(ETV investigative journalism program – ed.) "Pealtnägija" recently raised the important issue of unscientific health advice dispensed by influencers and how it reaches thousands of people every day. However, they are just the visible tip of the iceberg. The bulk of the problem has imperceptibly moved from denying science to attempts to imitate it. That is the underwater part of the iceberg and a much greater threat should it remain hidden.

Whether we're talking about disparaging medicine, attacking research or ignoring the laws of physics, messages in opposition to science often serve an ulterior purpose — a gizmo, food supplement or course we're being sold as the solution.

The problem is that the ranks of science deniers are smaller than the opposing camp. Therefore, it is much more lucrative to aim one's alternative, attention-grabbing and why not sensational messages at convincing the proponents of scientific research. The question is how to do it? How to turn the unscientific into scientific?

Often it is enough to just give whatever you're doing a scientific-sounding name: clinic, academy or therapy. For example, one could title oneself a "certified therapist of holistic regression" without having to attend seven years of university. That is often the easiest way of coming off scientific.

But there are far cleverer schemes more difficult to detect. For instance, a popular health activist with thousands of followers could promote a food supplement that promises to help balance women's hormones. Sounds good, right! More so as they open with a scientifically sound claim: "at a certain age, a woman's body experiences hormonal change." That much is true and quite beyond disputing.

From there, we quickly start moving away from science and closer to sales. First come recommendations like "You need to balance your hormones," quickly followed by offering food supplements as the solution. As evidence of said solution being rooted in science, numerous research papers are referenced, seemingly corroborating the scientific reason for recommending the given supplement. It's simply that most of these references either do not really support the claim, treat with completely different substances or conclude that there is not enough evidence of effects.

In biology, this is called mimicry: a weaker species masquerading as a stronger one. The stronger the reputation of science, the more lucrative it is for non-science to imitate it, which is precisely what we are seeing. Clinics that have nothing to do with medicine, therapies not rooted in research, studies used simply to give an impression — all of it helps create the illusion of strength and credibility.

Why do I believe that the imitators of science are more dangerous than those who simply deny it? Because they can bypass our defense mechanisms. They take advantage of something we have automatically learned to trust. We expect that which is scientific to also be verified. Our brains run a heuristic of determining truthfulness, which always and automatically tells us that scientific means trustworthy. That is why we do not determine every single time whether a given scientific claim or recommendation corresponds to what we are being promised.

The average reader is even less capable of determining which of two opposing positions is correct if both are seemingly backed up by studies. This allows the emulators of science to say "the debate is still ongoing," even though one side relies on hundreds of high-quality studies and the other on a few weakly argued opinion pieces. But this hardly matters, because imitating science is often about what we trust. If someone wrote an article, there must be a reason — and the business keeps going.

Attempts to help people, improve health and offer solutions are positive. But things recommended or sold to people should be rooted in scientific evidence, instead of just trying to look like they are.

What can we do about it? Precious little, to tell the truth. The word "evidence-based" has no legal protection in Estonia. Journalists may investigate, scientists may analyze, but as long as the law sees no problem, the result will be a big, fat zero.

It is similarly unthinkable for scientists to add to their workload of research, lectures and mentoring the tasks of falsifying newsletters or refuting advertising copy in order to warn the public. More so as every attempt to draw attention to problematic, exaggerated or outdated claims will likely amount to painting a bullseye on one's back.

Science is not perfect. Unlike attempts to imitate it, science does not always have simple and elegant solutions to clear the board of problems. On the contrary, there are always more questions than answers and sometimes you just have to settle for there being no definitive solution. This is one such situation. We have a problem. We know that it significantly negatively impacts people's well-being, while we do not yet have a solution. But that does not mean we should give up looking.

It does not mean we should accept the hijacking of research for the purposes of peddling non-scientific solutions. No.

Notice, shine a light and talk about it. Science and the property of being evidence-based are worthy of protection from those who know how to give it.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!