Throughout the Covid era, those expressing views at odds with the dominant narrative were often subjected to unprecedented levels of
censorship and psychological manipulation. Academic journals played a significant role in this silencing of alternative voices by, for example,
ignoring the work of established scholars,
perpetuating bias,
rejecting research papers that reached conclusions inconsistent with mainstream views, and demonstrating a financial motivation to only publish studies favourable to the pharmaceutical industry. As a consequence of this partiality,
the perceived scientific integrity of academic periodicals has suffered considerable damage. Alas, a recent article in the once highly respected
Nature journal will have done nothing to improve the credibility of the academic press.
The article, titled "
Mastering the art of persuasion during a pandemic", is a supplementary 'outlook' piece written by Elizabeth Svoboda, a Californian science journalist. Drawing on the perspectives of a cluster of social science experts,
Svoboda lauds the importance of health policymakers deploying "effective communication strategies" so as to ensure that the populace do the right things when faced with the next global pandemic. She asserts that a range of behavioural science strategies, or "nudges", will be of central importance in enhancing compliance with public health restrictions when the next novel respiratory virus emerges over the horizon. The article, however, is
riddled with highly questionable assumptions and ideological biases.
Comment: Bottom line (literally): All we need to know is who funded the article.