#5

Those who have conducted studies to show the link between vaccines and autism are by no means scientifically illiterate. They have an understanding of science and know how to manipulate and exploit data to produce artificial results that they want to see. In that sense, they are not ignorant or illiterate, but rather dishonest. To earn a position in a lab where scientific research is conducted and the right to publish your findings, you’d have had to study science for many years in college and graduate school. This would certainly lead to an accumulation of scientific literacy. Those who seek to use science with bias and select the results they wish to see before conducting the experiment know that their results may very well be untrue. They probably even know that real scientific data wouldn’t produce the results they want, which is why they cheat and use altered data.

            The people who research publications made by dishonest scientists are at least making the attempt to acquaint themselves with science. Those who simply browse through titles to support their view that vaccines cause autism may be doing themselves a disservice by not enhancing their scientific literacy at all, but those who read through the papers and try to understand the scientific evidence are still learning from it, even if not all of the information is influenced by falsified data. They’re unfortunately learning incorrect information, but to understand this incorrect information, they’d have to learn a lot of terminology and concepts as well. Someone with a true desire to get to the bottom of the issue would devote time to reading scientific papers from both sides.

            Those who do not make the effort to read any scientific literature and simply look to the advice of Jenny McCarthy are completely scientifically illiterate and ignorant. They deserve no say in the matter because they would not be able to scientifically support their stance anyway. As a science writer, that is extremely discouraging. It boggles my mind that there are people who will trust Jenny McCarthy more than people who are trained in either research or reporting science throughout their education. It really demonstrates the work that is cut out for science writers—reaching an audience of people who are not simply ignorant but prefer to remain that way. The field of science needs to remain separate from others like politics, entertainment, and art when controversy arises. People from non-science fields should have no say in important science issues, for they will likely be wrong. Allowing this room for wrong scientific findings is very dangerous for our society, as who knows what can happen? We can miss the next important vaccine that could cure a huge pandemic, or we could impose an alternative treatment to those suggested by scientists that jeopardizes many lives.