My last question for today is sort of a two part question.
One of them is, social media being underutilized in epidemiology, and
then the follow up, which is, given so much information that can show up in
social media, is it, in the end of the day, going to be a positive thing?
Is it going to be a negative thing?
Should, how should we be sharing scientific information with the public and
begin a part of the conversation that may be social networked through social media?
So, first, I know, right?
You're asking great questions.
What, what's this world epidemiology and
then what's sort of our intersection with it?
>> So I'll, I'll take a stop at that.
And obviously the best person to answer that would be Marcel Salitea who's
not with us this semester.
But Marcel is really doing trailblazing work in digital epidemiology and
myself and Marcel are working on something about social media and
epidemiology but epidemiology of plants where,
where we have constructed something called plant village.
To do this very thing, leverage power of the mobile phone in,
in, in people's pockets to make a world wide map of disease and plans and
how we might control this.
I think it's really crucial to emphasis that social,
social media is really just growing out of humans innate desire to share information.
And we've always been doing that.
And when we share information, and it, it's always important to
realize that the larger the group, the better the information.
Because what happens in that case is you get something called crowd sourcing.
Very wonderful example comes from an statistician at Galton who went,
who went to a show in England where many people bought tickets in order to
guess the size of a bull, and not an individual guess correctly, but when you
look at the distribution of guesses, it came within one pound of the actual wait.
So the large of the people, number of people guessing, the better the,
the chance of you finding the right result.
And so because of that, if we open up the gates,
so many, many people who are not perhaps traditionally the knowledge of doctors or
policy makers, we could have lots of individuals coming in.
We're doing that with a Plant Village.
You know, up to half a million users who are finding,
who are getting great quality information and
more importantly which I think it's relevant to today's cie, society.
We can pick up a bowl in the moment is that we're finding where there
are boundaries to our knowledge,
we can find out what don't know as well as what we do know.
So the crowd works very effectively.
So, working for plants and lots of people are thinking about it in the complex of
human diseases and animal diseases.
And I'll, I'll give it up to others from there.
>> Well you bring up an interesting point, just to jump in,
that we've talked about it some as unobtrusive observation.
>> Mm-hm. >> But you and
Plant Village are actually recruiting the public as citizens scientist.
>> Yes.
>> To report on things that they're observing.
>> Uh-huh. >> And it didn't take social media for
us to do that.
We've had a long history of that with,
the one that's most familiar to me is with birds.
>> Yeah. Where people have been really a part,
at least the United States, involved in tracking and sending it by paper.
>> Yeah.
Their records, as sort of, as citizens in scientists.
>> Sure. >> So it, it didn't have to
take social media for it to happen.
>> No. >> And it can be both unobtrusive
>> Yeah, yeah.
>> Watching and tracking, as well as actually inviting people.
>> Yeah. >> So that's
the case where social media seemed to work really, in a positive fashion.
>> Hm. >> Of course there are some
negative examples.
Also, some refu, vaccine refusal.
>> Hm.
>> Is clearly as something.
>> Yeah. >> That spreads in a social context.
>> Yeah. And it was very interested in,
in, in that context that there was a, a thread on the forum that started, I think,
yesterday that was about the fact that there was a video last week.
>> Mm-hm. >> That talked about how measles had
been eradicated from the Americans.
And then, but then there were various people posting
various information from CDC showing that well, so that's, doesn't seem to be true.
And sadly that, the video was filmed last year.
>> And it looked like things were >> Yeah, yeah, sure.
>> Were good last year but of course we've seen a reemergence of.
>> Yes. >> Of measles with lots of
clusters now because, I mean.
>> Yes. >> Those people are not vaccinating.
And that's the case where, where I guess social status.
>> Yeah. >> Negative non constructive social
sentiment >> Yeah, yeah.
>> Is spread here and, and sort of, sort of.
>> I guess the antidote there and
we definitely need an antidote is to increase the size of the crowd so, so
to, you know, it's not as if you're going to reverse that trend.
People in forums can have polarizing views and
especially when we have celebrities, in the case of the vaccine controversy,
actually driving that [INAUDIBLE] get a larger megaphone.
I guess the solution there is having a lot more scientists and policy makers.
People who, who believe in the,
the efficacy of data being part of the ongoing discussion.
because we're certainly not going to roll it back to a pre Jenny McCarthy, blog,
blogging blogsphere approach which where it got loud voice carries most right?
>> You know, I do think it's an interesting question though in
the case of vaccine refusals.
It's there is a often more informed people are more likely to
be having a brutal fusing at least in terms of higher education.
So it's not a question necessarily of just saying here's the data the data
are very persuasive.
Somehow the messaging needs to be handled well.
I think from the vexing refusal perspective we need a Jenny McCarthy
of the projects in.
>> Sure. >> camp.
It's not actually the data, no there's no question about the data.
>> Sure. >> It's a question of
getting the messaging right.
>> Sure. >> And
then this social media well we're either going to do short, punchy,.
>> Yeah. >> No wishy washy scientific stuff.
Needs to be done.
>> So just doing a straight, a counter-example to that and
what's actually taking with the taking place with the [INAUDIBLE] in the moment.
What's taking place, it, it there was a review and
I think it was done by CNN actually, that they showed that that people in
America trust what the government would do on a vote.
They don't trust what the government's going to do, but
they trust what they're going to do with the vote.
In West Africa, you do not trust at
all what the government's going to do >> Yeah.
>> On anything to do with healthcare.
So where is it you get your information from if you live in Africa?
>> Sure. >> It's not from the public health system,
it's not from the government.
You get it from your local fish.
>> Sure, it's true.
>> And yet, there's quite a lot of p, local witch doctor type people.
>> Yeah, yeah. >> Who
are giving information which is not necessarily the right thing.
>> Yeah. >> There's,
refusal about the fact that Ebola's even caused by a virus.
>> Yes, yes. >> And so that it can be transmitted.
>> Yes. >> So, there, so, so
there's a very interesting difference between what we see in the west world.
>> Yeah. >> And what we
see in the developing world.
>> Yeah.
So I, I actually bring some data to the table on this.
Not about Ebola or human disease, but of plants.
Hershey chocolate did a really great campaign in West Africa
down in the Ivory Coast, where they wanted to educate people about
plant diseases which were devastating for their livelihoods, particularly cows.
And they set up this wonderful system of sending out messages.
Let it grow where we sent out,
I think, 1.2 million SMS messages over the course of two years.
And they saw great returns, great productivity.
The very first messages sent out was, the disease is not caused by Voodoo.
And it's really important when you're working these landscapes,
you have to recognize problems.
>> Yes. >> Work with
local people very effectively.
Many of them are going to be religious leaders in communities and
realize what's germane to the local knowledge base and then speak to that.
I think that's really crucial.
>> Yes, yeah.
>> But one response has been, well if we're going to have misinformation out
there because we've said anything then maybe the solution is just stop talking.
Maybe we should just stop sharing information.
That's one of the policy responses.
>> Yeah. >> I have to say,
that makes me feel very nervous.
>> Yep. >> I think as soon as we
start treating the public as something we need to not trust, hide information from,
that's, bad things lie that way.
>> Mm-hm.
>> I think, actually the onus is more on us to get the messaging and
the clarity out rather than them to hide information.
>> Yeah, I to, I totally agree.
This is totally wrong, this is starting like Russia.
>> Yeah. >> When you start talking like that.
So we gotta get them, and, but this is a problem that the public often has.
It's that, you know, you as a scientist might say something, and
I say something that I disagree with, and we're happy with.
>> Sure, sure. >> We have different perspectives.
But the public finds that difficult.
>> Yeah. >> They want to know what to do.
>> Yeah. >> They do not embrace uncertainty.
>> Yeah. >> Uncertainty is difficult.
>> Yeah. >> Is difficult to handle.
>> I think we're just not being Socratic, we have to realize, you know, and
get that message across that we just don't know ans, many answers.
And, and, and you have to understand that.
It's very crucial.
>> And then they should fund our research.
>> They should fund our studies.
>> Why my research more important.
>> No, no, no.
[LAUGH].
>> That is it.
[SOUND]
Dr. Ottar N. BjornstadProfessor of Entomology and Biology
Dr. Rachel A. SmithAssociate Professor
Dr. Mary L. PossProfessor of Biology
Dr. David P. HughesAssistant Professor of Entomology and Biology
Dr. Peter HudsonWillaman Professor of Biology
Dr. Matthew FerrariAssistant Professor of Biology
Dr. Andrew ReadAlumni Professor in the Biological Sciences, and Professor of Entomology
Dr. Marcel SalathéAssistant Professor of Biology
