The Pervasiveness of Misinformation

This is what happens when you google "misinformation". 

Misinformation has become a huge problem on the internet. There is so much information out there, but how does one who is not an expert in any given field separate the bunk from the real thing? It can be challenging for people who are experts in their fields and debates often occur over interpretation of data and evidence.

You would think that search engines such as Google would help in separating the bunk from the good stuff. However, as recently reported in the New York Times, that is not necessarily the case and the algorithms themselves may lead to bias. I decided to do a bit of an experiment and was able to recreate the image search referenced in the article.

If you do a Google image search, indeed, the first woman that appears is Barbie.

So I decided to do a search for other topics to see how Google would display the results.

These are the google image results for a search on "GMO". There is a clear bias against the technology and misinformation about both how a genetically modified organism is created and how one would look. 

In case anyone is wondering, the above is NOT how genetic engineering is done. In 20 years of working as a research scientist I never once used a needle to inject genetic code into anything for the purposes of genetic engineering. That's not how it works. And while in my garden I have spliced apple tree branches to other trees, I never never seen an apple spliced to a pear using stitches. If you want to know how the process is done and what actual genetically engineered crops look like, I encourage you to go to GMOAnswers and ask questions. It's okay to have and to ask questions. It's not okay to present the entire field of study as it's depicted above.

Next, I wondered what would happen if I googled "organic".

The results of a Google image search for "organic".

Notice how everything is green and calming and pleasing to the eye. Considering the huge difference from the GMO search, you can see a very clear bias toward organic.

Now what happens when you google "GMO farm"?

Google image search results for "GMO farm". 

 Notice the guys in lab coats and isolation gear. Notice the bags of something red (?), the biohazard symbol, and the guy scratching his head. These images make GMO crops appear dangerous. Current scientific evidence does not support that conclusion. Why are these images the ones that come up in a search for "GMO farm"?

So what happens when you do a search for "organic farm"?

Google image search for "organic farm".

You see lots of green farmland pictures. This is what both organic and conventional farms look like in the real world, as in off of the internet. Part of the disparity in the images is that the marketing machine behind organic would like you to believe that their products are more natural and are pesticide free. This Appeal to Nature Fallacy is just that. It's a fallacy. Organic farming uses pesticides and there's no evidence that organic is healthier. Organic is simply a different way of farming. Farming is a business and it's up to the farmers, ranchers, and owners of the operations to decide how they will conduct their businesses, including whether or not to choose organic vs conventional, or if they wish to have diversified businesses including mixtures of both.

But that's not the end of the story. I also wanted to see how livestock farming was portrayed. At this point no one will be surprised by the results.

Google image search results for "conventional livestock". 

A lot of the images surrounding conventional livestock focus on feedlots. American cattle producers start their animals on pastures, raise them for the first 6 months of their lives (until they reach finishing weight) and then use feedlots to grain finish their cattle on grain for 1-3 months (until they reach market weight) before they go to abattoirs for processing. This practice allows animals to go from start to finish in less than a year. The resulting product is a high quality meat with sufficient fat to create an optimum dining experience for the consumer. As far as feedlot animal welfare goes, Temple Grandin is a leader in this field. I encourage you to find her talks regarding feedlots on youtube and elsewhere.

You might be wondering what the deal is with grass fed beef as opposed to grain finished. Most US raised cattle cannot be 100% raised on grass simply because winters (and sometimes summers) are harsh where the cattle are raised. When the grass is frozen over, dead due to a heat wave, or simply of insufficient quality to support livestock, the owners of those animals will bring in forage (e.g., hay, alfalfa, etc) and grain to supplement the animals' diets. There are small scale 100% grass fed operations in the US, but most of the grass fed beef in the US comes from Australia.  Animals that are not grain finished or even grain fed tend to have less fatty meat. Some, but not all, consumers prefer this and will pay a premium for it. Grass fed animals also tend to take longer to go to market because it takes longer to get to market weight.

So what happens when I search "organic livestock"?

Google image search results for "organic livestock".

At this point no one should be surprised that "organic livestock" yield search results that are pastoral, green, and pleasing to the eye. You may or may not be surprised to see an animal with mastitis used as "evidence" against conventional agriculture. [Cows can get mastitis with organic and conventional operations. It's painful to the animal, so veterinary care is necessary regardless. Also, consumer demand has resulted in the vast majority of dairies not using synthetic growth hormones of any kinds on their animals. Still, the myth persists that conventional dairies "pump the animals full of hormones." You'll find "rBST-free" labels on most milk, organic or not, sold at the grocery store.]  The reason the above image is misleading is because most cattle farms, organic or not, look like the ones depicted. By stating, somewhat directly, that organic looks all green and pastoral and conventional looks brown and dirty, google is showing a clear bias against conventional and misleading people about farming practices, in general.

Through all of this, I wondered what other topic would show a similar bias.

Google image search for "vaccine". 

I did a search on the word vaccine and got the results above. If you're not afraid of needles, this might look like no big deal. If you're afraid of needles, and many, many people are, this is a page of NOPE. Even if you aren't afraid and needles just aren't your thing, this page doesn't exactly instill a sense calm or positive feelings. I'm sure many of you are feeling nervous and tense just thinking of a doctor or nurse prepping to inject you. Not to mention, many of the needles and syringes shown on this page are FAR larger than those used to give modern vaccines. What would be a better way of displaying this information? Check out the search below for "public health".

Google image search for "public health". 

Vaccines aren't the only component of public health, but they're a hugely important aspect of it. Vaccines are used to prevent or reduce the likelihood of infection from preventable illnesses, such as measles, diphtheria, and influenza. You might be wondering why displaying vaccines as needles is a bad thing, since the majority of them are delivered via needle and syringe. Simply put: many people are afraid of needles. By demonstrating the public health and disease prevention benefits of vaccines you can present their purpose without instilling fear. Groups that are against vaccination use this fear to their advantage to the detriment of general public health. 

So what does this mean to the average person, who is not an expert in any of these fields and who just wants to find reliable information online?  It means a few things:

• Be aware that there is considerable bias in how information is presented. Look for the bias, which is usually depicted as "good versus evil" or "us versus them". Reality is very rarely so black versus white or one versus the other. 
• As more and more entertainment and information is being pushed online and everyone is becoming more media savvy, I suspect this will become an increasingly important issue.
• Watch out for Appeals to Emotion in the information being presented. We have a tendency to want to believe the person who is most passionate when delivering their arguments. However it's very easy to be passionately misleading about something. 
• Watch out for Appeals to Nature in the arguments being presented. Natural isn't always better, although sometimes it might be.
• When experts in the field argue or disagree, try to find out the basis for the argument and find the common ground. If possible ask them to explain the topic or to lead you to resources that better explain it. 
• Academics love to argue. If you come from outside of academia, look for the scientific consensus. This may change over time, but the consensus typically leads to the best interpretation of the currently available evidence. [Scientists must justify conclusions that deviate from the consensus with evidence. If they don't provide evidence, or sufficient evidence, those findings are discarded. If someone is clearly blowing smoke without evidence, other scientists will let them know.]

In the end, remember that it's okay to have and to ask questions. It's how people learn.