(in the following, the term “agnotology” is used specifically to refer to the deliberate spread of misinformation and does not encompass its scientific study)

To grasp the gravity of agnotology’s impact, let’s explore a few examples:

Trick 1: Discredit well-established scientific consensus by raising the bar for scientific support to an unachievable level.

Decades ago, tobacco companies sowed the seeds of doubt regarding the harmful effects of smoking on health. They accused existing studies, which were presenting conclusive results, of being inadequate because they tested the effects of smoke on animals and not on humans³. Also, epidemiological studies comparing the health of non-smokers and smokers were criticized to lack controllability³. The tobacco industry demanded absolute proof of harmfulness in humans, which in the end could only be provided by ethically unjustifiable controlled human trials. The trick is to exploit the self-correcting nature of science, i.e. the openness of science to refutations. However, while scientifically based doubt is epistemic, agnotological doubt serves the opposite purpose – it aims to obstruct knowledge acquisition and cast shadows of uncertainty over well-established scientific facts.^3–5

Trick 2: Produce Fake Science – the science behind the unscience.

The following is a particularly perfidious example of the manipulation of a scientific study, involving the chemical compound Bisphenol A (BPA), commonly found in plastics. In a medical-biological lab experiment, researchers made a troubling discovery – cancer cells were mysteriously appearing in centrifuge tubes used in their experiments. Their meticulous investigations ruled out other potential factors, ultimately leading them to identify BPA (found in the centrifuge tubes’ material) as the culprit. BPA’s structural similarity to the estrogen hormone raised serious concerns, as previous studies on mice had demonstrated adverse effects, including prostate enlargement and reduced sperm production. In response to the researchers’ findings, the plastic industry, concerned about potential regulatory consequences, commissioned selective studies to downplay the health risks of BPA at low doses. These industry-funded studies turned to a particularly deceitful approach: They chose specific rats and mice that had been selectively bred to exhibit obesity and elevated estrogen levels for their experimental studies. As expected, these studies showed no significant effects, conveniently supporting the argument that BPA at low doses is safe.^6,7

The danger of such subtle manipulations of scientific methods lies in their ability to deceive without raising immediate suspicion. Only experts well-versed in the specific fields can uncover these insidious tricks, making it challenging for the general public to discern fact from fiction.⁴

Trick 3: Cherry-pick only the sweetest data  

It’s a sly strategy where certain agnotologists pluck specific data that fits their agenda, conveniently ignoring the rest. In the context of the coronavirus pandemic, this trick caused tremendous distrust. As research was running in full speed, the number of publications was limited, corrections of already published scientific data were common and crucial. Hypotheses had to be rigorously tested and many refuted, especially during this early crisis time. In such circumstances, but not only then, it is unbelievably reckless for a single scientist to undermine the integrity of the scientific consensus by going directly to the media to spread their cherry-picking distorted opinion to stand in the limelight for once⁸. Most experts were trustworthy, but the few who were not, determined the picture as they gained particular attention in media outlets that prioritize sensationalism over careful reflection and fail to distinguish between opinion and information. It is the authority that scientists carry (or better carried?) that makes it so irresponsible; when they engage in cherry-picking, their misleading narratives can gain unwarranted credibility. This can lead to misguided decisions, public skepticism, and in the worst case to negative consequences for public health.⁹