How disinformation undermines the relationship between science and society

For dec­ades, dis­in­form­a­tion has thrived, even at the highest levels of gov­ern­ment. Some of its con­sequences are well doc­u­mented in the sci­entif­ic lit­er­at­ure. For example, it is known that expos­ure to mis­in­form­a­tion dur­ing the COVID-19 pan­dem­ic con­trib­uted to increased vac­cine hes­it­ancy among a seg­ment of the pub­lic¹,². A recent review shows that con­spir­acy the­or­ies pro­mote the rejec­tion of cli­mate sci­ence³. 

“Mis­trust is not dir­ec­ted at sci­ence itself, but at cer­tain sci­entif­ic act­ors or insti­tu­tions per­ceived as hav­ing manip­u­lat­ive inten­tions or hid­den agen­das,” Tiffany Moris­seau cla­ri­fies. Des­pite a widely held belief, no study points to a wide­spread crisis of con­fid­ence in sci­ence⁴. Trust levels are rel­at­ively high – aver­aging 3.62 on a glob­al scale of 1 to 5 – and have remained fairly stable over time.

But this single indic­at­or is not suf­fi­cient to describe the effects of mis­in­form­a­tion on the rela­tion­ship between the gen­er­al pub­lic and sci­ence. While sci­ence remains broadly respec­ted, cer­tain well-estab­lished find­ings – such as the human-caused ori­gin of con­tem­por­ary glob­al warm­ing – are being ques­tioned by a small por­tion of the pop­u­la­tion. In an art­icle pub­lished in 2022, sci­ent­ists note⁵: “We clearly observe that beliefs in cli­mate con­spir­acy the­or­ies show mod­er­ate to high neg­at­ive cor­rel­a­tions not only with accept­ance of cli­mate sci­ence, trust, and envir­on­ment­al engage­ment, but also with beha­vi­ors and sup­port for policies.” 

“Pub­lic dis­trust centres on polit­ic­al issues: vac­cin­a­tion, the envir­on­ment, etc.,” explains Tiffany Moris­seau. “When sci­entif­ic issues become highly politi­cised, experts’ pos­i­tions are often eval­u­ated through the lens of par­tis­an interests.” She illus­trates this with: “Dur­ing the COVID-19 crisis, col­lab­or­a­tion between sci­entif­ic insti­tu­tions and poli­cy­makers took place against a back­drop of already high mis­trust toward pub­lic author­it­ies, fuelled in par­tic­u­lar by anti-vac­cine and anti-lock­down move­ments and, in France, by the after­math of the Yel­low Vests move­ment.” As a res­ult, rejec­tion of sci­entif­ic insti­tu­tions is on the rise, and this affects all polit­ic­al issues, includ­ing cli­mate science.

Oth­er factors rein­force this mis­trust. “For­eign inter­fer­ence, declin­ing inform­a­tion qual­ity, eco­nom­ic dif­fi­culties, and health scan­dals all under­mine trust in insti­tu­tions – and there­fore in sci­ent­ists,” adds Tiffany Moris­seau. “The issue of mis­in­form­a­tion must be addressed not at the indi­vidu­al level but at the struc­tur­al level.”

There is no doubt that power­ful act­ors are inten­tion­ally spread­ing mis­in­form­a­tion about cli­mate change with the aim of hinder­ing cli­mate action. Bey­ond attacks on cli­mate sci­ence, those spread­ing dis­in­form­a­tion are now turn­ing to strategies that dis­par­age sci­ent­ists and their insti­tu­tions to erode pub­lic trust. This well-doc­u­mented obstruc­tion strategy – which bene­fits cer­tain indus­tries, gov­ern­ments, and polit­ic­al parties – relies on a vast eco­sys­tem: think tanks, com­mu­nic­a­tions agen­cies, con­ser­vat­ive media out­lets, and more⁶.

In a recent report⁷, sci­ent­ists explore a com­ple­ment­ary approach to com­bat­ing dis­in­form­a­tion cam­paigns and thereby strength­en­ing trust in sci­entif­ic insti­tu­tions: tar­get­ing the vul­ner­ab­il­it­ies on which dis­in­form­a­tion thrives. “When faced with inform­a­tion, we engage epi­stem­ic vigil­ance mech­an­isms that pre­vent us from accept­ing just any­thing,” explains Tiffany Moris­seau. “This vigil­ance focuses both on the con­tent – its plaus­ib­il­ity rel­at­ive to our pri­or know­ledge – and on the source: its per­ceived com­pet­ence and sincerity.”

These cog­nit­ive mech­an­isms oper­ate with­in an emo­tion­al and rela­tion­al con­text. Con­spir­acy the­or­ies take root in indi­vidu­als’ feel­ings of fear, sad­ness, or anger, which influ­ence the qual­ity of their reas­on­ing. Cer­tain per­son­al­ity traits (high dog­mat­ism, a strong need for unique­ness) or sociodemo­graph­ic factors (level of edu­ca­tion, gender, eco­nom­ic insec­ur­ity) also influ­ence sus­cept­ib­il­ity to false inform­a­tion. “Capa­cit­ies and responses vary from per­son to per­son, but sus­cept­ib­il­ity to mis­in­form­a­tion and belief in con­spir­acy the­or­ies gen­er­ally stem from emo­tion­al or social motiv­a­tions,” notes Tiffany Moris­seau. “How­ever, these motiv­a­tions often far out­weigh indi­vidu­als’ interest in know­ing the truth.”

This interest in determ­in­ing the truth­ful­ness of a piece of inform­a­tion var­ies – for example, it is neither rel­ev­ant nor real­ist­ic be hyper-vigil­ant toward every piece of inform­a­tion we receive. “In prac­tice, we are con­stantly adjust­ing our level of vigil­ance based on the rel­ev­ance of the inform­a­tion and its impact on our daily lives,” con­tin­ues Tiffany Moris­seau. “How­ever, believ­ing false inform­a­tion, in the vast major­ity of cases, has no impact on our lives.” Thus, people are not pass­ive in the face of inform­a­tion but adjust their reac­tions based on their interests. “This is com­bined with social, emo­tion­al, and polit­ic­al motiv­a­tions. For some people, it’s more bene­fi­cial to hold onto false beliefs – which can help them make friends, for example – than to try to sort out what’s true from what’s false.” Far more than ignor­ance, it is social and eco­nom­ic hard­ships and the polar­isa­tion of soci­ety that foster sus­cept­ib­il­ity to mis­in­form­a­tion and rein­force mis­trust of sci­entif­ic insti­tu­tions. Tiffany Moris­seau con­cludes: “Con­trary to polit­ic­al rhet­or­ic, people are not fool­ish and do trust the sci­entif­ic meth­od. A key way to strengthen trust in our insti­tu­tions – both sci­entif­ic and polit­ic­al – lies in their abil­ity to foster less polar­ised debates and to demon­strate that they pur­sue goals aligned with those of the public.”

Interview by Anaïs Marechal