By Rod Abhari and Emőke-Ágnes Horvát.
Whether science is seen as
“self-correcting” or “broken” depends in part on how the public understands
retractions.
Scientific retractions are increasingly used to correct the scientific record. Last year, over 10,000 academic articles were retracted, marking an all-time high. But while scientists may see retractions as an assurance of scientific integrity when a scientific topic has been the subject of political controversy, the public may see them as evidence of incompetence or even corruption.
Our recent article, available online in Public Understanding of Science, examined social media posts of the most discussed retracted COVID-19 articles in order to better understand the relationship between scientific retractions and the politicization of science.
When Retractions Failed
In May 2020, The Lancet published a study concluding that hydroxychloroquine—a drug promoted by then-President Donald Trump—was ineffective against COVID-19 and potentially dangerous. The publication of this article generated considerable public attention, particularly among those who saw the article as an indictment of Trump’s COVID-19 policy. Within several days of the article’s publication, however, prominent scientists began to notice serious data inconsistencies. When the data provider was unwilling to provide its data for verification, The Lancet retracted the article, just 10 days after its publication.
While few seemed to disagree with the retraction, COVID-19 skeptics, including figures like Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, framed it as evidence of institutional bias against Trump. Some went even further, arguing that the article was proof of a coordinated effort by scientists, politicians, and pharmaceutical companies to undermine a cheap and effective COVID-19 treatment.
Another study, published in Current Problems in Cardiology in October 2021, linked COVID-19 vaccines to an increase in heart disease, especially in teens. The study quickly became popular among vaccine skeptics, who saw it as scientific proof that the vaccines were too dangerous for public use. However, within two weeks, the article had been removed from the journal’s website, replaced by a note stating that the article would be reinstated or provided with a reason for its removal. Despite these assurances, neither of these have happened.
The article’s withdrawal was met with immediate backlash from vaccine opponents. In the absence of an official explanation, many of the article’s original readers—including its co-authors—saw the retraction as an effort to censor evidence of vaccine harms. Thus, many of the article’s original supporters concluded that the article was withdrawn because it was correct. As one X user grumbled, “They only censor the truth.”
These cases show how science skeptics use retractions to attack the scientific record. When an unwelcome study is retracted, skeptics can cite its initial publication as proof of institutional bias. When a favored study is retracted, they can instead dismiss the retraction as censorship. This creates a catch-22 for scientific publishers. They must maintain rigorous standards by retracting flawed research, yet in doing so, they risk fueling narratives that portray science as either incompetent or corrupt.
The Essential Role of Transparency
While these problems are discouraging, they cannot be solved by hiding evidence of retractions. Despite retraction guidelines that advise publishers to keep retracted articles publicly available and issue retraction notices detailing the reasons for retraction, preprint servers and at least one prominent publisher have skirted these guidelines by calling their article removals “withdrawals” rather than “retractions.” As our coverage of Current Problems in Cardiology has shown, in the context of politicized retraction, non-transparent retraction decisions can stoke the flames of conspiracy.
In an era of institutional distrust, how we handle scientific mistakes matters. If retractions are clear and transparent, they can help maintain scientific credibility. But if they are vague, inconsistent, or seen as a form of censorship, retractions can instead turn the regulation of science into evidence of its institutional decline.
Read the original article: “They Only Silence the Truth”: COVID-19 retractions and the politicization of science
---
Rod Abhari is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Communication at Northwestern University. His research uses mixed methods to understand how digital media influences trust in science. He holds an M.A. in Communication Arts from the University of Wisconsin – Madison and an M.A. in Science and Technology Studies from the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands.
Webpage: www.rodabhari.info/
Twitter/X: @rodabhari
Bluesky: rodabhari.bsky.social
Emőke-Ágnes Horvát is an Associate Professor of Communication and Computer Science at Northwestern University where she heads LINK, the Lab on Innovation, Networks and Knowledge. Her work uses and develops network and data science approaches to understand our reliance on algorithmic platforms that amplify social biases, fragment users, and misinform the public. This research aims to explain how online spaces operate and can be designed to be more efficient, egalitarian, and enabling for scientists, entrepreneurs, and creative artists.
Webpage: agneshorvat.soc.northwestern.edu/