VIEWPOINT: PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE Science and Ethics of “Curing” Misinformation

12Citations
Citations of this article
3Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

A growing chorus of academicians, public health officials, and other science communicators have warned of what they see as an ill-informed public making poor personal or electoral decisions. Misinformation is often seen as an urgent new problem, so some members of these communities have pushed for quick but untested solutions without carefully diagnosing ethical pitfalls of rushed interventions. This article argues that attempts to “cure” public opinion that are inconsistent with best available social science evidence not only leave the scientific community vulnerable to long-term reputational damage but also raise significant ethical questions. It also suggests strategies for communicating science and health information equitably, effectively, and ethically to audiences affected by it without undermining affected audiences’ agency over what to do with it.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Freiling, I., Krause, N. M., & Scheufele, D. A. (2023). VIEWPOINT: PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE Science and Ethics of “Curing” Misinformation. AMA Journal of Ethics, 25(3), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2023.228

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free