It’s a question many of us have grappled with in recent years, whether engaging in a debate about the reality of human-caused climate change or talking to a dubious family member about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines: Why are some Americans more likely to believe an internet meme over the word of scientists, doctors, government agencies and research institutions?

The answer to that question is neither simple nor straightforward, says Michelle Amazeen, an associate professor of mass communication, director of COM’s Communication Research Center (CRC) and COM’s associate dean of research. With the help of her colleagues at the CRC, Amazeen has been studying which communities are most susceptible to science misinformation and how to effectively combat science-related misperceptions, especially on social media. Amazeen is among a growing number of experts trying to break through to those who have lost trust in institutions and are prone to believing the lies and half-truths they see online. She says the answer may lie in explaining and communicating science messages at the community level—a new field called civic science.

In 2021, Amazeen was selected as a Civic Science Fellow by the Rita Allen Foundation, which aims to support research and ideas that can “improve health, democracy and understanding.” Dean Mariette DiChristina (’86) serves on the Practice and Science of Civic Science Advisory Committee, which supports the fellowship program. Amazeen’s fellowship project sought answers to two questions: Which are the most science-misinformed communities, and what are effective ways to combat science-related misperceptions? With some of the work still in review and one paper published by Science Communication, Amazeen is particularly excited about the promise of one finding: localization.

“We’re seeing the emergence of civic science, in part, because it’s more democratic. And there have been assaults on democracy of late,” Amazeen says. “Part of addressing some of the growing institutional distrust is through making greater efforts to be transparent and connecting with communities about what science is, and who decides it.”

DECLINING TRUST IN SCIENCE, JOURNALISM

One lesson that came out of the pandemic was that the percentage of Americans who distrust science is growing. Many of us saw this play out anecdotally on our Facebook and X feeds, but the data confirm the trend: A 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that the share of Americans with “not too much/no confidence at all” in medical scientists doubled between April 2020 and December 2021, from 11 percent to 22 percent. Add to that an 18-point increase in the share of Americans who report “no confidence” in journalists, according to the Pew study, and you have a recipe for rampant misinformation, Amazeen says.

“With the ascendance of social media, we really don’t have journalistic gatekeepers anymore. As a result, there’s so much information out there that it’s really hard for people to tell what’s accurate and what’s not accurate,” she says. “We saw that in a very detailed fashion with the COVID-19 pandemic. We’re seeing that with climate change and with other scientific issues too.”

Black and Latinx communities, in particular, are frequently targeted by misinformation efforts, especially about science-related topics. There is a long and tragic history behind this. Public health institutions have long ignored, discriminated against or mistreated marginalized communities—take the US government’s syphilis experiments on nonconsenting African Americans in Alabama in the 20th century.

Such mistreatment has led to generations of medical skepticism among some people of color and explains why many were slow to trust the vaccines for COVID-19—or were never vaccinated at all. Another reason: communities of color haven’t historically been represented in the scientific and medical communities, leaving them intimidated or anxious, Amazeen says.

We’re seeing the emergence of civic science, in part, because it’s more democratic. And there have been assaults on democracy of late.”

Michelle Amazeen

It’s a history that “bad actors” take advantage of, Amazeen adds, targeting underrepresented communities with disinformation campaigns—often on social media—and further amplifying disparities in healthcare outcomes and their distrust of science.

Even leading corporations can get caught up in the swamp of science misinformation that exists on social media. Amazeen and her colleagues analyzed tweets about COVID-19 from Fortune 500 companies and preliminarily found that roughly one in five contained serious inaccuracies and tended to contain emotional appeals to increase traffic.

“This is not that problematic if we’re talking about hamburgers or cars, but in this case we’re talking about COVID-19, a potentially deadly virus,” Amazeen says. “So, that concerned us.”

MESSAGES THAT LAND

To learn why some people distrust science messages, Amazeen and her colleagues convened two focus groups, composed of Black and Latino social media users in the Boston area. In a screening phone call before the focus groups, the final participants had demonstrated a proclivity toward believing misinformation about climate change. In the focus groups, Amazeen asked participants questions about a variety of science-related topics, sparking a fascinating conversation that she says spanned well beyond climate issues. Participants revealed significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy or outright opposition to the inoculations and expressed health and wellness concerns related to chemicals and hormones in the foods we eat. She says many participants avoid mainstream news media and distrust government health agencies like the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and groups like the World Health Organization. Instead, they were receptive to misinformation such as that vitamin supplements are a proven cure for many health ailments or that the COVID-19 virus was developed in a lab by China to be used as a bioweapon.

At the end of the discussion, Amazeen shared some sources debunking misinformation she’d heard in the focus groups about climate change and COVID-19. The participants were reluctant to trust the fact-checkers, however. “They were like, ‘Who are these people? How do we know to trust them? Where are they getting their information?’” She tried showing the group appeals from celebrities like Queen Latifah and Dolly Parton, advocating for the safety of oral treatments and the COVID-19 vaccines. Many participants thought the celebrities were being paid to hawk the treatments and vaccine, compromising their message. The only intervention that didn’t fall flat was a fictitious Facebook post that Amazeen created and showed the group from Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, warning people about misinformation and reminding them to rely on credible sources when researching COVID-19—a strategy Amazeen calls “pre-bunking.” “The message wasn’tspecifically countering any claims,” Amazeen points out. “It’s just warning you about strategies that peoplemay use to misinform you. They were open to that.”

IS CIVIC SCIENCE THE ANSWER?

Who would they trust?

Amazeen says the focus groups gave them an answer: the people they already know. “Your local politicians, perhaps,” she says. “We hate Congress, but our local congressperson? Maybe they’re not so bad.” She suggests that community forums, where trusted local clergy talk about public health or climate change, could be effective.

Amazeen and her CRC colleagues are taking what they’re learning from the science skeptics and creating tool kits to correct scientific misinformation and communicate it in ways people can hear it. These include tactics like reminding people to consider the source of articles they are sharing online—as did the surgeon general’s message—and presenting fact-check messages in new ways, such as using narratives to counter misinformation rather than staid facts.

Media literacy will play a significant part, Amazeen says. The federal Institute of Museum and Library Services has received congressional funding to roll out programs for youth and adults in local branch libraries across the country that teach the importance of discerning fact from fiction on the internet and in the news media. Several states, including New Jersey and Illinois, have passed legislation requiring public schools to add media literacy to their curricula.

But Amazeen isn’t sure any of these interventions will be a game-changer without significant new laws regulating what can and cannot be posted on social media. She says we first need a better understanding of the effects these platforms are having on individuals and society, which is the aim of the proposed Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. What’s more, she says a reconsideration of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act—which protects platforms from liability over the content posted by users—is also long overdue.

“Journalists are reporting daily on what people are posting to X [formerly known as Twitter]; today—anybody can post anything,” Amazeen says. “When there were three broadcast news stations—ABC, NBC and CBS—there was always gatekeeping, creating friction over what they could air. There were problems with that model as well, but at least there was a shared sense of reality. While the First Amendment protects noncommercial speech from government regulation, it does not give license to platforms to amplify disinformation that can have deadly consequences.”