Vaccines and Autism
Bad science and good PR
Over the past few years, there has been a building movement against vaccinations in the U.S. on the grounds that they are either ineffective, harmful, or perhaps even part of an insidious government plot. This isn’t coming from the usual anti-science suspects, either – it’s largely coming from Hollywood: comedian Bill Maher has said he “would never get a vaccine,” and that he doesn’t trust the government, especially with his health. Maher believes that vaccines are a “Western” misunderstanding of health, and that a natural, healthy diet and lifestyle will ward off most maladies.
Actor Jim Carrey and former Playboy centerfold Jenny McCarthy are the most prominent among the anti-vaccine crowd, warning primarily of a link to autism. Autism rates have increased rapidly during the same period of time that vaccines have become widespread, they say. But the Carrey/McCarthy camp was dealt a serious blow last week when the British medical journal Lancet retracted a 1998 paper linking vaccines to autism by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
It turns out that Wakefield’s methods were, according to British officials, “dishonest and irresponsible.” Among other problems, Wakefield was funded in part by the lawyers of parents trying to sue vaccine providers for damages. All this isn’t phasing the anti-vaccine movement, however – Carrey and McCarthy immediately responded with a statement condemning the muzzling of dissenting scientists by vaccine manufacturing industry.
How will this debate continue to take shape, and will it ever resolve? Both sides claim to have “real science” on their sides. The activists see in the skeptical consensus a bureaucratic, special-interest fueled cover-up. Most scientists view the activists as scapegoating opportunists, capitalizing on public paranoia and scientific illiteracy in the pursuit of an “alt med” agenda and a few bucks in legal damages.
History tells us that the anti-vaccine crowd is unlikely to be persuaded. However legitimate or illegitimate their claim, the cognitive framework accompanying it – “they’re trying to hide the truth” – is mostly immune to rational argument. New scientific studies and findings will simply join others in the “that’s what the industry wants you to believe” basket.
But sometimes big, wealthy interests do attempt to deceive the public through science. Just look at environmental studies funded by oil companies or scientists paid by the sugar and tobacco industries to find amenable results during debate on health regulations. In an era of “bought results” by vested interests, how can we know who’s got the facts on their side?
In my view, this is a real problem. The average citizen has almost no scientific knowledge and simply can’t discern the good science from the bad on their own, particularly among a chorus of competing claims by so-called “experts.”
What’s needed, then, is a trusted, reliable authority with sound methods. Science isn’t democratic, it’s meritocratic – it works because good, replicable results win and questionable claims lose. And it works best with a high baseline of sunlight. Studies funded by interested parties, if they must be allowed, should be described as such, just as political ads ought to require disclosure of the source. While we may never quash conspiracy theorists, we might at least be able to point to good methodology, replicable findings, and independent researchers.
-Colin
Image by hitthatswitch used under CC license.
Related posts:
- One flu over the cuckoo’s nest
- Professional ethics
- Share your toys…and your astronomy data?
- Reason to believe?
- Is the Right pro-family or anti-abortion?
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
