A Model for Science Debate?

June 20, 2019

Can Facebook be tamed in the service of rational science debate?

State of the Planet – Columbia University:

Ask any scientist, doctor, or advocate if they would support a debate between a vaccine expert and a vaccine skeptic, and the response will overwhelmingly be, “No.” Debates present a false equivalency between the sides, they will say. For issues such as vaccination, where there is a clear scientifically proven right and wrong answer, it is not appropriate to humor those who argue for the anti-vaccination side. Anti-vaxxers are often charismatic public speakers; they draw on emotions and have no qualms presenting lies and misleading figures as fact. Scientists, on the other hand, tend not to be trained in public speaking, and they are often unfamiliar with many of the arguments anti-vaxxers present, as they have spent their careers studying real science and generally do not have time to jump down the rabbit holes of misinformation.

Live debates present significant challenges to those involved: they are not able to fact-check sources as they go, nor are they able to examine papers’ methodologies; if a paper is presented that a scientist is unfamiliar with, she or he may not have sufficient time to review it and respond appropriately; audience members hear the debaters argue, but they too are unable to follow along with the sources as they are presented.

But vaccine skeptics continue to call for debates to be held, and because very few experts are willing to indulge their requests, the debates that do take place are often accepted by well-intentioned laypeople who are unable to adequately respond to anti-vaccine arguments that come their way. That’s a problem.

Fortunately, one Facebook group has found a solution. Vaccine Talk: A Forum for Both Pro- and Anti-Vaxxersis an international evidence-based group that enforces civility between all its more than 17,000 members. Members from across the vaccine-acceptance spectrum are welcomed to join and participate, so long as they can back their claims with evidence. The group includes a range of experts, including — but not limited to — physicians and nurses, laboratory scientists, epidemiologists, lawyers, and virologists. It also includes a wide range of vaccine-hesitants, from those who are on-the-fence but leaning toward vaccination, to the hardest vaccine deniers. By requiring citations to be provided for claims, members in the audience of the discussions are able to follow along and judge for themselves the legitimacy of arguments that are made. And the group’s track record is phenomenal, with an estimated one thousand anti-vaxxers and on-the-fencers changing their minds and deciding to vaccinate since the group’s inception in 2017.

On May 16th, the forum hosted its first written debate conversation, which took place between two volunteers: a blood-brain barrier scientist who holds a PhD and an academic position at an accredited American university, and a self-declared “citizen scientist” who has peddled dangerous misinformation about autism and vaccines. Ground rules were decided between the pair and the group’s administrators, and the post on which the debate took place was closed off to all members except the two of them until an agreed time when the post would be open to anyone for commenting.

What ensued was nothing short of expected: the scientist presented coherent points and responses, easily followed by a largely lay audience, and his opponent fumbled. It became overwhelmingly evident that the vaccine-skeptic debater was not qualified to be reviewing vaccine literature, let alone pushing her own opinions and solutions to the “vaccine injuries” she claimed were common.

The debate and its format were met with strong approval, not only from vaccine advocates, but from members who had been on-the-fence. Said one member, “Any [anti-vaxxer] who plans to participate in another one of these debates, please be more prepared, especially if you’re given the option to choose the topic to discuss. You’re not helping anyone who is [anti-vax] or [on-the-fence] by debating in this manner. Also, posting article after article without actually knowing the full content yourself is setting yourself up for failure. I’m starting to think there’s a reason for that.”

Another: “80% of my friends are anti-vax. My two children are fully vaccinated[…] but I’m terrified of vaccinations. Mainly because of the scaremongering stuff they share on Facebook! They’ve also added me to a few groups of which I’ve had to leave as they make me feel I’m doing the wrong thing by vaccinating. The debate last night was so refreshing to read! It put all my worries at ease. I’d love to read many many more!”

It is understandable that professionals are wary of the idea of debate. Indeed, a live, televised debate would likely be the wrong approach to take. But in this age of social media, where everyone can see or say anything, something must be done. Perhaps written-format debates are the way to make much-needed changes happen.

There are currently on-the-fencers and anti-vaxxers lining up to be next to debate topics of their choice.

Let’s see what comes of it.

Rachel Alter is a recent graduate from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. She began researching vaccine communication while working as a research assistant at the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia’s Earth Institute, and now manages vaccine-related content of the March for Science social media pages.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “A Model for Science Debate?”

  1. dumboldguy Says:

    “Let’s see what comes of it”, indeed.

    It’s nice to be hopeful, but there is NO way we will ever fully overcome WIFI (Willfully Ignorant Functional Illiteracy) in the “science debate”. Some people will always believe what they WANT to believe rather than any scientific evidence.

    I have a friend who is still not talking to me after we had a discussion on AGW and GHG. My sin? I burst out laughing when he said “I’m convinced that one day the scientists will figure out how to burn coal, oil, and natural gas without making CO2”

  2. jimbills Says:

    I’m saying this a someone who has been on the internet since before AOL and CompuServe and has probably never spent a day in over two decades without it, but the internet has greatly encouraged bonehead ideas to flourish. I’m not sure any technique will be able to stop its spread.

    Companies like YouTube should be receiving a lot more grief than they are for helping the spread of the craziness. For years they have been making money off of it with algorithms that foster more and more extreme content. The New York Times had a great article about this a few weeks ago:

    YouTube recently changed its algorithms to prevent some of this, and has been losing money since then:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/30/youtube-algorithm-changes-negatively-impact-google-ad-revenue.html

    While I applaud this Facebook group’s attempts and technique, it seems a bit like holding a hand up to fight a flood. Facebook is practically a perfect medium for the spread of misinformation/disinformation. For every one person ‘cured’ of a bonehead idea, there are likely to be 20 other people newly infected with it. Many of these newly infected will never hear about this group or have any interest in looking at it.

    Any attempt to fight it is better than none, and that’s why I’ve always believed in Peter’s efforts. And we’re still talking about a minority of conspiracy theorists (and deniers) out there in the general population, and they are limited to calling other people things like ‘sheeple’ to explain their limited reach. But, I don’t see how the internet can ever really be ‘tamed’. It’s a jungle out there!

    • rhymeswithgoalie Says:

      Efforts like talk.origins help free a lot of people from Creationism, and atheist/skeptic sites have liberated a lot of believers.

      Part of the effort is to make sure fact- and science-driven sites are higher in the search results.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: