Easy steps for scientists to take before amplifying something they heard from another scientist:
1. Is there data to support this claim?
2. Is the data accessible and verifiable?
3. Who provided the data? Are there competing interests?
1. Is there data to support this claim?
2. Is the data accessible and verifiable?
3. Who provided the data? Are there competing interests?
If the answer to (1) is no, i.e., there is no data to support this claim, then...
Do not amplify or even try to massage the statement, no matter who said it.
Do not amplify or even try to massage the statement, no matter who said it.
If the answer to (2) is no, i.e., the data cannot be accessed or verified, then...
Do not re-package/beautify the findings or figures made from non-accessible data.
Do not persuade people to believe in the integrity of data they can't access.
Do not re-package/beautify the findings or figures made from non-accessible data.
Do not persuade people to believe in the integrity of data they can't access.
If the data exists and is accessible, but the answer to (3) is yes, i.e., the data/statement was made by people with very clear competing interests, then...
Make sure those interests and caveats are clearly laid out when you amplify the statement.
Make sure those interests and caveats are clearly laid out when you amplify the statement.
These 3 steps are incredibly important for building public trust in science and experts.
It’s not helpful when experts make overly confident assertions when data doesn’t exist, is inaccessible or not verifiable, or primarily come from sources with strong conflicts of interest.
It’s not helpful when experts make overly confident assertions when data doesn’t exist, is inaccessible or not verifiable, or primarily come from sources with strong conflicts of interest.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
