Issue link: https://www.ahpindiestylist.com/i/1250436
36 indie stylist Volume 1 Issue 1 prioritized peer review and online pre-print publication to make every snippet of research available quickly, and research databases are now flooded with new studies daily. The downside of the broad availability of so much new research is that while we have masses of it, not everyone has the skills to judge its accuracy, there is very little quality control, and there has not been enough time for full peer review (having the work double-checked by other experts to ensure it is accurate). This caveat is included on most hubs hosting COVID-19 research. It is meant for other researchers who are scrambling to develop an understanding and potential cure for the virus, and it is generally assumed they will apply their expertise in their appraisal of each emerging study, in a kind of community-based peer review. That's where science literacy is not just a useful skill; it becomes a critical part of the race for a vaccine and/or antiviral drug. However, this material is almost indecipherable to the general public, and in general, science journalists have been playing fast and loose with it, adding to the overall confusion. In gathering material for this article, I was genuinely shocked to see the degree of misinterpretation applied to some of the COVID-19 research papers, with the story changing as it travels around the world. Even some of the data from the WHO contains errors and omissions, which a British group of scientists is now attempting to complete and correct. 2 To be fair to science journalists and regular reporters, they too are struggling to make sense of this sudden information overload. Yet, the golden rule of science journalism that should apply to anyone who is conversant with—but not expert in—the specifics of virology, epidemiology, and infectious diseases, is: don't be afraid to admit what you don't know, check your sources, and ask an actual expert. It is important to remember that even medical doctors are not necessarily experts in virology (the study of viruses), epidemiology (the study of the spread of infectious disease), or public health, and that clinicians (doctors who work in a hospital or practice) are not necessarily trained in research skills—meaning they do not necessarily have the time or skills to analyze or evaluate research, especially under the current circumstances. The second golden rule is: science is messy. So messy, that even the experts are openly uncertain as to the true data surrounding this pandemic. Science does not have concrete answers; these normally take years to develop. With a new virus, scientists are learning as they go while under extreme pressure. Thousands of teams around the world are trying to make sense of many aspects of the way this virus spreads and kills, but depending on the questions they are asking and how they design their studies, it is normal for them to come up with conflicting answers. In more normal times, scientific research goes through many, many stages before it establishes new knowledge, as researchers test small elements of the subject they are studying, one at a time, then try to repeat the study with larger populations, deal with contradictory findings, and so on. A failed study can sometimes spark a new, successful one, but all these things take time, and researchers learn to live with this uncertainty and to avoid making bold statements unless they have overwhelming evidence to support them. From the side of the public, it is natural to want clear answers in such frightening times, but it is also important to understand the limitations of science and to avoid spreading misinformation. Even if meant in good faith, spreading information you do not understand and that does not have scientific backing can do more harm than good to those around you. 3 THE BIG QUESTIONS The questions being asked by the experts are very similar to those being asked by journalists and the public: • Am I in danger? • Who has this disease? (And who dies from it?) • How can I stay safe? How can I keep my family and clients safe? • Where did it come from and why? • Is there a cure? (And why is it taking so long to find?) There are many conflicting answers flooding the airwaves, but not because of how they are expressed. The answers are contradictory because of the context and the worldview of who is asking—and answering— the question. 4 A medical specialist understands the fine details of pathophysiology (the processes that occur to make people sick); a layperson does not have that training. Although we are throwing around phrases such as cytokine storm, inflammatory process, or monoclonal antibody because they are being reported in the news, even physicians in unrelated specializations may not be fully equipped to understand their inner workings. This is one of the reasons why public-facing information is generally simplified into a set of instructions, without too much medical detail. These are often frustratingly perfunctory—and do not answer our many questions—but if they come from a source such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the WHO, we can be reasonably confident that they are based on the most recent science and are reliable. News media sources and their snappy infographics cannot necessarily be trusted even if they use the right jargon, because even science journalists can misinterpret information, and because people promoting alternative, pseudoscientific opinions about the pandemic often use "scientific-sounding" language simply to hook the reader. So, it is important to always check the source of what you're reading, and unless it is from a reliable source, then treat it with suspicion. A reliable source will, at the very least, be a news piece By developing rational responses, understanding the need to link these to localized narratives so they can be better understood, finding ways to explain them to others, and strengthening our own resilience, we ensure our survival, both physical and mental.