Disinformation: The strange case of punishment for science – 10/02/2024 – Education

“Science is a means of unmasking those who only pretend to know,” wrote physicist, astronomer and space science professor Carl Sagan in his famous book “The Demon-Haunted World.” Published almost 30 years ago, the work exposes his concern with a wave of pseudoscience and mystification, easily embraced by the population in the face of the mysteries of the Universe.

Sagan was one of the most important disseminators of scientific knowledge in the 20th century, at a time when established publishers and the professional press were among the few means of communication available to the lay public. The scenario was one of few voices — both to inform and to misinform.

In recent years, the internet has exponentially expanded these possibilities, for better and for worse. Currently, contact between scientists willing to “translate” the complexities of their fields and society in general is much more frequent, as is the risk of proliferation of misleading content (produced and shared on purpose or by mistake).

A recent episode illustrates well the challenges we are experiencing, and invites us to be constantly vigilant so that the checking and correction mechanisms are not intimidated or discouraged. The social network account NuncaVi1Cientista, owned by biologist Ana Bonassa and pharmacist Laura Marise, was sentenced in the first instance to pay compensation of R$1,000 for moral damage, in addition to a fine, after denying information from another social network profile that linked the occurrence of diabetes to the presence of worms in the body and offered “deworming protocols” to combat the disease.

To the relief of everyone who values ​​accurate and scientifically based information, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) annulled the conviction. In his statement, Minister Dias Toffoli highlighted that the publication of the NuncaVi1Cientista channel is based on scientific facts and data and that the misinformation used to sell the protocol against worms must be denounced.

The episode offers us important reflections on responsibility and ethics in an increasingly complex information ecosystem, and highlights the importance of media education as a path to consuming and producing content in a more conscious and critical way. From the perspective of media education, the case that reached the Court deserves to be examined on several fronts, such as:

• Influencers and social networks: who are the people and profiles we follow, the evidence they present and the purpose of their messages;
• Freedom of expression: what are the values ​​of those who see themselves as having the right to disseminate disinformation, but seek to silence those who question and confront them;
• Viral content: what makes certain messages or posts that propose easy solutions and miracle cures for diseases receive so much engagement;
• Confirmation bias and emotional appeals: why we tend to more easily believe messages that confirm our pre-existing beliefs, and how misinformation preys on our emotions.

Carl Sagan’s concerns remain current. To face them, we need science and education more than ever.