One of our amazing followers sent us some questions about our processes for content development and dissemination. We thought you might be interested in this discussion, as well, so we are sharing a handful of our responses. [Do you have any questions about the Unbiased Science Podcast? Feel free to drop us a line in the comments!]
How was Unbiasedscipod created?
We are friends from college with careers in two very scientific fields (public health and immunology). We kept in touch over the years and discussed launching a podcast for years to educate the masses about vaccines (since this topic is rife with misinformation!). When the pandemic hit, we were both receiving messages from friends and family asking us to make sense of the massive amounts of information and science by headlines! We teamed up to do a few live social media events and were blown away by the positive feedback we received on our chemistry and our ability to translate complex scientific concepts. This led us to formally launch the Unbiased Science Podcast which has grown into a social media page that disseminates scientific infographics and regularly debunks misinformation and disinformation about a variety of topics in science and health.
Where do you get your sources and how do your followers know they’re reliable?
Wherever possible, we try to use original primary, peer-reviewed source material (ex: data taken directly from published scientific articles within databases like Science Direct, Nature, BMJ, National Library of Medicine, etc.). If we are discussing a specific study, we use the original article. If we are discussing a more general, widely-researched topic, we generally rely on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. When covering trending topics, where peer-reviewed articles may not be available, we may use news articles as a starting point for idea generation, and support these with official statements from relevant organizations (ex: FDA, CDC, Health Canada). Importantly, we also make an effort to educate our followers about reliable sources of information so they can judge for themselves (see for example our post on Empirical Evidence from Nov. 3, 2021).
As information has become highly politicized and thus weaponized, how do people decipher the good information from the bad? What is your role in this? What do you make of algorithms sometimes curtailing the “conversation?”
This is why our ethos of being unbiased and apolitical is so important. We don’t want to be an echo chamber, nor do we only want people who think like us to listen to the pod or follow our social channels. We want to teach people critical thinking and distinguishing fact from fiction. We’ve created several infographics discussing these exact concerns. Yes, the Covid-19 pandemic has been inundated with mis- and dis-information, but it existed long before the pandemic and will exist long afterward. We consider it part of our responsibility as scientists and public health experts to contribute to the spread of evidence-based information.
It is frustrating that social media behemoths have not stepped up to prioritize credibility, as most people get their ‘news’ and ‘information’ from social media these days. While we don’t have the solution to this, it lies somewhere between prioritizing profit (which grows with the amount of controversial clickbait content) and fact. We will continue to push out information with the resources we have at our disposal, but we would be lying if we said we weren’t disheartened by the apparent lack of emphasis on making evidence-based information more prominent.
While we get accused of ‘bias’ all the time from individuals who don’t like the information we share, it is important to remember that bias does not mean giving all opinions equal airtime. As trained experts in scientific disciplines, we review all the available evidence about a given topic to provide a dispassionate summary of what is credible and reliable. Unfortunately, many people who don’t understand the true definition of bias do not understand that, and that exacerbates much of the trolling we experience.
Sometimes I think of the internet like Pandora’s box - the box has been opened and we can’t close it. So what do you think we do?
It is an instinct to want to go to certain headline articles that support your intrinsic idea on how an event should happen vs. what happens within science. This type of implicit bias is not being well controlled on various fronts from different media outlets using charged words in their headlines and/or individuals not understanding their own biases. Truly the best practice is to look at the direct source of a scientific article and individuals who have solidified a career in research fields pertaining to the issue at hand; and, not social media opportunists that are trying to perpetuate conspiracy theories that do not value empirical evidence, peer-reviewed methods of research, and basic understanding of ethical science. A major part of science is to create hypotheses and question the validity/precision of research methods and results with a peer-reviewed methodology. Science does not (and should) not bend to a political spectrum or a pressurized narrative, which has transpired with the internet being part of pandora’s box.
Individuals in media or pop culture who A) do not hold valued backgrounds in any respected scientific fields, B) have immense influence over some parts of society, and C) make calls to action on “questioning the science” in an attempt to tear down the entire scientific process and “CANCEL” scientists, are making extremely uneducated and dangerous assertions by reading a few sentences of a publication and deciding to create propaganda to cut our medical and healthcare system at the knees. There may not be a way to close this box, but there may be a way to counteract and try to at least put high-quality information out there for people to understand the accuracy behind scientific topics. And that is where we come in. Our team is full of individuals with varying backgrounds that review and iterate the importance of information or a study’s main takeaway and disseminate it in a manner that can be understood by all. Understanding the mixture of data and science is not an easy process due to the complexity of research methods.
What tools strengthen your reach and what are the challenges of being a health educator in the social media field? (Social media is extremely powerful… we see the pendulum sway the masses, with good information, and also with bad…)
TOOLS: We use a variety of digital tools to create our infographics, share information with the general public and keep in close touch with our team of international volunteers. Here are some of the tools that we use:
Canva - our go-to design software. We use Canva to build, edit and collaborate on infographics for dissemination across social media platforms.
Slack - for communicating with our team of volunteers. We are active on Slack daily, proposing new infographic ideas, sharing new scientific publications and relevant news stories, and tracking collaborative projects.
Zoom - here we host regular meetings with our interns and journal clubs with our Patrons.
Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter - it is estimated that over 3.6 billion people worldwide used social media in 2020 (Source: www.statista.com). Disseminating our work across multiple platforms allows us to reach the greatest number of people across diverse demographics and different geographies.
Google - we use Google Docs to draft and collaborate on content for social media infographics, and we use Google Sheets to track the status of each and every social media post (with nearly 800 posts on Instagram as of March 8, 2022, it’s imperative we keep ourselves organized!)
Tableau - home of our ‘sources’ database. One of the most important elements we offer to our followers is the ability to access all the sources we use when crafting any of our social media posts.
Spotify/Apple podcasts/Stitcher - despite our growing social media following, we are, first and foremost, a podcast. As with social media, we offer our podcast across multiple media platforms in order to optimize our reach.
CHALLENGES: Two-way communication (and the ability for followers to comment on the content we post) is both a blessing and a curse. While we love it when our content generates fruitful conversation and thoughtful questions, we have also seen our share of internet trolls (people who deliberately provoke others online, by leaving inflammatory or offensive comments or sending purposefully hurtful direct messages). Comment sections are also often used to propagate anti-vaccine rhetoric, or engage in ‘whataboutism’ (responding to difficult material by making a counter-accusation or raising an unrelated issue). As we are both full-time scientists who work on Unbiased Science in our limited free time, policing the comments section to ensure mindful and respectful conversation is a challenge.