activists, lobbies and media that together influence policy decisions. We also consider the major responsibility and role of the medico-scientific community in this process. This community can and should teach the principle of scientific uncertainty to all stakeholders, advise policy-makers and underline the ethical issues, considering that our brains are not only the deposit of our humanity but also the route to environmental health and societal harmony.

An online decision tree for vaccine efficacy trial design during infectious disease epidemics: The InterVax-Tool

•

Phase 3 vaccine efficacy trial design during outbreaks and emergencies is challenging.

•

InterVax-Tool (vaxeval.com) is a structured decision-support tool for trial design.

•

Optimal design must include epidemiological, statistical, ethical, and logistical difficulties.

•

Navigating these issues in real-time requires tools to assist in decision-making.

•

Dynamic guidance, note taking, and tailored choices are key to good user engagement.

Background

Licensed vaccines are urgently needed for emerging infectious diseases, but the nature of these epidemics causes challenges for the design of phase III trials to evaluate vaccine efficacy. Designing and executing rigorous, fast, and ethical, vaccine efficacy trials is difficult, and the decisions and limitations in the design of these trials encompass epidemiological, logistical, regulatory, statistical, and ethical dimensions.

Results

Trial design decisions are complex and interrelated, but current guidance documents do not lend themselves to efficient decision-making. We created InterVax-Tool (http://vaxeval.com), an online, interactive decision-support tool, to help diverse stakeholders navigate the decisions in the design of phase III vaccine trials.

InterVax-Tool offers high-level visual and interactive assistance through a set of four decision trees, guiding users through selection of the: (1) Primary Endpoint, (2) Target Population, (3) Randomization Scheme, and, (4) Comparator. We provide guidance on how key considerations – grouped as Epidemiological, Vaccine-related, Infrastructural, or Sociocultural – inform each decision in the trial design process.

Conclusions

InterVax-Tool facilitates structured, transparent, and collaborative discussion of trial design, while recording the decision-making process. Users can save and share their decisions, which is useful both for comparing proposed trial designs, and for justifying particular design choices.

Here, we describe the goals and features of InterVax-Tool as well as its application to the design of a Zika vaccine efficacy trial.

Reproducible and reusable research: are journal data sharing policies meeting the mark?

Background

There is wide agreement in the biomedical research community that research data sharing is a primary ingredient for ensuring that science is more transparent and reproducible. Publishers could play an important role in facilitating and enforcing data sharing; however, many journals have not yet implemented data sharing policies and the requirements vary widely across journals. This study set out to analyze the pervasiveness and quality of data sharing policies in the biomedical literature.

Methods

The online author’s instructions and editorial policies for 318 biomedical journals were manually reviewed to analyze the journal’s data sharing requirements and characteristics. The data sharing policies were ranked using a rubric to determine if data sharing was required, recommended, required only for omics data, or not addressed at all. The data sharing method and licensing recommendations were examined, as well any mention of reproducibility or similar concepts. The data was analyzed for patterns relating to publishing volume, Journal Impact Factor, and the publishing model (open access or subscription) of each journal.

Results

A total of 11.9% of journals analyzed explicitly stated that data sharing was required as a condition of publication. A total of 9.1% of journals required data sharing, but did not state that it would affect publication decisions. 23.3% of journals had a statement encouraging authors to share their data but did not require it. A total of 9.1% of journals mentioned data sharing indirectly, and only 14.8% addressed protein, proteomic, and/or genomic data sharing. There was no mention of data sharing in 31.8% of journals. Impact factors were significantly higher for journals with the strongest data sharing policies compared to all other data sharing criteria. Open access journals were not more likely to require data sharing than subscription journals.

Discussion

Our study confirmed earlier investigations which observed that only a minority of biomedical journals require data sharing, and a significant association between higher Impact Factors and journals with a data sharing requirement. Moreover, while 65.7% of the journals in our study that required data sharing addressed the concept of reproducibility, as with earlier investigations, we found that most data sharing policies did not provide specific guidance on the practices that ensure data is maximally available and reusable.

Assessment of Scientific Communication Self-Efficacy, Interest, and Outcome Expectations for Career Development in Academic Medicine

Competency in forms of scientific communication, both written and spoken, is essential for success in academic science. This study examined the psychometric properties of three new measures, based on social cognitive career theory, that are relevant to assessment of skill and perseverance in scientific communication. Pre- and postdoctoral trainees in biomedical science (N = 411) completed online questionnaires assessing self-efficacy in scientific communication, career outcome expectations, and interest in performing tasks in scientific writing, oral presentation, and impromptu scientific discourse. Structural equation modeling was used to evaluate factor structures and model relations. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a 22-item, 3-factor measure of self-efficacy, an 11-item, 2-factor measure of outcome expectations, and a 12-item, 3-factor measure of interest in scientific communication activities. Construct validity was further demonstrated by theory-consistent inter-factor relations and relations with typical communications performance behaviors (e.g., writing manuscripts, abstracts, presenting at national meetings).