Author:
Nóra Falyuna University of Public Service, Faculty of Pubic Governance and International Studies, Department of Social Communication Budapest Hungary; Nemzeti Közszolgálati Egyetem, Államtudományi és Nemzetközi Tanulmányok Kar, Társadalmi Kommunikáció Tanszék Budapest Magyarország

Search for other papers by Nóra Falyuna in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open access

Summary. The danger of the spread of science disinformation was demonstrated by the coronavirus pandemic. This created a complex crisis, affecting economic, social, and public health security, so disinformation can be perceived as a security threat. Understanding characteristics, communication, and mechanisms of disinformation are particularly important. In this paper, I will elaborate on the concept of disinformation society based on the information society and the dangers of science disinformation, mainly using the example of the disinformation wave that accompanied the coronavirus epidemic. I present the main responses to the problem, highlighting the role of science communication. I will emphasize the need to change attitudes in science communication practices and show how understanding science disinformation can help to do this.

Összefoglalás. Az új kommunikációs és médiakörnyezet újítólag hat a dezinformáció megjelenésének és terjedésének módjára, formáira, a terjesztő aktorok számára, az alkalmazott új információmanipulációs technológiára és e tartalmak társadalmi hatásaira. Az információs társadalom koncepciójára reagálva, egyes szakértők már inkább dezinformációs társadalomról beszélnek. A dezinformáció, különösen a tudományos dezinformáció jelentőségét és terjedésének veszélyét a pandémia mutatta meg igazán, amely során a dezinformáció különböző formái, kiemelten az áltudományos és tudományellenes elméletek mennyisége, terjedésük sebessége és hálózatba szerveződése példátlan volt. A tudományos dezinformáció komoly veszélyt jelenthet akár az egyénre, a szélesebb közösségekre, vagy akár a társadalom egészére nézve is. Napjainkban a dezinformáció megjelenik a biztonságot, jelesül az információbiztonságot fenyegető veszélyek között is. A világjárvány komplex válsághelyzetet szült, amely a gazdasági, társadalmi és közegészségügyi biztonságot is meghatározza, ezért a dezinformáció felfogható nemzetbiztonsági fenyegetésként is. A tudományos dezinformáció működésének, kommunikációjának, hatásmechanizmusának megértése így különösen fontos, mivel közvetlenül biztonságot fenyegető tényezővé válhat. A tanulmányban bemutatom, hogyan épül az információs társadalom alapjaira a dezinformációs társadalom koncepciója, külön kiemelve a tudományos dezinformáció működését, hálózatosodását és veszélyeit, elsősorban a koronavírus köré épülő infodémia példáján. Ezután a problémára adható főbb válaszreakciókat tárgyalom, kiemelve a tudománykommunikáció szerepét. Amellett érvelek, hogy olyan tudománykommunikációs fejlesztésre van szükség, amely elsősorban nem a közösségimédia-platformok használatát, hanem a tudománykommunikációs gyakorlatok során megmutatkozó szemlélet változását helyezi fókuszba. Végül bemutatom, hogy ehhez a szemléletváltáshoz milyen támpontokat nyújthat a tudományos dezinformáció jellemzőinek vizsgálata.

  • 1

    Aczél P. (2015) Médiaműveltség. In: Aczél, P., Andok, M., & Bokor, T. (eds) Műveljük a médiát! Budapest, Wolters Kluwer. pp. 133−177.

  • 2

    Akin, H., & Scheufele, D. A. (2017) Overview of the science of science communication. In: Jamieson, K. H., Kahan, D. M., & Scheufele, D. (eds) The Oxford handbook on the science of science communication. Oxford, Oxford University Press. pp. 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.3>

  • 3

    Allchin, D., & Zemplén G. Á. (2020) Finding the place of argumentation in science education: Epistemics and whole science. Science Education, Vol. 104. No. 5. pp. 907–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21589

  • 4

    ALLEA (2021) Fact or fake? Tackling science disinformation. ALLEA Discussion Paper, 5. Berlin. https://doi.org/10.26356/fact-or-fake

  • 5

    Arnaudo, D., Bradshaw, S., Ooi, H. H., Schwalbe, K., Zakem, V., & Zink, A. (2021) Combating information manipulation: A playbook for elections and beyond. The International Republican Institute & The National Democratic Institute & The Stanford Internet Observatory.

  • 6

    Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2020) Good news about bad news: Gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news. Journal of Cognition, Vol. 3. No. 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.91

  • 7

    Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., … Willer, R. (2020) Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 4. No. 5. pp. 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z.

  • 8

    Bell, D. (1999) The coming of post-industrial society. A venture in social forecasting. New York, Basic Books.

  • 9

    Blanco, F., & Matute, H. (2018) The illusion of causality: A cognitive bias underlying pseudoscience. In: Kaufman, A. B., & Kaufman, J. C. (eds) Pseudoscience: The conspiracy against science. MIT Press Scholarship Online. pp. 45–75. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262037426.003.0003

  • 10

    Boghardt, T. (2009) Operation INFEKTION: Soviet Bloc intelligence and its AIDS disinformation campaign. Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 53. No. 4. pp. 1–24.

  • 11

    Bokor T. (2015) Médiaértés. In: Aczél P., Andok M., & Bokor T. (eds) Műveljük a médiát! Budapest, Wolters Kluwer. pp. 179–239.

  • 12

    Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. N. (2015) Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication, Vol. 65. No. 5. pp. 745–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12171

  • 13

    Bucchi, M. (2009) Beyond technocracy. Science, politics and citizens. New York, Springer.

  • 14

    Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2014) Science communication research. Themes and challenges. In: Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (eds) Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology. Second Edition. London & New York, Routledge. pp. 1–15.

  • 15

    Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003) Science communication. A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 12. No. 2. pp. 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F09636625030122004

  • 16

    Cairns, R. (2014) Climates of suspicion. ‘Chemtrail’ conspiracy narratives and the international politics of geoengineering. The Geographical Journal, Vol. 182. No. 1. pp. 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12116

  • 17

    Castells, M. (1996) The rise of the network society. The information age: Economy, society and culture Vol. I. Cambridge, Massachusetts & Oxford, UK, Blackwell.

  • 18

    Castells, M. (1997) The power of identity. The information age: Economy, society and culture Vol. II. Cambridge, Massachusetts & Oxford, UK, Blackwell.

  • 19

    Castells, M. (1998) End of millennium. The information age: Economy, society and culture Vol. III. Cambridge, Massachusetts & Oxford, UK, Blackwell.

  • 20

    CCDH (2020) The anti-vaxx industry. How big tech powers and profits from vaccine misinformation. Center for Countering Digital Hate.

  • 21

    CCDH (2021a) The disinformation dozen. Center for Countering Digital Hate.

  • 22

    CCDH (2021b) The pandemic profiteers. The business of anti-vaxx. Countering Digital Hate.

  • 23

    Cortassa, C. (2016) In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? The eternal recurrence of the public deficit. Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 25. No. 4. pp. 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963662516629745

  • 24

    Craft, S., Ashley, S., & Maksl, A. (2017) New media literacy and conspiracy theory endorsement. Communication and the Public, Vol. 2. No. 4. pp. 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2057047317725539

  • 25

    Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011) Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, Vol. 1. No. 9. pp. 462–466. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1295

  • 26

    Douglas, K. M., Uscinski, J. E., Sutton, R. M., Cichocka, A., Nefes, T., Ang, Ch. S., & Deravi, F. (2019) Understanding conspiracy theories. Political Psychology, Vol. 40. No. S1. pp. 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12568

  • 27

    Einsiedel, E. F. (2014) Publics and their participation in science and technology: Changing roles, blurring boundaries. In: Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (eds) Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology. Second Edition. London & New York, Routledge. pp. 125–140.

  • 28

    Ezrahi, Y. (1990) The descent of Icarus. Science and the transformation of contemporary democracy. Harvard, Harvard University Press.

  • 29

    Fabók B. (2021) Százmilliókkal gazdagította a járvány a vírusszkeptikus Dr. Lenkeit, nagyot szakítottak Dr. Gődénnyel is. G7.hu, 2 June 2021. https://g7.hu/kozelet/20210602/szazmilliokkal-gazdagitotta-a-jarvany-a-virusszkeptikus-dr-lenkeit-nagyot-szakitott-dr-godeny-is/ [Downloaded: 16 April 2022].

  • 30

    Falyuna N. (2019) Esettanulmány a magyar laposföld-hívők online közösségének diskurzusáról. Médiakutató, Vol. 20. No. 4. pp. 65–82.

  • 31

    Falyuna N. (2022a) Az áltudományos diskurzus jellemzői. Az újmédiában megjelenő áltudományos tartalmak nyelvészeti-kommunikációs elemzése. PhD thesis. Manuscript. Budapest, ELTE BTK Nyelvtudományi Doktori Iskola. https://doi.org/10.15476/ELTE.2022.014

  • 32

    Falyuna N. (2022b) A pandémia nyelve, retorikája és kommunikációja. Magyar Tudomány, Vol. 183. No. 5. pp. 610–620.

  • 33

    Falyuna N. (2022c, forthcoming ) “A tudósok fehér galléros bűnözők” – Tudományellenesség és tudománykommunikáció a (dez)információs társadalomban. Filológia.hu.

  • 34

    Falyuna N., Krekó P., & Berkes R. (2022) Álszent antikapitalisták. Nyereségvágyból terjesztett áltudományos dezinformáció az interneten. Political Capital.

  • 35

    Finset, A., Bosworth, H., Butow, P., Gulbrandsen, P., Hulsman, R. L., Pieterse, A. H., … van Weert, J. (2020) Effective health communication - a key factor in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient Education and Counseling, Vol. 10. No. 5. pp. 873–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.03.027

  • 36

    Fischhoff, B., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013) The science of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 110. No. Supplement 3. pp. 14031–14032. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312080110

  • 37

    Fischhoff, B., & Scheufele, D. A. (2014) The science of science communication II. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 111. No. Supplement 4. pp. 13583–13584. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414635111

  • 38

    Fischhoff, B., & Scheufele, D. A. (2019) The science of science communication III. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 116. No. Supplement 16. pp. 7632–7633. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1902256116

  • 39

    Frankel, M. S. (1998) The role of science in making good decisions. https://www.aaas.org/resources/role-science-making-good-decisions [Downloaded: 21 February 2021].

  • 40

    Garrett, R. K. (2017) The “echo chamber” distraction. Disinformation campaigns are the problem, not audience fragmentation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Vol. 6. No. 4. pp. 370–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.011

  • 41

    Goertzel, T. (2010) Conspiracy theories in science. EMBO Reports, Vol. 11. No. 7. pp. 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2010.84

  • 42

    Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998) Science in public. Communication, culture, and credibility. New York, Plenumtrade.

  • 43

    Grundmann, R., & Stehr, N. (2012) The power of scientific knowledge. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139137003

  • 44

    Hansson, S. O. (2018) Dealing with climate science denialism: Experiences from confrontations with other forms of pseudoscience. Climate Policy, Vol. 18. No. 9. pp. 1094–1102. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1415197

  • 45

    Hecht, D. K. (2018) Pseudoscience and the pursuit of truth. In: Kaufman, A. B., & Kaufman, J. C. (eds) Pseudoscience. The conspiracy against science. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. pp. 3–20.

  • 46

    Hussain, A., Ali, S., Ahmed, M., & Hussain, S. (2018) The anti-vaccination movement: A regression in modern medicine. Cureus, Vol. 10. No. 7. e2919. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2919

  • 47

    HVG (2021) Posta Imre és két társa biztosan börtönben tölti az ünnepeket. HVG, 29 October 2021. https://hvg.hu/itthon/20211029_posta_imre_letartoztatas_magyarok_felelos_nemzeti_kormanya [Downloaded: 24 January 2022].

  • 48

    Islam, M. S., Sarkar, T., Khan, S. H., Mostofa Kamal, A.-H., Hasan, S. M. M., Kabir, A., … Seale, H. (2020) COVID-19-related infodemic and its impact on public health: A global social media analysis. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Vol. 103. No. 4. pp. 1621–1629. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.20-0812.

  • 49

    Jenkins, H. (2008) Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, New York University Press.

  • 50

    Jennings, R. C. (2014) Theory and practice in science communication. Studies in Science Education, Vol. 50. No. 2. pp. 249–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.831972

  • 51

    Jensen, E. A., & Gerber, A. (2020) Evidence-based science communication. Frontiers in Communication, Vol. 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00078

  • 52

    Kahan, D. M. (2012) Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. In: Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., & Peterson, M. (eds) Handbook of risk theory. epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk. Amsterdam, Springer. pp. 725–759. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_28

  • 53

    Kalichman, S. C. (2009) Denying AIDS. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and human tragedy. New York, Springer.

  • 54

    Krekó P. (2015) Conspiracy theory as collective motivated cognition. In: Bilewicz, M., Cichocka, A., & W. Soral (eds) The psychology of conspiracy. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 62–75.

  • 55

    Krekó P. (2021) Tömegparanoia 2.0. Összeesküvés-elméletek, álhírek és dezinformáció. Budapest, Athenaeum.

  • 56

    Kutrovátz G., Láng B., & Zemplén G. (2008) A tudomány határai. Budapest, Typotex.

  • 57

    Leßmöllmann, A. (2019) Current trends and future visions of (research on) science communication. In: Leßmöllmann, A., Dascal, M., & Gloning, T. (eds) Science communication. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 657–688. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255522

  • 58

    Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) Misinformation and its correction continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 13. No. 3. pp. 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1529100612451018

  • 59

    Lewandowsky, S., & van der Linden, S. (2021) Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 32. No. 2. pp. 348–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983

  • 60

    Lewandowsky, S., & Yesilada, M. (2021) Inoculating against the spread of Islamophobic and radical-Islamist disinformation. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, Vol. 6. No. 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00323-z

  • 61

    Lewenstein, B. V. (1995) Science and the media. In: Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C., & Pinch, T. (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publications. pp. 344–361.

  • 62

    Lewenstein, B. V. (2003) Models of public communication of science and technology. Cornell University, Departments of Communication and of Science & Technology Studies.

  • 63

    Lobato, E. J. C., & Zimmerman, C. (2018) The psychology of (pseudo)science: Cognitive, social, and cultural factors. In: Kaufman, A. B., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds) Pseudoscience: The conspiracy against science. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. pp. 21–43. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262037426.003.0002

  • 64

    Machlup, F. (1962) The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.

  • 65

    Malecki, K. M. C., Keating, J. A., & Safdar, N. (2021) Crisis communication and public perception of COVID-19 risk in the era of social media. Clinical Infectious Diseases, Vol. 72. No. 4. pp. 697–702. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa758

  • 66

    Marshall, J. P. (2017) Disinformation society, communication and cosmopolitan democracy. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 9. No. 2. pp. 1–24. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3914-7697

  • 67

    Marshall, J. P., Goodman, J., Zowghi, D., & da Ramini, F. (2015) Disorder and the disinformation society. The social dynamics of information, networks and software. New York, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315693460

  • 68

    McKee, M., & Diethelm, P. (2010) How the growth of denialism undermines public health. BMJ, 2010 Dec 14;341:c6950. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6950. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21156741

  • 69

    Meyer, G. (2016) In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 25. No. 4. pp. 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963662516629747

  • 70

    Michael, M. (1992) Lay discourses of science: Science-in-general, science-in-particular, and self. Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 17. No. 3. pp. 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F016224399201700303

  • 71

    Miller, J. D. (1983) Scientific literacy. A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, Vol. 112. No. 2. pp. 29–48.

  • 72

    Miller, J. D. (1992) Toward a scientific understanding of the public understanding of science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 1. No. 1. pp. 23–26. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/005

  • 73

    Miller, V. (2020). Understanding digital culture. Second edition. London, Sage Publications.

  • 74

    Mohammed, S. N. (2019) Conspiracy theories and flat-earth videos on YouTube. The Journal of Social Media in Society, Vol. 8. No. 2. pp. 84–102.

  • 75

    Moral, P. (2022) The challenge of disinformation for national security. In: Cayón Peña, J. (ed.) Security and defence: Ethical and legal challenges in the face of current conflicts. Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. Springer, Cham. pp. 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95939-5_8

  • 76

    NASEM = National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) Communicating science effectively. A research agenda. Washington, DC, The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23674

  • 77

    O’Brien, T. C., Palmer, R., & Albarracin, D. (2021) Misplaced trust: When trust in science fosters belief in pseudoscience and the benefits of critical evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 96(6099). 104184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104184

  • 78

    Olshansky, A., Peaslee, R. M., & Landrum, A. R. (2020) Flat-smacked! Converting to flat eartherism. Media and Religion, Vol. 19. No. 2. pp. 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348423.2020.1774257

  • 79

    Pasek, J. (2019) Don’t trust the scientists! Rejecting the scientific consensus “conspiracy”. In: Uscinski, J. (ed.) Conspiracy theories and the people who believe them. Oxford, Oxford University Press. pp. 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190844073.001.0001

  • 80

    Peters, M. A. (2020) On the epistemology of conspiracy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 53. No. 14. pp. 1413–1417. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1741331

  • 81

    Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Tormala, Z. L., & Wegener, D. T. (2007) The role of metacognition in social judgment. In: Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (eds) Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York, Guilford Press. pp. 254–284.

  • 82

    Renn, O., & Levine, D. (1991) Credibility and trust in risk communication. In Kasperson, R. E., & Stallen, P. J. M. (eds) Communicating risks to the public. Dordrecht, Springer. pp. 175–217.

  • 83

    Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019) The fake news game: Actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 22. No. 5. pp. 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1443491

  • 84

    Rzymski, P., Borkowski, L., Drąg, M., Flisiak, R., Jemielity, J., Krajewski, J., … Fal, A. (2021) The strategies to support the COVID-19 vaccination with evidence-based communication and tackling misinformation. Vaccines, Vol. 9. No. 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020109.

  • 85

    Schäfer, M. S., Kessler, S. H., & Fähnrich, B. (2019) Analyzing science communication through the lens of communication science. Reviewing the empirical evidence. In: Leßmöllmann, A., Dascal, M., & Gloning, T. (eds): Science communication. Berlin, Boston, De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 77–104.

  • 86

    Schmid-Petri, H., & Bürger, M. (2019) Modeling science communication: From linear to more complex models. In: Leßmöllmann, A., Dascal, M., & Gloning, T. (eds) Science communication. Berlin, Boston, De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 105–122.

  • 87

    Schwarz, N. (2012) Feelings-as-information theory. In: Van Lange, P., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (eds) Handbook of theories in social psychology. Thousand Oaks (CA), Sage Publications. pp. 289–308. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215

  • 88

    Shapin, S. (2001) How to be antiscientific. In: Labinger, J. A., & Collins, H. (eds) The one culture?: A conversation about science. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. pp. 99–115. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226467245-009

  • 89

    Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016) The lure of rationality. Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 25. No. 4. pp. 400–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749

  • 90

    Sługocki, W. Ł., & Sowa, B. (2021) Disinformation as a threat to national security on the example of the COVID-19 pandemic. Security and Defence Quarterly, Vol. 35. No. 3. pp. 63–74. https://doi.org/10.35467/sdq/138876

  • 91

    Strudwicke, I. J., & Grant, W. J. (2020) #JunkScience: Investigating pseudoscience disinformation in the Russian Internet Research Agency tweets. Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 29. No. 5. pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520935071

  • 92

    Szakács J. (2020) The business of misinformation. CMDS. https://cmds.ceu.edu/business-misinformation [Downloaded: 16 April 2022].

  • 93

    Thorson, E. (2016) Belief echoes. The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication, Vol. 33. No. 3. pp. 460−480. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1102187

  • 94

    Trench, B. (2008) Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In: Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gascoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B., & Shi, S. (eds) Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices. Dordrecht, Springer. pp. 119–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7

  • 95

    Uscinski, J. (2018) Down the rabbit hole we go! In: Uscinski, J. (ed.) Conspiracy theories and the people who believe them. Oxford, Oxford University Press. pp. 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190844073.001.0001

  • 96

    van der Linden, S., & Roozenbeek, K. (2021) Psychological inolucation against fake news. In: Greifeneder, R., Jaffé, M. E., Newman, W. J., & Schwarz, N. (eds) The psychology of fake news. Accepting, sharing, and correcting misinformation. Routledge. pp. 147–169.

  • 97

    van der Linden, S., Roozenbeek, J., & Compton, J. (2020) Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 2020. No. 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566790

  • 98

    Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2018) I do not believe you: How providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms. Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 21. No. 10. pp. 1337–1353. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1313883

  • 99

    Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2020) Correction as a solution for health misinformation on social media. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 110. No. 3. S78–S80. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2020.305916

  • 100

    Vraga, E. K., & Jacobsen, K. H. (2020) Strategies for effective health communication during the coronavirus pandemic and future emerging infectious disease events. World Medical & Health Policy, Vol. 12. No. 3. pp. 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.359

  • 101

    Webster, F. (2014) Theories of the information society. Fourth edition. London & New York, Routledge.

  • 102

    Weigold, M. F. (2001). Communicating science. A review of the literature science communication. Science Communication, Vol. 23. No. 2. pp. 164–193. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1075547001023002005

  • 103

    Wynne, B. (1987) Risk management and hazardous wastes. Implementation and the dialectics of credibility. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  • 104

    Wynne, B. (1995) Public understanding of science. In: Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C., & Pinch, T. (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publications. pp. 361–388.

  • 105

    Wynne, B. (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science. Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, Vol. 9. No. 3. pp. 211–220.

  • 106

    Z. Karvalics L. (2009) Information society dimensions. Szeged.

  • 107

    Zemplén G. (2019) The contribution of laboratory studies, science studies and Science and Technology Studies (STS) to the understanding of scientific communication, In: Leßmöllmann, A., Dascal, M., & Gloning, T. (eds) Science communication. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255522

  • 108

    Ziman, J. M. (2000a) Postacademic science. Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. In: Segerstrale, U. (ed.) Beyond the science wars. The missing discourse about science and society. New York, State University of New York Press. pp. 135–154.

  • 109

    Ziman, J. M. (2000b). Real science. What it is and what it means. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

  • 110

    URL1 = Website of the ‘Doctors for Discernment’ group, https://orvosokatisztanlatasert.hu/ [Downloaded: 27 April 2022].

  • 111

    URL2 = Campaign material of the ‘Normal Life Party’, https://normaliselet.hu/download/covid_allaspont.pdf [Downloaded: 27 April 2022].

  • 112

    URL3 = Blog of the ‘Responsible National Government of Hungarians’ group leader, https://postaimre.euroweb4you.com/ [Downloaded: 27 April 2022].

  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • Top
The author instructions are available in separate PDFs.
Please, download the Hungarian version from HERE, the English version from HERE.
The Submissions templates are available in MS Word.
For articles in Hungarian, please download it from HERE and for articles in English from HERE.
 

Editor-in-Chief:

  • Tamás NÉMETH 
    (Institute for Soil Sciences and Agricultural Chemistry, Centre for Agricultural Research
    Budapest, Hungary)

Managing Editor:

  • István SABJANICS (Ministry of Interior, Budapest, Hungary)

Editorial Board:

  • Valéria CSÉPE (Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Brain Imaging Centre)
  • János JÓZSA (Budapest University of Technology and Economics)
  • Melinda KOVÁCS (Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE))
  • Miklós MARÓTH (Eötvös Loránd Research Network)
  • Charaf HASSAN (Budapest University of Technology and Economics)
  • Zoltán GYŐRI (Hungaricum Committee)
  • József HALLER (University of Public Service)
  • Attila ASZÓDI (Budapest University of Technology and Economics)
  • Zoltán BIRKNER (National Research, Development and Innovation Office)
  • Tamás DEZSŐ (Migration Research Institute)
  • Imre DOBÁK (University of Public Service)
  • András KOLTAY (National Media and Infocommunications Authority)
  • Gábor KOVÁCS (University of Public Service)
  • József PALLO (University of Public Service)
  • Marcell Gyula GÁSPÁR (University of Miskolc)
  • Judit MÓGOR (Ministry of Interior National Directorate General for Disaster Management)
  • István SABJANICS (Ministry of Interior)
  • Péter SZABÓ (Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE))
  • Miklós SZÓCSKA (Semmelweis University)

Ministry of Interior
Science Strategy and Coordination Department
Address: H-2090 Remeteszőlős, Nagykovácsi út 3.
Phone: (+36 26) 795 906
E-mail: scietsec@bm.gov.hu

DOAJ

2020  
CrossRef Documents 13
CrossRef Cites 0
CrossRef H-index 0
Days from submission to acceptance 247
Days from acceptance to publication 229
Acceptance Rate 36%

Publication Model Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge none

Scientia et Securitas
Language Hungarian
English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2020
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Academic Council of Home Affairs and
Association of Hungarian PhD and DLA Candidates
Founder's
Address
H-2090 Remeteszőlős, Hungary, Nagykovácsi út 3.
H-1055 Budapest, Hungary Falk Miksa utca 1.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN ISSN 2732-2688

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Feb 2022 0 0 0
Mar 2022 0 0 0
Apr 2022 0 0 0
May 2022 0 0 0
Jun 2022 0 0 0
Jul 2022 0 27 4
Aug 2022 0 139 97

A COVID–19 patológiája.

Halálok SARS-CoV-2-fertőzésben: vírusfertőzésben vagy vírusfertőzéssel?

Authors:
Zsuzsa Schaff
,
Krisztina Danics
,
Adrián Pesti
,
Gábor Lotz
,
Tibor Várkonyi
,
Deján Dobi
,
István Vályi-Nagy
,
Klára Törő
,
Tibor Glasz
, and
András Kiss