Of Birds and Sheep, and Science in the Media

“Flocking” is a term that describes a certain kind of human behavior in the face of new scientific discoveries: Why did a 1993 study on how listening to classical music improves infants’ cognitive skills lead to 1998 legislation in the state of Georgie to provide all new parents with classical music CDs? Or the 19th century interest in lobotomy lead to an increase in this procedure despite reports of its adverse effects? Or extensive coverage of a purported link between the MMR vaccine (and then of mercury) and autism lead to suspicion about vaccine among many parents, more than a few of whom have chosen not to have their children vaccinated?

This sort of behavior in which “shifts in public values can cause broad changes in the direction of scientific thinking” is termed “flocking” by a group of Stanford University researchers in a paper to be published in the February issue of Nature Reviews Neuroscience (the full text can be read here; this is a press release on the study). Judy Illes, Ph.D., director of Stanford’s Program in Neuroethics is the principal author; she notes that flocking “‘characterizes the way people, scientists and organizations flock to and from certain ideas, tools and, like birds, goals and destinations’” and may, in some cases, be caused by the media’s portrayal of an issue.

Consider:

Brain and Behavior Research on Autism
• 41 percent of research funding and published scientific papers
• 11 percent of newspaper stories in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada

But:

Environmental Causes of Autism
• 13 percent of published research
• 48 percent of the media coverage

There is, Illes notes, a “sharp disconnect” between the “conversation” that scientists have with themselves and what the public learns through media stories (and, too, via the Internet, whether in blogs, email discussion lists, or plain old websites). And the volume of stories that the public reads about possible environmental factors causing autism can, indeed, convey a sense that this is the issue—can cause people to flock to ideas (and, indeed, to panic and alarm) about whether or not there is an epidemic of autism, rather than to reflect upon the difference between terms like epidemic and prevalence

The question has been asked, “do we now see so much autism because we now know how to identify it?”

The question might also be asked, “do we hear so much about a connection between autism and environmental causes because, in this day and age of inconvenient truths like global warming, we now hear a lot about damage done to the environment and the effects of this on this planet and everyone on it?”

Are we flocking to consider environmental causes for autism because we are so attuned to environmental issues in general?

Consider, too: In For the Good of the Herd, an op-ed in the January 25th New York Times, journalist Arthur Allen wrote about an idea that, in these vaccine-suspicious times, has lost respect, herd immunity.

The logic behind giving shots to those who are not as vulnerable (children generally experience flu as a mild disease) is part of a concept called herd immunity. We protect the weaker lambs by bolstering the fold’s communal defenses.

…….

But our dismissive attitude toward flu shots amounts to a poor public health strategy. It not only makes the weakest more vulnerable, it also destabilizes the demand for vaccine in general, prompting vaccine makers to limit production — and that could lead to a critical shortage in the event of a flu pandemic.

In this case, by following the herd—and not, Allen argues, being vaccinated—we risk the health of all the members of the flock, whether weak or strong.

Illes notes that her study “highlights the need for scientists to talk with the public about their work,” especially as the media is more likely to report on research that involves specific “action” that readers can take, such as “lists of do’s and don’ts to keep kids healthy”.” We need to consider not only what gets reported most about autism in more readily accessible media outlets, but also to take it upon ourselves to read what is actually being studied by scientists and researchers. Otherwise, we may well be flocking to the wrong pasture, if not far out beyond the sheepfold’s gate.