Canada has lost the measles elimination status it has held since 1998. To regain that status, one crucial factor is hearing from researchers who speak about vaccine safety in public.
Canada cannot afford to lose expert voices at a moment when the threat of vaccine-preventable diseases is rising. Yet our work suggests that online harassment is a growing deterrent that is driving researchers and scientists out of the conversations needed at this time.
Harassment is a long-standing problem in academia. While it occurs within different institutions and disciplines, it has increasingly taken the form of online attacks from people outside of academia. It is a phenomenon that accelerated during the Covid-19 pandemic, and one where health experts are left to cope alone.
Canadian institutions and research organisations need to create broad support for these individuals.
Our recent study on prominent Canadian health communicators — including university researchers and public health officials — found that 94%, or 33 of 35 interviewees, had faced online abuse during the pandemic.
Online harassment goes beyond vaccines and Covid-19; climate change, gender diversity, immigration and other topics have all triggered a backlash. But we found that vaccination was one of the topics most likely to trigger abuse, and it is an issue that has become increasingly politicised in Canada.
As with many issues in Canada, developments in the United States have played a major role. For instance, a 2021 study on vaccine hesitancy in Canada showed how social media conversations on vaccinations were heavily influenced by discussions in the US. It turned out that Canadians followed a median of 32 Canadian accounts and 87 American accounts.
With such interconnected information ecosystems, anti-science harassment directed at American researchers routinely spills into Canadian online spaces. This is worsened when senior officials in the US administration publicly express a lack of support for immunisation and evidence-based health recommendations.
Canadian universities and academic institutions need to develop mitigation and support strategies to deal with online harassment fuelled by these realities.
We can learn from action plans by US-based universities and coalitions. Canada can also learn from models in countries like the Netherlands that have created national initiatives to support researchers experiencing harassment.
While academics should be comfortable having their ideas challenged, technology-facilitated harassment is very different. Online harassment is often linked with other forms of targeted abuse and includes acts of doxxing, reputation attacks or threatening and sexualised messaging, among others.
Though this hostility often targets individuals working on politically contested issues, researchers from equity-deserving groups face online abuse that builds on systemic inequities related to race, gender, sexuality and other identity factors.
Besides having serious personal, institutional and societal consequences, this reality risks creating information gaps that could be quickly filled by conspiracy theories. Some health researchers decided to stop media interviews or social media posts on controversial issues. So should they simply avoid public engagement on contentious topics?
While this approach might lessen the risks, it would also dramatically reduce the impact of their expertise. Public engagement is not only a key part of research grants but it also ensures that people benefit directly from research.
Currently, scholars and public health communicators targeted with online abuse mainly use individual coping strategies such as deleting social media accounts, withdrawing from public communication or accepting abuse as inevitable.
These strategies, however, leave individuals to address attacks in isolation. While such measures provide temporary relief, they reinforce self-censorship and hamper public access to expert knowledge.
Institutions need to adopt "wraparound" support. This approach acknowledges researcher agency and institutional responsibility through a rights-based framework. It also shifts responsibility from individuals to institutions.
Our institution, the University of British Columbia, for example, offers cybersecurity assistance, mental health support and other key elements of a response.
However, when we consulted faculty and staff, we learned that people found it daunting to figure out all the supports available and how to access them.
If we expect scientists and health experts to speak out about issues like measles vaccination for the good of society, they must know that their employers and institutions will stand with them, that they will have their backs.
Canada cannot prepare for future public health emergencies, like another pandemic, without protecting the safety of researchers and their freedom to pursue their lines of inquiry without fear. — theconversation.com
■ Heidi JS Tworek is professor of history and public policy at the University of British Columbia; Chris Tenove is assistant director, Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, at the University of British Columbia; and Netheena Neena Mathews is a research assistant at the University of British Columbia.
