Do People Know What They Are Following?

Francois Balloux (University College London) points out that, in spite of their massive interest in the Covid19 pandemic, the general public have many misconceptions about 'science' (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/17/best-of-times-worst-of-times-science-in-age-of-covid). Balloux notes that the Google Scholar Database has nearly 5 million publications on Covid. Science is not, however, a collection of fixed facts. Balloux describes it as 'a messy process gradually converging towards the truth in a process of trail-and-error'. He points out that many scientific publications are actually false. They may be based on inadequate data or simply be false positives (thrown up by the statistical tests). Balloux says the publications that attract massive social media attention are generally those reporting unexpected or extreme results. These are also the most likely to be false positive findings. When a 'significant' effect is found, scientists are likely to write it up and get it published. Conversely, data that fails to detect a statistically significant effect, tends to remain unpublished. Balloux illustrates this by citing the Ivermectin story. Ivermectin is a deworming agent, largely used in cattle. Initial, small trials suggested it could be a cheap wonder drug used to counter Covid19 infections. Later, larger, better-controlled studies confirmed that the initial trials were false positives. This didn't stop, however, a social media 'storm' on Ivermectin treatment. In most cases, you have to wait for the science to gradually 'settle'. In an emergency, the recent tendency to relese 'pre-publications' of positive data, although understandable, has exaccerbated the problem. Slow and gradual doesn't suit the way in which social media likes to work. As Balloux opines, however, you can't simply 'follow the science', when the science itself is still evolving.