CBRN Disinformation And The Scientific And Technical Community
While the S&T community is generally regarded as a source of factual and objective information, its credibility makes it an attractive target for malign actors seeking to manipulate public narratives. By undermining trust in scientific evidence, institutions and experts, such actors can create uncertainty, distort public understanding and make CBRN disinformation1 more likely to take hold. Disinformation not only erodes public trust in S&T expertise but can also influence high-stakes diplomatic and policy decisions.
INTERSECTION OF S&T COMMUNITY AND DISINFORMATION
CBRN disinformation can both emerge from within and target the S&T community. The space where non-experts interact with S&T information is the most vulnerable, as accurate information can be distorted or misrepresented, or misinformation can be capitalised upon to propagate disinformation narratives and fuel harmful misconceptions.
Disinformation is spread from within the S&T community
Appeals to authority: The perceived credibility of S&T experts could be leveraged to lend legitimacy to false and misleading claims.
Example: Citing technical experts who are misquoted, taken out of context, or lack relevant expertise.
Academic publishing: Misaligned incentives can encourage the publication of flawed, misleading or deliberately manipulated research, which may subsequently be used to support disinformation.
Example: A research paper containing unverified or poor-quality data can be spread whether the underlying errors are intentional (e.g. manipulated data) or unintentional (e.g. errors in research leading to erroneous results).
Disinformation is spread using the work published by the S&T community
Mischaracterisation of S&T research in the media.
Example: A media outlet selectively quotes research findings and removes key caveats to falsely portray the research as supporting or refuting a predetermined claim.
Mischaracterisation of S&T research in decision-making bodies.
Example: A state actor misrepresents S&T literature in an international disarmament forum to erode trust and increase geopolitical tensions.
LONG-TERM COUNTERMEASURES
Strengthen quality controls
Conduct rigorous peer review, source checking and validation.
Communicate uncertainty clearly
Explain limitations, caveats and confidence levels.
Engage communicators early
Work with media and policy communicators to ensure findings are accurately represented.
Communicate directly
Provide accessible, authoritative explanations of complex or contested research.
Correct the record
Actively publicise retractions, corrections and significant errors.
Address systemic incentives
Recognise pressures that can contribute to poor-quality or misleading research.
Check AI-generated content
Verify AI-assisted research and drafting before publication.
Verify experts
Assess expertise, affiliations and relevant conflicts of interest.
Use multiple qualified voices
Seek independent perspectives rather than relying on a single source.
Carefully check sources
Verify citations, underlying studies and whether sources have been retracted or discredited.
Contextualise findings
Retain important caveats, uncertainties and limitations.
Avoid sensationalism
Do not overstate findings through headlines or framing.
Correct the record
Clearly report significant corrections and retractions.
Assess the evidence
Evaluate the quality, provenance and limitations of information.
Carefully check sources
Trace secondary claims back to authoritative primary evidence.
Compare interpretations
Consider alternative explanations and competing expert views.
Identify manipulation
Identify selective, decontextualized or misleading use of S&T evidence.
Consult specialists
Seek subject-matter expertise on complex technical claims.
Build S&T literacy
Strengthen capacity to critically interpret S&T information.
Check technical claims
Assess the evidence, context and provenance of S&T claims.
Seek qualified expertise
Consult relevant technical experts when interpreting complex or high-stakes claims.
Maintain technical expertise
Ensure appropriate S&T expertise is represented in CBRN/WMD discussions.
Challenge unsupported claims
Identify and question misleading or selectively presented evidence.
Build S&T literacy
Develop sufficient understanding to recognise questionable technical claims.
[1] CBRN disinformation is the deliberate creation and spread of false or misleading information about CBRN materials, technologies, capabilities or activities, including both peaceful and military applications. Definitively identifying disinformation can be challenging, as intent and attribution are often unclear. For brevity, this note adopts a broad definition of “disinformation” that includes other information operations, such as misinformation, as they mislead the audience and shape perception and behaviour.