ArticleCommunications earth & environment2025
Conspiracy theories as engines of connection for enriched public debates on emerging technologies.
Article in Communications earth & environment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Conspiracy theories on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and solar geoengineering (chemtrails) tend to reinforce one another, thereby posing significant challenges to public policy and scientific norms and generating confusion by conflating disparate issues. This paper is based on ongoing ethnographic fieldwork conducted in the United States, Germany, Switzerland, and France since 2015 in these two areas of active conspiracy attention, involving observation of social media pages and blogs, active participation in gatherings, and semi-structured interviews. Here, I adopt a diplomatic perspective, highlighting the reciprocal suspicion between science policy and conspiratorial thinking in a competition between two sets of connections of scientific facts, values, politics, fears, and hopes. The present study suggests that the contamination of the scientific discourse by seemingly unrelated claims in conspiracy theories offers fruitful insights to science communication into how publics make sense of science and technology in the fierce debates surrounding immunization and climate 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.