One such example is the hoax that vaccines such as the MMR vaccine can cause autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The paper, authored by Andrew Wakefield and published in the The Lancet, is still championed today by prominent individuals such as Jenny McCarthy The result and spread of this anti-vaccination movement has caused the reemergence of outbreaks of measles and mumps throughout the world over the past decade. Without the all-important herd immunity, these outbreaks are not being contained the individuals.
However, there is no scientific basis anymore for this anti-vaccination movement. Numerous studies have been preformed to show that the results of the Wakefield paper were not conclusive/flat out wrong. More importantly and what cannot be emphasized enough, is that Wakefield was A) found to have been paid by lawyers wanting to sue vaccine companies and B) falsified data in his paper. His paper was partially-retracted in 2004 and fully retracted in 2010, and Wakefield himself was stripped of his medical license in the UK in 2010.
Why then, is there still outcry and mistrust towards vaccines? I would conjecture that there are at least three prominent reasons. The high reputation of research, the difficulty in accessing research, and lack of a public figure like Jenny McCarthy arguing for vaccines. All three reasons seem to stem from the same problem; the general world is not very well acquainted with the research world. What is discovered and published is funneled, ground-up, and choice "buzz-word" tidbits are fed to the public through the media, and newly discovered data is not readily accessible. The question now is, how does one bring research to the public without forcing them to slog through difficult texts and jargon?
Sources:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/02/lkl.01.html
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/01/12/autism-vaccine-fraud-wakefield-cost-money-deaths/
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/pages/communityimmunity.aspx
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000114
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/06/autism.vaccines/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673697110960
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/may/24/mmr-doctor-andrew-wakefield-struck-off
I think a big factor that led to people believing that MMR vaccines cause autism is "truth by authority". This means that people believe something is true because someone who has expertise, or even famous, says so. In this particular case, Andrew Wakefield was a scientist, and so the general public surrendered to his "expertise", not knowing that he had ulterior motives. Additionally, Jenny McCarthy is a public figure, and so people also surrender their authority. It is therefore important to always think critically of information we receive, even though experts and famous people advocate the knowledge. Always ask questions like "why" and "how", and also use other ways of knowing (e.g. science) to find truth.
ReplyDeleteThe Andrew Wakefield study truly shows how careful we need to be in determining what information is factual. I think in general, most people are smart enough to not follow public figures blindly, especially when it pertains to their children’s health. The issue here is that the study was published in a respected medical journal. If I recall correctly, this study in particular was never peer reviewed before its publication. I question whether or not there should be some sort of legal constraints to what may be published in medical sources. I know I would personally support some type of legislation that required peer revision of scientific studies posted to a select number of credible sources. It is unreasonable to require that every scientific finding receives approval, but the public deserves a couple sources of information that they can always count on for accuracy.
ReplyDeleteYour blog brings up the ongoing debate between politics and science. Here in the US, we receive political stories and opinions much faster and with much more convincing bias than we do scientific developments. This reliance on the political currant of today tends to sway our opinions drastically, one way or another. Is there an efficient way to convey the facts you pose in your blog posts to the general public faster so that they stand a chance at fighting the bias?
ReplyDelete