Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Is There A General Distrust Of Science And Scientists?
And if so, why, and what should be done about it?
I asked having just watched Thursday's Question time where once again the MMR row raised its ugly head, but the media representative defended the story as "reporting the facts". This is not even close to the truth, and the way media reports science is something that seriously should be made far better.
But the scandal itself is part of something more general. By and large the public went along with the story, despite just about every other scientist or expert who was asked going against it, and presumably doctors continued to advise taking the vaccine. So why did this turn into something so large? Is it because people distrust Scientists?
I asked having just watched Thursday's Question time where once again the MMR row raised its ugly head, but the media representative defended the story as "reporting the facts". This is not even close to the truth, and the way media reports science is something that seriously should be made far better.
But the scandal itself is part of something more general. By and large the public went along with the story, despite just about every other scientist or expert who was asked going against it, and presumably doctors continued to advise taking the vaccine. So why did this turn into something so large? Is it because people distrust Scientists?
Answers
I think the point raised here and by commentators like Dara 0 Briain is very important. The media are obsessed with balance, which for many issues is actually a very good thing - I would hope none of us would want a media channels offering political propaganda, rather than trying to present both sides of the story etc. But the media also like to tell stories, and...
10:37 Sun 21st Apr 2013
Really ? The facts were that someone who appeared to have some knowledge was convinced there was a connection and decided the public needed to be aware. It was all over the Internet before the papers got hold of it anyway. So whilst I didn't read every newspaper article on it, it seems to be generally reporting the facts to me.
Yes there is a level of distrust. Some beleive they can tend to skew their interpretation of results according to who supplies the budget. The classic example of that is the tobacco companies and their scientists who claimed there was no evidence of harm for years on end.
But I also think folk are sensible enough to know that most folk are decent and simply doing what they think is best. And that scientists generally wish to investigate and merely make their mark, which they know they cant do if they claim something outlandish that later is discredited.
There is a balance to be made between the different pressures/incentives/beleifs/etc.
Yes there is a level of distrust. Some beleive they can tend to skew their interpretation of results according to who supplies the budget. The classic example of that is the tobacco companies and their scientists who claimed there was no evidence of harm for years on end.
But I also think folk are sensible enough to know that most folk are decent and simply doing what they think is best. And that scientists generally wish to investigate and merely make their mark, which they know they cant do if they claim something outlandish that later is discredited.
There is a balance to be made between the different pressures/incentives/beleifs/etc.
It's all to with data, people do distrust data - not the scientists behind it. In this instance the data on the risk of damage by MMR was taken from a relatively small group and then extrapolated across the population at large, which skewed the likelihood of problems arising. People went along with it because they were scared for their children. The whole thing is now discredited, and the original doctor now has the gall to say that the current measles epidemic is the Government's fault. Yeah, right.
Help a bit, Jim. If the media reported that the Lancet had published a report suggesting that there was a link between autism and the vaccine, would that be close to the truth, or true?
Of course, the media doesn't content itself with precise reporting, but builds a very big house on very scant foundations. A theoretical, possible or unlikely result, one with caveats galore, is announced as tantamount to certainty. This misleading presdentatio is not confined to science; the amount of distortion in law, for example on self-defence by householders, is extraordinary too, but it's less dangerous than in medicine or science.
Dara O'Briain had a routine about a related complaint that of 'balance'. The BBC, and other broadcasters will present a respected scientist against some crackpot theorist as a 'debate' , suggesting that both are of equal merit and their opinions equally valid. It's as though a crackpot who claims the Earth is flat, is as right as the Royal Astronomer who says it is an oblate spheroid.This, too, is a matter of concern.
Of course, the media doesn't content itself with precise reporting, but builds a very big house on very scant foundations. A theoretical, possible or unlikely result, one with caveats galore, is announced as tantamount to certainty. This misleading presdentatio is not confined to science; the amount of distortion in law, for example on self-defence by householders, is extraordinary too, but it's less dangerous than in medicine or science.
Dara O'Briain had a routine about a related complaint that of 'balance'. The BBC, and other broadcasters will present a respected scientist against some crackpot theorist as a 'debate' , suggesting that both are of equal merit and their opinions equally valid. It's as though a crackpot who claims the Earth is flat, is as right as the Royal Astronomer who says it is an oblate spheroid.This, too, is a matter of concern.
I think it's pretty clear that there is but you have to ask yourself where most people get their information about science from.
I think the problem lies not with Science but with Science journalism.
You only have to look at articles published on climate change - Although our usual bad boy the DM is pretty bad for this it is the Telegraph which is forever giving space to unqualified skeptic stories - in the name of so called balance.
Remember Journalists are paid to sell papers or TV advertising and careful balanced stories don't do that - dramatic ones do and they're not above seing up a story
I think the problem lies not with Science but with Science journalism.
You only have to look at articles published on climate change - Although our usual bad boy the DM is pretty bad for this it is the Telegraph which is forever giving space to unqualified skeptic stories - in the name of so called balance.
Remember Journalists are paid to sell papers or TV advertising and careful balanced stories don't do that - dramatic ones do and they're not above seing up a story
I was always sceptical of the alleged connection between MMR and autism as the proponent's argument seemed to be logically flawed. He was not a scientist but a GP and whilst many GPs understand the scientific method and are good scientists this one didn't and wasn't. My wife isn't a scientist but an art teacher and was convinced that there was a connection especially as some of her pupils parents had autistic children who had also had MMr vaccine. Nothing I could say would convince her that there was no proof either way.
It is ironic that modern life depends heavily on the discoveries made by scientists and the theories that have arisen from those discoveries and that scientist are only interested in establishing what is true and what isn't but trust a scientist... Nah!
It is ironic that modern life depends heavily on the discoveries made by scientists and the theories that have arisen from those discoveries and that scientist are only interested in establishing what is true and what isn't but trust a scientist... Nah!
jomifl.....excellent post....which sums my feeling up completely.
Well we do have an alternative to science, but this is not the thread to enter this debate.
My main concern is the appearance of "infallibility" amongst scientists in their methods of justification..........but that is not necessarily a bad fault........is it?
Well we do have an alternative to science, but this is not the thread to enter this debate.
My main concern is the appearance of "infallibility" amongst scientists in their methods of justification..........but that is not necessarily a bad fault........is it?
Woofgang, you are of course right, scientists are only people and their opinions are influenced by vanity, pride, prejudice and probably all the other human failings. I worked with scientists for most of my working life and I have come across pretty duff ones but on the whole I am more inclined to believe someone who at least attempts to deal with the truth.
The strength of science is that it has the peer revue system which although not perfect and itself subject to the aforementioned human weaknesses is better than anything else so far. Personally I would rather trust a scientist in his/her area of expertise than a cleric, politician, drug salesman, banker, QC etc.
The strength of science is that it has the peer revue system which although not perfect and itself subject to the aforementioned human weaknesses is better than anything else so far. Personally I would rather trust a scientist in his/her area of expertise than a cleric, politician, drug salesman, banker, QC etc.
The current epidemic is the government's fault. 100%. No doubt about it. They said they trusted the jab (even if some were cagey about saying what they had decided for their own kids) and took a, "You will have the triple jab or nothing because we know best what is good for you", attitude. And of course, surprise surprise, many took the 'nothing' option. Anyone who had a couple of IQ points or more to rub together could have foreseen that. But not government members apparently.
I think the point raised here and by commentators like Dara 0 Briain is very important. The media are obsessed with balance, which for many issues is actually a very good thing - I would hope none of us would want a media channels offering political propaganda, rather than trying to present both sides of the story etc.
But the media also like to tell stories, and fulfill certain narratives. "Brave maverick Doctor takes on the vested and venal interests of the establishment" is a great story, one that appeals to many people who instinctively empathise with such a story.
And that is how Wakefield portrayed himself - then, and now - and his has built up a coterie of fanatical supporters who reject all the evidence which so thoroughly discredits him.
And portraying "balance" when it comes to scientific issues, particularly those to do with public health or even climate change and the like, can be dangerous. Humans are not especially good at weighing up risks and performing risk/benefit analyses, and if you see an issue being presented as a debate, with 2 talking heads offering diametrically opposite views, it is tempting to conclude that the truth lies somewhere in-between - but this is not always true.
The truth about the shape of the earth, for example, does not lie somewhere between "the earth is flat" or "the earth is round". One view is factually wrong, and so to present this issue in a manner as if suggesting their is a debate would be silly - but this is what the media continually do, when it comes to some of the big scientific issues.
There are other problems too - with the advent of the internet in particular, you will find people who believe they are experts in something purely because they have googled some search terms - that their internet search somehow equates to proper research, that opinions derived from such searchs can somehow be considered to be of equal import to an actual researcher -someone who has studies the topic extensively, attended University, performed experiments for years and years.
This superficial expertise also devalues the opinions of scientists to the general public, I think, and debases the "debate"...
But the media also like to tell stories, and fulfill certain narratives. "Brave maverick Doctor takes on the vested and venal interests of the establishment" is a great story, one that appeals to many people who instinctively empathise with such a story.
And that is how Wakefield portrayed himself - then, and now - and his has built up a coterie of fanatical supporters who reject all the evidence which so thoroughly discredits him.
And portraying "balance" when it comes to scientific issues, particularly those to do with public health or even climate change and the like, can be dangerous. Humans are not especially good at weighing up risks and performing risk/benefit analyses, and if you see an issue being presented as a debate, with 2 talking heads offering diametrically opposite views, it is tempting to conclude that the truth lies somewhere in-between - but this is not always true.
The truth about the shape of the earth, for example, does not lie somewhere between "the earth is flat" or "the earth is round". One view is factually wrong, and so to present this issue in a manner as if suggesting their is a debate would be silly - but this is what the media continually do, when it comes to some of the big scientific issues.
There are other problems too - with the advent of the internet in particular, you will find people who believe they are experts in something purely because they have googled some search terms - that their internet search somehow equates to proper research, that opinions derived from such searchs can somehow be considered to be of equal import to an actual researcher -someone who has studies the topic extensively, attended University, performed experiments for years and years.
This superficial expertise also devalues the opinions of scientists to the general public, I think, and debases the "debate"...
Wasn't there some very recent evidence that a good number of scientists fudged their results?
On the whole I trust scientific evidence and agree with Lazygun about 'balance'.
I also agree with Old Geezer that the government should have handled the MMR controversy much much better. Allowing people to have the vaccines separately would have hugely increased uptake . (Unless there is reliable evidence that having the jabs separately decreases their effectiveness.)
On the whole I trust scientific evidence and agree with Lazygun about 'balance'.
I also agree with Old Geezer that the government should have handled the MMR controversy much much better. Allowing people to have the vaccines separately would have hugely increased uptake . (Unless there is reliable evidence that having the jabs separately decreases their effectiveness.)
I would reject O_Gs assertion that the current outbreak is 100% the governments fault.
The damage that Wakefield did through his press and tv appearances, and the subsequent explosive coverage with hysterical articles in the media fuelled the scare.His case study, published in the Lancet, was pretty unremarkable - a case study involving 12 children, and making no mention of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. That link was drawn by Wakefield, in TV and press releases.
Wakefield had been paid to do that case study - paid by a lawyer who was trying to put together a class action against vaccine manufacturers. And Wakefield stood to gain financially if the MMR became discredited - since he had patented a measles vaccine of his own.
I would agree that the Government did not handle the introduction of MMR, and subsequent questions about relative risks very well - and things like the Blairs refusal to say what they were doing for Leo ( although in fairness they had every right to do so) did not help.
The damage that Wakefield did through his press and tv appearances, and the subsequent explosive coverage with hysterical articles in the media fuelled the scare.His case study, published in the Lancet, was pretty unremarkable - a case study involving 12 children, and making no mention of a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. That link was drawn by Wakefield, in TV and press releases.
Wakefield had been paid to do that case study - paid by a lawyer who was trying to put together a class action against vaccine manufacturers. And Wakefield stood to gain financially if the MMR became discredited - since he had patented a measles vaccine of his own.
I would agree that the Government did not handle the introduction of MMR, and subsequent questions about relative risks very well - and things like the Blairs refusal to say what they were doing for Leo ( although in fairness they had every right to do so) did not help.
@Lady Alex There are quite a few studies that demonstrate that, by combining the vaccines, greater compliance with the childhood vaccination schedule is markedly improved, leading to a greater completion of the schedule, a consequent greater coverage amongst children, a better herd immunity and hence lower incidence of measles and mumps.
So its not so much that the MMR is more efficacious than its single-vaccine counterparts, but that uptake, compliance and herd immunity is much greater.
So its not so much that the MMR is more efficacious than its single-vaccine counterparts, but that uptake, compliance and herd immunity is much greater.
LG, an important point is that the media quite often do not understand the issue and of course also have their own agendae and prejudices.
What I take issue with is that the media think that issues of fact can be given the 'debate' treatment where clever wordplay takes precedence over clinical facts or statistics, where appeals to emotions or making someone look foolish win an argument without any supporting logic. This influences public opinion and cost lives.
What I take issue with is that the media think that issues of fact can be given the 'debate' treatment where clever wordplay takes precedence over clinical facts or statistics, where appeals to emotions or making someone look foolish win an argument without any supporting logic. This influences public opinion and cost lives.
Latest Posts
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works5 mins ago
Lord Peter Mandelson, Uk Ambassador
News12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
News16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.