Here you will see SciBeh's current projects. If you would like to get involved with any of these, please contact the lead SciBeh team member listed, or email contact@scibeh.org and we will put you in touch with the right person. If you have an idea for a project that would benefit from collaboration, do get in touch! We are happy to help you lead a collective intelligence project with us. SciBeh Knowledge Base What's this project about? <span style=background-color:yellow>Here a description of what the knowledge base project is currently doing What can I get involved in? We welcome volunteers interested in: <span style=background-color:yellow>Add here</span>

Branching out Using current outline We need define node attributes on a separate line, I think. Ahh yes that cleans it up! I'm trying to see if vaccines at the top or vaccines at the centre looks better as a hierarchy. strict graph ip_map { "History"[URL = "https://scibeh.org"]

Video guide to SciBeh knowledge base You can watch the video below for a quick visual guide to using SciBeh's hypothes.is knowledge base. The video covers all the content covered below. About hypothes.is and the SciBeh knowledge base SciBeh maintains an eclectic knowledge base. Here you can find a wide range of items ranging from tweets, newspaper and blog articles, reports to preprints and peer-reviewed articles, all on the topic of behavioural science and responding to COVID-19. We use the tool hypothes.is to annotate each item in the knowledge base. This means that the curated items are tagged with key words, dates, and links to where the item has been referenced on the Internet. How the tool works SciBeh collects input from different sources: discussions on Twitter, Reddit, links sent to us by contributors. Our team of volunteers annotate all of these links---each volunteer annotates 100s each week!---using hypothes.is. When an item is annotated, it gets added to SciBeh's hypothes.is collection. That's the knowledge base you can search for COVID-19-related research and discussion. You can read more about the process of curating items for the knowledge here.

Our process, in brief, has been: Workshop was held with notes taken by assistants. [I’m trying to find this---the SciBeh notion page got upgraded and so it’s moved!] We invited attendees to sign up as authors or CLAs, with the commitments laid out (specifically: minimally a paragraph of writing for authors) Three different structures proposed (Ulrike, Miso, Dawn). Miso + Dawn independently reviewed the workshop notes and highlighted relevant points. This is all the stuff in the initial outline after the << NEW STRUCTURE AFTER VOTING ENDS HERE >> line on the g-doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xbWN9BwfKz4bzRKt0KHc9GaFjOUsPqmh/edit CLAs had a meeting to discuss structure, based on this proposal after people had commented as a springboard for discussion: • Establishing the problems that require CI as a solution o Current platforms/channels & limitations o External forces (“landscape” of SciComm and actors involved)

A Manifesto for Science Communication as Collective Intelligence Authors Join the conversation! Why citizens need reliable knowledge Many of the most pressing challenges societies face today—from climate change to global pandemics—require large-scale, collective decisions informed by the best available evidence. It is only when public beliefs are built on reliable knowledge, rather than poorly informed opinions, that we can successfully address these challenges. However, there are barriers to effective science communication, especially in rapidly evolving crisis situations or when evidence conflicts with political or commercial interests. Barriers: social media Social media notoriously prioritises emotion above evidence-based information and it is especially vulnerable to very active, extreme voices, which can skew users' perceptions of the opinion landscape. The rejection of authoritative sources can also create an "epistemic vacuum," leading people down the rabbit hole of conspiratorial sources and low-credibility content as they seek alternate sources and explanations.

Why citizens need reliable knowledge Many of the most pressing challenges societies face today—from climate change to global pandemics—require large-scale, collective decisions informed by the best available evidence. It is only when public beliefs are built on reliable knowledge, rather than poorly informed opinions, that we can successfully address these challenges. However, there are barriers to effective science communication, especially in rapidly evolving crisis situations or when evidence conflicts with political or commercial interests. Barriers: social media Social media notoriously prioritises emotion above evidence-based information and it is especially vulnerable to very active, extreme voices, which can skew users' perceptions of the opinion landscape. The rejection of authoritative sources can also create an "epistemic vacuum," leading people down the rabbit hole of conspiratorial sources and low-credibility content as they seek alternate sources and explanations. Barriers: misinformation Organized efforts to misinform or confuse the public, or to propagate conspiracy theories, endanger informed public discourse. For example, disinformation lobbying groups can disrupt science communication such that collectively supported opinions become treated as equal to collectively supported evidence. As a result, they restrict citizens from implementing scientifically sound solutions. Against organised disinformation campaigns, individual scientists are poorly matched, as they are vulnerable to direct attack from those opposed to specific types of scientific data.

Breakout discussion resources Taking notes Every room has a rapporteur for note-taking, but here are some group whiteboards you can use for brainstorming ideas together: :::spoiler Day 1, 18 Nov Room 1 Room 2 Room 3 Room 4

Session 1 (Thursday, 2-3.30 UK) Keynote: Kai Spiekermann Kai Spiekermann is Professor of Political Philosophy at the London School of Economics. Among his research interests are normative and positive political theory, philosophy of the social sciences, social epistemology and environmental change. He is particularly interested in applying formal methods, computational simulations, and experiments to problems in political philosophy. His recent publications have focused on mechanisms of norm avoidance, strategic ignorance and moral knowledge, on information aggregation, jury theorems and epistemic democracy, and on reductionism and holism in the social sciences. Panel Cecília Tomori Cecília Tomori is an anthropologist and public health scholar whose work addresses health inequities through teaching, research, and active engagement in global and community health. Her research investigates the structural and sociocultural drivers that shape patterns of health and illness, with a focus on maternal and child health as well as sexual and reproductive health. This work centers on deep engagement with the lived experiences of local and global communities. Dr. Tomori has collaborated with colleagues at Johns Hopkins and beyond on breastfeeding, infant sleep, and infectious disease prevention. She has authored three books on breastfeeding and reproduction, and numerous publications on a range of public health issues in journals including Social Science and Medicine, Maternal Child Nutrition, AIDS and Behavior, Archives of Sexual Behavior, and BMC Public Health. Dr. Tomori holds a joint appointment in the Department of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Case study 1 - the JCVI debate - what can we learn about online science communication? Or “a case study in degenerating science discourse” The last 48 hours of the JCVI debate forms an interesting case study for the micro dynamics of how things go wrong. We document this to spark ideas for building the information environment we need for effective scientific discourse and communication. :::danger N.b. DISCLAIMER --- it is not our focus whether or not the JCVI decision was or was not right in substance. The point of this case study is to help highlight salient features of online science discourse in its current form in order to help us think about building better tools. ::: [TOC]

18-19 November 2021 Goal We need science communication that moves beyond the traditional "lone wolf" model (where individual scientists engage in public outreach) towards a collective intelligence model. {{% alert note %}} In this workshop, we will develop a manifesto that establishes the need for collective intelligence in science communication and identifies the tools and methods necessary for its success. {{% /alert %}} Join us to explore what collective intelligence can offer, discuss the challenges ahead, and set out a vision for the future of science communication.

The goal of a hackathon is to create a product that will address a targeted issue. We define 'product' loosely: it can be anything from an information sheet to a new software---we leave this up to hackathon facilitators to decide. We are also open to the product changing over the course of the hackathon as part of the creative process. However, we ask that hackathon proposers have an idea of what the product will be, so that there is a structure for participants. The workshop provides two functional meeting times for hackathon participants. This will be 1-4pm GMT on 9 November and 6-9pm GMT on 10 November. You can check what time zone this is for you on the workshop schedule. During this time, we will host meeting rooms for participants to discuss ideas in real time. We recommend that facilitators use these times to brainstorm, organise, and set targets to be achieved over the week. We also provide asynchronous communication. Each hackathon will receive its own dedicated communication channel (e.g., Twist or Google Groups), online whiteboard (Google Jamboard), and overview page (e.g., HackMD or Google Docs). Participants are free to use other tools to communicate, of course. We ask that facilitators keep the HackMD overview page updated. Hackathons close on Friday, 13 November. Facilitators, please submit links to the product (if applicable) and a short wrap-up video (~5min) detailing what the project set out to do, what was accomplished, and what the next steps (if any) are. We will help to publicise these through the SciBeh Twitter, YouTube, and website. Got a question about the hackathons? Contact us!

Dawn has vetted this fake update, good to go. This is a test note.

{%hackmd GHtBRFZdTV-X1g8ex-NMQg %} ASSUMING THIS IS THE LIVE VERSION Facts about COVID-19 vaccines [TOC] Vaccines provide a possible path out of the COVID19 pandemic, and it is therefore fortunate that scientists have now developed several vaccines against COVID-19. Those vaccines have been found to be highly effective against the disease, and some provide a protection level of around 95% in controlled trials. For facts about the disease COVID-19 see our page here.

I will try deleting this as a signed-in user not in this group. Verdict: When I am signed in using a dummy account, I cannot see the delete note button. (But I can edit nonetheless—this part should show up under a different username.)

A masterlist of resources on COVID-19 vaccination behaviours {%hackmd FnZFg00yRhuCcufU_HBc1w %} :::spoiler Handbooks and Guides The handbook Further resources produced by other organisations ::: :::spoiler Published Work

TOC [TOC] Things we need think about level of specificity BIT implementation behaviour change wheel

{%hackmd FnZFg00yRhuCcufU_HBc1w %} [name=Dawn H] To create a project header image with the name of the Wiki. The SciBeh vaccine project tracks evidence and advice on behavioural science insights for COVID-19 vaccine uptake. [TOC] How can I use this resource? :::spoiler Policy-makers

What is hackmd? To learn about what hackmd can do, see the HackMD Tutorial Book. :::warning It will blow your mind! :exploding_head: ::: Some thoughts and observations hackmd is a collaborative markdown editor, not a wiki (like, e.g., https://wiki.js). Nevertheless, it might be the best choice for what we need (rapid, collaborative writing)

digraph G { rankdir="TB" compound="true" penwidth = 1 fontname = "helvetica" "Misinformation" [ label = "Why people believe\nmisinformation" URL="https://scibeh.org"

graph TB subgraph VaxTalk disc>Follow the discourse] narr(Set the narrative) end subgraph Inoculate misinf>Why people believe<br>misinformation] combat(Combat misinformation) end