1.7: Bias, Pseudoscience, Fraud, and Misinformation Versus Disinformation

Bias, Pseudoscience, Fraud, and Misinformation Versus Disinformation

• Please read and watch the following Mandatory Resources
• Reading the material to gain understanding and taking notes during the videos will take approximately 1 hour.
• Optional Activities and Resources are embedded.
• To navigate to the next section, use the Contents menu at the top of the page OR the right arrow on the side of the page.
  • If you are using a mobile device, use the Contents menu at the top of the page or the links at the bottom.

Course Learning Objectives

• Read case studies and/or journal articles relating to women’s health and issues in women’s health.
• Demonstrate an understanding of terminology relating to issues in women’s health such as cancer, infertility, birth control, menopause, dieting disorders, reproductive tract infections, sexuality, pregnancy, and complications during pregnancy.
• Evaluate societal issues from a natural science perspective, ask questions about the evidence presented, and make informed judgments about science-related topics and policies.
• Demonstrate an awareness of the individual and institutional dynamics of unequal power relations between groups in contemporary society.
• Analyze your own attitudes, behaviors, concepts, and beliefs regarding diversity, racism, and bigotry.

Scientific Bias

The process of science is not biased.

However, humans conduct science, and all humans have biases. The strength of the scientific process in reducing bias lies in peer review. 

The next two videos below explore aspects of bias reduction within the process of science and within scientific institutions. 

The sections below discuss information that may seem related to science but is outside of these systemic checks and balances.

Video

This 5-minute video reiterates the purpose of the scientific method.
Question after watching: "Charles Molnar describes many ways in which human biases can influence how we observe or interpret the world around us. What steps do scientists put in place to try to remove these human biases from the process of learning about the world so that the final findings are as objective as possible?"

Video

This 3-minute video highlights the peer review process, which is the cornerstone in ensuring that published research is rigorous, reproducible, and ethically sound.
Question after watching: "What is meant by "peer" in "peer review"?"

Room for Improvement

The following is an excerpt from an article by Bridget Balch, published by the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), titled "Why we know so little about women's health."

It highlights a critical example of historical/continuing bias in medical research that affects more than 50% of the U.S. population and offers recommendations for overcoming these biases and improving future research.

Throughout history, doctors have considered women’s bodies atypical and men’s bodies the “norm,” despite women accounting for nearly half the global population and outnumbering men in the United States since 1946. Though policy and social changes in the 1990s have helped turn the tide, women remain underrepresented in research, sometimes grossly so. Many medical researchers even avoid conducting studies on female mice due to greater costs associated with purchasing and housing both sexes and concerns that the fluctuating hormones and reproductive systems of female mice might confound the study results.

 

Historical bias, policies designed to shield unborn children from exposure to drugs and treatments, and ongoing challenges to recruiting and retaining women in clinical trials and medical research limit the understanding of how women, and particularly women of color, experience disease and how best to treat them for many conditions.

 

This may contribute to health care disparities, as biological sex can play a role in physiological, metabolic, hormonal, and even cellular differences that can influence how diseases present and the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Failure to study medications and other interventions in a broad sampling of women has contributed to women experiencing adverse effects from medications at twice the rate of men. One 2013 study found that women with metal hip replacements were 29% more likely than men to experience implant failure, possibly due to anatomical differences and inadequate testing in women. And, despite heart disease being the leading cause of death in the United States for both men and women, the medical field only recognized that women experience different symptoms of the disease than men when the American Heart Association published a Guide to Preventive Cardiology for Women in 1999. Separate from biological sex differences, women also are less likely to receive appropriate prevention and management of heart disease due to gender bias.

 

As recently as 2019, women accounted for roughly 40% of participants in clinical trials for three of the diseases that most affect women — cancer, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric disorders — despite representing 51% of the U.S. population, according to a 2022 study by researchers at Harvard Medical School. Concerns also persist about the lack of information about medications and other interventions during pregnancy, since pregnant people are even more commonly excluded from trials. 

 

The picture is even more bleak for women of color. The MRCT Center published an article in 2022 pointing out that often clinical trial data do not report the intersection of biological sex and race, and that some systematic reviews of clinical trials that report such information show significant underrepresentation of women of color.

 

Despite the late start in studying many aspects of women’s health, there has been progress in increasing the inclusion of women in medical research, says Maria Brooks, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics and co-director of the Epidemiology Data Center at the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health. Brooks leads several national, large-scale studies, including one focused on menopause.

The AAMC's recommendations:

1. Attract and retain a diverse group of women in leadership roles for medical and clinical research.
2. Incorporate how biological sex differences affect medical care into medical education.
3. More robust and inclusive research and data collection.

Hopefully, with these recommendations, changes in NIH policies related to study designs that mandate more recruitment of women, especially women of color, and inclusion of other understudied groups in research, such as those of lower socioeconomic status, older women, and those in rural areas, we will gain a better understanding of women's health overall.

Balch, B. (2024, March 26). Why we know so little about women’s health. AAMC. https://www.aamc.org/news/why-we-kno...women-s-health

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Including women, especially underrepresented groups, in research studies is vitally important to gain a holistic picture of women's health.

Pseudoscience

True science is based on the repeated gathering and testing of evidence to falsifiable hypotheses.

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice that is presented as scientific but does not adhere to the standards and methods of science. It is "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific."  (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2026).

Pseudoscience does not adhere to the criteria of the scientific process and is often driven by cognitive biases. It usually lacks the carefully controlled, thoughtfully interpreted experiments that provide the foundation of the natural sciences and advance them. Examples of pseudoscience include astrology, many diet plans, extrasensory perception (ESP), Reiki, eugenics, flat Earth, 'crystal healing', and reflexology.

Characteristics of Pseudoscience

Whether a field is actually science or just pseudoscience is not always clear. However, pseudoscience generally exhibits certain common characteristics. Indicators of pseudoscience include:

• The use of vague, exaggerated, or untestable claims: Many claims made by pseudoscience cannot be tested with evidence. As a result, they cannot be falsified, even if they are not true.
• An over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation: Any incident that appears to justify a pseudoscience claim is treated as proof of the claim. Claims are assumed true until proven otherwise, and the burden of disproof is placed on skeptics of the claim.
• A lack of openness to testing by other experts: Practitioners of pseudoscience avoid peer review. They may refuse to share their data and justify the need for secrecy with claims of proprietary or privacy.
• An absence of progress in advancing knowledge: In pseudoscience, ideas are not subjected to repeated testing followed by rejection or refinement, as hypotheses are in true science. Ideas in pseudoscience may remain unchanged for hundreds, or even thousands, of years. In fact, the older an idea is, the more it tends to be trusted in pseudoscience.
• Personalization of issues: Proponents of pseudoscience often adopt beliefs with little or no rational basis, so they may seek to confirm them by treating critics as adversaries. Instead of arguing to support their own beliefs, they attack their critics' motives and character.
• The use of misleading language: Followers of pseudoscience may employ scientific-sounding terms to lend their ideas a more convincing appearance. For example, they may use the formal name 'dihydrogen monoxide' to refer to plain old water.

Video

This 6-minute video identifies three questions to ask yourself before believing something.
Question after watching: What are some instances of pseudoscience that you have seen or heard recently?

Persistence of Pseudoscience

Despite failing to meet scientific standards, many pseudosciences survive. Some pseudosciences remain very popular with large numbers of believers.

A good example is astrology. 

Astrology is the belief that the movements and relative positions of celestial objects can be used to divine information about human affairs and terrestrial events. Many ancient cultures attached importance to astronomical events, and throughout most of its history, astrology was widely accepted in academic circles. However, with the advent of modern scientific processes and evidence-based understanding of natural phenomena, astrology was reexamined. Challenged on both theoretical and experimental grounds, it was eventually shown to have no scientific validity or explanatory power.

While astrology is a pseudoscience, it remains a passionate subject or hobby for many. Many know their astrological sign, and some are familiar with the personality traits supposedly associated with it. Surprisingly, almost 30% all adult Americans actually believe that astrology is scientific.

Overall, studies suggest that the persistence of pseudosciences in culture, such as astrology, indicates that the public lacks a clear understanding of overall scientific principles and methods. These same individuals are not swayed by scientific arguments or evidence against their beliefs.

Dangers of Pseudoscience

Belief in astrology may seem unlikely to cause a person harm, but some have made rash or long-lasting poor decisions because of it.

Beliefs in other pseudosciences have even worse consequences, especially when related to health.

Treatments touted as scientific but not supported by evidence may be ineffective, expensive, and even dangerous to patients. Seeking pseudoscientific treatments may also delay or preclude patients from seeking medical treatments that have been scientifically tested and found safe and effective. In short, following pseudoscience instead of established health care practices may be harmful.

Fraud

Pseudoscience is not the only way that science may be misused.

Scientific fraud may misdirect the pursuit of science, put patients at risk, or mislead and confuse the public.  An example of scientific fraud and its negative effects is described below.

Example: The Vaccine-Autism Fraud

While it is not true, you may have heard that certain vaccines put the health of young children and others at risk.

This persistent idea lacks scientific support and is rejected by nearly all experts in the field.

It mostly stems from scientific fraud committed by a British physician, Andrew Wakefield, as reported in a 1998 article in the respected British medical journal The Lancet. Unfortunately, peer review is not perfect, and this article slipped through the cracks.

Wakefield and his colleagues described case histories of only 12 children, most of whom were reported to have developed autism soon after the administration of the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

There were many problems with this study:

• falsification of research,
• ethics violations, and
• experimental design problems.

Several things occurred once other scientists raised their many concerns with The Lancet and the leading scientific communities:

1. Wakefield's medical license was revoked, and he could no longer practice medicine.
2. The paper was retracted from the journal, meaning it was unpublished (a very big deal in the science community).
3. Most of the co-authors retracted their authorship and distanced themselves from the study.
4. Wakefield was discovered to have received research funding from a group suing vaccine manufacturers.

Thousands of proper scientific studies have been conducted since then, and none have shown any association between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Unfortunately, the damage has already been done. Parents, afraid that their children would develop autism, had refrained from having them vaccinated, putting them at serious risk for very preventable diseases. British MMR vaccination rates fell from nearly 100 percent to 80 percent in the years following the study.

Many children have become sick and developed complications or died from being unvaccinated. In addition, children and individuals who cannot receive vaccinations due to other health conditions are at increased risk of disease and death due to more people being unvaccinated.
Finally, millions of dollars of research funds were diverted away from finding the true cause or factors for autism.

Video

The speed with which information travels in the modern age has created the ideal conditions for something called circular reporting, a particular problem for misinformation, disinformation, and pseudoscience.
Question after watching: Where have you seen circular reporting in your own life?

Misinformation versus Disinformation

"Misinformation is false or inaccurate information—getting the facts wrong."

"Disinformation is false information which is deliberately intended to mislead—intentionally misstating the facts."

~American Psychological Association, 2026.

Humans are primed to believe those we are closest to and familiar with over experts. This is a problem that takes active critical thinking for most people to overcome and a skill to practice.

Misinformation and disinformation pose a significant problem for both scientists and non-scientists. 

The public currently receives incorrect information through:

• anecdotes of family and friends,
• social media
• those who benefit financially, such as large corporations,
• news organizations that do a cursory explanation or focus on sensational stories
• AI

For scientists, it is an uphill battle to combat this deluge of misinformation and disinformation to which the public is regularly exposed.

Thankfully, many scientists are finding their voices on social media and are using large platforms to combat both misinformation and disinformation. 

Video

This 5-minute video provides a background on why humans are hardwired to believe misinformation and how to combat our own instincts.
Question after watching: What types of misinformation have you noticed on social media, or you have believed at first, only to discover later is not true?

Video

This 2-minute video provides an example of disinformation where tobacco companies shared false information on the dangers of smoking.
Question after watching: How do you usually check where information comes from?

Spotting Bad Science  

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science. Compound Interest CC-BY-NC-ND