Debunking Fake News: The Clash of Experts, Trust, and Truth in Modern Controversies

Abstract

Controversy: Experts, Post-Truth and Fake News SOCI2013 (20 credits) Level: 2 (second-year) Taught: Spring 2021 Teaching pattern: Digital Lecture/Workshop [Name] 10 sessions 2 hours [Name] Via MS Teams 10 sessions 1 hour Seminar Via MS Teams 10 sessions 1 hour Assessment: Essay 50% 2000 words Due 3pm 17 March Essay 50% 2000 words Due 3pm 19 May Module Convenor: Prof. Reiner Grundmann Contact Details: Office: Law & Social Sciences Building, Room B3 Tel: +44 (0) 115 95 15419 Email: [email] Contents Contents1 Welcome and Summary of Content2 Educational Aims2 Learning Outcomes2 Knowledge and Understanding2 Intellectual and Transferable Skills2 Professional/Practical Skills2 Transferable/Key Skills3 Module Evaluation and Feedback3 No Hidden Course Costs3 Weekly Schedule of Teaching4 Digital Lectures/Workshops4 [Author] Sessions4 Seminars4 Reading List4 Week 1: Introduction and Overview5 Week 2: Covid-196 Week 3: MMR vaccination7 Week 4: Animal experimentation8 Week 5: Smoking and health9 Week 6: Post Truth and Politics10 Week 7: Climate Change11 Week 8: Contested Illnesses13 Week 9: Patient activism13 Week 10 Revision15 Top Tips for Engagement!15 Assessment Questions/Format16 Assessment support16 Coursework Submission16 Procedure for submitting coursework16 Late submissions17 Extensions17 Checklist for coursework submission17 Academic integrity18 Welcome and Summary of Content This module will examine the role of experts and citizens in modern society, and their relation in public controversies where knowledge is contested. In many cases conflicting information circulates in the media and people do not know who to trust and what to believe. Should we listen to ‘the science’? We are allegedly living in a post-truth society where participants in polarized debates go as far as accusing each other of presenting fake news. Experts are supposed to provide neutral advice but often get drawn into the fray, too. We will examine selected case studies that allow us to better understand such controversies, and analyse them from a sociological angle. Educational Aims This module aims to ensure the students will: gain an appreciation of the role of controversies in societies, especially with regard to expert disagreements; be introduced to key concepts, theories and case studies; understand the ways in which expert knowledge is produced and mobilized in everyday practices, and in political decision making. Learning Outcomes Knowledge and Understanding A critical and reflexive understanding of the role of expertise; An understanding of the relationships between knowledge and decision making; An understanding of the ways in which expertise is distributed in society and what its role and function is; An appreciation of different forms of knowledge, such as lay knowledge and expertise, tacit knowledge, and scientific knowledge; An understanding what the notion of the knowledge society means Intellectual and Transferable Skills An ability to analyse, assess and present empirical information. An appreciation of the different conceptual frameworks and how they relate to the understanding of empirical examples. Professional/Practical Skills An ability to undertake and present work in a scholarly way; An ability to articulate with clarity and good understanding the formal and specialized language of their disciplines and fields of study; A recognition of the relevance of lay and expert knowledge to social and political debates. Transferable/Key Skills An ability to communicate effectively in both formal and informal group settings; An ability to read, assess and represent sophisticated written evidence and argument Module Evaluation and Feedback This is a new module and has no previous SEM scores. No Hidden Course Costs We are committed to ensuring that there are no hidden course costs associated with our programmes. There is no requirement for you to buy any books or pay for other resources/activities for this module. If you have issues accessing materials, please let the module convenor know as soon as possible. Weekly Schedule of Teaching Digital Lectures/Workshops All of these digital learning activities will be made available to you on Moodle and you will be expected to work through these at your own pace in advance of any real time teaching (see below). In this module, these include: recorded lectures, podcasts and videos, academic readings, news articles, and other materials. You will also find activities that will enable you to think in detail about the material and issues presented in those online resources. These will support your learning, and help you put it into practice through guided exercises or discussion. If you have any issues with accessing this digital learning, your Module Convenor may be able advise. Further advice and support on technical matters is available on your Student Information Hub (click to link) in the section on Blended Learning. [Author] Sessions These sessions are timetabled and will take place in real time on MS Teams. They are designed to offer you additional opportunities to ask questions about the digital learning activities above. You can also use this time to ask questions about assessments. Seminars These will take place in real time, either in-person or on MS Teams (please refer to your individual timetable). These will be further opportunities to refine your understanding of the digital learning activities above, through discussion of the materials and issues covered in them. These sessions are also intended to facilitate peer engagement and working with and learning from other students on the module. You need to read the set text for each seminar beforehand, and come prepared with your notes about the reading and ideas of how to answer the questions relating to the text. Please note that attendance registers will be taken, should you be unable to attend, please email the Module Convenor. If you need to change seminar session or mode of study (online/in person), please contact Student Services. Reading List All modules have an online reading list. Please refer to the TALIS ASPIRE (click here) list for all required and recommended readings and resources for this module. Week 1: Introduction and Overview We will start by trying to understand what role science and expertise plays in contemporary society, how their knowledge contributes to decision making and policies, and what their relationship is to the media, to politics, and to lay audiences. Common assumptions about the ability of scientists and experts to provide certainty, or even 'truth’, will be critically examined.  Reference will be made to several theoretical frameworks, such as the theory of Risk Society, and contributions from Science and Technology Studies (STS) which have established the notion that controversies abound in many debates about health and the environment, but also in wider political debates. These studies have been sceptical about the promise of expertise to resolve political argument through a reference to science, or truth. Contributions from STS have shown how one side of a controversy becomes gradually dominant, both in science and society at large. Still, many controversies carry on without a common understanding or consensus. The role of civil society and lay expertise is important to address in this context. In fact, academics and others have called for the inclusion of lay people in decision-making. In democratic societies, so the argument goes, major stakeholders must be represented in decision-making. There is a literature on citizen science and lay expertise which we will take into account. However, such movements are sometimes seen with suspicion, especially where experts have been challenged by populists who have ridiculed expertise. We will examine several contributions which have examined the notion and significance of a 'post-truth' society. The bulk of the module is made up by several case studies where the role of science and expertise has been crucial, but also contested. These cases are: Covid-19; MMR vaccination controversy; animal experimentation; smoking and health; climate change; AIDS patient groups; and contested illnesses. Background reading: Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. “Science for the Post-Normal Age.” Futures 25(7): 739–55. Grundmann, Reiner, and Nico Stehr. 2012. The Power of Scientific Knowledge: From Research to Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chapter 1. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. [City, State]: Harvard University Press, chapter 1. Pielke Jnr., Roger. 2007. The Honest Broker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chapter 3. Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. “How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse.” Environmental Science and Policy 7(5): 385–403. Stehr, Nico, and Reiner Grundmann. 2011. Experts: The Knowledge and Power of Expertise. London: Routledge.Weinberg, Alvin M. 1972. “Science and Trans-Science.” Minerva 10(2): 209–22. Required reading for seminar: Wynne, Brian. 1992. “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science.” Public Understanding of Science 1: 281–304. Seminar questions to be discussed:1. How does Wynne describe the interaction between laypersons and experts?2. Identify three main lessons from the case described by Wynne. Week 2: Covid-19 We will examine the case of the Covid-19 pandemic which has challenged nations across the globe. It has put governments on the spot for failing to protect its citizens. It has revealed how uncertain scientific knowledge can, on which we normally seem to rely with confidence. Even as a vaccine has become available many things about the disease are unknown, and we do not know if the vaccine will solve the problem for good.This case highlights the relation between knowledge and decision making and how this process can be understood in democratic societies. Important questions to ask are:How are decisions made? Who has, and who should have a say? How are decisions justified?  We will look at  sociological literature which has studied these questions in the past.  Background reading: Balog-Way, Dominic H.P., and Katherine A. McComas. 2020. “COVID-19: Reflections on Trust, Tradeoffs, and Preparedness.” Journal of Risk Research 23(7–8): 1–11. Grundmann, Reiner. 2020. “Coronavirus: Do Governments Ever Truly Listen to ‘the Science’?” The Conversation. (April 17, 2020). Irwin, Alan. 1995. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge, chapter 2. Krause, Nicole M., Isabelle Freiling, Becca Beets, and Dominique Brossard. 2020. “Fact-Checking as Risk Communication: The Multi-Layered Risk of Misinformation in Times of COVID-19.” Journal of Risk Research 23(7–8): 1052–59. van Dijck, José, and Donya Alinead. 2020. “Social Media and Trust in Scientific Expertise: Debating the Covid-19 Pandemic in The Netherlands.” Social Media and Society 6(4). Set text for seminar discussion: Pearse, Harry. 2020. “Deliberation, Citizen Science and Covid-19.” Political Quarterly: 1–7. Questions for seminar discussion:1. Can the principles of democracy and expertise be reconciled?2. What do the terms 'citizen science' and 'deliberative democracy' mean? What role could they play in the Covid-19 pandemic? Week 3: MMR vaccination The MMR vaccine (against measles, mumps and rubella) is an important part of the childhood vaccination schedule. Since the 1990s, this health policy has become controversial. The aim of this session is to introduce students to the MMR controversy, by considering the role of important actors in the debate. By the end of this session, students should be able to compare and contrast how the media/policy makers understand this issue, with how sociologists have studied it. In short, the MMR controversy raises key questions for how we understand ideas like risk, responsibility and trust in expertise. As we can see from the current Coronavirus pandemic, these ideas remain central to contemporary debates about science, technology and medicine. Background reading: Calnan, M. and Douglass,T.  (2020) Hopes, hesitancy and the risky business of vaccine development, Health, Risk & Society, 22:5-6, 291-304. Available here   Goldenberg, M. (2019) Vaccines, values and science. CMAJ, 191,14, E397-E398. Available here Hobson-West, P. (2003) Understanding vaccination resistance: moving beyond risk Health, Risk & Society. 5(3), 273-283. Available here   Numerato, D., Vochocová, L., Štětka, V. and Macková, A. (2019), The vaccination debate in the “post‐truth” era: social media as sites of multi‐layered reflexivity. Sociology of Health and Illness, 41: 82-97. Available here   Wolfe, R. M., and Sharp, L.K. (2002) Anti-vaccinationists past and present BMJ 2002; 325 :430  Available here Selected reading for the seminar: Hobson-West, P. (2007) 'Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all': organised resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK Sociology of Health & Illness. 29(2), 198-215. Available here   Questions to be addressed in the seminar discussion, based on the set text:  a)   What sort of claims do ‘vaccine critical groups’ make? b)   How do these groups construct risk? Week 4: Animal experimentation Medicines that we use every day have been developed using non-human animals as laboratory models. This use of animals has a long history and has led to significant social and ethical debate. This debate has also led to controversy, for example in the 1990s, when some campaign groups used threats and violence against research scientists. The aim of this session is to provide students with key sociological tools to analyse this fascinating debate. In particular, we will focus on concepts which can help us critically examine how stakeholders use discourses (arguments) to portray others as unethical or uninformed. Background reading: Hobson-West P. The role of 'public opinion' in the UK animal research debate (2010). J Med Ethics. 2010;36(1):46-49. Available here Holmberg, T., & Ideland, M. (2012). Secrets and lies: “selective openness” in the apparatus of animal experimentation. Public Understanding of Science, 21(3), 354–368. Available here. Michael, M., and Birke. L. (1994). Accounting for Animal Experiments: Identity and Disreputable ‘Others.’ Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol. 19, no. 2, 1994, pp. 189–204. Available here. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005) Chapter 1. Introduction in The Ethics of Research Involving Animals. Nuffield Council on Bioethics: London.pp5-11.  Available here Ormandy E.H., and Schuppli, C.A (2014) Public Attitudes toward Animal Research: A Review. Animals 4(3):391-408. Available here Reading for the seminar: Hobson-West P. (2012) Ethical boundary-work in the animal research laboratory. Sociology.;46(4):649-663. Available here Questions for seminar discussion, based on the set text: 1)     How do scientists justify their use of non-human laboratory animals? 2)     What is ‘ethical boundary-work’, and do you think it is a useful concept for understanding other controversies? Week 5: Smoking and health Smoking tobacco has a long history in different societies. Smoking cigarettes is an invention of the 20th century. Spreading from the USA, smoking cigarettes became more and more popular, fuelled by cultural images of superior social status it was associated with. However, health concerns started to be voiced in the 1950s. Scientific research became controversial, with medical practitioners pointing to the severe health implications, and lobby groups working for the tobacco industry defending their product. After the 1970s the number of smokers decreased in many western countries (while there is an increase in other parts of the world). We will explore the reasons of the decline in smoking, and ask if this can be seen as a model for other issues that relate to health and the environment. Background reading Brandt, A. M. (2007). The cigarette century: the rise, fall, and deadly persistence of the product that defined America. [City, State]: Basic Books. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2012). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Paperbacks. Grundmann, R. (2013). Debunking sceptical propaganda. BioSocieties, 8(3), 370–374. http://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2013.15 Lal, A. and M. Scollo. 2002. “Big Mac Index of Cigarette Affordability.” Tobacco Control 11(3):280 LP-282. Stuber, J., Galea, S., & Link, B. G. (2008)....