Text written in Basque and translated automatically by Elia without any subsequent editing. SEE ORIGINAL

The Doubt Industry

A famous footballer says he rejects sunscreen. He thinks it’s useless, that the body “by itself” knows what to do in front of the sun. The phrase has made its way into the networks: some have applauded in the name of “naturalness”, while others have sounded the alarm.

The example matters. Two very different planes are mixed here. On one side is the scientific evidence of dermatology and epidemiology; on the other, the intuition of a celebrity outside the field of health. Telling one’s own habits is one thing, however, turning that habit into a health message is something that goes beyond that person’s competence.

This is where a current form of scientific denialism appears, which is to sow suspicion without directly refuting science. “Maybe it’s not so clear,” “maybe there’s a commercial interest behind it,” “maybe you have to let the body make its way.” Without having to prove that science is wrong, it is enough to create permanent doubt.

The tobacco industry understood this well in the 20th century. It was more effective than refuting what the scientists had said to create enough doubt to delay or weaken the anti-smoking measures. Doubt became a business tool. Something similar happens today with climate change, vaccines, sunscreens or certain pseudo-therapies: when the evidence is uncomfortable, the erosion of their authority becomes the essence of the strategy.

The official report on homeopathy published in April well illustrates the core of the problem. The Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices, AEMPS, has come to the clear conclusion that there is not enough scientific evidence to recommend homeopathy as an effective treatment, and its effects are equivalent to placebo. But the public debate is still alive. Other answers soon appear: “but it has gone well for me”, “if it is natural, it will be harmless”, “medicine also fails”, “pharmacies hide the truth from us”, and so on.

These opinions are strong because they speak from personal experience. And personal experience deserves attention. Patients need to be heard. Pain, tiredness, fear or wanting to heal are more than just feelings. But the problem arises when personal experience becomes a substitute for scientific evidence. Feeling that something has benefited me is not enough to demonstrate the effectiveness of a treatment. In health, intuition cannot replace the test. Then disinformation turns into harm.

Social networks have increased this vulnerability. The language of science is complex because it speaks of risks, probabilities, and quality of evidence. Negationism, on the other hand, uses short slogans. And the influencer culture has added to this the tendency to confuse visibility and authority: having many followers does not imply health knowledge by itself, but a familiar face and a personal story can gain more strength in networks than a scientific article.

From the point of view of bioethics, the main question is: under what conditions do we make decisions about health? Autonomy is not about choosing anything, but about having reliable and understandable information to choose from, without false pressure or fear. False information makes the patient more vulnerable.

That is why combating denialism is the task of society as a whole: science, journalism, education, law, bioethics and public health. Saying “science says” is not enough. Explain how science knows, how data is collected, how errors are corrected, and why personal opinion and accumulated evidence are different things.

On this path, however, the answer must be measured well. General censorship is not adequate. But between prohibition and acceptance of everything there is a broad democratic field: limiting deceptive advertising, increasing the transparency of platforms and demonetizing denial messages to suppress the business model of misinformation.

In short, the work against scientific denialism does not seek to convince citizens of science in a blind way. Citizens have the right to ask questions, including questions from public authorities, pharmaceutical companies, doctors and scientists. However, this right must be accompanied by the right to reliable information. Science is not due to faith, nor is the lie worthy of the same scenario. In fact, the health lie is not lost in the air, it usually becomes a damage to someone’s body.