Bad Advice is written to both the consumer and producer of scientific information. He draws from his experience working in science and communicating to the public. He openly details many of the instances where he did not communicate as well as he wished he could have. (Going on the Oprah show as the "corporate" foil to an emotional woman is usually not a recipe for success.) He has done extensive research on vaccines which has caused him to wade in to the anti-vax minefield. One of the hallmarks of science is being proven wrong. A good scientist will find that many of their previous findings are no longer true. This does not necessarily mean that anything has changed other than our understanding of phenomena. This is especially true in medicine. There are so many variables in play that a particular "miracle cure" for some may later be proven to be a death sentence for others. A good scientist will rarely present absolutes, instead presenting "most likely" probabilities. It is fairly easy to show that something is associated with something else. However, the null "no correlation" hypothesis can only be proven if every possibility is analyzed, a practical impossibility. These "degrees of certainty" to no go well with a public that loves unchanging absolutes.
People also like to trust information from public figures. These people may have little understanding of the science involved. However, their fame and strong opinions can cause misinformation to spread like wildfire. Even scientists can get involved with the misinformation - especially when they become closely attached to an idea. Andrew Wakefield is a case in point. He published studies showing a link between vaccines and autism. He achieved a great deal of renown for this and started an anti-vaccine movement. However, his findings were not replicated. There were also found to be flaws in his science. He was discredited, yet continued to stand behind anti-vaccine work. Many people continue to believe in his work because they have seen autism arise in children shortly after they received vaccines. (Alas, this appears to be coincidental - autism is often first visible at the same age that vaccines are given.) The vaccine work may be doing more to harm autism research by leading the public down a wild goose chase. Is it possible that we later do find a link between autism and vaccines? We can't rule it out. However, that does not mean that it is a place we should focus our efforts.
We also suffer from the "science glut" in society today. There is so much research done. Anything that can get media attention will help with reputation and potential funding. The government provides a lot of basic research funding. However, corporations and foundations also provide additional funding. Scientists also need to work with companies to help commercialize products. This can create conflicts of interest. It can also cause the appearance of conflicts of interest even where they do not occur. Scientists can walk in a minefield when they go out in public. Testifying before the government can be even worse. Members of congress have their own motives. They are often looking for confirmation of their beliefs rather than honest communication. How do we go about making sure we get good policies in spite of this?
Science is far from perfect. The focus on logical reductionist experimental discovery can conflict with actual lived experiences. There are so many factors in play with human health that it can be impossible to model all of them together. Actual science is probabilistic. However, what we see communicated tends to be absolute. Would it help if we had a standard way of distilling data to the public? Something that has been verified in 20 different studies is stronger than something that has only been seen once. However, the "once" will get all the publicity. The lay public rarely sees data on time frames and sample sizes that are key to understanding science. How can we communicate detailed probabilistic data to a society that wants absolute answers?
No comments:
Post a Comment