REPORTING THE CURVE: Know the red flags in science communication

Written By: Jerome Agustin and Isabella Que

Graphics By: Marianne Ordoña

On the late-night of September 14, we witnessed a spectacle that has become familiar for the past six months of quarantine.

It was Duterte. Hunched over his desk with the Malacañang seal behind him, he rambled his words and served up a long-winded speech about the COVID-19 crisis, which, as expected, is full of his convoluted thoughts and assumptions. This time, he argued that the use of face shields is a ‘fallacy.’

"You know, you have to take into account physics... ang shield kasi would only protect you from a direct hit," the president claimed.

This flippant remark is counterproductive as most parts of the country enforce a mandatory wearing of face shields. While it is true that face shields alone do not prevent the virus from spreading, scientists said that they provide an additional layer of protection to minimize the risk of transmission.

Injecting his speeches with impertinent remarks without the backing of scientific data or expert opinions is not a new thing. In May, Duterte said that the reason why the country has a low number of cases is that the virus has a hard time “surviving in hot temperatures.” He then claimed gasoline to be a ‘disinfectant’ two months later. Several news agencies and health organizations disputed both claims.

Other public officials fare no better in providing accurate information. In February, Senate President Tito Sotto presented in a Senate Committee hearing a video that claims COVID-19 as a “manufactured biological weapon.” In the following month, the then Spokesperson Salvador Panelo promoted eating bananas as a cure against the virus. Meanwhile, there is little to no effort in correcting dangerous claims made by public officials within the government sphere. In Spokesperson Harry Roque’s defense, the president was only “joking.”

These irresponsible statements highlight the government’s blatant neglect of legitimate pandemic measures. Their response has been overly militaristic and not scientific enough. Notice that the current tracing czar is a former policeman who has neither scientific nor health-related work background.

While neighboring countries, such as Singapore, have committed to proper science communication to increase public awareness on the pandemic, our leaders have given a little platform to scientists and their expertise. Hence, we are in a state of disarray as the advent of fake news coupled with this incompetency.

Science Communication: It’s Not Rocket Science

The lack of proper science communication in the country is a long-standing problem. Experts pointed out the lack of training in science communication of scientists and media practitioners who are responsible for disseminating scientific information to the public. UP Diliman researchers, in their study, recommended that the government “need to mobilize social media players and to build trust to reduce misinformation” to have an effective crisis response.

Yet, instead of instigating increased cooperation between the scientific community and the public sector, the administration seems to be keener on taking advantage of the public’s lack of knowledge.

An example is a set of infographics released by the Department of Health (DOH) in July. In a case study by visual design artist Elbert Or, the infographics, while providing actual data, focused on irrelevant information such as mortality doubling time and case doubling time, which he notes the average Filipino does not necessarily need to know. He also mentioned that the DOH used percentages to make it seem like the COVID-19 situation in the country was improving, but the raw data show otherwise.

Retrieved from: Department of Health, Philippines

The Politics in Science Communication

Science communication is undoubtedly political. The quantity of revealed data and the presentation of information are political decisions, especially since science often grapples with ethical decisions and can influence policy-making and public perception.

So when can we say that the government is politicizing science communication? What are the red flags?

Red Flag 1: They prioritize their selfish interests.

Media plays a crucial role in information dissemination, and having multiple media outlets independent from the government is vital in combating misinformation. On this note, the persistent move to shut down ABS-CBN, the country’s largest media conglomerate, is detrimental to the dissemination of scientific information. While the government’s political grudge against the network predates the pandemic, the fact that this has taken the front seat amid the national health crisis means that they are willing to disregard vital information channels for their merely political intentions.

Red Flag 2: They are inconsistent.

One of the main criticisms of the government’s pandemic response is the complex and arbitrary measures put in place. The confusingly named community quarantine levels have gained flak for how extensive yet incomprehensible the guidelines are. In comparison to other countries like South Korea, which applies a three-tiered system based on the number of cases, our community quarantine levels have no such standard and are announced seemingly on a whim by the president.

Another instance of inconsistency is the plan to incrementally reduce social distancing in public transport from 1 meter to 0.3 meter that is against the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). It explicitly shows how unscientific the government’s response can be even if the president revoked the proposal. We cannot also forget how high-ranking officials like senators and military men get away with disobeying quarantine measures. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens are being condemned and punished as “pasaway” once they go to the streets to voice out their concerns while observing social distancing. Their rules are the real fallacies.

Red Flag 3: They hide the truth.

Denying the mountain of documented failures, the Duterte administration thinks that they are doing enough to save the country. In July, UP scientists predicted a rise in COVID-19 cases, but the presidential spokesperson responded at the time that “we are winning against COVID-19” and that “it could have been worse.” Roque recently gave the government’s COVID-19 response a grade of 85, even as the country climbed its way to nearly 300,000 confirmed cases. If the government were interested in being truthful, they should have been in touch with actual health experts, giving them the proper platforms instead of casting themselves as the standard-bearers.

What Now?

While the situation seems grim, the call for improved science communication continues. With cases rising every day and the lives of millions of Filipinos still at risk, it has become even more crucial to call for a better response from the government, one that is well-informed by scientific fact and understandable by the masses. The government should be working with scientists, giving them opportunities to address the public, and supporting their work in research. Our officials should be crafting data-driven and people-oriented policies and prioritize health concerns without ulterior motives and political agendas. Above all, they must lead in uniting other sectors, most especially the media, to forward transparent, clear, and accurate information that is accessible for all Filipinos.