Who is watching the World Health Organisation? ‘Post-truth’ moments beyond infodemic research agenda

What is it about?

An opinion piece raising several constructive criticisms of the World Health Organisation (WHO) infodemic research agenda. A major criticism is its lack of earnest discussion on how health authorities’ own guidelines contribute to mis-/mal-/disinformation. Rushed guidance based on weak evidence from international health organisations can perpetuate negative health and other societal outcomes, not ameliorate them. If health authorities’ choices are not up for review and debate, there is a danger that a hidden goal of the WHO's infodemic (or related disinfodemic funders’ research) could be to direct attention away from the multiple failures of authorities in fighting pandemics with inappropriate measures.

Featured Image

Photo by Marten Newhall on Unsplash

Photo by Marten Newhall on Unsplash

Why is it important?

The global health crisis of COVID-19 presents a fertile ground for exploring the complex division of knowledge labour in a ‘post-truth’ era. Scholars have already described the example of #COVID-19 knowledge production at university. We add divisions of knowledge labour for (1) the ‘infodemic/disinfodemic research agenda’, (2) ‘mRNA vaccine research’ and (3) ‘personal health responsibility’. By focusing on the relationships between health communication, public health policy and recommended medical interventions, we spotlight many inter- and intra-group contradictions. As an example from (1), the WHO positions itself and its partners (such as Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and public health agencies) as scientific authorities that arbitrate what constitutes medical truth or, alternatively, disinformation. In the infodemic research agenda, the WHO adopts the status of the ultimate truth provider, an organisation whose verdicts can be accepted without question. We flag that any international health organisation that wishes to be an evaluator must have the scientific expertise for managing this ongoing ‘paradox’, or irresolvable contradiction. Organisations such as the WHO may theoretically be able to convene such knowledge, but their dependency on funding from conflicted parties would normally render them ineligible to perform such a task. Further, rushed guidance based on weak evidence from international health organisations can perpetuate negative health and other societal outcomes, not ameliorate them. The article flags that if health authorities’ choices are not up for review and debate in the infodemic research agenda, there is a danger that a hidden goal of the @WHO #infodemic (or related #disinfodemic funders’ research) could be to direct attention away from the multiple failures of authorities in fighting pandemics with inappropriate measures.

Perspectives