The Woozle Effect . . and why we need to treasure experts

Every issue manager knows the value of securing independent, third-party expert endorsement. But academic failure and public scepticism about scientifically proven fact is undermining efforts to manage important public issues.

That long-standing problem was?turbo-charged by COVID and the concerted assault on the efficacy and safety of vaccination. Or refusal to accept climate change.

Yet denying accepted science is nothing new.? Like belief that our planet is flat, which began in ancient times and is still promoted today by the Flat Earth Society , founded in 1956 and relaunched in 2009. And famously echoed by rapper B.o.B .

However, rejection of acknowledged expertise has now become much more mainstream and directly impacts major everyday issues, such as community vaccination, healthy eating, smoking, climate change, GM food, and siting of power lines and mobile phone towers.

Sadly, part of this problem can be sheeted home to scientists themselves. Such as when bad science becomes accepted as true through constant citation. Academics call it the ‘Woozle Effect’, based on the children’s story by A.A. Milne in which Winne-the-Pooh, believing he is tracking an imaginary Woozle, discovers he is following his own footprints.

The Woozle Effect begins when one investigator reports a finding, often with qualifications. A second investigator then cites the first study’s data, but without the qualifications. Others then cite both reports, and the formerly qualified data gains the status of an unqualified, generalizable truth.?

Moreover, scientists persist in citing research which has been proven unreliable or has been withdrawn, though thrives in popular belief. ?There is no better example than the discredited research by Dr Andrew Wakefield, which purported to show a link between autism and the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) childhood vaccination. His 1989 paper was quickly retracted, and Wakefield was eventually struck off the medical register for scientific fraud in what has been called "perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the 20th Century". The direct result was falling vaccination rates and deadly outbreaks of preventable diseases, yet his opinion is still cited by anti-vaxxers around the world.?

Then of course there are the scientists who lend their names and status to click-bait media headlines about “new scientific discoveries” which are often neither new nor scientific. ?Or foster an endless parade of seemingly contradictory research findings, such as "red wine is good for you/red wine is bad for you", or "too many eggs are bad for you/eat as many eggs as you like".

Or the recent scientific paper which claims to disprove the frequently cited estimate that 896,000 deaths globally are attributable to unprocessed red meat consumption, and we should stop eating salami and bacon.?Or the sole “rebel scientist” who keeps telling?the media that 2,500 international reef experts who say the Great Barrier Reef is in serious danger from climate change are wrong.

It’s little wonder the public (and some politicians) are confused and misinformed. As Michiko Kakutani wrote in the New York Times : “Today, all these factors have combined to create a maelstrom of unreason that’s not just killing respect for expertise, but also undermining institutions, thwarting rational debate and spreading an epidemic of misinformation.”

Such misinformation remains a constant threat to productive discourse, and a constant challenge for businesses attempting to manage issues when their product, service or reputation is at risk. In the heat of a high-profile issue campaign, it is not possible to respond to each and every attack. However, fundamental errors and misinterpretations which undermine the core issues should be challenged and not allowed to stand, in the same way that companies act promptly and firmly to prevent registered trade names from becoming generics, or their designs being counterfeited.?

If society is to enjoy rational debate on important issues, we need to properly value objective facts and actively combat untruths and distortions. For issue managers and other communicators, that means we must support and encourage legitimate science, and defend and treasure recognised,?independent experts.