Publication Date

2025

Abstract

This Article argues that even in the best of times, government agencies are not well suited to debunking misinformation and suggests as alternatives a role for government in providing accurate information, a potential role for government in providing grants for debunking, and a more central role for private institutions in supporting debunking. It uses, as a case study, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s response to vaccine misinformation, focusing on issues the CDC has been addressing since before the COVID-19 pandemic, to highlight that the problem goes beyond the challenges of responding fast and accurately to the uncertainties of the pandemic or the growth of misinformation during it, and beyond a specific administration: even in routine times, the CDC has limits as a debunker. As described in Part II, the CDC built much of its reputation on its ability to offer good advice, support, and guidance to other levels of government and to private actors. But as this Article demonstrates, when faced with misinformation about its own statements on scientific matters, the CDC’s response was highly flawed. Again and again, the CDC response was slow, not on point, and sometimes actively helped the misinformation along.

This Article argues that the CDC has an important role in the fight against misinformation—but its appropriate role is providing good, accessible information about scientific matters rather than actively debunking misinformation.

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy

Download

Share

COinS