Written evidence submitted by Professor Jonathan Ball

(Professor of Virology and Director of the Wolfson Centre for Global Virus Research at The University of Nottingham)

Inquiry: Misinformation and trusted voices

• Evidence provided by Prof Jonathan Ball, professor of virology, the University of Nottingham, specialising in emerging virus infections, including coronaviruses.
• I was awarded a British Science Association Media Fellowship, which I spent with the BBC at New Broadcasting House, where I trained in science communication (online and broadcast).
• Since then, I have been heavily involved in science communication including offering expert advice on virology, immunity and immunisation to various print, online and broadcast either directly or via the Science Media Centre. I am also engaged on some social media platforms, mainly Twitter.
• I held daily listeners Q&A spot on BBC radio Nottingham for approximately 2 years during the coronavirus pandemic.
• My evidence relates to publicly available information about virology and immunisation, with a major focus on reports arising during the coronavirus pandemic.

Which organisations are the most trusted sources of information in the UK?

• I have found that the vast majority of mainstream broadsheet, ‘red-top’ print and online science journalists seek and usually provide accurate and balanced information, irrespective of the political leaning of the parent company/publication.
• Whilst journalists who don’t specialise in science seek balanced views and opinions, their lack of subject knowledge/specialism can result in confusing and potentially misleading articles, but this isn’t rife.
• A minority of [very popular] online outlets occasionally seek more sensational, less scientifically robust news items, but often the response of other outlets is to challenge these.
• Overall, broadcast (TV and radio) outlets provide balanced reporting of scientific stories, again seeking a variety of views, although in my opinion the BBC (TV, radio and online) goes the extra mile to ensure balance and accuracy.
• Some of the commercial radio news/talk shows were more overt in following a particular agenda (e.g. anti-lockdown), although it wasn’t clear if this was due to production/presenter ideals or a wider organisational steer/ethos.

Where do you seek authoritative information to make up your mind about matters of national debate (such as vaccines and climate change)?

• My understanding of scientific issues such as vaccines is derived from primary scientific literature. This enables me to make a valid judgement on how this and related issues are reported by the media. My good relationship with various journalists also means that I can contact them on issues that I feel are poorly or inaccurately reported.
• On matters such as climate change, which are inevitably more politicised, I rely on outlets (e.g. BBC) that are less obviously influenced by political pressure, as well as expert opinion provided by outlets such as ‘The Conversation’ (https://theconversation.com/uk).

Are you able to “do your own research” on matters of national debate?

• Yes, I work in academia and therefore have direct access to a wealth of published information and expert view.

What role should the National Academies have in being a source of authoritative, trustworthy information?

• National Academies and professional bodies have a crucial role in providing authoritative information, and often do so (e.g. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists advice on COVID-19 and vaccines during pregnancy [https://www.rcog.org.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-pregnancy-and-women-s-health/vaccination/]).

Are National Academies prominent enough voices in engaging with the variety of debates on the internet?

• National Academies and professional bodies often provide easily accessible information on the internet, and this often appears to be in response to misleading information appearing on the internet / social media outlets. However, their presence on, and engagement with social media platforms is less obvious.

Is the provision of authoritative information responsive enough to meet the challenge of misinformation that is spread on social media?

• Controlling and moderating social media and internet information to remove misleading/erroneous information (whilst allowing healthy debate) is particularly challenging. Whilst authoritative information is available, it is usually experts acting on their own who engage in debate on social media outlets that I am involved in. This can get exhausting and frustrating for those attempting to allay problems caused by such information. Whilst social media and online information could be better moderated, it is challenging considering the need to allow healthy debate and challenge.
• The internet and social media platforms are the major sources of misinformation.