Brilliant new paper by Naomi #Oreskes, concluding that "our overall situation suggests that it does not suffice for scientists simply to supply #factual #information, and leave it at that. Scientists need as well to engage actively with the recipients of that information." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43538-022-00121-1
I'm glad to see this discussion happening. This is something I always talk with fellow scientists about. That said, I don't know what the actual, real life, answer is.
If you're actually attempting to counter disinformation you're talking about setting up industry wide comms, and at that point who decides what points are pushed out aggressively? Which ones aren't? There's too much science done on a daily basis to pump it all out there beyond journals.
Does academia, government or commercial R&D decide what is worthy? Good and bad research comes out of each. It's a great discussion, but I have yet to see a great answer.
