The Psychology of Fake News

This volume examines the phenomenon of fake news by bringing together leading experts from different fields within psychology and related areas, and explores what has become a prominent feature of public discourse since the first Brexit referendum and the 2016 US election campaign. Dealing with misinformation is important in many areas of daily life, including politics, the marketplace, health communication, journalism, education, and science. In a general climate where facts and misinformation blur, and are intentionally blurred, this book asks what determines whether people accept and share (mis)information, and what can be done to counter misinformation? All three of these aspects need to be understood in the context of online social networks, which have fundamentally changed the way information is produced, consumed, and transmitted. The contributions within this volume summarize the most up-to-date empirical findings, theories, and applications and discuss cutting-edge ideas and future directions of interventions to counter fake news. Also providing guidance on how to handle misinformation in an age of “alternative facts”, this is a fascinating and vital reading for students and academics in psychology, communication, and political science and for professionals including policy makers and journalists

The Pandemic of Argumentation

This open access book addresses communicative aspects of the current COVID-19 pandemic as well as the epidemic of misinformation from the perspective of argumentation theory. Argumentation theory is uniquely placed to understand and account for the challenges of public reason as expressed through argumentative discourse. The book thus focuses on the extent to which the forms, norms and functions of public argumentation have changed in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. This question is investigated along the three main research lines of the COST Action project CA 17132: European network for Argumentation and Public PoLicY analysis (APPLY): descriptive, normative, and prescriptive. The volume offers a broad range of contributions which treat argumentative phenomena that are directly related to the changes in public discourse in the wake of the outburst of COVID-19. The volume additionally places particular emphasis on expert argumentation, given (i) the importance expert discourse has had over the last two years, and (ii) the challenges that expert argumentation has faced in the public sphere as a result of scientific uncertainty and widespread misinformation. Contributions are divided into three groups, which (i) examine various features and aspects of public and institutional discourse about the COVID-19 pandemic, (ii) scrutinize the way health policies have been discussed, debated, attacked and defended in the public sphere, and (iii) consider a range of proposals meant to improve the quality of public discourse, and public deliberation in particular, in such a way that concrete proposals for argumentative literacy will be brought to light. Overall, this volume constitutes a timely inquiry into all things argumentative in pandemic discourse. This volume is of interest to a broad readership including philosophers, linguists, communication and legal scholars, and members of the wider public who seek to better understand the discourse surrounding communicative phenomena in times of crisis. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a funding organisation for research and innovation networks. For more information: www.cost.e

The Pandemic of Argumentation

This open access book addresses communicative aspects of the current COVID-19 pandemic as well as the epidemic of misinformation from the perspective of argumentation theory. Argumentation theory is uniquely placed to understand and account for the challenges of public reason as expressed through argumentative discourse. The book thus focuses on the extent to which the forms, norms and functions of public argumentation have changed in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. This question is investigated along the three main research lines of the COST Action project CA 17132: European network for Argumentation and Public PoLicY analysis (APPLY): descriptive, normative, and prescriptive. The volume offers a broad range of contributions which treat argumentative phenomena that are directly related to the changes in public discourse in the wake of the outburst of COVID-19. The volume additionally places particular emphasis on expert argumentation, given (i) the importance expert discourse has had over the last two years, and (ii) the challenges that expert argumentation has faced in the public sphere as a result of scientific uncertainty and widespread misinformation. Contributions are divided into three groups, which (i) examine various features and aspects of public and institutional discourse about the COVID-19 pandemic, (ii) scrutinize the way health policies have been discussed, debated, attacked and defended in the public sphere, and (iii) consider a range of proposals meant to improve the quality of public discourse, and public deliberation in particular, in such a way that concrete proposals for argumentative literacy will be brought to light. Overall, this volume constitutes a timely inquiry into all things argumentative in pandemic discourse. This volume is of interest to a broad readership including philosophers, linguists, communication and legal scholars, and members of the wider public who seek to better understand the discourse surrounding communicative phenomena in times of crisis. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a funding organisation for research and innovation networks. For more information: www.cost.e

Cyber Law and Espionage Law as Communicating Vessels

Professor Lubin\u27s contribution is Cyber Law and Espionage Law as Communicating Vessels, pp. 203-225. Existing legal literature would have us assume that espionage operations and “below-the-threshold” cyber operations are doctrinally distinct. Whereas one is subject to the scant, amorphous, and under-developed legal framework of espionage law, the other is subject to an emerging, ever-evolving body of legal rules, known cumulatively as cyber law. This dichotomy, however, is erroneous and misleading. In practice, espionage and cyber law function as communicating vessels, and so are better conceived as two elements of a complex system, Information Warfare (IW). This paper therefore first draws attention to the similarities between the practices – the fact that the actors, technologies, and targets are interchangeable, as are the knee-jerk legal reactions of the international community. In light of the convergence between peacetime Low-Intensity Cyber Operations (LICOs) and peacetime Espionage Operations (EOs) the two should be subjected to a single regulatory framework, one which recognizes the role intelligence plays in our public world order and which adopts a contextual and consequential method of inquiry. The paper proceeds in the following order: Part 2 provides a descriptive account of the unique symbiotic relationship between espionage and cyber law, and further explains the reasons for this dynamic. Part 3 places the discussion surrounding this relationship within the broader discourse on IW, making the claim that the convergence between EOs and LICOs, as described in Part 2, could further be explained by an even larger convergence across all the various elements of the informational environment. Parts 2 and 3 then serve as the backdrop for Part 4, which details the attempt of the drafters of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 to compartmentalize espionage law and cyber law, and the deficits of their approach. The paper concludes by proposing an alternative holistic understanding of espionage law, grounded in general principles of law, which is more practically transferable to the cyber realmhttps://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1220/thumbnail.jp

Community Engagement in the International Emergency Response to Ebola, 2014-2016

An unsafe and illegal burial conducted in Port Loko, Sierra Leone during the Ebola epidemic of 2014-2016 exposed competing risk perspectives between emergency responders and the affected community, and called into question community engagement (CE) efforts in the response – particularly regarding strict, but culturally-problematic burial protocols. This work interrogates the effectiveness of CE through development of a novel, two-dimensional metric. The first dimension builds on the work of Davidson (1998) and others to parse CE efforts into four distinct domains: Information Provision, Consultation, Participation, and Community Empowerment. The second dimension builds on the work of Arnstein (1969) and others to create a semi-quantitative scale which assigns an Empowerment Score from zero to two, assessing the degree to which community feedback leads to material changes in interventions in each domain. The Empowerment Score methodology was applied to analyze CE efforts reported in literature and in the CE standards of international response organizations. The methodology was then used in a modified Delphi survey of responders and anthropologists with experience in the Ebola response in Sierra Leone, to characterize the successes and shortcomings of CE efforts, with a focus on burial of persons who had died of Ebola. Quantitative analysis of Delphi panelists’ numeric scores, combined with qualitative analysis of their textual comments, revealed substantial disagreement between diverse experts regarding the appropriateness or success of CE efforts in the response. However, there was general agreement among the experts that future epidemic responses should take into account cultural concerns in the negotiation of burial protocols or other interventions that may collide with cultural values. For future emergency responses, the incorporation of social scientists such as anthropologists into CE structures, as well as intentional involvement of community members in the planning and implementation of disease-control measures, is recommended. Additionally, the international emergency response community is called to a posture of humility, acknowledging that realities other than the medicalized and materialistic drive human behavior, including health-affecting behavior. Respectful engagement with risk as understood by a community, combined with a Harm Reduction philosophy to define interventions, may save more lives than biomedically pure, but coercive approaches

Synthetic Biology

Synthetic biology gives us a new hope because it combines various disciplines, such as genetics, chemistry, biology, molecular sciences, and other disciplines, and gives rise to a novel interdisciplinary science. We can foresee the creation of the new world of vegetation, animals, and humans with the interdisciplinary system of biological sciences. These articles are contributed by renowned experts in their fields. The field of synthetic biology is growing exponentially and opening up new avenues in multidisciplinary approaches by bringing together theoretical and applied aspects of science

Ultrasensitive detection of toxocara canis excretory-secretory antigens by a nanobody electrochemical magnetosensor assay.

peer reviewedHuman Toxocariasis (HT) is a zoonotic disease caused by the migration of the larval stage of the roundworm Toxocara canis in the human host. Despite of being the most cosmopolitan helminthiasis worldwide, its diagnosis is elusive. Currently, the detection of specific immunoglobulins IgG against the Toxocara Excretory-Secretory Antigens (TES), combined with clinical and epidemiological criteria is the only strategy to diagnose HT. Cross-reactivity with other parasites and the inability to distinguish between past and active infections are the main limitations of this approach. Here, we present a sensitive and specific novel strategy to detect and quantify TES, aiming to identify active cases of HT. High specificity is achieved by making use of nanobodies (Nbs), recombinant single variable domain antibodies obtained from camelids, that due to their small molecular size (15kDa) can recognize hidden epitopes not accessible to conventional antibodies. High sensitivity is attained by the design of an electrochemical magnetosensor with an amperometric readout with all components of the assay mixed in one single step. Through this strategy, 10-fold higher sensitivity than a conventional sandwich ELISA was achieved. The assay reached a limit of detection of 2 and15 pg/ml in PBST20 0.05% or serum, spiked with TES, respectively. These limits of detection are sufficient to detect clinically relevant toxocaral infections. Furthermore, our nanobodies showed no cross-reactivity with antigens from Ascaris lumbricoides or Ascaris suum. This is to our knowledge, the most sensitive method to detect and quantify TES so far, and has great potential to significantly improve diagnosis of HT. Moreover, the characteristics of our electrochemical assay are promising for the development of point of care diagnostic systems using nanobodies as a versatile and innovative alternative to antibodies. The next step will be the validation of the assay in clinical and epidemiological contexts

Evolution of information and decision-making theory using heuristics and biases to analyze pilots’ decision not to vaccinate against COVID-19

Using airline 25 pilots due to their uniformity in education, political views, personality traits, and dimensions, an informed grounded theory (GT) studied how the subjects in an information overload environment selected sources and consumed information to create mental models on COVID-19 and make a protective action decision to vaccinate or not. A semi-structured interview guide was used for the Zoom interviews. The developed substantive theory revealed that people’s response to an informational overload environment is to limit the amount and type of information vying for their attention. Individuals prefer to accept like-minded information, so most people will limit sources to a similar type of information in what is termed narrowcasting. An individual’s mental model of a novel threat or hazard will be formed and anchored by this information flow and previous personal experience. The formed mental model is influenced by the bias and veracity of their information sources. The attention of competing information sources is either accepted or rejected based on the congruence of the new information source with the established mental model and the person’s trust in the source of information. More exposure to extreme information and the lack of moderating sources will push and harden the anchor point of a person’s mental model to a more extreme position. Most people lack the expertise to identify and process factual information from misinformation to make appropriate risk analysis and protective action decisions. The least skilled in this area tend to be the most confident in their information validation and newly formed mental models. Individuals use impressions and feelings of the information (System 1) to form these mental models instead of analyzing a series of facts (System 2). People make logical action decisions and judgments based on their mental model no matter how extreme or moderate the position is. Appendices contain a comprehensive alphabetical listing of common heuristics and biases and misinformation definitions