ArticlePLoS biology2020
Combating antiscience: Are we preparing for the 2020s?
Article in PLoS biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Who is "anti-science"?Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Intention to Vaccinate against COVID-19 among Young Adults: The Role of Conspiratorial Thinking.Vaccines · 2023Article
- NIAID workshop on secondary vaccine effects.Nature immunology · 2021Article
- America's deadly flirtation with antiscience and the medical freedom movement.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2021Article
- Garbage in, garbage out: The tenuous state of research on PTSD in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and infodemic.Journal of anxiety disorders · 2021Article
- Trust in Science, Perceived Vulnerability to Disease, and Adherence to Pharmacological and Non-pharmacological COVID-19 Recommendations.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Anti-science kills: From Soviet embrace of pseudoscience to accelerated attacks on US biomedicine.PLoS biology · 2021Article
- Identifying Credible Sources of Health Information in Social Media: Principles and Attributes.NAM perspectives · 2021Review
- Active pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine groups: Their group identities and attitudes toward science.PloS one · 2021Article
- Provocative Questions in Behavioral Medicine and the Acceleration of our Science.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2020Article
- Development of vaccines at the time of COVID-19.microLife · 2020Article
- COVID19 meets the antivaccine movement.Microbes and infectionArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the last half of the 2010s, we saw an upswing in antiscience movements and unprecedented attacks on scientists in the United States and elsewhere. All indications suggest that this trend will not slow or reverse anytime soon, and it is now increasingly apparent that it will fall to the scientists themselves to respond, engage a skeptical public, and lead the defense of science. Accordingly, we must recognize opportunities to both reorganize science doctoral and postdoctoral training and incentivize senior scientists as a means to establish a new ecosystem for science public engagement. Such activities may become essential if the assaults on our profession continue or expand. Today, the commitment of young scientists to public service is at an all-time high. However, we must work quickly to capture that enthusiasm and channel it into a social good, lest we lose this opportunity. Potentially, open-access publishers could play a central role.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.