Vaccines and climtae change. Are scientists failing to communicate science properly.

steddyeddy

Interesting article from Guardian argueing that scientists are potentially fuelling the ant-vaxx and climate change movements by closing down arguments. The article goes on to state that what the "shut up and take the vaccine approach" some scientists have isn't communicating it's self affirmation. Are anti-vaxxers ect rejecting science or is it not being communicated properly?

I don't believe in calling people stupid for what they subscribe to but I do believe scientific method is the best method we have. I do believe that the public should take part in science debates and should be able to question scientists though.

A video did the rounds a couple of years ago, of some self-styled “skeptic”
disagreeing – robustly, shall we say – with an anti-vaxxer. The speaker was
roundly cheered by everyone sharing the video – he sure put that idiot in their
place!

Scientists love to argue. Cutting through bull**** and getting to the truth
of the matter is pretty much the job description. So it’s not really surprising
scientists and science supporters frequently take on those who dabble in
homeopathy, or deny anthropogenic climate change, or who oppose vaccinations or
genetically modified food.

It makes sense. You’ve got a population that is – on the whole – not
scientifically literate, and you want to persuade them that they should be doing
a and b (but not c) so that they/you/their children can have a better life.


Brian Cox was at it last week, performing a “smackdown” on a climate
change denier on the ABC’s Q&A discussion program. He brought
graphs! Knockout blow.

And yet … it leaves me cold. Is this really what science communication is
about? Is this informing, changing minds, winning people over to a better,
brighter future?
I doubt it somehow.
There are a couple of things here. And I don’t think it’s as simple as people
rejecting science.

First, people don’t like being told what to do. This is part of what Michael
Gove was driving at when he said people had had enough of experts. We rely on
doctors and nurses to make us better, and on financial planners to help us
invest. We expect scientists to research new cures for disease, or simply to
find out how things work. We expect the government to try to do the best for
most of the people most of the time, and weather forecasters to at least tell us
what today was like even if they struggle with tomorrow.

But when these experts tell us how to live our lives – or even worse, what to
think – something rebels. Especially when there is even the merest whiff of
controversy or uncertainty. Back in your box, we say, and stick to what you’re
good at.
We saw it in the recent referendum, we saw it when Dame Sally Davies said wine makes her think of
breast cancer, and we saw it back in the late 1990s when the
government of the time told people – who honestly, really wanted to do the best
for their children – to shut up, stop asking questions and take the damn triple
vaccine.
Which brings us to the second thing.
On the whole, I don’t think people who object to vaccines or GMOs are at
heart anti-science. Some are, for sure, and these are the dangerous ones. But
most people simply want to know that someone is listening, that someone is
taking their worries seriously; that someone cares for them.


It’s more about who we are and our relationships than about what is right or
true.


This is why, when you bring data to a TV show, you run the risk of appearing
supercilious and judgemental. Even – especially – if you’re actually right.


People want to feel wanted and loved. That there is someone who will listen
to them. To feel part of a family.


The physicist Sabine
Hossenfelder gets this. Between contracts one time, she set up a “talk to a
physicist” service. Fifty dollars gets you 20 minutes with a quantum
physicist … who will listen to whatever crazy idea you have, and help you
understand a little more about the world.


How many science communicators do you know who will take the time to listen
to their audience? Who are willing to step outside their cosy little bubble and
make an effort to reach people where they are, where they are confused and
hurting; where they need?


Atul Gawande says scientists
should assert “the true facts of good science” and expose the “bad
science tactics that are being used to mislead people”. But that’s only part of
the story, and is closing the barn door too late.


Because the charlatans have already recognised the need, and have built the
communities that people crave. Tellingly, Gawande refers to the ‘scientific
community’; and he’s absolutely right, there. Most science communication isn’t
about persuading people; it’s self-affirmation for those already on the inside.
Look at us, it says, aren’t we clever? We are exclusive, we are a gang, we are
family.

That’s not communication. It’s not changing minds and it’s certainly not
winning hearts and minds.

It’s tribalism.

FURET

The problem is that people are stupid. They go through the education system and think they're educated. They're not. And the internet gives a platform for idiots to spread their ideas far and wide. Other idiots lap it up, because they are unable to think critically.

GLaDOS

The information is there and has been communicated in various different formats of non-scientific, friendly language over and over and over again.

Some people just don't want to believe it.

Some people are happy to misrepresent the situation to suit their own needs and take advantage of the above.

The_Valeyard

Suppose nowadays there is so much information out there, it can be difficult to ascertain or decide which is the truth and which is bullsh*t.

Special Circumstances

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Suppose nowadays there is so much information out there, it can be difficult to ascertain or decide which is the truth and which is bullsh*t.

Diesel is clean! And good for the environment!
Diesel is good for you!

Climate change is here, better buy diesel!

kylith

I suppose that after years of politely engaging and explaining that yes, climate change is a real thing that we should worry about and no, vaccines don't cause autism one's patience can start wearing thin and one can get a bit snippy. Especially when dealing with people who are wilfully misinformed and who refuse to educate themselves.

It's hard answering a kid who won't stop asking a stupid question over and over no matter how you explain the simple answer to them. It's harder still when an apparent adult with responsibility over kids won't stop asking a stupid question over and over and will go to great lengths to find any other source to disprove your answer no matter how you explain the simple answer to them.

Wibbs

FURET wrote: »

The problem is that people are stupid.

+1 Any extended debate will eventually circle around to F's post.

VinLieger

No people are just fvcking retards who will take the easier track of believing what they want to instead of changing their opinions in the face of overwhelming science and facts.

Read an interesting take recently on the anti vaccine argument and "availability cascades"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_cascade

darkpagandeath

I think you are confused. for one there is nothing we can currently do about natural climate change. I think this is where people get mixed up. You should say Anthropogenic climate change which is a whole different kettle of fish.

Special Circumstances

VinLieger wrote: »

No people are just fvcking retards who will take the easier track of believing what they want to instead of changing their opinions in the face of overwhelming science and facts.

What, are you saying diesel isn't clean? Or that the environmentalists were wrong about that science, but right about the other sciences?

Diesel Switch Cheers Greens!

VinLieger

Special Circumstances wrote: »

What, are you saying diesel isn't clean? Or that the environmentalists were wrong about that science, but right about the other sciences?

Diesel Switch Cheers Greens!

Didnt say a word about diesel and have no opinion on it but thanks for the article

nozzferrahhtoo

Science and scientists are notoriously bad at communication with the public. And historically it was even seen as poor form to even try. Carl Sagan was one of the forerunners of changing this dynamic.... but he suffered a lot of derision and hostility within the scientific community for doing so.

This IS changing, albeit slowly, with more and more people making a career out of science communication. And popular bloggers on the subject. And popular TV shows, including a Neil DeGrasse Tyson fronted resurrection of Carl Sagans Cosmos. While the likes of Richard Dawkins writes lay man books on science consumable by the average public, and many more like him, translating complex scientific concepts and claims into easy but often beautiful Vernacular English.

But a problem, decried by many like Ben Goldacre, is a lot of our science, findings, advancements and the like are communicated not by scientists but science journalists. Journalists that THEMSELVES have little to no scientific background of any kind and simply do not understand what it is they themselves are presuming to report on.

And since this is the source of much of the science the public gets, we have an awful dynamic there. Especially when such journalists are also compelled to spin a finding to fulfil click bait or the like. Take the recent "Bacon causes cancer" stories and compare those stories to the ACTUAL claims of the papers and research behind them.

And to compound this, statistics are presented in such a fantastical way as to render them useless. If something shifts you from a 0,000001% of getting cancer to 0,000005% chance.... this is MINUTE.... but the average news paper article will tell you "This increases your chance of cancer by 500%!!!!!" which.... while pedantically correct..... is certainly misleading.

And all of this is compound by people who make a career and win actual respect for being anti-intellectualism. If you slight science and scientists and evidence based research in some circles, this GAINS you respect. Why only this week, following comments about Lunar Tidal mechanisms, a UKIP member told us that the people are sick to death of "experts".

And he likely said that knowing full well that there is a section of people who will jump around in rapturous applause at his perceived "burn" of the intellectual. Yea you go and you SHOW those scientists with their evidence and substantiation and knowledge, you big sexy man you.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Suppose nowadays there is so much information out there, it can be difficult to ascertain or decide which is the truth and which is bullsh*t.

It can. But I think a lot of that is our fault too. For example I went through the Irish Scientific Syllabus. I did it in Primary School. And then I did it with Physics, Biology and Applied Maths in Secondary school.

At NO point in the process was I educated on how to read, interpret, critique or write a scientific study or a statistical analysis. I knew nothing of the scientific method in and of itself. I knew nothing of the techniques and methodologies of things like Epidemiology. Falsification. Scientific Prediction. Double blind. Replication. All these methodologies were alien to me entirely.

And I made a point of having a few chats with people coming out of UCD and DCU science courses..... and they did not fare much better than I did either.

And now that I am more than moderately versed in these things I CAN apply some significant amount of discernment between what is bull and what is credible when I trawl through the information out there.

"Teaching Science" in our curriculum is done remarkably poorly. We tend to just learn facts by rote, without anything behind them of any utility. We learn the basics structures by rote of a cell in an amoeba or algae, without learning anything of the roots of cellular biology. We learn the name of the planets by rote, without learning anything about the classification systems and methodology of astronomical science.

"We live in an age based on science and technology with formidable scientific powers, and if we do not understand it.... we the general public.... then who is making all the decisions about science and technology that determines the future our children will live in? Members of our congress? There is no more than a handful of them who have any background in science at all. We have arranged a society based on science and technology in which no one understands anything about it. And this combustable mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, will blow up in our faces. Who IS running science and technology in a democracy if the people do not know anything about it?

Science is more than a body of knowledge, it is a way of thinking, or evaluating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. And if we are not able to ask skeptical questions of those who tell us what is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we are up for grabs to the next chalatan who comes ambling along. Jefferson himself said 'It is not enough to enshrine some rights in a constitution or a bill of rights.... the people have to be educated in order than we run the government not the government running us'".

---

Carl Sagan

Special Circumstances

VinLieger wrote: »

Didnt say a word about diesel and have no opinion on it but thanks for the article

I'm just highlighting that the same people who bring us irrefutable science FACT! to support X Y and Z also brought us science FACT! that diesel is good for us.

Bit of a credibility boo boo for them all the same.

VinLieger

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I'm just highlighting that the same people who bring us irrefutable science FACT! to support X Y and Z also brought us science FACT! that diesel is good for us.

Bit of a credibility boo boo for them all the same.

The greens are nutters sure I wouldnt believe a word they say, also I don't recall anyone ever saying diesel was good for us, just possibly it was better than petrol? I could be wrong though

Skylinehead

VinLieger wrote: »

The greens are nutters sure I wouldnt believe a word they say, also I don't recall anyone ever saying diesel was good for us, just possibly it was better than petrol? I could be wrong though

The Green Party were fixated on CO2 when they pushed for the motor tax change. Diesel does emit less CO2 than petrol, so yay there, but they completely ignored that in other respects, such as nitrogen dioxide, diesel is far more poisonous and filthy.

Special Circumstances

VinLieger wrote: »

The greens are nutters sure I wouldnt believe a word they say

Fair enough. On a local level I guess they are just parroting things "this is bad, this is good" without any scientific analysis. Would the bajillion scientists who subscribe to climate change not have given anyone a heads up that diesel wasn't all fairydust and sparkles though? Just happy with the cheap motor tax and fuel bill maybe?

On an international level though the scientists and action groups must be a bit more ammm... scientific and less open to being manipulated into supporting random codology? Carbon credit trading gonna save us all?

VinLieger

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Fair enough. On a local level I guess they are just parroting things "this is bad, this is good" without any scientific analysis. Would the bajillion scientists who subscribe to climate change not have given anyone a heads up that diesel wasn't all fairydust and sparkles though? Just happy with the cheap motor tax and fuel bill maybe?

On an international level though the scientists and action groups must be a bit more ammm... scientific and less open to being manipulated into supporting random codology? Carbon credit trading gonna save us all?

The problem is they arent listened to at an international level, carbon credit trading is a politicians and bureaucrats invention

RDM_83 again

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I think you are confused. for one there is nothing we can currently do about natural climate change. I think this is where people get mixed up. You should say Anthropogenic climate change which is a whole different kettle of fish.

This! Saying people disbelieve climate change isn't helpful, nobody disbelieves that the climate changes they disagree that humans are having a significant or measurable impact.
Then there is the thing that maybe we're having a significant impact but the natural cycle would be as harmful to western civilization. Like all we're doing at the minute is living in a warm inter-glacial period.

The same with vaccines, no they don't cause autism but some vaccines have been harmful to (generally very tiny minorities) of people.

To me this is the major issue, its not communication from the scientific community/experts that are the cause of this issue, its the filtering through media types or vocal individuals thats the issue. Take something like the cervical cancer vaccine thing, the actually developers of the vaccine were much less gushy, restrained and pointed out issues with the vaccines spectrum of protection than than the media pundits and posters etc.

Somebody saying- Vaccines are harmless - bigs up they're "rational" kudos but as we know thats not the case somebody with a skeptical mindset will look at that statement and find it false and they will grow to distrust many statements.
Its a lot less sexy and karma/thanks-worthy saying.
All modern vaccines have been through a process to find if they are safe as they can possibly be, yes there is a tiny possibility they will cause a negative reaction and because of the huge numbers vaccinated some people may suffer negatively but this is so outweighed greatly by the protection against disease and epidemic that it brings.

Edit: obviously I'm for vaccines, and I think we should reduce CO2 outputs but I'm pretty hesitant of the methods put forward, fullscale social restructuring seems more likely to be needed rather than buying a prius

Harry Palmr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

It was the biggest science story of 2002, with 1257 articles mostly written by non-expert commentators. In the period January to September 2002, 32% of the stories written about MMR mentioned Leo Blair, as opposed to only 25% which mentioned Wakefield. Less than a third of the stories mentioned the overwhelming evidence that MMR is safe.[15] The paper, press conference and video sparked a major health scare in the United Kingdom. As a result of the scare, full confidence in MMR fell from 59% to 41% after publication of the Wakefield research. In 2001, 26% of family doctors felt the government had failed to prove there was no link between MMR and autism and bowel disease.[49] In his book Bad Science, Ben Goldacre describes the MMR vaccine scare as one of the "three all-time classic bogus science stories" by the British newspapers (the other two are the Arpad Pusztai affair about genetically modified crops, and Chris Malyszewicz and the MRSA hoax).[50]

We also live in the "post-fact" age - the age of strident opinion from all sides. Which is why Donald Trump is in with a shout of being the President of the USA and Obama being an African born Muslim is believed to be the truth by many. Modern infotainment media is voracious and will, like paper and ink, broadcast any old tosh if it grabs an audience.

steddyeddy

Andrew Wakefield also raises an interesting point. Sometimes the experts have led the anti-science movements and give mixed advice. Microbiologists are currently warning of microbial resistance and this is filtered down to patients who are told to finish a course of antibiotics. The problem is that some doctors are also miss-prescribing antibiotics, which sends mixed signals.

wakka12

It just boggles my mind that grown adults will put their childs life at risk, theres no evidence to believe that vaccines do anything other than cure diseases, like literally none, so why is there even any sizeable group of people who believe this rumour for no apparent reason? just everything about anti vaxx is insane

Special Circumstances

wakka12 wrote: »

It just boggles my mind that grown adults will put their childs life at risk, theres no evidence to believe that vaccines do anything other than cure diseases, like literally none, so why is there even any sizeable group of people who believe this rumour for no apparent reason? just everything about anti vaxx is insane

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The same with vaccines, no they don't cause autism but some vaccines have been harmful to (generally very tiny minorities) of people.

To me this is the major issue, its not communication from the scientific community/experts that are the cause of this issue, its the filtering through media types or vocal individuals thats the issue. Take something like the cervical cancer vaccine thing, the actually developers of the vaccine were much less gushy, restrained and pointed out issues with the vaccines spectrum of protection than than the media pundits and posters etc.

Somebody saying- Vaccines are harmless - bigs up they're "rational" kudos but as we know thats not the case somebody with a skeptical mindset will look at that statement and find it false and they will grow to distrust many statements.
Its a lot less sexy and karma/thanks-worthy saying.
All modern vaccines have been through a process to find if they are safe as they can possibly be, yes there is a tiny possibility they will cause a negative reaction and because of the huge numbers vaccinated some people may suffer negatively but this is so outweighed greatly by the protection against disease and epidemic that it brings.

Edit: obviously I'm for vaccines,...

I'm a lot happier with RDM_83 again's version of communicating science tbh.

VinLieger

steddyeddy wrote: »

Andrew Wakefield also raises an interesting point. should be tried for manslaughter

Fixed it for you

Outlaw Pete

Sure, they are bad at communicating their findings at times but they are also guilty of misusing them and deliberately misrepresenting them too and mostly for profit

Those who use science as a battering ram in online discussions (and at the odd dinner party too no doubt) are wont to regularly cite Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Science' (a great book) but they rarely if ever point out that Ben wrote another great book called 'Bad Pharma' and if you read it you will soon find that miscommunication of the scientific community is the least of fcuking worries.

nozzferrahhtoo

wakka12 wrote: »

so why is there even any sizeable group of people who believe this rumour for no apparent reason? just everything about anti vaxx is insane

I guess because it appeals to an emotional reality in us that is not so much insanity, as merely subjective.

The "trolley problem" in ethics for example can represent this. You can frame the EXACT SAME problem in different ways, and get different results.

And the reason for that, and for the vaccination issue, is it appeals to an "Action-Inaction" sentiment in us where we place higher ethical value on action than inaction.

So while the evidence that vaccinations cause long term damage is non-existent.... and while the (very real) possibility of immediate side effects are statistically highly unlikely........ those parents are still left with this natural feeling that action is more "ethically weighted" than inaction.

And so they prefer subjectively not to vaccinate (inaction) over the more beneficial but still BARELY risky choice to vaccinate (action). And anything, even entirely falsified or imaginary science, that exacerbates that natural tendency in us.... is going to lead parents down the wrong pathway.

RDM_83 again

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So while the evidence that vaccinations cause long term damage is non-existent.... and while the (very real) possibility of immediate side effects are statistically highly unlikely........ those parents are still left with this natural feeling that action is more "ethically weighted" than inaction.

While I agree with what you've said broadly whats highlighted is exactly my point about statements that can quickly be proved false leading one to start doubting the entirety of the statement.
Like this is from the guardian showing long term damage by vaccines so its going to pop up if somebody even takes a cursory glance online about this.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/boy-wins-120000-damages-narcolepsy-swine-flu-vaccine-glaxosmithkline

Special Circumstances

RDM_83 again wrote: »

While I agree with what you've said broadly whats highlighted is exactly my point about statements that can quickly be proved false leading one to start doubting the entirety of the statement.
Like this is from the guardian showing long term damage by vaccines so its going to pop up if somebody even takes a cursory glance online about this.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/boy-wins-120000-damages-narcolepsy-swine-flu-vaccine-glaxosmithkline

To me the "everyone should buy diesel to help combat climate change, diesel is clean" hype is another example of this... actual, responsible environmental initiatives will suffer due to stupid stuff like "diesel is clean". It even makes people doubt climate change due to the association.

nozzferrahhtoo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

While I agree with what you've said broadly whats highlighted is exactly my point about statements that can quickly be proved false leading one to start doubting the entirety of the statement.

Indeed, point well taken, but reading the article one notes that this was a "court ruling" not a scientific one, and the article ends by pointing out that the association between the vaccine and the condition is something they are "actively researching". In other words this is not the evidence of which I was speaking. The link, according to that article, is still merely an assumed one.

But I grant you that sweeping statements are an issue of our language. It is just how we talk. I am usually hyper aware of this and I usually modify, where I feel it prudent, any such statements I find into more cushioned ones and actually I was on my way back to do so here TOO but you beat me to it. I really just had Autism in mind when I was writing it.

But the point I am making remains the same before or after such an edit. Statistically the chances of vaccinating your child having a detrimental side effect............. let alone the effects (autism for example) some people have been told it will have................ is less than "small". And even when some are observed, they turn out to often be coincidental. Which is a statistical obvious point given the large number of people who are vaccinated.... some people are statistically going to develop SOME condition around the same time. And those people are likely to be prone to link the two causally.

But emotionally and ethically our species seems to weight action heavier than inaction, and the active positive action of injecting something into your child therefore holds more weight than doing nothing.

So anything, even misinformation, that feeds into that will carry a lot of weight with people. And it is for this reason, rather than mere "insanity" that so many parents are prone to buy into what the anti vacc people are selling. It simply resonates on a level that bypasses any rigorous application of intellect.

steddyeddy

RDM_83 again wrote: »

While I agree with what you've said broadly whats highlighted is exactly my point about statements that can quickly be proved false leading one to start doubting the entirety of the statement.
Like this is from the guardian showing long term damage by vaccines so its going to pop up if somebody even takes a cursory glance online about this.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/boy-wins-120000-damages-narcolepsy-swine-flu-vaccine-glaxosmithkline

But it's one thing to go from that, which seems to have empirical evidence behind it to the anti- MMR vaccine movement which has zero evidence behind it. It is quite right to say that the claims by Andrew Wakefield and some anti-vaxxers have no scientific basis.