From the Desk of a Health Communication PhD: Strategies Against Anti-Science

At the beginning of March, I was part of a panel with The Council for Quality Health Communication. Titled "Turning Back the Tide of Anti-Science," the CUGH 2024 session had a clear purpose:

We need to... mobilize a coalition of academics, scientists, and public health professionals, and equip ourselves with tools to push back against antiscience aggression, both online and in the field.

I presented the Digital Safety Kit for Public Health I created with the Harvard Center for Health Communication. Others presented their practice of health communication, research findings, and personal experiences with anti-science aggression. Here's what I took away from the panel as I continue my PhD training in public health.

Turning Back the Tide of Anti-Science

Dr. Peter Hotez started with a warning about the impact of anti-science. He highlighted its political dimensions as a sign of the broad scope of help that scientists need. He pointed to low uptake of the latest COVID-19 boosters as a sign of how much progress has been lost. He described how anti-science aggression has recently escalated beyond tactics anti-vaccine advocates have used against him for years.

Dr. Hotez set the tone for the rest of the event, touching on key themes I am taking with me as I work toward my PhD in public health:

1. We need to build community among scientists and across fields.
2. We need more funding to stand a better chance against well-funded mis/disinformation efforts.
3. We need to question dominant assumptions about science communication.

We need to build community.

Several speakers touched on the fact that scientists and communicators cannot face anti-science alone.

Dr. Céline Gounder discussed her experience of social support amidst anti-vaccine harassment following her husband's death. She described a critical outpouring of love from her community, which helped her navigate the threats and disinformation that also streamed in. At a personal level, we need community around us to weather rough storms.

Dr. Sara Gorman, Executive Director of Those Nerdy Girls, reminded us that public health professionals can be disconnected from online misinformation to the point of not even observing it. She also highlighted how public health researchers were often not part of COVID-19 misinformation interventions. At a professional level, we need to build bridges outside of our field.

Through the Digital Safety Kit for Public Health, I touched on the need for bystander interventions in cases of harassment, as well as organizational policy oriented toward privacy. We need to build more spaces in public health we can turn to amid experiences of anti-science aggression.

We need funding.

Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, aka Your Local Epidemiologist, spoke about funding streams for science communicators. On one hand, she could point to subscribers' direct support as a sign of grassroots backing for science communication. On the other hand, she noted the lack of infrastructure overall. Science communicators need to make a living. They could benefit from support in content creation. And they could use access to legal services in cases of personal targeting.

This situation contrasts with recent spikes in funding for anti-vaccine organizations, including from Wall Street. Meanwhile, once-fringe anti-science movements have become part of the political mainstream. For her part, Dr. Jetelina seeks to help level the playing field through founding the Health Trust Initiative.

We need to question our assumptions.

Dr. Gregory Payne presented US national data from Emerson College Polling. Despite disappointingly low trust in public health institutions, the CDC remains a more trusted source of information than Trump, Biden, or cable news.

Despite racialized health inequities, White Americans have lower trust in vaccines than Hispanic, Black, or Asian Americans.

Finally, despite new technologies and tactics driving disinformation, trust in vaccines is highest among those aged 39 and lower.

On one hand these data might not be surprising in light of Red/Blue political divisions in the US. On the other hand, they also challenge a focus on mis/disinformation. They prompt me to think about health communication issues as one part of longer term social and political issues.

These data echo a reminder from Dr. Ken Rabin. Though we might assume today's communication problems are new, there is much to learn from history. "Propaganda analysis" precedes today's focus on media literacy and prebunking. Theoretical insights from this field stand the test of time, describing how today's media personalities impress public audiences with time-tested tricks like name-calling and glittering generalities.

Where does this leave public health students?

I left the panel encouraged. I started work on the Digital Safety Kit after seeing peers fruitlessly turn to their employers and universities amidst online harassment. It's refreshing to see more attention brought to this important topic. It's also disheartening to see the same stumbling blocks of funding. It's a chicken-and-egg problem. How do we build more trust without more sustainable funding? How do we secure more sustainable funding without building more trust?

I see science communication efforts building community on Twitch as one path forward. For example: Constababble, Paleontologizing, and Homozygoat. I also look to community organizing models as more sustainable than relying on corporate sponsors or political bargaining. For example, Healthy Hood Chicago promotes health through community services that bridge social connection, physical activity, arts, and spiritual practice oriented toward liberation from oppressive systems.

As Dr. Hotez noted in his introduction, scientists will need a lot of help to turn back the tide of anti-science. I am hopeful about what might happen if we move into more community spaces and build some of our own. I would love to see more community engagement and communication practicum opportunities as part of MPH and doctoral training in public health.

About the author

Sam is a PhD candidate in Population Health Sciences at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Their research combines media studies and computational social science to help expand the scope of health literacy research. Outside of research, their work focuses on supporting social media communication that can help advance health equity.