Misrepresenting Scientific Consensus on COVID-19: The Amplification of Dissenting Scientists on Twitter

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a slew of misinformation, often described as an "infodemic". Whereas previous research has focused on the propagation of unreliable sources as a main vehicle of misinformation, the present study focuses on exploring the role of scientists whose views oppose the scientific consensus. Using Nobelists in Physiology and Medicine as a proxy for scientific consensus, we analyze two separate datasets: 15.8K tweets by 13.1K unique users on COVID-19 vaccines specifically, and 208K tweets by 151K unique users on COVID-19 broadly which mention the Nobelist names. Our analyses reveal that dissenting scientists are amplified by a factor of 426 relative to true scientific consensus in the context of COVID-19 vaccines, and by a factor of 43 in the context of COVID-19 generally. Although more popular accounts tend to mention consensus-abiding scientists more, our results suggest that this false consensus is driven by higher engagement with dissent-mentioning tweets. Furthermore, false consensus mostly occurs due to traffic spikes following highly popularized statements of dissenting scientists. We find that dissenting voices are mainly discussed in French, English-speaking, Turkish, Brazilian, Argentine, Indian, and Japanese misinformation clusters. This research suggests that social media platforms should prioritize the exposure of consensus-abiding scientists as a vehicle of reversing false consensus and addressing misinformation stemming from seemingly credible sources.

The role and influence of perceived experts in an anti-vaccine misinformation community

“…Although surveys have found broad support for COVID-19 vaccination among medical providers [Callaghan et al, 2022, Bartoš et al, 2022, 28.9% of perceived experts in the two largest communities of the coengagement network were part of the anti-vaccine community, a proportion similar to those reported by other studies of COVID-19 vaccine attitudes expressed by medical professionals on Twitter [Ahamed et al, 2022, Kahveci et al, 2022. Anti-vaccine perceived experts are therefore overrepresented on Twitter compared to the share of actual biomedical experts who oppose Covid-19 vaccines, which may lead observers to underestimate the scientific consensus in favor of COVID-19 vaccination, in turn reducing vaccine uptake [Efstratiou and Caulfield, 2021, Bartoš et al, 2022, Motta et al, 2023.…”

“…However, this effect has not been tested for actual perceived experts commenting on real vaccines. We posit that perceived experts who spread misinformation may be disproportionately amplified within the Twitter network and have a greater influence on opinion compared to those who advance consensus positions and encourage vaccination [Efstratiou and Caulfield, 2021]. By quantifying the relative impact of perceived experts within the anti-vaccine community compared to other individuals, we will establish whether they represent a particularly influential group that should be specifically considered in interventions to encourage vaccine uptake.…”