ArticleThe Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science2022
When Science Becomes Embroiled in Conflict: Recognizing the Public's Need for Debate while Combating Conspiracies and Misinformation.
Article in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Effects of debunking interventions on endorsement of alternative medicine: a randomized controlled experiment in Peru.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Roman Catholic Religious Affiliation and Reactions to the Initial Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Poland.Journal of religion and health · 2025Article
- Trust, Information and Vaccine Aonfidence in Crisis Settings: A Scoping Review.Public health challenges · 2025Review
- An (Un)Holy Trinity: Differences in Climate Change-Induced Distress Between Believers and Non-believers in God Disappear After Controlling for Left-Right Political Orientation.Journal of religion and health · 2024Article
- Correlates of climate change skepticism.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Most democracies seek input from scientists to inform policies. This can put scientists in a position of intense scrutiny. Here we focus on situations in which scientific evidence conflicts with people's worldviews, preferences, or vested interests. These conflicts frequently play out through systematic dissemination of disinformation or the spreading of conspiracy theories, which may undermine the public's trust in the work of scientists, muddy the waters of what constitutes truth, and may prevent policy from being informed by the best available evidence. However, there are also instances in which public opposition arises from legitimate value judgments and lived experiences. In this article, we analyze the differences between politically-motivated science denial on the one hand, and justifiable public opposition on the other. We conclude with a set of recommendations on tackling misinformation and understanding the public's lived experiences to preserve legitimate democratic debate of policy.
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.