Selecting a few of the recommendations from our National Academies report on science misinformation to highlight. Recommendation 2 is simply that universities & researchers need better procedures for publicizing research. There should be accountability for overhyping science. - ThreadSky

davidlazer.bsky.social • 82 days ago

Selecting a few of the recommendations from our National Academies report on science misinformation to highlight. Recommendation 2 is simply that universities & researchers need better procedures for publicizing research. There should be accountability for overhyping science.

1 / 2

Comments

bwaber.bsky.social•82 days ago

Don't think I told you, but I went through IRB training at Ritsumeikan earlier this year. Japan has a standard training for all researchers, and out of ~8 sections one entire section is on the ethical way to discuss your research findings with the public.

davidlazer.bsky.social•82 days ago

That's _great_. In the US, I think scientists go through training how to hype their findings.

(Mostly kidding, but we certainly have no standard training about ethical science communication.)

bwaber.bsky.social•82 days ago

The whole training was great. We focus so much on informed consent and the syphilis trials at Tuskegee (understandably), but they had entire sections on the ethical use of research funds, author credit, etc.

davidlazer.bsky.social•82 days ago

A lot of lessons there for us, thanks for highlighting.

davidlazer.bsky.social•82 days ago

Recommendation 6: we (including academia) need to do a better of supporting science/health journalism

davidlazer.bsky.social•82 days ago

Recommendation 13, we need better data on misinfo about science from social media platforms to support independent research.

davidlazer.bsky.social•82 days ago

Full report pdf (free) available here: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/27894

ellenb.bsky.social•81 days ago

I’m interested in this area bc at some point the science gets reported to a public that thinks in black-and-white and doesn’t have the most basic intuitions about statistical uncertainty. *Someone* is going to do that translation. This is a UX and rhetorical problem.

ellenb.bsky.social•81 days ago

I’m very curious about how we might do better at translating un/certainty to an audience unequipped to understand it. But the “jargony” (correct) way that scientists speak with each other is basically nonsense to those who don’t understand it. Doubling down will likely create less clarity.

criticallyspeaking.bsky.social•82 days ago

The public doesn’t read academic journals. We need to let the general public know what out peer reviewed work means

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply