Combating Misinformation: A Conversation with Laurel Bristow
In March 2021, amidst the swirling chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Sanjay Gupta sat down with Laurel Bristow, an infectious disease researcher at Emory University who had garnered attention for her informative and humorous approach to debunking COVID-19 myths and conspiracy theories on Instagram. Using the handle @kinggutterbaby, Bristow offered a refreshing voice of reason in a social media landscape saturated with misinformation. Three years later, Gupta reconnects with Bristow to reflect on her experiences combating misinformation during the pandemic and how she continues to apply her skills to address new medical myths and conspiracy theories circulating online.
Bristow, now hosting the "Health Wanted" podcast for Atlanta’s NPR affiliate WABE, recounts her intense schedule during the pandemic, juggling her work on COVID-19 clinical trials with her social media efforts. Driven by a desire to empower people with knowledge and alleviate their anxieties, she responded to questions posed by her followers, clarifying scientific research and explaining complex concepts like mRNA vaccines. Her approach resonated with a surprisingly large audience eager to understand the science behind the pandemic, revealing a thirst for knowledge that countered the prevailing narrative of widespread scientific illiteracy.
The conversation shifts to the rise of misinformation and conspiracy theories during the pandemic. Bristow observed that the global disruption caused by COVID-19 created a fertile ground for blame attribution, leading to the rapid spread of theories like the lab leak hypothesis and claims that the virus was engineered. She emphasizes the emotional appeal of these narratives, which often provide simple explanations for complex events, making them more readily shareable than nuanced scientific explanations. Bristow highlights the importance of patience and critical thinking in addressing misinformation, urging people to pause before sharing emotionally charged content and consider its logical validity.
Gupta raises the issue of those who profit from misinformation, directly or indirectly. While some sell alternative remedies and products, others see the value of gaining attention and building large followings. In the current digital landscape, attention itself is a currency that can be leveraged for financial gain through speaking engagements, brand deals, and advertising opportunities. Bristow also notes that misinformation can foster a sense of community among those who feel they possess exclusive, contrarian knowledge, providing a sense of belonging and superiority.
The discussion moves to contemporary challenges, including vaccine hesitancy fueled by misinformation, notably the debunked link between vaccines and autism. Gupta expresses concern about the influence of high-ranking officials who perpetuate such misinformation, citing the example of a US Secretary of Health expressing doubt about vaccine safety. Bristow acknowledges the frustration of battling misinformation propagated at the highest levels of government, emphasizing the importance of science communicators like herself in clarifying the scientific consensus and countering false narratives.
Despite the challenges, Bristow remains optimistic about the future of science communication. She finds encouragement in the passionate efforts of scientists and communicators who are actively engaging in online discussions and providing accurate information. Recognizing that science communication is a team effort, she emphasizes the importance of building networks of trusted sources. Bristow also shares strategies for identifying and navigating misinformation, advising individuals to be wary of emotionally charged content, overly simplistic explanations, and products or services that claim to solve a problem they’ve invented themselves.
The conversation concludes with a discussion about approaching difficult topics with friends and family. Bristow advocates for a curious and empathetic approach, focusing on understanding the other person’s perspective and the sources of their information. She suggests asking questions like "Where did you hear that?" and "Why do you think that?" to understand their reasoning and identify potential areas for constructive dialogue. Bristow believes that by providing people with the tools to think critically, they are more likely to arrive at their own conclusions based on evidence and reason. Gupta commends Bristow for her contributions and her positive impact on public understanding of science. He also reflects on the differences between social media interactions and real-world conversations, noting the anonymity and disinhibition often found online. Bristow acknowledges that she has distanced herself from some online connections due to their embrace of inflammatory misinformation. However, she emphasizes the importance of maintaining relationships with those who may be receptive to different perspectives, offering opportunities for dialogue and potential shifts in understanding. Laurel Bristow’s journey highlights the crucial role of science communicators in navigating the complex and often treacherous information landscape, providing evidence-based explanations, and fostering informed decision-making in an era of rampant misinformation.
