Roller coaster rides are marked by ups and downs, wild turns and straightaways, and slow starts and fast stops. These extremes are part of what makes them exhilarating for some and scary to others.

The same is true of scientific discovery. It, too, can be characterized by these extremes — and, it is why some love the process of science, and others are scared by it. But, even for those who are not scientists, it is helpful to know more about how it works. During the pandemic, thousands of scientists around the world worked feverishly to learn about COVID-19.

As they shared their results, the findings were critically evaluated by their colleagues:

• Was the study designed well?
• Did they use proper controls?
• Were appropriate statistical analyses completed?
• Among others.

This is called peer review. It is an important part of the scientific process. To non-scientists, this may look like disagreement among scientists, and at some level, it is, but it is not disagreement based on beliefs. It is disagreement based on critical analysis of the study and the conclusions reached.

Another important part of these “discussions among scientists” is how the findings agree with existing knowledge. Have others found similar results? If not, which findings are supported with the most evidence? Is there some alternative explanation that allows both findings to coexist — something that may not have been considered yet, which will change how scientists think about the relevant body of knowledge?

To those who do not practice science, this may look like information is constantly changing, and they may conclude that no one is reliable. But the reality is that this is how science works, and it benefits everyone for it to work this way.

The roller coaster as part of the park

On a park map, you will find information about the roller coaster. Where is it located? Are there any rider restrictions? You may find a brief description that can help you sort out some of what you need to know, but it may or may not answer all of your questions.

The pandemic shaped daily life, so it was an important news story. As such, the media was working to share various aspects of the COVID-19 story. Fortunately, this meant the public could find out what was being learned quickly. Unfortunately, it meant that sometimes:

• Studies were reported before the scientific community had critically evaluated the findings. Sometimes, this is referred to as “science by press release.”
• The discussions among scientists were sometimes reported as arguments or disagreements, when in reality they represented a natural, and necessary, part of the scientific process.
• Information was incorrectly interpreted by the writer or reporter, who may not have had a scientific background.
• The space or time allotted to sharing a story likely only allowed for soundbites, requiring viewers to “fill in the blanks” or draw their own conclusions.

How the roller coaster compares with other roller coasters

Maybe to get more answers about what to expect on the roller coaster, you decide to check the internet. You are likely to find all kinds of stories about it — some good, some bad, some anecdotal, some informational. Regardless, chances are, you will value the stories that favor your own beliefs about the roller coaster. If you are inclined to ride it, you will “lean into” the good stories. If you are inclined not to ride, you will preferentially recall the bad stories.

The same is true of internet searches about other topics, including COVID-19:

• If someone has a pre-existing position on the topic, it will affect both how they search for information as well as the information they choose to review and their interpretation of it.
• The internet is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, meaning that some information may not have been vetted for accuracy before being posted.
• Related to this, some content providers specifically aim to misinform and disenfranchise, including, in some cases, posing as “experts.”
• Likewise, after spending time combing the internet about a particular topic, some assume the same amount of understanding as those who have spent their career studying it. Everyone who has a job can relate to the fact that the longer you are in a position, the more you learn about it, so while online research offers a great opportunity to gain understanding, it cannot replace the lived experience.

This means that “searching the internet” needs to be active and intentional, with a realization of the potential pitfalls. In many cases, the information being sought is to make a decision more consequential than whether or not to ride a roller coaster.

Your friends on the roller coaster

Maybe you talk to friends who have been to the park before to learn about their experiences. Chances are you will also discuss the roller coaster with your friends and even strangers as you stand in line together. These conversations will also color your thoughts about the impending ride. If those around you are excited, you likely will be too, but if you are with a nervous group, your anxiety may rise.

The same is true of social media as a source of news and information. While social media offers a great opportunity for us to “be social,” it is a less perfect way of being informed. Not only may the information be biased, but we can also be unduly influenced by those who immediately surround us — our networks.

As such, a few important considerations relate to getting information from social media channels:

• These channels provide information using filters that are purposefully “personalized.” While this sounds helpful, in reality, it positions people to only see information that supports their pre-existing interests or ideas. Therefore, if this is a person’s only source of information, they may be getting only part of a story.
• Likewise, it has been well reported that some have seized on the ability to spread misinformation on social media to divide people.
• Even if information is forwarded by a friend, respected contact or leader, it should be evaluated by its original source. If you can’t tell who originally posted it, you should not believe it or forward it until you can confirm it with information from a reliable organization or supporting data.
• Users should understand that getting news and information from social media is different than getting it from traditional media. The latter, while not perfect, presents content prepared by trained professionals and in accord with the Federal Communications Commission media policies. Similar policies are not, and have never been, in place for social media platforms. So, additional care and more critical evaluation of content on social media should be considered.

Tips for navigating the roller coaster

For those who need to make a decision about riding the roller coaster, they will need to evaluate the information they collected and consider who it is from to make the best decision for themselves. After riding the roller coaster, they will have their own information, and the more they ride, the more they will know.

Like the roller coaster, we now have information based on our collective experience with COVID-19. But, during the pandemic, we were left to gather information, evaluate it, and make the best decisions we could at that time. The same will always be true of scientific information. Even if it is not new to scientists, it may be new to you or others in the public. This means people need to:

1. Understand how science works.
2. Monitor multiple media sources, and evaluate the quality and breadth of information presented by each.
3. Critically evaluate information on the internet for its source, accuracy and potential biases.
4. Be honest with themselves about their own potential biases and develop a habit of actively evaluating information.
5. Remember that information from social media is subject to less regulation, may be biased toward the receiver’s interests, and may intentionally seek to misinform, including posts forwarded by friends.

Find resources that can help when evaluating information.