Issue link: https://www.ascpskindeepdigital.com/i/1235208
16 ascp skin deep COVID-19 special issue 2020 The downside of the broad availability of so much new research is that while we have masses of it, there is very little quality control, and there has not been enough time for full peer review to be conducted. This caveat is included on most hubs hosting COVID-19 research. It is meant for other researchers who are scrambling to develop an understanding and potential cure for the virus, and it is generally assumed they will apply their expertise in their appraisal of each emerging study, in a kind of community-based peer review. That's where research literacy is not just a useful skill; it becomes a critical part of the race for a vaccine and/or antiviral drug. However, this material is almost indecipherable to the general public, and in general, science journalists have been playing fast and loose with it, adding to the overall confusion. In gathering material for this article, I was genuinely shocked to see the degree of misinterpretation applied to some of the COVID-19 research papers, with the story changing as it travels around the world. Even some of the data from the WHO contains errors and omissions, which a British group of scientists is now attempting to complete and correct.2 To be fair to science journalists and regular reporters, they too are struggling to make sense of this sudden information overload. Yet, the golden rule of science journalism that should apply to anyone who is conversant with—but not expert in—the specifics of virology, epidemiology, and infectious diseases, is: don't be afraid to admit what you don't know, check your sources, and ask an actual expert. The second golden rule is: remember that science is messy. So messy, that even the experts are openly uncertain as to the true data surrounding this pandemic. It is natural to want clear answers in such frightening times, but it is also important to understand the limitations of science and to avoid spreading misinformation. THE BIG QUESTIONS The questions being asked by the experts are very similar to those being asked by journalists and the public: • Am I in danger? • Who has this disease? (And who dies from it?) • How can I stay safe? • Where did it come from and why? • Is there a cure? (And why is it taking so long to find?) There are many conflicting answers flooding the airwaves, but not because of how they are expressed. The answers are contradictory because of the context and the worldview of who is asking—and answering—the question.3 A medical specialist understands the fine details of pathophysiology (the processes that occur to make people sick); a layperson does not have that training. Although we are throwing around phrases such as cytokine storm, inflammatory process, or monoclonal antibody because they are being reported in the news, even physicians in unrelated specializations may not be fully equipped to understand their inner workings. This is one of the reasons why public-facing information is generally simplified into a set of instructions, without too much medical detail. These are often frustratingly perfunctory—and do not answer our many questions—but if they come from a source such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the WHO, we can be reasonably confident that they are based on the most recent science and are reliable. News media sources and their snappy infographics cannot necessarily be trusted even if they use the right jargon, because even science journalists can misinterpret information. WHY SMART PEOPLE BELIEVE JUNK SCIENCE Right now, everybody's judgment is a little compromised, and with good reason. When we seem to be looking at a story full of contradictions that threatens us directly and disrupts our way of living, the mind tries to make sense of what is happening by developing perceptual hypotheses to fill in those gaps. Educated guesswork and a form of patternicity—"the tendency to find patterns in meaningless noise"—takes hold.4 Depending on the sociocultural, educational, and psychological makeup of the individual, different forms of apophenia may be experienced, which is the tendency to ascribe intention, meaning, and connections between seemingly random data and events, and is often the basis for conspiracy theories. In short, if a story isn't making sense to us, we fill in those gaps with what we do know and understand. Scientists are not immune to this; what is known as type 1 error in statistics is the tendency to see false patterns in data or incorrectly ascribing causality. Researchers and data analysts are just as likely to fall prey to the phenomenon as the layperson, but the stakes are higher since the information they extract from reams of data may be used at the highest levels to develop policy and governance. By developing rational responses, understanding the need to link these to localized narratives so they can be better understood, finding ways to explain them to others, and strengthening our own resilience, we ensure our survival, both physical and mental.