Concrete Ways Philanthropy Can Fight the Spread of Misinformation

Gwenda Kaczor For the Chronicle

Amid the deluge of alarming headlines and “alternative facts,” one story stopped me short. We recently learned that astronomers have found seven Earth-sized planets orbiting a not-so-distant star, each with conditions that could support life. In a time of profound division, it was a welcome reminder that there are things that unite us and point the way to future progress — among them, the delight of discovery.

Our hunger for knowledge extends to the stars and to the world around us. It is, indeed, at the heart of philanthropy. Since the early days of Carnegie’s libraries and Rockefeller’s Sanitary Commission for the Eradication of Hookworm Disease, philanthropy has championed discovery and the sharing of knowledge. Philanthropists recognize that a public search for knowledge is not only a deep human need; it is a strategic necessity for a democracy.

America’s founders envisioned our democracy itself as a kind of investigation. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth.”

Now, as philanthropy is navigating its way in a highly polarized environment where misinformation and misdirection are rampant, I increasingly find myself in discussion with peers about the imperative for philanthropists — regardless of their grant-making priorities — to step up their work to ensure policy makers and voters are grounding their decisions in evidence and facts.

At the Rita Allen Foundation, which I lead, we have found the intersection of science, civic engagement, and media a rich space for extending our impact for positive change. We are also finding a new sense of urgency about working with other philanthropies to reignite a civic quest for knowledge and discovery and change our framework for problem solving in several important ways:

Connect the dots about why people don’t focus on facts.

“The facts can get in the way of what you’re trying to say,” Joe Palca, a National Public Radio science correspondent, told a recent gathering of our Rita Allen Foundation Scholars. As he explained to these pioneering biomedical researchers, people are drawn to the stories behind scientific discovery, and to science as a conduit for understanding the world.

Similarly, Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of American Press Institute, says that “fact-checking 3.0" will go beyond the facts, focusing less on verifying individual claims and more on building knowledge.

Communication never happens in a vacuum. We all look at the world through frames of reference set by social networks, the political climate, and competing messages, especially in times of controversy. People accept misinformation not from a dislike of science or quality journalism, but due to competing values and needs.

Foundations that care about the role of facts and science would do well to consider the broader context in which people reject evidence, an approach that can reveal critical needs. Evidence on the environmental impact of industry might be understood as a threat to someone faced with the loss of a job. A mother may be more inclined to reject evidence from a source she does not know well if it bumps up against fears about the health of her child.

Just as foundations have learned in dealing with school achievement, you can’t consider just one factor, like teachers or students. You need to look at all the systems that connect to influence a child’s life. For philanthropists concerned about science and facts, it’s just as essential to look broadly to understand, evaluate, and respond to what’s working, and to change what’s not.

Finance more scholarly work on why people ignore facts — and learn from it.

Lately, conversations in disparate fields tend to converge on similar questions: How can we build public engagement on complex issues crucial to the future of our society? Why do communications efforts to bridge divides so often fall flat?

To better understand the situation, the Rita Allen Foundation turned to researchers who are helping solve the mystery of why facts seem to matter at some times more than others, and what we can do about it. An emerging field known as the science of science communication explores why people believe science, or don’t. Social scientists are also investigating rejection of well-sourced journalistic findings — the American Press Institute, for example, is building a growing body of research on fact-checking.

We often assume people’s choices would be more consistent with evidence if only they knew more about it — perhaps if science and facts were communicated more clearly. Researchers call this the “deficit model” of science communication. But studies have demonstrated that providing more information is rarely enough to change hearts and minds. Complex systems of identity, needs, perceptions, values, and beliefs are also at work.

Philanthropy has helped establish these multidisciplinary fields of research and will be critical to ensuring that they continue to grow and inform evolving approaches to building civic knowledge. With this in mind, we co-sponsored “Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda,” a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine surveying existing research and pointing to next steps.

Burst information bubbles.

Research has uncovered many barriers to interaction with challenging information. These can be compounded by algorithms, meant to help us navigate today’s information overload, that have the effect of filtering out stories that challenge our views. As search engines and social media cater to our tastes, we take up residence in filter bubbles of affirmation.

Philanthropy can promote understanding by investing in a simple yet powerful tool for overcoming psychological barriers to facts: person-to-person conversations about evidence that take into account competing values.

Consider Bob Inglis, a South Carolina Republican who served six terms in Congress and says he once regarded climate change as “hooey.”

During his tenure in Washington, Mr. Inglis’s family began pressing him to address the environment. He traveled to Antarctica, where scientists showed him visible evidence of global warming and took time to carefully answer his questions. Finally, he met a climate scientist who shared his religious identity and connected those shared beliefs to environmental protection. Mr. Inglis is now dedicated to making the fight against climate change part of the conservative agenda.

An increasing number of scientists are seeking to communicate about their work with the public, and philanthropy can help arm them with research-backed approaches to sharing and discussing their findings in meaningful ways. Sara ElShafie, a doctoral student in paleontology at the University of California at Berkeley, told E&E News how she has changed her approach to potentially contentious conversations about science: “You have to approach it as a dialogue. It’s so important to make the other person feel that you respect them.”

There is encouraging research on the power of conversation to overcome divisions. Studies suggest that people are more likely to pay attention to opposing arguments when they anticipate having a conversation with someone with different views.

ScienceCounts, a nonprofit that promotes awareness of and support for scientific research, is finding broad backing for science among Americans of very different political and social identities, particularly when science is framed as a source of hope — hope in our ability to fight disease, explore the universe, find new sources of energy, and so much more. What doesn’t work: promoting science as being primarily about overcoming competition or protecting against dangers.

Encourage scientists to take active roles as citizens — and encourage citizens to act more like scientists.

What should every American know? The Aspen Institute’s Citizenship and American Identity Program has taken this up as an open question, asking people to submit their top 10. Answers include jazz, the Constitution, and Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Science is there, too — and Aspen is organizing a series of conversations with diverse participants with the goal of generating “more citizens-as-scientists and more scientists-as-citizens.”

We already see signs of change. More scientists are engaging in public conversations about their work and their role in society. The growing community-science and open-source-hardware movements are gathering people to investigate scientific questions that matter in their lives and to make technology more accessible.

The threat posed by policy debates dismissive of facts is spurring numerous efforts to find new ways to help Americans exchange ideas. Journalists, scientists, policy experts, community leaders, social entrepreneurs, and philanthropists have a critical opportunity to come together to shape a culture of civic learning, civic curiosity, and hope for a brighter future grounded in evidence and truth.

At Rita Allen, we recently joined forces with the Knight Foundation and the Democracy Fund to launch an open call for ideas that can help counteract the spread of misinformation and rebuild trust in high-quality news.

With Media Impact Funders, we are working to gather a diverse group of foundations interested in building public knowledge on a variety of complex and contested issues.

With the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, we are calling on philanthropists to join the next Sackler Colloquium on the Science of Science Communication and form partnerships involving business, government, academe, and other parts of society with the goal of fostering robust public engagement with science.

Our decision-making process — personally, locally, nationally, globally — must be informed by evidence and analysis that reflects the best of our ability. With so much at stake, grant makers need even better ways to help people around the globe share ideas, rooted in evidence, across ideological, class, and political divides. This includes seeking knowledge that goes beyond the immediately practical, that takes us 12 parsecs away to seven marvelous new worlds — and brings us a little closer together back here on Earth.

Elizabeth Good Christopherson is chief executive of the Rita Allen Foundation.