Scientists compare Misinformation In Mainstream News to a Viral Infection

Source: Wikipedia

We are inundated with a variety of news from a large amount of sources everyday.  How do we make use of such information?  How do we verify the deluge of information?  In keeping with the tradition of educating the public on how scientists view various events portrayed in the media along with life in general (i.e. how do scientists think), a new piece of useful information has surfaced for readers to mull over.  Scientists compare the misinformation in the news cycle to a viral infection.



In a past issue (December of 2017) of 'Science' magazine the following "letters" were sent into the Journal.  The "letters" section is composed of chosen comments sent in by readers regarding earlier commentary/reporting from the science community which was published in an earlier issue.  In the particular issue mentioned in the comments section -- there were a couple articles about the circulation of 'misinformation' in the mainstream news.  The scientists drew parallels to the inoculation against an infection in biology:

The unprecedented spread of misinformation threatens citizens' ability to form evidence-based opinions on issues of societal importance, including public health, climate change, and national security. In his Editorial “Nip misinformation in the bud” (27 October, p. 427), R. Weiss argues that fact checking after misinformation has spread is often ineffective. Decades of research in cognitive science (1) have buttressed this concern by establishing the robust “continued influence effect”: Post-publication retractions and corrections often fail to eliminate the influence of misinformation. In some cases, they reinforce falsehoods simply by repeating them. The more exposure people have to a falsehood, the more truth-value they ascribe to it (2). The networked nature of online media enables misinformation to spread rapidly, much like a viral contagion (3). Accordingly, Weiss calls for a solution in which scientific facts reach the public before misinformation has a chance to spread and take hold.

A growing body of research suggests that this may be possible, but it must be done preemptively. This process of “inoculation” adheres to a biological analogy: Just as injections containing a weakened strain of a virus trigger antibodies in the immune system to help confer resistance against future infection, the same can be achieved with information. Recent studies find that misinformation can be used against itself: By preemptively warning people against misleading tactics and by exposing people to a weakened version of the misinformation, cognitive resistance can be conferred against a range of falsehoods in diverse domains such as climate change (4, 5), public health (6), and emerging technologies (7). In the battle against misinformation, it is better to prevent than cure. The benefit of inoculation is that it can spread, too, online and through word-of-mouth (8). News outlets and the public can help inoculate each other to achieve societal immunity against misinformation.

The concept of preemptively warning people will work in theory.  In fact, depending on the culture from which the person is from, preemptive action might work more effectively.  Different countries have different models of regulatory procedures - for instance - which make such actions work in much different ways.



Here in the United States, the regulatory system appears to be at the moment more of a 'reactionary' system rather than a 'proactive' system.  Which means that preemptive measures do not necessarily work very effectively.  That is, of course, not to say that in our country every resident believes this to be true.  There will be a sizable percentage on which preemptive knowledge might work quite well on informing.  Although, over the range of the entire population, this kind of warning appears not to work as well as in other countries.  Why?  I have no idea at the moment.



As an example, take the recent attempt by the White House (and government agencies) to cover up a health report on the potential dangers of the class of chemicals known as perfuorinated chemicals.  Recently, I wrote a blog post on the cover up.  Then I followed the initial blog post up with an update to the initial introduction of terrible news.  On top of the breaking news, during a supposed conference held to discuss solutions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff attempted to throw journalists out of the conference.  The agency's actions were an obvious attempt at covering up important news.



The terrible aspect of the news is that there are inherent dangers associated with the class of chemicals -- which are well known.  This is a blatant example of a reactionary system.   Why not put in place measures to replace this class of compounds with another class of chemicals which are less harsh on humans along with the environment?  Another related 'reactionary' measure instituted in the United States is the Chemical Safety Board.  The Chemical Safety Board is charged with investigating the aftermaths of tragedies (chemical hazardous spills, fires, accidents, etc.).  Why not have a 'proactive' system in place?  Currently, the fate of the Chemical Safety Board is in jeopardy -- read about that here.



The regulatory system in other countries -- say Britain for example -- is built on the 'preemptive' system.  Instead of 'reacting' to a given tragedy, the British will put in place laws and regulation -- voted on by parliament - which are 'proactive' in nature rather than 'reactive'.  Therefore, a 'preemptive' strike would work quite well over in that part of the world.  Why there is such a large difference in different parts of the world is beyond my understanding at this time.  If you (the reader) has any inputs (ideas) on this difference, please feel free to contribute in the comments section below.



Conclusion...



The United States is made up of a regulatory system which is 'reactive' in nature rather than 'proactive'.  I would love to see the system change in the near future.  How to change the system exactly I do not have the solid idea?  Although, any change in the United States definitely has to build from the ground up through voting/speaking out to our respective political representatives who make/create law/regulations on our behalf.   Additionally, a better informed society is willing to take a risk and become 'proactive'.  That is not to say that we are a nation of 'dummies'.  I believe that each of us could educate ourselves on a range of matters which in turn would create a better country - that might resemble a proactive rather than a reactive system.



Of course, in order to do so takes time and effort on each of our parts.  What have you done to make the world a better place?  What steps are you taking to help inoculate the public against 'fake news'?  Rather than spend your time upset, take action to reduce the spread of fake news.  Here on this site, I try to bring to light news about issues in hope of communicating the importance of understanding the issue.  At least to provide a platform from which the reader (you) can further investigate the matter in greater depth.  The path is yours to pursue to educate yourself and others.  Inoculate yourself by educating yourself.



Related Blog Posts:


Chemical Safety Board's Future Uncertain as Hurricane Season Approaches


How Dangerous Are Cigarettes?


Thoughts: What Does National Institute of Health Director Francis Collins get asked in front of Congress?


Update: EPA Throws Journalists Out Of PFAS Conference - Why?


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals

What Is The World Going To Be Like With Autonomous (Self Driving) Cars?

Lately, I have been asking myself this question. Especially, as the idea has started to come to reality with Tesla Motors and GM Corporation (purchasing Cruise Automation) looking to have autonomous cars on the road soon.  People are excited about the prospect of not having to pay attention during driving (the reality is different) contrary to the state of autonomous cars.  Already, we have seen unfortunate events of relying too much on the autonomous capabilities of a Tesla Motor vehicle.  Back to the question at hand:



What will the world look like with autonomous vehicles?



Simple answer: No one knows.



Complex answer: read on to find out.

First Guess At A World Of Autonomous Cars!

Recently, I found a story which to me represents the bridge on the path toward a world of autonomous cars.  The tweet shown below from the news site "NBC Los Angeles" is an introduction to what the world will look like with an abundant amount of autonomous vehicles:

The article titled "Car Drives Through Living Room While Family Watches Chargers Game" carryed the unfortunate news of a car crashing into a house while the residents were watching television.  Here is an excerpt from the article explaining the incident and possible cause:

According to Hurn, when the car approached a stop sign across the street the driver hit the accelerator instead of the brake. The crash may have been caused by a medical emergency.

Both the driver and Hurn’s wife, who was sitting on the couch when the car came through the wall, were taken to the hospital.

“She was sitting right on the other side when it happened,” Hurn said of his wife. “Her knees hurt, her ankles hurt and her back hurts.”

What a terrible event to have happen at anyone's house?



Can you imagine sitting comfortably in your house watching a football game and then POW - right through the wall comes a car?



Fortunately, none of the residents were injured severely.  Evidently, this was not the first occurrence at this particular house.  Here is another excerpt describing the last event a year ago:

Amazingly, this isn't the first time someone has crashed into the family's home. 

"It happened about a year ago. Had a guy hit-and-run somebody up the street and he was trying to get away from the scene, drove through our neighbors yard, flew off the wall and hit the corner of our porch."

Taking the facts in based on the reporting in the news, the design of the street was flawed in the neighborhood.  The placement of the stop sign directly in front of the house was not a good idea.  At the same time, this design should be a major consideration in the event that autonomous vehicles become a reality.  Which appears to be the case.

The Reality Of Autonomous Vehicles

We do not yet have autonomous vehicles yet on the roads in the United States today.  The reason why is centered around the complexity in design of the cars and the infrastructure to ensure the dangers are mitigated.  First and foremost, the infrastructure (roads, signaling, signage, laws, etc.) would have to change dramatically.  Simple questions like the following remain unanswered by autonomous car manufacturers:



In the unfortunate even of an accident, whose fault does the accident rely on -- the driver or the autopilot?



How culpable is the automaker for disasters involving the autonomous features installed in vehicles?



How culpable is the government (local, state, and federal) for allowing the automakers to release deadly features on vehicles?



If a problem occurs, what happens then?



Do we wait for a recall?



Some proponents of autonomous vehicles have argued that once an accident has occurred, that will be the only time that type of accident happens.  Why?  Because instant changes can be made to all other similar types of autonomous vehicles that will eliminate that type of accident from occurring in the future.



Does the car learn from each accident?



As of right now, the current state of autonomous vehicles is appropriately summarized in an article discussing the unfortunate accident of Tesla in Florida months ago:

The accident occurred on a divided highway in central Florida when a tractor trailer drove across the highway perpendicular to the Model S. Neither the driver — who Tesla notes is ultimately responsible for the vehicle’s actions, even with Autopilot on — nor the car noticed the big rig or the trailer "against a brightly lit sky" and brakes were not applied. In a tweet, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that the vehicle's radar didn't help in this case because it "tunes out what looks like an overhead road sign to avoid false braking events."

Because of the high ride-height of the trailer, as well as its positioning across the road, the Model S passed under the trailer and the first impact was between the windshield and the trailer. Tesla writes that if the car had impacted the front or rear of the trailer, even at high speed, the car’s safety systems "would likely have prevented serious injury as it has in numerous other similar incidents."

Based on the logic provided by Tesla in the excerpt above, would you place your life in the hands of Elon Musk?



Elon musk has genuine intentions to reach Mars and provide the world with cheaper energy along with amazing cars.  Although, the pace at which he is going on both fronts is rather scary.  Additionally, the Tesla car corporation has not been totally upfront and on top of reporting unfortunate incidents in which their cars are involved.  Did you hear about the death of a resident in China who was in a Tesla vehicle with the autopilot engaged?  Why not?



I would be more likely to believe car data coming out of GM corporation who has recently been slogged through years of skepticism regarding the safety of their vehicles.  They have more to lose and should be on top of their game in terms of regulations and safety procedures.



Although, the "bottom line" is what counts as success in business unfortunately -- not peoples lives.  In the excerpt above, the car company Tesla amounts of the death of the driver to 'not paying attention' and says that had the car not made the mistake of recognizing the trailer as an overhead traffic sign, the car would definitely have performed well.  Really?



This begs the need for infrastructure to change too.  At the same time, the government should hammer Elon Musk for his disrespectful behavior in regards to the death of a soldier in one of his cars.  Laying the blame by claiming his vehicles have traveled millions of miles on autopilot is arrogant and untrustworthy.



Lets hope that Elon Musk returns to planet Earth with a sensible and logical approach with safety in mind.  He needs to meet the rest of his potential customers with a safe reliable car that will return them back to their family at the end of the day.



In regard to autonomous vehicles occupying our streets in the future.  We are far off from a truly autonomous vehicle showing up in front of our houses.  The future of technology is exciting.  At the same time, the future of the rise of technology is scary too.  Lets be as measured and engaged as concerned citizens as possible.  Until next time, have a great evening!