Anti-science Misinformation and Conspiracies: COVID–19, Post-truth, and Science & Technology Studies (STS)

Abstract

COVID–19 has not only resulted in nearly two and a half million deaths globally but it has also spawned a pandemic of misinformation and conspiracies. In this article I examine COVID–19 misinformation and conspiracies in the United States (US). These misinformation and conspiracies have been commonly argued to be anti-science. I argue, although it is important to rebut false information and stop their spread, social scientists need to analyse how such anti-science claims are discursively framed and interpreted. Specifically, I show how the framing of the anti-science conspiracies utilise the credibility of science and scientists. I also explore how the COVID–19 misinformation and conspiracies were given different meaning among different social groups. The article is divided into three sections. In the first section I analyse the discursive emplotment of the Plandemic video that had Dr Judy Mikovits presenting several COVID–19 conspiracy theories and went viral before it was taken down from major social media platforms. I show how the video draws on the credibility of science, scientists, and scientific journals to present misinformation and conspiracies claims against vaccination, mask wearing, etc. The second section explores how COVID–19 misinformation and conspiracies were interpreted among the African-American community by drawing on the history of black community’s experiences in the US and as such how their interpretations stand in contrast to the interpretations of the COVID–19 misinformation and conspiracies among the White community. The last section analyses the role of STS in engaging with anti-science and post-truth issues and emphasises the need to excavate genealogies of the present even with regard to misinformation and conspiracies.

Follow the scientists? How beliefs about the practice of science shaped COVID-19 views

“…While uncertainty is considered "normal" within the scientific community, lay people can be uncomfortable with the caveats and approximations used by scientists when conveying findings, leading some to question their integrity. Relatedly, disinformation about how science should be practiced, and misrepresentations of scientific certainty have contributed to the erosion of scientists' credibilityparticularly during the COVID-19 crisis [Agley and Xiao, 2021;Chryssochoidis, Strada and Krystallis, 2009;Iyengar and Massey, 2019;Millstone and van Zwanenberg, 2000;Prasad, 2021]. This has practical implications as adherence to coronavirus mitigation measures and public health recommendations have been found to be lower among those with decreased confidence in science and scientists [Brzezinski et al, 2021;Calvillo et al, 2020;Eichengreen, Aksoy and Saka, 2021;Sanchez and Dunning, 2021].…”

Theorising post-truth in the COVID era

“…In the wake of COVID-19, there has been a shift toward connecting personal circumstances with the health of an entire society (see for example: Harsin, 2020 ; Kwok et al, 2021 ; Parmet & Paul, 2020 ; Peters et al, 2020 ; Prasad, 2021 ; Valladares, 2021 ). As such, the problems posed by post-truth have been brought to public attention because personal welfare has been explicitly linked with education about—and public communication of—medical knowledge.…”

Risikokommunikation politikberatender Wissenschaftsorganisationen: Ein Themenaufriss am Beispiel des Bundesinstituts für Risikobewertung

“…Zunehmend treten sogenannte Prosumer [ 59 ] – also Akteure, die Kommunikationsmaterialien nicht nur rezipieren, sondern diese beispielsweise deuten, reformulieren oder rekontextualisieren – mit eigenen Kommunikationsangeboten auf die Bühne. Dabei werden vermehrt auch Fehl‑, Des- und Malinformationen verbreitet [ 60 , 61 ], die jedoch nicht immer auf dezidiert wissenschafts feindliche Narrative rekurrieren, sondern vielmehr ebenfalls auf wissenschaftliche Semantiken zurückgreifen und dabei auf die vermeintliche Evidenzbasierung und Faktizität ihrer Inhalte verweisen [ 62 ].…”