Fighting fake science: the key role of scientists

Article Sidebar

PDF (261 kB)
Published: Sep 1, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/HEMIND20082924O
Keywords:
science communication, conspiracy theory, science integrity, scientific ethics, scientific method

Main Article Content

Bojana Obradović
Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy, University of Belgrade, Karnegijeva 4, P.O. Box 3503, 11120 Belgrade
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7276-0442
Ana Barcus
Accenture, Intelligent Engineering Services, 40 King Street West, Ste. 3000, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 3Y2

Abstract

Along with benefits that the Information Age has brought to the society, it has also proved to be an effective platform for spreading false information, referred to as fake news and fake science. The problem with unverified theories falsely presented as scientific is that readership believes them to be true, which can produce harmful effects at all societal levels. The scientists and societies in which they operate, have mutual responsibility to instigate and cultivate the scientific method and critical inquiry. To combat the spread and adoption of false truths, scientists must take a more prominent role by upholding the highest scientific ethics, continuously educating their communities, and engaging in public debate. By sharing the scientific method with the whole society and actively contributing to enhancement of critical thinking abilities, the scientist could help advance skills for evaluation and analysis of presented information across wider population, and weaken the negative impact of fake science.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Obradović, B., & Barcus, A. (2020). Fighting fake science: the key role of scientists. HEMIJSKA INDUSTRIJA (Chemical Industry), 74(4), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.2298/HEMIND20082924O
Issue
Vol. 74 No. 4 (2020)
Section
Editorial
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors grant to the Publisher the following rights to the manuscript, including any supplemental material, and any parts, extracts or elements thereof:

  • the right to reproduce and distribute the Manuscript in printed form, including print-on-demand;
  • the right to produce prepublications, reprints, and special editions of the Manuscript;
  • the right to translate the Manuscript into other languages;
  • the right to reproduce the Manuscript using photomechanical or similar means including, but not limited to photocopy, and the right to distribute these reproductions;
  • the right to reproduce and distribute the Manuscript electronically or optically on any and all data carriers or storage media – especially in machine readable/digitalized form on data carriers such as hard drive, CD-Rom, DVD, Blu-ray Disc (BD), Mini-Disk, data tape – and the right to reproduce and distribute the Article via these data carriers; 
  • the right to store the Manuscript in databases, including online databases, and the right of transmission of the Manuscript in all technical systems and modes;
  • the right to make the Manuscript available to the public or to closed user groups on individual demand, for use on monitors or other readers (including e-books), and in printable form for the user, either via the internet, other online services, or via internal or external networks.

References

Hesse H. The Glass Bead Game. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co; 1990.

Hopf H, Krief A, Mehta G, Matlin SA. Fake science and the knowledge crisis: ignorance can be fatal. R Soc Open Sci. 2019; 6: 190161.

Pennycook G, McPhetres J, Zhang Y, Lu JG, Rand DG. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychol Sci. 2020; 31: 770-780.

Shermer M. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company; 1997.

Science Council. https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/ Assessed August 16, 2020.

Crawford S, Stucki L. Peer review and the changing research record. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec. 1990; 41: 223-228.

Neil SJD, Campbell EM. Fake Science: XMRV, COVID-19, and the toxic legacy of Dr. Judy Mikovits. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2020; 36: 545-549.

Menapace M. Scientific ethics: A new approach. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019; 25: 1193–1216.

Jones NL. A code of ethics for the life sciences. Sci Eng Ethics. 2007; 13: 25–43.

Kretser A, Murphy D, Bertuzzi S, Abraham T, Allison DB, Boor KJ, Dwyer J, Grantham A, Harris LJ, Hollander R, Jacobs‑Young C,·Rovito S, Vafiadis D, Woteki C,·Wyndham J,·Yada R. Scientific integrity principles and best practices: Recommendations from a Scientific Integrity Consortium. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019; 25: 327–355.

Abonizio HQ, de Morais JI, Tavares GM, Barbon Junior S. Language-independent fake news detection: English, Portuguese, and Spanish mutual features. Future Internet 2020; 12: 87.

Kappel K, Holmen SJ. Why science communication, and does it work? A taxonomy of science communication aims and a survey of the empirical evidence. Front. Commun. 2019; 4: 55.

Bonney R, Phillips TB, Ballard HL, Enck JW. Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Underst Sci. 2016; 25: 2–16.

Hese H. Igra staklenih perli. Podgorica, Beograd: Narodna knjiga, Miba books; 2017.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>