How we vote, what we buy and who we acclaim all depend on what we believe about the world. As a result, there are many wealthy, powerful groups and individuals who are interested in shaping public beliefs—including those about scientific matters of fact. There is a naive idea that when industry attempts to influence scientific belief, they do it by buying off corrupt scientists. Perhaps this happens sometimes. But a careful study of historical cases shows there are much more subtle—and arguably more effective—strategies that industry, nation states and other groups utilize. The first step in protecting ourselves from this kind of manipulation is to understand how these campaigns work.
A classic example comes from the tobacco industry, which developed new techniques in the 1950s to fight the growing consensus that smoking kills. During the 1950s and 1960s the Tobacco Institute published a bimonthly newsletter called “Tobacco and Health” that reported only scientific research suggesting tobacco was not harmful or research that emphasized uncertainty regarding the health effects of tobacco.
The pamphlets employ what we have called selective sharing. This approach involves taking real, independent scientific research and curating it, by presenting only the evidence that favors a preferred position. Using variants on the models described earlier, we have argued that selective sharing can be shockingly effective at shaping what an audience of nonscientists comes to believe about scientific matters of fact. In other words, motivated actors can use seeds of truth to create an impression of uncertainty or even convince people of false claims.
Selective sharing has been a key part of the anti-vaxxer playbook. Before the recent measles outbreak in New York, an organization calling itself Parents Educating and Advocating for Children’s Health (PEACH) produced and distributed a 40-page pamphlet entitled “The Vaccine Safety Handbook.” The information shared—when accurate—was highly selective, focusing on a handful of scientific studies suggesting risks associated with vaccines, with minimal consideration of the many studies that find vaccines to be safe.
The PEACH handbook was especially effective because it combined selective sharing with rhetorical strategies. It built trust with Orthodox Jews by projecting membership in their community (though published pseudonymously, at least some authors were members) and emphasizing concerns likely to resonate with them. It cherry-picked facts about vaccines intended to repulse its particular audience; for instance, it noted that some vaccines contain gelatin derived from pigs. Wittingly or not, the pamphlet was designed in a way that exploited social trust and conformism—the very mechanisms crucial to the creation of human knowledge.
Worse, propagandists are constantly developing ever more sophisticated methods for manipulating public belief. Over the past several years we have seen purveyors of disinformation roll out new ways of creating the impression—especially through social media conduits such as Twitter bots and paid trolls and, most recently, by hacking or copying your friends’ accounts that certain false beliefs are widely held, including by your friends and others with whom you identify. Even the PEACH creators may have encountered this kind of synthetic discourse about vaccines. According to a 2018 article in the American Journal of Public Health, such disinformation was distributed by accounts linked to Russian influence operations seeking to amplify American discord and weaponize a public health issue. This strategy works to change minds not through rational arguments or evidence but simply by manipulating the social spread of knowledge and belief.
The sophistication of misinformation efforts (and the highly targeted disinformation campaigns that amplify them) raises a troubling problem for democracy. Returning to the measles example, children in many states can be exempted from mandatory vaccinations on the grounds of “personal belief.” This became a flash point in California in 2015 following a measles outbreak traced to unvaccinated children visiting Disneyland. Then governor Jerry Brown signed a new law, SB277, removing the exemption.
Immediately vaccine skeptics filed paperwork to put a referendum on the next state ballot to overturn the law. Had they succeeded in getting 365,880 signatures (they made it to only 233,758), the question of whether parents should be able to opt out of mandatory vaccination on the grounds of personal belief would have gone to a direct vote—the results of which would have been susceptible to precisely the kinds of disinformation campaigns that have caused vaccination rates in many communities to plummet.
Luckily, the effort failed. But the fact that hundreds of thousands of Californians supported a direct vote about a question with serious bearing on public health, where the facts are clear but widely misconstrued by certain activist groups, should give serious pause. There is a reason that we care about having policies that best reflect available evidence and are responsive to reliable new information. How do we protect public well-being when so many citizens are misled about matters of fact? Just as individuals acting on misinformation are unlikely to bring about the outcomes they desire, societies that adopt policies based on false belief are unlikely to get the results they want and expect.
The way to decide a question of scientific fact—are vaccines safe and effective?—is not to ask a community of nonexperts to vote on it, especially when they are subject to misinformation campaigns. What we need is a system that not only respects the processes and institutions of sound science as the best way we have of learning the truth about the world but also respects core democratic values that would preclude a single group, such as scientists, dictating policy.
We do not have a proposal for a system of government that can perfectly balance these competing concerns. But we think the key is to better separate two essentially different issues: What are the facts, and what should we do in light of them? Democratic ideals dictate that both require public oversight, transparency and accountability. But it is only the second—how we should make decisions given the facts—that should be up for a vote.