Comments on: Science and Scientific Controversy, Journalists and Parents

By: They Have To Be A Little More Careful With These Titles (2)

They Have To Be A Little More Careful With These Titles (2) — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:10:13 +0000

[...] full story is at the BBC news and underscores the gap between scientific research and journalists (and throw in some bloggers, and things can get rather messy). Not all the news is fit to print, [...]

By: Autism Vox » Autism Speaks Now

Autism Vox » Autism Speaks Now — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 06:42:17 +0000

[...] autism, there is a serious gap between scientific research and the mass media; in the case of some reporting on thimerasol and autism, parents are pitted against scientists. Autism Speaks, with its access to the full power of the [...]

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:19:21 +0000

It’s the “emotional attachment” that parents have to the vaccine-autism theory (and to other theories) that I keep detecting and trying to understand (and that leads me to be especially appreciative of the “body of evidence” in Vaccine). As a non-scientist, I have often felt extremely hesitant—even after study and reflection—to hold forth on scientific issues; in the process of doing so here on this weblog, I have learned, though, why it is all the more imperative to do so. Thanks very much for commenting here, Mr. Allen.

By: arthur allen

arthur allen — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:43:33 +0000

I don’t think that non-scientists should be excluded from holding forth in the public square in discussions of science. I was about to add “as long as they’ve done their homework,” but then again, how much homework is required? Although the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus holds with there being nothing to the vaccines-cause-autism theory, there continues to be legitimate research into possible harm from thimerosal.

However, the main reason I participated in the debate with Kirby is to try to communicate with that alarming group of parents who continue to blame vaccines for autism. This is an idea with public health impact; it certainly adds to the rolls of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. I wanted to present a convincing body of evidence to those who clutch to this theory; even if I don’t change their minds now, they’ll have some content to return to when their emotional attachment to the theory fades.

By: Liz

Liz — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:51:07 +0000

Thanks for posting the Meyers article, Kristina, I wouldn’t have seen it.

It will be useful in settings other than autism, such as the pathetic coverage of reading issues and remediating dyslexia.

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:41:01 +0000

I love all that was written here. Information is the key to helping our children. I feel that if the focus came off who did this to our children and focused on how to better help them and the families we would all be better off.

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:31:10 +0000

I like that distinction, Lisa. My own knowledge of science has been in hibernation, so to speak, until having to learn about things regarding Charlie—and in writing about them here.

By: Lisa/Jedi

Lisa/Jedi — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:41:44 +0000

We do seem to live in a science-phobic society. I can’t tell you how many times, when I mentioned that I worked in microbiology, that the response was “I could never understand that stuff…” I can’t help but feel that some people carry a lot of baggage about science & scientists & feeling intimidated by people they perceive may be smarter than they are. Perhaps it would be better to speak of accurate information vs inaccurate, with the accurate info being based on scientific evidence. Then people wouldn’t be intimidated by the “science” part & perhaps would be more willing to accept helpful information… just a thought.