On Communication, Science, and Vaccines

Andrew Revkin has a fascinating post on scientific communication where he admits to being a "recovering denialist."

No, not of climate change. Instead, Revkin was in denial about the influence of scientific communication. He writes:

"My denial, I said, lay in my longstanding presumption, like that of many scientists and journalists, that better communication of information will tend to change people’s perceptions, priorities and behavior. This attitude, in my view, crested for climate scientists in the wake of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

This kind of denialism is pretty popular among many scientists (including us social scientists). We assume that people do not agree with us because they are misinformed. But if only someone took the time to teach them, they would, of course, immediately concede our point.

This all reminded me of an excellent blog post I had read recently on Occam's Typewriter about treating people who refuse to vaccinate their children with respect.

This is an issue that never fails to generate controversy, in part because, frankly, all parenting decisions are controversial, and in part because individual decisions not to vaccinate affect the collective group.

I myself will admit to being virulently pro-vaccination. And as much as I try hard to eschew judginess, I will admit that when I hear that a parent hasn't vaccinated, my inner Judgey McJudgeypants gets very huffy. "Oh, good to know," I think. "I'll make sure that my hypothetical babies are never anywhere close to your unvaccinated children."

The truth is, I do think (and here I may get flamed) that the collective benefit to immunization overrides any individual right to choice in this arena. I would mandate immunizations by fiat if I felt that such a law would be effective.

But that's not the current law, and I honestly suspect mandatory vaccines might trigger a greater backlash. So instead, people in the vaccine movement (did you know it was a movement?) write books like Paul Offit's, Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All and speak in really aggressive terms about those who don't vaccinate.

Those who are pro-vaccine often denigrate the anti-vacciners as stupid or anti-science. As Richard points out in his post, that charge is pretty unfair. He notes that when his first child was born, he refused the MMR. Later, when he learnt that the connection between autism and vaccines was specious, he changed his mind.

But not all anti-vaccinaters are simply confused or uneducated. A number have done vast amounts of research on vaccination and have concluded, for whatever reason, not to vaccinate.

The reality is better communication will change some people's minds, but it won't change everyone's. As an eco-blogger, I know too well that scientific evidence of lack thereof isn't the ultimate arbiter of what people will do. There may not be concrete scientific proof for a number of things- Alzheimers caused by commercial anti-perspirant for example, but that doesn't necessarily convince people. Is there a definitive causation between say BPA and cancer? No. Are there studies that suggest BPA might cause cancer? Yes. Are there studies that suggest that BPA is harmless? Yes. Are there a number of people who will avoid BPA because we just don't know? Yes.

And therein lies the rub. As a social scientist, I have learned how uncertain a lot of science really is. I know now just how tough it is to determine causation. Simply put, there's just a lot out there we really don't know. As a result, the public often hears, "Science finds eggs are bad for you," followed a few years later by, "Science finds eggs contain key essential nutrients." Given how often the "science" we hear seems to get twisted and turned, is it any wonder that people don't necessarily always trust in science?

Now, you might argue, the vaccine thing is different. The link between vaccines and autism has been completely and totally debunked. The key study was fabricated! There's no scientific uncertainty here (except for a few cranks and weirdos)!

To which I would say, one, not everyone in the world thinks that the cranks and weirdos are cranks and weirdos, but two, and more importantly, there is still some major uncertainty here. We still by and large know very little about why and how autism develops. Until we get some major and much more certain answers, people will be wary about any possible connection no matter how spurious scientists claim them to be. Sure, scientists say that there's no connection between autism and vaccines. But they don't seem to be offering any other very plausible explanation, so why believe them?! (I will add that for many parents, a link between autism and vaccines may be comforting. Vaccines are so easily avoided compared to things like phthalates which are much more ubiquitous.)

Secondly, I think it's fair to point out that vaccines haven't always been safe. And the government hasn't always ensured that vaccines were safe. Again, as an eco-blogger, I understand not trusting the government, because well, I don't entirely. I may understand that the government has approved a panoply of items including non-stick pans and paraben filled shampoo, but I don't necessarily believe that the government always has my best interests at heart.

This all brings me back to a This American Life I listened to ages ago where a reporter actually listened to those in the anti-vaccine movement and concluded that those parents who were anti-vaccines simply didn't trust the government or the mainstream medical community.

That's a scary place to be. But, frankly, it's also understandable.

Science claims to be different from religion because it's evidence based. But in a world filled with contradictory evidence, what is a person to believe? Science is contemptuous of faith and yet implicitly relies on a public "faith" of science. Faith in science, faith in scientists, faith in the scientific process. And while faith in science might seem more rational than faith in God, science can be and has been wrong, science can be and has been skewed, and science can be and has been uncertain.

Science is like the Godfather whispering to the public to trust no one. And then, when the public, having imbibed this wisdom, turns on science and starts questioning it, science is shocked. But it shouldn't be. We're just following its advice.