The Fight Against Misinformation, or, "How to Eat a Monstrous Whale"

            I think that the tendency of vaccine-autism advocates to believe Jenny McCarthy over scientific evidence speaks to a source-confirmation bias.  When individuals are having their beliefs reinforced (whether they are credible or built upon misinformation), they are more likely to ascribe to beliefs that may be scientifically unsound.  The idea that other people believe the same thing is powerful, and in the case of vaccine-autism advocates, there are hundreds of support groups, Facebook pages, lobbyists, politicians, and celebrities trumpeting the link between vaccines and autism.  This indicates to me that science writers have a formidable challenge: to change the minds of vaccine-advocates, who have influential groups (and a former Playmate) telling them that they are correct in their thinking.  The only way to approach this is with measured, meaningful steps, sort of like the way Melinda Mae prepared to eat the whale in the Shel Silverstein poem:

            As a science writer, the vaccine-autism advocates and others who may need to increase their scientific literacy for their own (and others’) health present us with a challenge.  With regard to something as important as vaccinating a child (and, increasingly, preserving the “herd immunity” for those who are unable to be vaccinated due to outside circumstances), science writers need to “up the game”.  I’m not saying that we need to be shoving our truth in the faces of the vaccine-autism advocates, much to the contrary.  I think that science writers need to seriously evaluate how we approach populations who cling to misinformation in spite of science.

           

            In the Lewandosky journal article, the authors talk a good bit about recommendations for decreasing the effects of misinformation.  Integral in dispelling misinformation and replacing these misconceptions with more scientifically sound ideas is the idea of discussion.  When it comes to creating lasting and meaningful change in the minds of the public, persuasion is not a monologue.  It is so important to discuss the reasons why an idea is based in misinformation, keeping in mind the importance of sensitivity.  An individual who believes in a scientifically unsound idea is still entitled to those beliefs, and attacking those beliefs may feel like an attack on the person himself.  It is essential to approach the individual in a respectful way that seeks to dissect the differences between fact and fiction in an accessible way (think of that “incomprehensible” Lancet retraction with the autism findings).  This is a “sit-down chat”, as my father says, not an instance where we lob information at the individual and assume that they will want to scrape our omnipotent knowledge off of the floor once we’re gone.   

            In order to create this respectful discourse, it is essential that we work to understand the source of the misinformation. We need to put ourselves in the shoes of the parents of a non-verbal autistic child, who are looking for answers as to what is causing their child’s behavior.  Having a non-neurotypical child is a challenge for many parents: it can cause relationship stress, exhaustion, financial woes, and, in some cases, can cause parents to sacrifice friends, careers, and dreams for the future.  These parents (and those who share their concerns) are victims of the human tendency to seek patterns and look for answers.  While science writers can illuminate that vaccines do not cause autism, we need to be careful in the way that we challenge the beliefs of others.  If we take away a cause and a belief system, we should be conscious of what kind of effects this might have on parents and advocates.

            Consequently, we must replace this misinformation with powerful, scientifically-valid information to which those who espouse a connection between vaccines and autism can connect.  The Lewandosky article discussed how important it is to replace the misinformation with fact that can fill the gaps in the narrative caused by the rejection of misinformation. In this case, science writers could introduce the increased awareness among clinicians, the expanded spectrum for autism and regressive developmental disorders, other environmental factors, and the possible genetic link discussed in the Wired article as explanations for where autism comes from and why diagnoses are on the rise.

           

            Finally, I believe that it is science’s job to foster a healthy skepticism in the population. Science writers can contribute to this by asking their readers to question the sources of their information (“who is writing?” “with whom are they associated?” “what kind of study was performed?” “what conclusions were reached?”).  Additionally, by writing compelling articles and making other sources of information on the topics accessible to our readers, we are increasing the amount that an individual can learn about the topic.  Additionally, we can be careful not to sensationalize or overextend findings before they have been found to be scientifically valid.  As one of the articles from the reading so eloquently put it, “you cannot un-ring a bell”.  Before sounding the alarm, science journalists need to consider the ripple effect of their announcements. 

          

          Someday, I hope that we can look back on the vaccine-autism connection the same way that we look at the geocentric hypothesis or the Four Humor theory of disease today.  Like these outdated ideas, a push of discovery to replace misinformation with new information is necessary, and science writers must be prepared to deliver this information in a sensitive and accessible way to the public.  

We'll get there, someday.